Case Summary (G.R. No. 146710-15)
Petitioner’s Motions and Alleged Errors
In G.R. Nos. 146710–15, Estrada challenged the Court’s ruling on:
- Article XI, Sec. 3(7) (impeachment judgment limits) and related jurisprudence
- Double jeopardy (acquittal by impeachment)
- Absolute presidential immunity
- Due process (pre-trial publicity)
- Injunctive relief against Ombudsman investigation (alleged bias)
In G.R. No. 146738, he disputed:
- His purported resignation or status as President on leave
- Admissibility of the “Angara Diary” (hearsay, best evidence, authentication, admissions, res inter alios acta)
- Use of newspaper accounts (hearsay)
- Congress’s authority under Art. VII, Sec. 11 (temporary inability)
- Prejudicial publicity’s effect on his right to fair trial
Vacancy and Resignation Under Article VII, Section 8
The Court applied a totality-of-circumstances test to conclude Estrada’s resignation effective before noon on January 20 2001. It judicially took notice of unrefuted, well-established events:
• October 4, 2000 Singson exposé
• “I accuse” Senate speech and ensuing legislative investigations
• House impeachment motion; Cardinal Sin’s Pastoral Letter; demands by former Presidents Aquino and Ramos; mass protests at EDSA Shrine
• Defections of cabinet members, key legislators, military and police chiefs
• Impeachment trial episodes (Clarissa Ocampo testimony; vote on opening second envelope; prosecutors’ walkout; indefinite postponement)
• Press release by Estrada post-oath confirming abandonment of Malacañang Palace
Taken together, these overt acts were “irresistible pressure” confirming voluntary resignation as a matter of law.
Admissibility of Newspaper Accounts and the Angara Diary
- Newspaper reports corroborated facts within judicial notice; their citation did not introduce inadmissible hearsay.
- The Angara Diary, attached by parties to pleadings and fully known to Estrada, is not hearsay:
• It is party admission (Rule 130, Sec. 26), not subject to hearsay exclusion.
• Alternatively, it is an adoptive admission by silence (Rule 130, Sec. 32).
• It contains statements reflecting Estrada’s intent and Executive Secretary Angara’s declarations as agent admissions (Rule 130, Sec. 29). - The best evidence rule was not violated: secondary evidence was admitted in open, without objection, and Estrada forfeited any timely challenge (Rule 130, Secs. 2–4).
- Private-writing authentication rules (Rule 132, Sec. 20) were satisfied by Estrada’s prior reliance and failure to object.
- The res inter alios acta rule did not apply to admissions by an authorized agent.
Temporary Inability to Govern and the Political Question
Under Art. VII, Sec. 11, only Congress may adjudge a President’s temporary inability. Estrada himself conceded that “Congress has the ultimate authority.” Post facto and a priori acts by Senate and House leadership—Joint Statement, Resolutions 82, 83, 176, 178, and referral of bills—constituted a political judgment beyond judicial review.
Impeachment, Double Jeopardy, and Executive Immunity
- Art. XI, Sec. 3(7) simply limits impeachment penalties to removal and disqualification, while preserving ordinary criminal prosecution after conviction; it does not require conviction in impeachment as a prerequisite for prosecution.
- Impeachment proceedings ended when the court became functus officio by Estrada’s resignation; he was neither convicted nor acquitted on the merits, so no bar under double jeopardy (Rule 117, Sec. 7).
- Executive immunity under the 1987 Constitution ends with tenure. A non-sitting President (former or deposed) cannot invoke absolute immunity for criminal acts allegedly committed while in office. Deliberations confirm immunity attaches only during actual tenure, no
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 146710-15)
Procedural Posture
- Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration in G.R. Nos. 146710–15 and an Omnibus Motion in G.R. No. 146738 to challenge the Court’s March 2, 2001 Decision.
- In G.R. Nos. 146710–15, grounds included: disregard of Art. XI, Sec. 3(7); alleged double jeopardy; loss of absolute immunity; denial of due-process claim (pretrial publicity); insufficient evidence to enjoin preliminary investigation.
- In G.R. No. 146738, issues concerned: whether petitioner had effectively resigned by January 20, 2001; admissibility of the Angara Diary and newspaper accounts (hearsay, best evidence, authentication, admissions, res inter alios acta); Congress’s power under Art. VII, Sec. 11; prejudicial publicity; application of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- The Court, in an en banc Resolution authored by Justice Puno, denied both motions for lack of merit.
Facts
- Impeachment proceedings stalled when public and private prosecutors walked out after a 11–10 Senate vote refusing to open the second envelope of evidence.
- Mass demonstrations at EDSA (January 2001), resignations by key Cabinet members, defections by military and police commanders, and other events created overwhelming pressure for petitioner’s departure.
- Petitioner issued a press release and left Malacañang before 12 noon on January 20, 2001; Vice-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took her oath at 12:30 PM.
- Petitioner’s letter claiming temporary inability to govern was received by the House (8:30 AM) and Senate (9 PM) on January 20.
Issues Presented
- Did the Court err in holding petitioner subject to criminal prosecution after impeachment, contrary to Art. XI, Sec. 3(7)?
- Did the Court violate the Double Jeopardy Clause by allowing prosecution following acquittal in impeachment?
- Is petitioner still entitled to absolute immunity from suit as non-sitting President?
- Was petitioner’s due-process right to a fair investigation before the Ombudsman prejudiced by pretrial publicity?
- Did the Court properly refuse to enjoin the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation for lack of proof of bias?
- Had petitioner effectively resigned before noon of January 20, 2001?
- Were the Angara Diary and newspaper accounts admissible despite hearsay, best-evidence, authentication, admissions, and res inter alios acta rules?
- Could Congress decide petitioner’s temporary inability post facto under Art. VII, Sec. 11?
- Should the Justices who attended the Arroyo oath-taking be disqualified?
Resolution of Motions
- All contentions were found lacking in merit. The Court reaffirmed its March 2, 2001 Decision and denied the motions for reconsideration.