The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division has denied Senator Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada's motions to consolidate or jointly hear the plunder and graft cases filed against him and several Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) officials over alleged irregularities in the 2025 national budget.

In a resolution promulgated on June 24, the anti-graft court rejected Estrada's request to consolidate Criminal Case No. E-SB-26-CRM-0005 and Criminal Case No. E-SB-26-CRM-0006 with Criminal Case No. E-SB-26-CRM-0004.

The resolution was penned by Fifth Division Chairperson Associate Justice Zaldy V. Trespeses and concurred in by Associate Justices Fritz Bryn Anthony M. Delos Santos and Bayani H. Jacinto.

In his motions, Estrada sought to consolidate three criminal cases filed against him and several DPWH officials. Criminal Case No. E-SB-26-CRM-0004, which charges graft under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, was assigned to the Sandiganbayan's Second Division, while Criminal Case No. E-SB-26-CRM-0005, also a graft case, and Criminal Case No. E-SB-26-CRM-0006 for plunder were assigned to the Fifth Division.

Estrada argued that the three cases stemmed from related transactions involving alleged insertions in the 2025 General Appropriations Act and were jointly investigated by the National Bureau of Investigation-Department of Justice Task Force and later reviewed by the Office of the Ombudsman.

He also contended that the cases involved substantially similar transactions and evidence, raising the possibility of conflicting findings if heard separately.

However, the court ruled that consolidating the plunder case with either or both anti-graft cases would delay the proceedings.

“While indeed the plunder case shares a common question of fact with each of the anti-graft cases, a consolidation of these cases would defeat the purpose of consolidation and impede the progress of the latter,” the resolution stated.

The court noted that the plunder case carries the penalty of reclusion perpetua and requires hearings on pending bail petitions filed by co-accused Denryl Caesar Cortuna, Manny Bulusan and Arturo Gonzales Jr.

“Should a consolidation or joint trial be effected and either or both anti-graft cases be tried jointly with the plunder case, they stand to be stalled for as long as the court conducts hearings on the bail petitions,” it said.

The anti-graft court added that the graft cases could proceed directly to trial because they do not require bail hearings.

The Fifth Division also found no basis to consolidate the two graft cases because they involve different transactions.

According to the court, Criminal Case No. E-SB-26-CRM-0004 involves flood control projects in Bulacan, while Criminal Case No. E-SB-26-CRM-0005 concerns flood control projects in the National Capital Region.

“There is no basis to consolidate Crim. Case No. E-SB-26-CRM-0005 with Crim. Case No. E-SB-26-CRM-0004, as they involve two distinct transactions,” the resolution stated.

The court further pointed out that only two of the five accused in the National Capital Region case are also defendants in the Bulacan case.

“Thus, to consolidate these two cases involving wholly different acts or transactions would be to halt their progress in separate divisions so that they can be tried in the same proceedings, one after the other,” it said.

"In the process, and as properly pointed out by the prosecution, three of the accused will be compelled to participate in proceedings they are complete strangers to,” it added.