Tuason could be Jinggoy's Chavit Singson – lawyer - GMA News

Ruby Tuason testifies at Senate 'pork' probe. Potential state witness Ruby Tuason swears before testifying at the Senate inquiry on Thursday, February 13, into the alleged misuse by some lawmakers of the P10-B Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). Benjie Castro

(Updated 2:09 p.m., Feb. 14) Ruby Tuason could be the key to indict Sen. Jinggoy Estrada in the alleged pork barrel scam, just like Luis 'Chavit' Singson was a key figure in the downfall of Estrada's father, former President Joseph Estrada, in 2001.

This was according to lawyer Rowena Daroy-Morales, an assistant professor of law at UP Diliman, in an interview with GMA News following Tuason's bombshell testimony during Thursday's hearing by the Senate blue ribbon committee on the alleged scam.

“I think she provided a lot of details. Parang the Chavit Singson testimony in the [Joseph] Estrada case dahil personal niyang ginawa [yung transaction],” Morales said.

She was referring to Tuason's admission that she delivered the alleged kickbacks to Estrada and Senate Minority Leader Juan Ponce Enrile through Enrile's former chief of staff, Gigi Reyes. She said Tuason provided details that were missing in the testimonies of other whistleblowers.

“Ang mga narinig natin dun sa affidavits, kung ano ang account sa media ng mga whistleblowers halimbawa A, B, C tapos L, M, N, o kaya may h sa gitna. What Ruby Tuason did was to provide D, E, F, G. Ibig sabihin ng personal knowledge, nakita, naamoy, nalasahan, narinig, nahawakan. In other words, alam mo, hindi base sa akala, ang rinig ko,” she said.

Singson, a former Ilocos Sur governor, is a close friend of the older Estrada, who turned state witness during Estrada's impeachment trial for plunder. Tuason, meanwhile, is a former social secretary of Estrada.

Credibility

Lawyer Antonio La Viña, dean of the Ateneo de Manila University School of Government, believes Tuason's credibility as a witness is strong based on the way she testified.

“She was really admitting against interest, very important yun for credibility when you are saying something that is bad about yourself,” he said.

He said with Tuason's statements, there is a strong case against Jinggoy Estrada. He said Enrile, however, is “another thing.”

“I cannot imagine na those assertions will work at all for Senator Estrada. Frankly, it is hard for me to imagine now an escape for him. For Senator Enrile, it is another thing. She never implicated Sen. Enrile directly except by presumption as she herself admitted,” said La Viña.

Weak testimony

Lawyer Trixie Cruz-Angeles, spokesperson for the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, believes otherwise.

“Even though it is an eyewitness account, her [Tuason] testimony, taken on its own, is weak," Angeles, a defense lawyer for almost 15 years, told GMA News Online in a phone interview.

“Calling it a 'bull's eye' or 'three-point-shot' testimony? That's wishful thinking... my opinion on this (Tuason's testimony) may be infamous, but it's an honest opinion," she added.

She said an eyewitness account that is not corroborated by evidence is weak and would not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

“She must at least present something to support her testimony. How can we be assured of the veracity of what she's saying?" Angeles said.

“Like Tuason, Chavit is also an insider, he is part of the scam, of the illegal transactions. The difference is, apart from his testimony, he has a ledger or his own logbook of these transactions and this greatly supported his testimony,” Angeles pointed out.

She also noted that the logbook “did not even have the signatures of the accused or the people he was transacting with, but the court accepted it as evidence," she added.

Subject to flaws

Angeles said testimony, also called anecdotal evidence, is subject to many flaws such as frailty of memory, personal biases and motives.

She said these flaws were apparent during the blue ribbon committee hearing, pointing out that Tuason “cannot even give at least an estimate of how much she handed to Estrada or to Reyes.”

“While these (transactions) may have happened a few years ago, she should at least remember the approximate amounts," Angeles said.

Angeles said that though Tuason might resort to the excuse of no longer having a sharp memory, this excuse may also be used against her.

“That might cast doubt [on] her own testimony... Did she really meet with Estrada? Was it really in his Senate office? Maybe they met for another matter? These kinds of things are also subject to inconsistencies due to failing memory," Angeles said.

She also expressed doubt on Tuason's statement during the hearing that she did not keep a ledger to record her transactions with Estrada and Reyes.

“These were no ordinary transactions. Millions of pesos were involved and she did not even keep a personal record?" Angeles said, adding Tuason's motive for testifying must also be carefully examined.

“We should remember that she is a co-accused in the plunder raps before the Office of the Ombudsman. She admitted that she does not want to go to jail, she wants to be exonerated,” Angeles stressed. — with Amita Legaspi/JDS/KBK, GMA News

Source: Top Stories - Google News