G.R. No. 164368-69 - People vs. Estrada

An Information for plunder (Crim. Case No. 26558) against Joseph Ejercito Estrada.
A separate Information for illegal use of alias “Jose Velarde” (Crim. Case No. 26565), later amended to specify “on or about 04 February 2000, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto,” the signing of documents under that alias with Equitable PCI Bank and/or other corporate entities.

A third Information for perjury (Crim. Case No. 26905) was later consolidated, and on January 11, 2005, the Supreme Court created a Special Division in the Sandiganbayan to hear these consolidated cases.

Testimony of PCIB officers Clarissa Ocampo and Atty. Manuel Curato that Estrada opened Trust Account C-163 on February 4, 2000, signing as “Jose Velarde,” witnessed also by Aprodicio Laquian and Fernando Chua.
Testimony of branch manager Teresa Barcelan and deposit receipts showing numerous transactions by “Jose Velarde” into Savings Account No. 0160-62502-5 by one Baby Ortaliza.

After resting, the defense moved to file demurrers to evidence in Crim. Cases No. 26565 and 26905. The Sandiganbayan granted leave. Estrada’s demurrer to evidence in No. 26565 argued, inter alia, lack of public and habitual use of the alias and absorption of alias use in the plunder charge. The People opposed.

On July 12, 2004, the Special Division granted Estrada’s demurrer to evidence in Crim. Case No. 26565, ruling:

The Information’s “or” confined the relevant act to a single date (Feb. 4, 2000 or that day ±), precluding proof of multiple transactions.
Under Commonwealth Act No. 142 (CA 142) as construed in Ursua v. Court of Appeals, illegal use of alias requires public and habitual use; Estrada’s private, confidential bank transactions failed this test.
The Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law (RA 1405) protected the confidentiality of numbered accounts, negating any public use of the alias.
The Anti-Money Laundering Act (RA 9160) post-dated the transactions and could not be applied ex post facto.

The People filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the dismissal of the illegal-alias charge.

Whether confining the Information to alias use on February 4, 2000 (despite “prior or subsequent thereto”) violated Estrada’s right to be informed.
Whether the Information supported proof of multiple transactions and habitual use of the alias.

Whether alias use witnessed by non‐bank persons constituted “public” use under CA 142.
Whether statutory bank secrecy (RA 1405) or industry practice permitted private use of an alias.
Whether RA 9160’s later prohibition on numbered accounts could be applied retroactively.
Whether Ursua’s strict construction of CA 142 should have been applied in the demurrer phase despite an earlier interlocutory ruling.