The Sandiganbayan Second Division upheld the graft case against Senator Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada after denying his motion for reconsideration, finding no basis to reverse its earlier ruling.

In a six-page resolution promulgated on July 10, the anti-graft court denied Estrada’s motion seeking reconsideration of its June 4 order, which had refused to quash the information charging him with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

“The present Motion for Reconsideration merely reiterates the very same arguments already discussed and adjudicated in the assailed Order. The Motion neither presents newly discovered evidence nor demonstrates that the Court overlooked any material fact or controlling principle of law that would warrant a reversal of its earlier findings,” the resolution stated.

“The motion lacks merit,” it added.

Per Sandiganbayan, it remained convinced that its earlier denial of Estrada’s motion to quash was correct, underscoring that the information sufficiently alleges all the essential elements of the offense and that questions regarding the evidence should be resolved during trial.

As such, it rejected Estrada’s claim that the information failed to specify his exact participation in the alleged offense.

“It is sufficient that the Information alleges the ultimate facts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language capable of informing the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him,” the anti-graft court said.

The Second Division likewise declined to consider a purported certification from the Legislative Budget Research and Monitoring Office (LBRMO), noting that the document had neither been presented during the preliminary investigation nor produced before the court despite being repeatedly invoked by the defense.

In addition, the anti-graft court dismissed Estrada’s argument that he was denied due process during the preliminary investigation, pointing out that he had submitted a counter-affidavit and was given the opportunity to answer the allegations and present evidence in his defense.

It also ruled that the filing of the information did not deprive Estrada of the opportunity to seek reconsideration before the Office of the Ombudsman.

“A motion for reconsideration is not an indispensable component of procedural due process and is merely a privilege subject to the conditions provided by the governing rules,” the Sandiganbayan said.