REPUBLIC OF THE
SANDIGANBAYAN
---
SPECIAL DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff, For: PLUNDER
-
versus –
JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA,
Former President of the
Republic of the
JOSE “JINGGOY” ESTRADA,
CHARLIE “ATONG” TIU HAY SY ANG,
EDWARD S. SERAPIO,
YOLANDA T. RICAFORTE, PRESENT:
ALMA ALFARO,
JOHN DOE also
known as LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, PJ, Chairperson
ELEUTERIO RAMOS TAN or MR. UY, VILLARUZ,
JR., and
JANE DOE also
known as PERALTA,
JJ.
DELIA RAJAS,
JOHN DOES and JANE DOES, PROMULGATED:
Accused.
September 12, 2007
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
Republic
Act (RA) No. 7080 as amended was approved on July 12, 1991, creating and
introducing into our criminal legal system the crime of “plunder”. This law penalizes public officers who would
amass immense wealth through a series or combination of overt or criminal acts
described in the statute in violation of the public trust. RA No. 7080 or the Anti-Plunder Law was a
consolidation of Senate Bill no. 733 and House Bill No. 22752. The Explanatory Note of Senate Bill No. 733,
quoted in the case of Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002, 377 SCRA 538, 555),
explains the reason behind the law as follows:
Plunder,
a term chosen from other equally apt terminologies like kleptocracy and
economic treason, punishes the use of high office for personal enrichment,
committed thru a series of acts done not in the public eye but in stealth and
secrecy over a period of time, that may involve so many persons, here and
abroad, and which touch so many states and territorial units. The acts and/or omissions sought to be
penalized do not involve simple cases of malversation of public funds, bribery,
extortion, theft and graft but constitute plunder of an entire nation resulting
in material damage to the national economy.
The above-described crime does not yet exist in Philippine statute
books. Thus, the need to come up with a
legislation as a safeguard against the possible recurrence of the depravities
of the previous regime and as a deterrent to those with similar inclination to
succumb to the corrupting influence of power.
The
majority opinion in the above-cited case, penned by Honorable Justice
Josue N. Bellosillo, further explained
the rationale behind the Anti-Plunder Law in this manner:
Our nation has been racked by scandals of corruption and
obscene profligacy of officials in high places which have shaken its very
foundation. The anatomy of graft and
corruption has become more elaborate in the corridors of time as unscrupulous
people relentlessly contrive more and more ingenious ways to milk the coffers
of the government. Drastic and radical
measures are imperative to fight the increasingly sophisticated,
extraordinarily methodical and economically catastrophic looting of the
national treasury. Such is the Plunder Law,
especially designed to disentangle those ghastly tissues of grand-scale
corruption which, if left unchecked, will spread like a malignant tumor and
ultimately consume the moral and institutional fiber of our nation. The Plunder Law, indeed, is a living testament
to the will of the legislature to ultimately eradicate this scourge and thus
secure society against the avarice and other venalities in public office.
These
are times that try men’s souls. In the
checkered history of this nation, few issues of national importance can equal
the amount of interest and passion generated by petitioner’s ignominious fall
from the highest office, and his eventual prosecution and trial under a
virginal statute. This continuing saga
has driven a wedge of dissension among our people that may linger for a long
time. Only by responding to the clarion call for patriotism, to rise above
factionalism and prejudices, shall we emerge triumphant in the midst of
ferment. [Emphasis Supplied]
The
present case is the first of its kind to be filed charging the highest official
of the land, a former President, among others, of the offense of plunder. Needless to state, the resolution of this
case shall set significant historical and legal precedents.
Throughout
the six years over which the court proceedings in this case unfolded, this
Court confronted numerous novel and complicated legal issues (including the
constitutionality of the plunder law, propriety of house arrest, among others),
heard lengthy testimonies from several dozens of witnesses from both sides and
perused voluminous documentary evidence and pleadings from the parties. Considering the personalities involved and
the nature of the crime charged, the present case aroused particularly intense
interest from the public. Speculations
on the probable outcome of the case received unparalleled attention from the
media and other sectors of society.
Indeed, the factual and legal complexities of the case are further
compounded by attempts to sensationalize the proceedings for various ends.
However,
this Court is ever mindful of its imperative duty to act as an impartial
arbiter: (a) to serve the interest of the State and the public in punishing
those who would so severely abuse their public office and those private
individuals would aid them or conspire with them and (b) to protect the right
of the accused to be only convicted upon guilt proven beyond reasonable
doubt. Thus, the decision of this Court
follows, upon no other consideration other than the law and a review of the
evidence on record.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
AND THE PROCEEDINGS
__________________________
This
case for plunder commenced with the filing on April 4, 2001 of the Information
which is quoted hereunder:
INFORMATION
The
undersigned Ombudsman Prosecutor and OIC-Director, EPIB, Office of the
Ombudsman, hereby accuses former Joseph Ejercito Estrada, together with Jose
“Jinggoy” Estrada, Charlie ‘Atong” Ang, Edward Serapio, Yolanda T. Ricaforte,
Alma Alfaro, Eleuterio Tan a.k.a. Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, Jane Doe
a.k.a. Delia Rajas, and John & Jane Does, of the crime of Plunder, defined
and penalized under R.A. No. 7080, as amended by Sec. 12 of R.A. No. 7659,
committed as follows:
That
during the period from June, 1998 to January, 2001, in the Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Joseph Ejercito
Estrada, by himself and in conspiracy with his co-accused, business associates
and persons heretofore named, by taking advantage of his official position,
authority, connection or influence as President of the Republic of the
Philippines, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally amass,
accumulate and acquire ill-gotten wealth, and unjustly enrich himself in the
aggregate amount of P4,097,804,173.17, more or less, through a combination and
series of overt and criminal acts, described as follows:
(a)
by
receiving, collecting, directly or indirectly, on many instances, so-called
“jueteng money” from gambling operators in connivance with co-accused Jose
‘Jinggoy’ Estrada, Yolanda T. Ricaforte and Edward Serapio, as witnessed by
Gov. Luis ‘Chavit’ Singson, among other witnesses, in the aggregate amount of
FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE MILLION PESOS (P545,000,000.00), more or less, in
consideration of their protection from arrest or interference by law enforcers
in their illegal “jueteng” activities; and
(b)
by
misappropriating, converting and miusing for his gain and benefit public fund
in the amount of ONE HUNDRRED THIRTY MILLION PESOS (P130,000,000.00), more or
less, representing a portion of the One Hundred Seventy Million Pesos
(P170,000,000.00) tobacco excise tax share allocated for the Province of Ilocos
Sur under R.A. No. 7171, in conspiracy with co-accused Charlie ‘Atong’ Ang,
Alma Alfaro, Eleuterio Tan a.k.a Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, and Jane Doe
a.k.a. Delia Rajas, as witnessed by Gov. Luis ‘Chavit’ Singson, among other
witnesses; and
(c)
by
directing, ordering and compelling the Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS) and the Social Security System (SSS) to purchase and buy a combined
total of 681,733,000 shares of stock of the Belle Corporatiion in the aggregate
gross value of One Billion Eight Hundred Forty-Seven Million Five Hundred
Seventy Eight Thousand Fifty Seven Pesos and Fifty Centavos
(P1,847,578,057.50), for the purpose of collecting for his personal gain and
benefit, as in fact he did collect and receive the sum of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY
NINE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P 189,700,000.00), as commission
from said stock purchase; and
(d)
by
unjustly enriching himself in the amount of THREE BILLION TWO HUNDRED THIRTY
THREE MILLION ONE HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE PESOS AND
SEVENTEEN CENTAVOS (P 3,233,104,173.17) comprising his unexplained wealth
acquired, accumulated and amassed by him under his account name “Jose Velarde”
with Equitable PCI Bank;
to the damage and prejudice of the
Filipino people and the Republic of the
CONTRARY
TO LAW.
Various
motions were filed by accused Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada (FPres.
Estrada), Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada (Jinggoy Estrada), and Edward
In a Resolution promulgated on April 16, 2001, the
Court directed the prosecution to submit to the Court not later than April 18,
2001 the required affidavits, counter-affidavits, and supporting evidence as
well as other supporting documents accompanying the Information, which were
needed to determine the existence of probable cause for the issuance or
non-issuance of a warrant of arrest. As
directed, the prosecution filed on April 18, 2001 its Manifestation and
Compliance.
On
April 19, 2001, the prosecution filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to admit
Amended Information, which is quoted hereunder:
AMENDED INFORMATION
The
undersigned Ombudsman Prosecutor and OIC-Director, EPIB, Office of the
Ombudsman, hereby accuses former PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, Joseph
Ejercito Estrada a.k.a. “ASIONG SALONGA” AND a.k.a. “JOSE VELARDE”,
together with Jose ‘Jinggoy’ Estrada, Charlie “Atong” Ang, Edward Serapio,
Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Alma Alfaro, JOHN DOE a.k.a. Eleuterio Tan OR
Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas, and John DOES
& Jane Does, of the crime of Plunder, defined and penalized under R.A. No.
7080, as amended by Sec. 12 of R.A. No. 7659, committed as follows:
That during the period from June,
1998 to January, 2001, in the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, accused Joseph Ejercito Estrada, THEN A PUBLIC OFFICER,
BEING THEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, by himself AND/OR
in CONNIVANCE/CONSPIRACY with his co-accused, WHO ARE MEMBERS OF
HIS FAMILY, RELATIVES BY AFFINITY OR CONSANGUINITY, BUSINESS ASSOCIATES,
SUBORDINATES AND/OR OTHER PERSONS, BY TAKING UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF HIS OFFICIAL
POSITION, AUTHORITY, RELATIONSHIP, CONNECTION, OR INFLUENCE, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate and acquire BY
HIMSELF, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount OR
TOTAL VALUE of FOUR BILLION NINETY SEVEN MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FOUR
THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE PESOS AND SEVENTEEN CENTAVOS
[P4,097,804,173.17], more or less, THEREBY UNJUSTLY ENRICHING HIMSELF OR
THEMSELVES AT THE EXPENSE AND TO THE DAMAGE OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE AND THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, through ANY OR A combination OR A
series of overt OR criminal acts, OR SIMILAR SCHEMES OR MEANS,
described as follows:
(a)
by
receiving OR collecting, directly or indirectly, on SEVERAL
INSTANCES, MONEY IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE MILLION
PESOS (P545,000,000.00), MORE OR LESS, FROM ILLEGAL GAMBLING IN THE FORM OF
GIFT, SHARE, PERCENTAGE, KICKBACK OR ANY FORM OF PECUNIARY BENEFIT, BY HIMSELF
AND/OR in connivance with co-accused CHARLIE ‘ATONG’ ANG, JOSE
‘Jinggoy’ Estrada, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Edward Serapio, AND JOHN DOES AND
JANE DOES, in consideration OF TOLERATION OR PROTECTION OF ILLEGAL
GAMBLING;
(b)
by
DIVERTING, RECEIVING, misappropriating,
converting OR misusing DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, for HIS OR THEIR PERSONAL gain and
benefit, public funds in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY MILLION PESOS
[P130,000,000.00], more or less, representing a portion of the TWO HUNDRED
MILLION PESOS [P200,000,000.00] tobacco excise tax share allocated for the Province
of Ilocos Sur under R.A. No. 7171, BY HIMSELF AND/OR in CONNIVANCE
with co-accused Charlie ‘Atong’ Ang, Alma Alfaro, JOHN DOE a.k.a. Eleuterio
Tan OR Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, and Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas, AND
OTHER JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES;
(c)
by
directing, ordering and compelling, FOR HIS PERSONAL GAIN AND BENEFIT,
the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) TO PURCHASE, 351,878,000
SHARES OF STOCKS, MORE OR LESS, and the Social Security System (SSS), 329,855,000
SHARES OF STOCK, MORE OR LESS, OF THE BELLE CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF MORE
OR LESS ONE BILLION ONE HUNDRED TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND
SIX HUNDRED SEVEN PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS [P1,102,965,607.50] AND MORE OR LESS
SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY FOUR MILLION SIX HUNDRED TWELVE THOUSAND AND FOUR HUNDRED
FIFTY PESOS [P744,612,450.00], RESPECTIVELY, OR A TOTAL OF MORE OR LESS ONE
BILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT THOUSAND
FIFTY SEVEN PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS [P1,847,578,057.50]; AND BY COLLECTING OR
RECEIVING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY HIMSELF AND/OR IN CONNIVANCE WITH JOHN
DOES AND JANE DOES, COMMISSIONS OR PERCENTAGES BY REASON OF SAID PURCHASES OF
SHARES OF STOCK IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS [P189,700,000.00], MORE OR LESS, FROM THE BELLE CORPORATION
WHICH BECAME PART OF THE DEPOSIT IN THE EQUITABLE-PCI BANK UNDER THE ACCOUNT
NAME “JOSE VELARDE”;
(d)
by
unjustly enriching himself FROM COMMISSIONS, GIFTS, SHARES, PERCENTAGES,
KICKBACKS, OR ANY FORM OF PECUNIARY BENEFITS, IN CONNIVANCE WITH JOHN DOES AND
JANE DOES, in the amount of MORE OR LESS THREE BILLION TWO HNDRED
THIRTY THREE MILLION ONE HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND AND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE
PESOS AND SEVENTEEN CENTAVOS [P3,233,104,173.17] AND DEPOSITING THE SAME
UNDER HIS ACCOUNT NAME “JOSE VELARDE” AT THE EQUITABLE-PCI BANK.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On
April 20, 2001, the Court in its Minute Resolution granted and admitted the
prosecution’s Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Admit Amended Information dated April
18, 2001.
On April 25, 2001, the Court promulgated its Resolution
which stated:
Xxx xxx xxx the
Court finds and so hold that probable cause for the offense of PLUNDER exists
to justify issuance of warrants for the arrest of accused Former President
Joseph Ejercito Estrada, Mayor Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, Charlie “Atong” Ang,
Edward Serapio, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Alma Alfaro, John Doe a.k.a. Eleuterio
Tan or Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, and Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas.
No bail is fixed for the provisional
liberty of the accused for the reason that the penalty imposable for the
offense of plunder under RA No. 7080, as amended by Sec. 12 of RA No. 7659, is reclusion perpetua to death.
Director General Leandro R. Mendoza,
Chief of the Philippine National Police, shall implement the warrant of arrest
upon service to him by Mr. Edgardo A. Urieta, Chief of the Sheriff and Security
Services Division of the Sandiganbayan.
Once arrested, all the accused shall undergo the required processes and
be detained at the PNP
On the 25th day of April 2001, on the basis
of the said resolution, the Court issued an Order of Arrest and Hold Departure
Order for all the named accused in the present information. The Philippine National Police (PNP) submittd
its Report of Compliance dated April 25, 2001 which stated:
1.
That
in compliance with the Order of Arrest issued by the Honorable Court in the
above captioned criminal case, accused Joseph E. Estrada and Jose “Jinggoy”
Estrada, both residence of no. 1 Polk Street, North Greenhills, San Juan, Metro
Manila voluntarily surrendered to the undersigned on 25 April 2001 at about
3:00 o’clock PM at said residence in the presence of their counsels.
2. That
right after their surrender, they were brought inside Camp Crame, Quezon City
for the required processes and pending further orders from this Honorable Court
they shall be kept in Camp Crame;
A Compliance/Return of Warrant of Arrest was also
filed on April 26, 2001 by P/Chief Superintendent Nestor B. Gualberto.
As to accused Serapio, the PNP’s Report of Compliance
reads in part:
2. That
one of the accused named therein, Atty. Edward S. Serapio, surrendered to the
Chief, Philippine National Police, through the Criminal Investigation and
Detection Group (CIDG) in Camp Crame, Quezon City on April 25, 2001 at about
9:45 PM where the required processes were administered to him and pending
further orders from this Honorable Court he shall be kept in Camp Crame;
The Court, in its Minute Resolution dated April 26,
2001, set the arraignment of the detained accused on May 3, 2001 which was
cancelled due to the different motions filed by the accused. Accused Jinggoy Estrada filed his Motion to
Quash or Suspend dated April 24, 2001 and a Very Urgent Omnibus Motion dated
April 30, 2001. Among other motions, accused
FPres. Estrada filed his Motion to Quash dated June 7, 2001 and accused Serapio
filed his Motion to Quash (Re: Amended Information dated April 18, 2001) dated
June 26, 2001. In its Resolution dated July
9, 2001, the Court denied all the aforesaid motions to quash and accused
Jinggoy Estrada’s Very Urgent Omnibus Motion dated April 30, 2001. The Court’s Resolution dated July 9, 2001 was
sustained by the Honorable Supreme Court in the Decisions rendered in Joseph
Ejercito Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001) and
Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002).
On July 10, 2001, the Court denied the motion to
defer filed by accused FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada and proceeded with
the arraignment of accused FPres. Estrada, Jinggoy Estrada, and Serapio under
the Amended Information. The accused
having refused to enter a plea, the Court entered a plea of not guilty for all
the three (3) accused.
Petitions
for Bail / House Arrest
With the detention of accused FPres. Estrada and
Jinggoy Estrada in
The Court on June 9, 2001, issued a Resolution
denying accused FPres. Estrada’s Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Place on House
Arrest and issued an Order for the confinement of accused FPres. Estrada and
Jinggoy Estrada at
On March 17, 2004, FPres. Estrada filed a Motion to
Modify Custodial Arrangement dated March 17, 2004 and, on March 30, 2004, the
counsel de officio of accused FPres. Estrada filed a Manifestation dated March
29, 2004 informing the Court, among others, that the said accused was willing
to have his property in Tanay, Rizal placed under the control and supervision
of the Court and the Philippine National Police for the duration of his
detention.
On July 12, 2004, the Court issued a joint resolution
granting FPres. Estrada’s motion to modify Custodial Arrangement dated March
29, 2004 subject to the conditions imposed by the Court. Accused FPres. Estrada filed a Compliance and
Acceptance of Conditions on July 13, 2004.
Since then, accused FPres. Estrada has been detained in his property at
Tanay, Rizal.
When the Court ordered the arrest and detention of
the accused in these cases, accused Serapio filed his petition for bail on
April 27, 2001. Accused Jinggoy
Estrada’s petition for bail was included in his Very Urgent Omnibus Motion
dated April 30, 2001.
Accused
Serapio’s Petition for Bail was deferred indefinitely as prayed for by the said
accused while, on August 14, 2001, accused Jinggoy Estrada filed an Urgent
Second Motion for Bail for Medical Reasons dated August 16, 2001 which the
prosecution opposed. On December 20,
2001, the Court issued its Resolution denying accused Jinggoy Estrada’s Urgent
Second Motion for Bail for Medical Reasons.
Considering the denial of the said motion for bail
for medical reasons, accused Jinggoy Estrada, on April 17, 2002, filed an
Omnibus Application for Bail dated April 16, 2002. After hearing, the Court issued a Resolution
on March 6, 2003 which granted accused Jinggoy Estrada’s Omnibus Application
for Bail. The prosecution’s Motion for Reconsideration dated March 13, 2003 was
denied in this Court’s Resolution dated April 30, 2003. The aforesaid Resolutions
granting bail to Mayor Jinggoy Estrada were upheld by the Honorable Supreme
Court in a Decision promulgated in G.R. No. 158754, People vs. Sandiganbayan (Special Division) and Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada
(August 10, 2007).
As to accused Serapio, the Court’s Resolution dated
September 12, 2003 also granted accused-movant Serapio’s Urgent Petition for
Bail dated April 27, 2001. The Court
fixed the amount of bail of accused Serapio and Jinggoy Estrada at Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) each which was to paid in cash.
While the case was already in the trial stage, on
January 4, 2002 the counsels for the accused Estradas wrote a letter to the
Acting Presiding Justice requesting for a re-raffle of the cases against the
accused, citing as grounds the continuing uncertain composition of the justices
handling the cases against the accused Former President, et al., at that time. The prosecution filed its Opposition to
Request for Re-Raffle On January 9, 2002 and its Comment/Suggestion on January
10, 2002 that a Special Third Division be constituted to be composed of the
present Presiding Justice, the only remaining member of the Third Division to
which the case was raffled, and two other Sandiganbayan Justices who are not
retirables within the next three (3) years.
Justice Anacleto Badoy, the Chairman of the Third Division, was due to
retire on October 2002, while Justice Ilarde, the other member, retired on
November 27, 2001. On January 11, 2002,
the Sandiganbayan En Banc issued its Resolution 01-2002 recommending to the
Supreme Court that the cases against accused FPres. Estrada, et al., be
referred to a Special Division. The
Supreme Court on January 21, 2002 promulgated its Resolution Creating the
Special Division of the Sandiganbayan which shall hear, try and decide with
dispatch the Plunder Case and all related cases filed or may hereafter be filed
against accused FPres. Estrada, and those accused with him, until they are
resolved, decided and terminated. In the
Special Division of the Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court retained, as Junior Member,
the present Presiding Justice who was then the only remaining member of the
Third Division to which the Plunder Case was raffled, and designated the then
Presiding Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, as Chairperson, and Associate
Justice Edilberto G. Sandoval as Senior Member.
This was not the first time that a Special Division of the Sandiganbayan
was constituted to try a case. A Special
Division was previously constituted to try and decide the Aquino-Galman cases in
that composition of the said Division was also maintained until the case was
decided notwithstanding the subsequent changes in the composition of the Division
due to promotions and/or retirement of its members.
During the same year, the counsel de parte of accused
FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada all withdrew their appearances. The Court on March 1, 2002, in order to
protect the rights and interest of the accused, appointed the Public Attorneys
Office (PAO) and those who have been recommended by the Board of Governor of
the Integrated Bar of the
Upon conclusion of the presentation of prosecution
evidence and after the Court have ruled on the offer of evidence of the
prosecution, accused FPres. Estrada, Jinggoy Estrada and Serapio filed their
respective motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence. In a Joint Resolution dated March 10, 2004,
the Court granted accused FPres. Estrada’s Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to
Evidence in Criminal Case Nos. 26905 and 26565 while it denied the same motion
of all the accused in Criminal Case No. 26558 for lack of merit. Subsequently, the Demurrer to Evidence of
accused FPres. Estrada was filed. In its
Joint Resolution dated July 12, 2004, the Court resolved to deny FPres.
Estrada’s Demurrer to Evidence in Criminal Case No. 26905 but granted the
Demurrer to Evidence of FPres. Estrada in Criminal Case No. 26565.
After the presentation of the evidence for accused
FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada, accused Serapio manifested that he opted
not to present his own evidence but adopted the evidence presented by FPres.
Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada. The said
accused then formally offered their evidence.
The Court issued its resolution on the formal offer of evidence for
accused FPres. Estrada, Jinggoy Estrada and Serapio. On the other hand, the prosecution manifested
that it was not presenting any rebuttal evidence but formally offered
additional evidence and tendered excluded evidence in its Supplemental Formal
Offer of Exhibits [Re: Exhibits Identified, Presented, and Marked during the
Cross Examination of Defense Witnesses] with Tender of Excluded Evidence dated
March 29, 2007. The Court issued its
Minute Resolution dated April 19, 2007 on the said additional offer of evidence
of the prosecution.
In an Order dated May 9, 2007, the Court gave the
parties a period of time to file their respective memoranda and scheduled the
Oral Summation requested by accused FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada on June
15, 2007. After the Oral Summation, the
case was submitted for decision.
Incidentally, on November 10, 2006, the National
Bureau of Investigation filed its Return of “Alias” Order of Arrest, informing
the Court that one of the accused in this case, Atong Ang was extradited from
the
On January 24, 2007, when the case was scheduled for
Pre-Trial only for accused Atong Ang, the prosecution and the said accused,
assisted by his counsel, manifested in open court that they had executed a Plea
Bargaining Agreement. The Court’s
Resolution dated March 14, 2007 approved the Plea Bargaining Agreement entered
into by the parties.
On March 19, 2007, during accused Atong Ang’s
re-arraignment, the said accused pleaded guilty to a lesser offense of
Corruption of Public Officials under Article 212 in relation to Article 211 of
the Revised Penal Code. On the same day,
the Court rendered its decision against accused Atong Ang sentencing said
accused to “two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional minimum,
as minimum, to six (6) years of prision correccional maximum, as maximum, and
to pay the amount of P25,000,000.00 to the Government as his civil liability”. Accused Atong Ang immediately filed a
Petition for Probation (with Motion to Deduct Period of Preventive Imprisonment
from the Term of Imprisonment and to Post Bail Pending Resolution thereof)
which the Court granted in a Resolution dated May 25, 2007. Accused Atong Ang is now under probation.
STATEMENT OF THE STIPULATIONS
OF THE PARTIES AT PRE-TRIAL
________________________________
After
the arraignment of the accused, the pre-trial was conducted which led to the
issuance of the Amended Pre-Trial Order dated June 14, 2001, quoted in part
hereunder:
When this case was called for pre-trial on September 3,
2001, accused JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, JOSE “Jinggoy” P. ESTRADA appeared,
assisted by counsels, Atty. Jose B. Flaminiano, Atty. Cleofe Villar-Verzola,
Atty. Rene A. V. Saguisag and Atty. Raymond Parsifal A. Fortun. Accused Edward
S. Serapio likewise appeared, assisted by his counsels, Atty. Sabino Acut, Jr.
and Atty. Martin Israel L. Pison. The People was represented by Ombudsman
Aniano A. Desierto, Deputy Ombudsman Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr., Deputy Special
Prosecutor Robert E. Kallos, Ombudsman Prosecutor III Antonio T. Manzano and
Humphrey T. Monteroso.
The
accused Estradas and Edward S. Serapio submitted their WAIVER OF APPEARANCE
dated September 3, 2001 stating as follows:
Accused
Joseph Estrada, Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada and Edward S. Serapio hereby waive their
appearance during the pre-trial and the trial of this case subject to the
conditions that:
a)
whenever
his/her/their name/s/are mentioned at any stage of the proceedings of this/
these case/s whether in testimonial or documentary evidence, such name/s
refer/s to his/her/them; and
b)
whenever
his/her/their appearance shall be require by the Court at any time, they will
appear, otherwise warrant/s shall issue for their arrest.
The
aforementioned three (3) accused verbally manifested in open Court that they
fully understand and agree with their conditions contained in their Waiver of
Appearance.
Xxx xxx xxx
The
prosecution, the accused Estradas and accused Serapio agreed to stipulate on
the following facts, as proposed by the prosecution to wit:
1.
That
accused Joseph Estrada (“Estrada” for short) took his oath of office as
President of the Republic of the
2.
That
accused Joseph Estrada is married to Dra. (now Senator) Luisa P. Ejercito; [cf.
Proposal No. 2 (For all Specifications) of accused Estrada’s Proposed
Stipulation of Facts of the defense dated 01 August 2001];
3.
That
accused Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, Jr. (“Jinggoy” for short) is the son of accused
Joseph Estrada; [cf. Proposal No. 3 (For all Specifications) of accused
Estrada’s Proposed Stipulation of Facts of the defense dated 01 August 2001;
4.
Edward
S. Serapio is a lawyer and a former professor of law at the Ateneo de Manila University
School of Law; [cf. Proposal No. 1 of accused Atty. Edward Serapio’s Request
for Stipulation of Facts and Admission of Documents dated 01 August 2001;
5.
On
April 29 1999, Atty. Serapio was appointed by President Joseph Estrada as
Presidential Assistant for Political Affairs with the rank of Undersecretary.
[cf. Proposal No. 2 of accused Atty. Edward Serapio’s Request for Stipulation
of Facts and Admission of Documents dated 01 August 2001;
6.
He
accepted such appointment. [cf. Proposal No. 2. 1 of specification of accused
Atty. Edward Serapio’s Request for Stipulation of Facts and Admission of
documents dated 01 August 2001.
The other stipulations of facts
proposed by the accused Estradas and admitted by the prosecution were:
1.
That
From 1998-2001, Mr. Luis “Chavit” Singson was elected Governor of the province
of Ilocos Sur; [cf. Proposal No. 6 (For all Specifications) of accused
Estrada’s Proposed Stipulation of Facts of the defense dated 01 August 2001];
2.
That
the amount of P40 Million was withdrawn by a person representing herself to be
accused Alma Alfaro from Land Bank of the Philippines-Shaw Branch on 28th
August 1998; [cf. Proposal No. 5 of specification (b) of accused Joseph E.
Estrada and Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada’s Stipulation of Facts and Admission of
Documents dated 01 August 2001.
The accused Estradas proposed and
the prosecution admitted the following stipulation of facts:
1.
That
accused Joseph Estrada personally knows Mr. Rodolfo “Bong” Pineda; [cf. Paragraph 13 of the
Prosecution’s Additional Stipulation of Facts dated 01 August 2001];
2.
That
accused Joseph Estrada personally knows “Atong” Ang; [cf. Paragraph 17 of the
Prosecution’s Additional stipulation of Facts dated 01 August 2001];
3.
That
accused Joseph Estrada personally knows Mr. Lucio Co; [cf. Paragraph 23 of the
Prosecution’s Additional Stipulation of Facts dated 01 August 2001];
4.
That
accused Joseph Estrada personally knows Mr. Jaime Dichaves; [cf. Paragraph 24
of the Prosecution’s Additional Stipulation of Facts dated 01 August 2001];
5.
That
accused President Estrada is a close and childhood friend of Carlos A.
Arellano; [cf. Paragraph 1 Re: Belle case of the Prosecution’s Additional
Stipulation of Facts dated 01 August 2001];
6.
That
accused President Estrada appointed Carlos A. Arellano as Chairman of the
Social Security System on July 1, 1998; [cf. Paragraph 2 re: Belle case of the
Prosecution’s Additional Stipulation of Facts dated 01 August 2001];
7.
That
Carlos A. Arellano was appointed by accused President Estrada as President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Social Security System; [cf. Paragraph 3 re:
Belle case of the Prosecution’s Additional Stipulation of Facts dated 01 August
2001];
8.
That
accused President Estrada knew of the existence of Belle Corporation; [cf.
Paragraph 7 re: Belle case of the Prosecution’s Additional Stipulation of Facts
dated 01 August 2001];
Proposed
Stipulation of Facts of the prosecution admitted by accused Serapio:
1.
That
Erap Muslim Youth Foundation (hereinafter the
“Foundation”) has a huge fund of more than P211 Million.
The only issue that was raised by
the parties for resolution is whether or not accused JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA,
JOSE “Jinggoy” P. ESTRADA and ATTY. EDWARD S. SERAPIO are guilty of the offense
charged in the Amended Information.
The accused Estradas raise also the
issue of whether or not the allegations in the information would constitute the
crime of plunder as defined by R.A. No. 7080. (
The
evidence submitted by the prosecution and the defense in support of, or in
denial, of the speculations of the predicate acts adverted to in each of the
paragraphs are discussed hereunder in seriatim:
EVIDENCE PRESENTED:
RE: SUB-PARAGRAPH A OF THE
AMENDED INFORMATION
____________________________
(a) by
receiving OR collecting, directly or indirectly, on SEVERAL
INSTANCES, MONEY IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE MILLION
PESOS (P545,000,000.00), MORE OR LESS, FROM ILLEGAL GAMBLING IN THE FORM OF
GIFT, SHARE, PERCENTAGE, KICKBACK OR ANY FORM OF PECUNIARY BENEFIT, BY HIMSELF
AND/OR in connivance with co-accused CHARLIE ‘ATONG’ ANG, JOSE
‘Jinggoy’ Estrada, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Edward Serapio, AND JOHN DOES AND
JANE DOES, in consideration OF TOLERATION OR PROTECTION OF ILLEGAL
GAMBLING;
The alleged co-conspirators of accused Former President
Joseph Ejercito Estrada named in this paragraph (a) are: Charlie “Atong” Tiu
Hay Sy Ang (Atong Ang), Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, Yolanda T. Ricaforte (Ricaforte)
and Edward S. Serapio. The paragraph
also refers to unidentified co-conspirators by the usual “Jane Does” and “John
Does”.
I. EVIDENCE
FOR THE PROSECUTION
The principal witness of the prosecution in this
first specification of the predicate acts of plunder is Former Ilocos Sur
Governor Luis “Chavit” C. Singson. He
testified extensively on the charge that FPres. Estrada accumulated ill-gotten
wealth in the above-mentioned amount through the monthly remittance to him of
seems of money collected from operations of illegal gambling, commonly known as
“jueteng”, based in the different provinces of the country allegedly in
consideration of the prosecution or unimpeded operation of said illegal gambling.