Case Digest (G.R. No. 148965) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In November 2000, following the impeachment of President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, the Office of the Ombudsman filed criminal complaints against him and several associates. On April 4, 2001, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause to charge former President Estrada and co-accused, including his son Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, with plunder under Republic Act No. 7080, as amended. An Amended Information was filed on April 18, 2001 and docketed as Criminal Case No. 26558 before the Sandiganbayan Third Division. Arraignment was set on July 10, 2001 without bail. On April 24, 2001, petitioner moved to quash the information, claiming the Anti-Plunder Law was unconstitutional and charged multiple offenses; the Ombudsman opposed. A warrant of arrest issued on April 25 and petitioner was detained. On April 30, 2001 he filed a “Very Urgent Omnibus Motion” to dismiss for lack of probable cause and, in the alternative, to fix bail. Further motions to fix bail and to strike Case Digest (G.R. No. 148965) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Impeachment and Ombudsman Proceedings
- In November 2000, five criminal complaints arising from the impeachment of President Joseph Estrada were filed with the Office of the Ombudsman.
- On April 4, 2001, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause to charge former President Estrada and others—including Mayor Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada—with, among other crimes, plunder under R.A. 7080.
- Filing and Amendment of Information
- The Amended Information was filed April 18, 2001, docketed as Criminal Case No. 26558 before the Sandiganbayan Third Division, charging Estrada Sr., Estrada Jr., and co-accused with plunder.
- Arraignment was set for July 10, 2001, and no bail was fixed for petitioner’s provisional liberty.
- Petitioner’s Motions and Sandiganbayan Resolution
- April 24 and 30, 2001: Petitioner filed Motion to Quash/Suspend and Very Urgent Omnibus Motion seeking dismissal for lack of probable cause, discharge, exclusion from Information, or bail.
- July 9 & 10, 2001: The Sandiganbayan denied all motions, set bail hearing after arraignment, denied reconsideration July 10, and entered a not-guilty plea for petitioner when he refused to plead.
Issues:
- Whether R.A. 7080 (Anti-Plunder Law) is unconstitutional on its face or as applied to petitioner, denying equal protection.
- Whether the Anti-Plunder Law provides sufficient and complete standards to guide penalty determination when multiple predicate acts are charged.
- Whether it was lawful to charge petitioner, who allegedly committed only one predicate act, as a conspirator in plunder—implicating him in other acts with which he has no connection.
- Whether petitioner’s right to bail was violated by denying bail under the plunder charge despite his medical and humanitarian condition.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)