Case Digest (G.R. No. 146710-15)
Facts:
Joseph E. Estrada filed Motions for Reconsideration (G.R. Nos. 146710–15) and an Omnibus Motion (G.R. No. 146738) seeking relief from this Court's March 2, 2001 Decision and contesting respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's assumption of the presidency and the Ombudsman's preliminary investigation led by Aniano Desierto; the motions challenged findings on resignation, admissibility of the Angara Diary, Congress's role under Section 11, Article VII, double jeopardy and impeachment immunity under Article XI, Section 3(7), executive immunity, prejudicial publicity, and recusation. The Court, sitting en banc, resolved the motions in an April 3, 2001 Resolution.Issues:
- Did petitioner resign prior to noon of January 20, 2001?
- Was reliance on the Angara Diary and contemporaneous newspaper accounts admissible against petitioner?
- Does the termination of the impeachment proceedings bar subsequent criminal prosecution by reason of double jeopardy?
- Does Article XI, Section 3(7) requi
Case Digest (G.R. No. 146710-15)
Facts:
- Parties and capacities
- Joseph E. Estrada, Petitioner, former President of the Republic of the Philippines.
- Aniano Desierto, in his capacity as Ombudsman, and private respondents Ramon Gonzales, Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, Graft Free Philippines Foundation, Inc., Leonard De Vera, Dennis Funa, Romeo Capulong and Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr., Respondents in G.R. Nos. 146710-15.
- Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Respondent in G.R. No. 146738.
- Procedural posture before the Supreme Court
- Consolidated petitions in G.R. Nos. 146710-15 and separate petition in G.R. No. 146738 challenged the Office of the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation and related events of January 2001.
- Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration in G.R. Nos. 146710-15 and an Omnibus Motion in G.R. No. 146738 from the Court’s Decision dated March 2, 2001.
- Petitioner’s stated grounds in G.R. Nos. 146710-15 included claimed violations of Art. XI, Sec. 3(7) of the Constitution, double jeopardy, absolute immunity, denial of due process by prejudicial publicity, and alleged impairment of the Ombudsman.
- Issues in G.R. No. 146738 included whether petitioner had resigned as of January 20, 2001; admissibility challenges to the *Angara Diary* (hearsay, best evidence, authentication, admissions, *res inter alios acta*); reliance on newspaper accounts; congressional authority under Section 11, Article VII of the Constitution; and prejudicial publicity affecting fair trial.
- Antecedent and contemporaneous events relevant to resignation and transfer of power
- Exposé by Governor Luis "Chavit" Singson on October 4, 2000.
- Senator Teofisto Guingona’s "I accuse" speech and its joint investigation by the Blue Ribbon Committee and the Committee on Justice.
- House Committee on Public Order and Security investigation of the Singson exposé.
- Move to impeach petitioner in the House of Representatives and transmission of Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.
- Pastoral Letter of Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin and similar demands from the Catholic Bishops Conference for petitioner’s resignation.
- Public calls for resignation by former Presidents Corazon C. Aquino and Fidel V. Ramos.
- Resignation of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as Secretary of DSWD and her call for petitioner to resign.
- Resignations from petitioner’s Council of Senior Economic Advisers and from Secretary Mar Roxas III (DTI).
- Defections of Senate President Franklin Drilon, Speaker Manuel Villar, and forty-seven representatives from Lapiang Masang Pilipino.
- Unseating of Senator Drilon as Senate President and Representative Villar as Speaker.
- Impeachment trial events, including testimony of Clarissa Ocampo and Edgardo Espiritu and the 11-10 vote denying opening of the second envelope allegedly containing evidence of a secret P3.3 billion account.
- Walkout and resignation of the private and public prosecutors from the impeachment trial; subsequent indefinite postponement of impeachment proceedings.
- Mass rally at EDSA Shrine and nationwide intensifications.
- Withdrawal of support by Secretary of National Defense Orlando Mercado, Chief of Staff General Angelo Reyes, military chiefs, PNP Director General Panfilo Lacson and other service commanders.
- Stream of resignations by Cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and bureau chiefs.
- Petitioner’s agreement to hold a snap election and to open the second envelope.
- Events on January 20, 2001 contemporaneous to Vice-President Arroyo’s oath: negotiation led by Executive Secretary Angara, reporting in the *Philippine Daily Inquirer* of the *Angara Diary*, petitioner’s final press release after the oath, petitioner’s abandonment of Malac...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Core legal questions submitted for resolution
- Whether Joseph E. Estrada had resigned the presidency prior to noon on January 20, 2001.
- Whether petitioner’s claimed resignation was involuntary and therefore vitiated by duress.
- Whether Congress could validly decide post facto on the President’s alleged inability to govern under Section 11, Article VII of the Constitution, and whether such determination is nonjusticiable as a political question.
- Whether the *Angara Diary* and contemporaneous newspaper accounts were admissible evidence under rules on hearsay, best evidence, authentication, admissions, and *res inter alios acta*.
- Whether reliance on newspaper accounts violated evidentiary rules and due process.
- Whether the termination of impeachment proceedings or the prosecutors’ resignation constituted an acquittal triggering double jeopardy protections and barring subsequent criminal prosecution.
- Whether petitioner retained absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts committed while he was a sitting President.
- Whether pre-trial publicity deprived petitioner of due process and a fair investigation or trial before the Ombudsman and its panel of investigators.
- Whether the Court erred in refusing to enjoin the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation for alleged bias or impaired capacity.
- Whether members of the Court who attended the oath-taking should recuse or inhibit themselves for ex parte contacts or perceived partiality.
- ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)