Case Digest (G.R. No. 164368-69)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Joseph Ejercito Estrada, G.R. Nos. 164368-69, April 02, 2009, Supreme Court En Banc, Brion, J., writing for the Court.The People filed criminal Informations with the Sandiganbayan charging Joseph Ejercito Estrada with plunder (Crim. Case No. 26558), illegal use of alias (Crim. Case No. 26565) and perjury (Crim. Case No. 26905). The Amended Information in Crim. Case No. 26565 alleged that on or about February 4, 2000 (or sometime prior or subsequent thereto) Estrada, then President, willfully represented himself as “Jose Velarde” in several transactions and signed documents with Equitable PCI Bank and/or other corporate entities.
The three cases were consolidated for joint trial before the Sandiganbayan Special Division; Estrada was arrested on a Sandiganbayan warrant. The prosecution presented testimonial and documentary evidence: bank officers Clarissa Ocampo and Atty. Manuel Curato testified that Estrada opened numbered Trust Account C-163 on February 4, 2000 and signed as “Jose Velarde,” with Aprodicio Lacquian and Fernando Chua present; branch manager Teresa Barcelan testified regarding multiple deposits made to a “Jose Velarde” savings account by Lucena Ortaliza on various dates. The Sandiganbayan admitted the People’s Formal Offer of Exhibits on October 13, 2003, and denied motions for reconsideration on November 17, 2003.
After the People rested, the defense sought and obtained leave to file demurrers to evidence in Crim. Case Nos. 26565 and 26905; Estrada filed demurrers dated March 29, 2004 arguing, inter alia, that only two witnesses saw a single occasion of signing as “Jose Velarde,” that numbered accounts were lawful at the time, that the prosecution failed to prove public and habitual use as required under Commonwealth Act No. 142 (as construed in Ursua v. Court of Appeals), and that the alias charge was absorbed in plunder. The People opposed.
On July 12, 2004 the Sandiganbayan issued a joint Resolution granting Estrada’s demurrer to evidence in Crim. Case No. 26565. It limited the Information’s coverage to acts referencing February 4, 2000 (reading the “or” between date-phrases restrictively), concluded the prosecution failed to prove the requisite public and habitual use of the alias under CA No. 142 and Ursua, treated the bank transaction as confidential under R.A. No. 140...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing Crim. Case No. 26565 by finding that Estrada’s signing as “Jose Velarde” on February 4, 2000 was not a public use of an alias?
- Did the Sandiganbayan gravely abuse its discretion in holding that Estrada’s use of the alias was allowable under prevailing banking practice and thus not in violation of Commonwealth Act No. 142?
- Was it error for the Sandiganbayan to apply R.A. No. 1405 (Secrecy of Bank Deposits) as an exception to prosecution under CA No. 142?
- Was the Sandiganbayan’s harmonization (or interaction) of CA No. 142, R.A. No. 1405, and R.A. No. 9160 proper?
- Did the Sandiganbayan improperly limit the coverage of the Amended Information to acts on February 4, 2000, thereby depriving the People of the multiple dates alleged?
- Did the Sandiganbayan improperly depart fr...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)