FORMER Commission on Election chairman Benjamin Abalos wanted the graft case lodged against him in line with the $329-million national broadband network (NBN) project junked for lack of sufficient evidence that the prosecution presented in the trial.

In a 39-page motion, the former poll chief said that the Office of the Special Prosecutor failed to pin down that he was behind the alleged offers made to the prosecution witnesses.

He said the pronouncements of former National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) director-general Romulo Neri were questionable, especially the reported P200 million offer that Abalos purportedly asked Neri to take in order for the broadband deal to move on.

“At best, Neri was not even certain . . . and it was just his impression that accused Abalos was referring to the broadband project when mention of 200 was allegedly made by the accused,” the motion read.

Lifting the court transcript, Abalos said that Neri himself said that “I [Neri] cannot recall precisely when and where and what he [Abalos] said regarding the [broadband prject].”

The defense pointed out that Neri “wavered” in the reported uttering of Abalos regarding the “200.”

They said that Neri only “came up with the ‘Sec, may 200 ka dito’ story” to bolster the claim of Jose de Venecia 3rd, who Abalos also allegedly offered $10 million to back out of the NBN deal.

“Verily, the testimony of Neri that accused Abalos allegedly offered him P200 million is not indubitable,” the motion read.

Abalos also hit the statements of whistleblower Rodolfo Lozada who said that he discussed the deal of Zhongxing Telecommunication Corp. (ZTE) with Abalos in September 2006.

However, the defense claimed that Lozada could not reconcile the proposals of de Venecia and the Chinese firm because the Amsterdam Holdings Inc. of de Venecia only filed their proposal on January 2, 2007.

“Lozada committed a barefaced lie in making his assertion . . . It is perilous to give currency to the words and declarations of Lozada,” the defense said.

He added that prosecution witness and former Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr., father of the younger de Venecia, also had interest in the NBN project and showed “his antipathy toward [Abalos].”

Even the statements of engineer Dante Madriaga “have zero probative value” because they were only second-hand information from Leo San Miguel, who the prosecution did not present before the court, the defense claimed.

They added even if Madriaga had conference with ZTE officials, he is not competent to testify because he did not personally hear the discussions between the ZTE officials, Abalos, San Miguel, and Quirino de la Torre.

“It is clear that the accused did not intercede or broker for and in behalf of ZTE for a fee or commission. [Abalos’] conduct do not amount to having, directly or indirectly, the financial interest which would constitute the offense,” the motion read.

For the alleged failure of the prosecution to establish the elements of graft, Abalos asked the court to acquit him from the corruption charge in line with the botched telecommunications deal.