THE Sandiganbayan commenced the trial of Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of Pampanga province in line with the $329-million national broadband network (NBN) deal with a fellow lawmaker as one of the first witnesses.

Fiscals from the Office of the Ombudsman presented Rep. Teodoro “Teddy” Casiño of Bayan Muna party-list, who confirmed that he was the complainant to the case now heard at the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division.

However, when Arroyo’s lawyer Jose Flaminiano cross-examined the party-list lawmaker, the defense was able to secure that Casiño was not a firsthand witness to the botched telecommunications deal as he was only a complainant.

Flaminiano proved that Casiño was not in any way part of the deal and merely relied on the Senate’s investigation on the NBN.

Casiño admitted that he lacked sufficient knowledge about the monetary transaction between Arroyo and executives of Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment Inc.

However, the militant lawmaker insisted that he has knowledge of the issue as he was present when the Senate investigated the NBN.

Flaminiano branded Casiño’s testimony as “mere hearsays” and insisted that witnesses must have firsthand information.

Casiño said that his invitation as witness is only to identify the veracity of the complainant and not to expound on the corruption charges.

“There will be witnesses that will have personal knowledge,” he said.

Malacañang records officer Andrea Myla Ordanez was also presented as witness to identify the service records of Arroyo, which the court simply took judicial notice.



Plunder

Meanwhile, Mrs. Arroyo urged the Sandiganbayan First Division to order the Ombudsman to release the resolution that allegedly had “material difference” from the conclusions of the Ombudsman that found plunder in the P366-million Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office scam.

In a six-page motion, defense attorney Anacleto Diaz asked the anti-graft court to direct the Ombudsman the release of the so-called “Somido panel report.”

On November 14, 2011, the Ombudsman created a special five-man panel of investigators led by deputy Special Prosecutor Cornelio Somido for the preliminary investigation of the case.

Diaz said that the defense received the review joint resolution dated July 10, 2012 of the Office of the Ombudsman, but not the Somido panel resolution, which was actually reviewed, the motion read.

Arroyo’s camp said that the Somido panel resolution, which became the subject of review by the Ombudsman, did not form part of the records.

Lawyers of the former president wanted the Ombudsman to secure a copy of the Somido resolution for evidence.

“She [Arroyo] received information, and so alleges, that the findings of the panel are materially different from the findings and conclusions of the Ombudsman . . . the panel found no sufficient evidence to support the crime of plunder,” the motion read.