Case Summary (G.R. No. 148965)
Petitioner
Jose “Jinggoy” E. Estrada, mayor of San Juan, Metro Manila, seeks relief by assailing his inclusion in an amended plunder information, invoking equal protection, substantive due process, and his right to bail under the 1987 Constitution.
Respondents
• Sandiganbayan (Third Division) – issued resolutions denying motions to quash the plunder information and to grant bail.
• People of the Philippines – represented by the Office of the Solicitor General.
• Office of the Ombudsman – prosecuted plunder charges before the Sandiganbayan.
Key Dates
• November 2000 – impeachment-related complaints filed against former President Estrada and associates.
• April 4, 2001 – Ombudsman finds probable cause for plunder, among other charges.
• April 18, 2001 – amended plunder information filed, docketed as Sandiganbayan Criminal Case No. 26558.
• July 9-10, 2001 – Sandiganbayan denies motions to quash and omnibus motion; arraigns accused; sets bail hearing.
• December 20, 2001 – Sandiganbayan denies second motion for bail on medical grounds.
• February 26, 2002 – Supreme Court en banc decision dismissing petition.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution – equal protection, due process, bail provisions (Art. III, Secs. 1, 13).
• Republic Act No. 7080 (Anti-Plunder Law), as amended by R.A. 7659 – defines plunder, elements, penalty (reclusion perpetua to death), mode of commission by combination or series of specified overt or criminal acts.
Antecedent Facts
• Five criminal complaints against former President Estrada and associates filed with the Ombudsman amid impeachment.
• Ombudsman issues joint resolution finding probable cause to charge several individuals, including petitioner, with plunder.
• Information amended and filed April 18, 2001, alleging that from June 1998 to January 2001, President Estrada, with co-accused, amassed P4.097 billion through a combination or series of overt acts.
Criminal Charges and Proceedings
• Plunder Information (Amended): four predicate subsections (a–d) describing specified acts (illegal gambling kickbacks; tobacco tax diversion; GSIS/SSS share purchases; unjust enrichment).
• Sub-paragraph (a) charges petitioner with receiving/collecting P545 million from illegal gambling on several instances.
• Petitioner’s motions:
– April 24, 2001: Motion to Quash or Suspend, challenging RA 7080’s constitutionality and multiplicity of offenses.
– April 30, 2001: Very Urgent Omnibus Motion, seeking dismissal for want of probable cause and entitlement to bail.
– June 28 & July 3, 2001: Motions to resolve bail and strike prosecutor’s appearances.
• July 9, 2001: Sandiganbayan Resolution denies motions to quash and omnibus motion; schedules bail hearing post-arraignment.
• July 10, 2001: Motion for reconsideration denied; arraignment proceeds; plea of not guilty entered for petitioner.
• December 20, 2001: Sandiganbayan denies second motion for bail on medical grounds.
Arguments of the Petitioner
- RA 7080 is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him, violating equal protection.
- RA 7080 lacks sufficient standards for courts to impose penalties.
- Denial of quash and omnibus motions results in substantive due process violation, as he is linked only to illegal gambling, not to a series or combination of acts.
- Denial of bail constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and violates the principle of proportionality.
Issues Presented
• Whether RA 7080 is unconstitutional or denies equal protection as applied to petitioner.
• Whether the Amended Information is deficient for charging plunder against petitioner, who allegedly committed only one criminal act.
• Whether conspiracy should have been specifically alleged and whether petitioner can be held liable as co-conspirator for predicate acts he did not commit.
• Whether the Sandiganbayan abused its discretion in refusing bail to petitioner.
Constitutionality of RA 7080 (Anti-Plunder Law)
• Majority: Constitutionality settled in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (November 19, 2001). RA 7080 valid under 1987 Constitution; “combination” and “series” not vague in popular meaning.
• Plunder defined by Section 1(d) enumerates six categories of overt or criminal acts.
• Plunder penalty: reclusion perpetua to death; secondary participants punished for contributing offenses under Section 2.
Sufficiency of the Amended Information
• Amended Information divided into (1) naming accused; (2) general conspiracy description; (3) detailed predicate acts in four sub-paragraphs.
• Sub-paragraph (a) alleges predicate act of receiving illegal gambling money on several instances; names petitioner as co-conspirator with President Estrada.
• Majority holds “on several instances” means a series of predicate acts; “series” synonymous with “several instances.”
• Probable cause findings: Ombudsman noted P2 million jueteng turning-over on at least two occasions to petitioner; additional sum included in the aggregate P545 million.
• Majority declines to revisit probable cause finding; petitioner already arraigned and trial ongoing.
Conspiracy as Mode of Commission
• Conspiracy not independent crime in Philippine law except where statute so punishes; here it is mode of committing plunder.
• Information alleged conspiracy by stating “in connivance/conspiracy” with co-accused, sufficient under People v. Quitlong.
• Liability of conspirators is collective; each participant liable as co-principal.
• Procedural history and Congressional intent: Anti-Plunder Law crafted to consolidate multiple graft charges into a single information to address Marcos-era proliferation of cases.
• Majority rejects petitioner’s argument that conspiracy insufficiently alleged; basic allegation of connivance adequate, particulars are matters of proof at trial.
Bail Issues
• Plunder is punishable by death or reclusion perpetua; nonbailable when evidence of guilt is strong (Rule 114, Sec. 7; 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 13).
• Petitioner’s medical-based bail motions heard—Sandiganbayan found lack o
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 148965)
Antecedent Facts
- Impeachment of President Joseph Estrada in November 2000 prompted five criminal complaints against him and associates.
- On April 4, 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause to file plunder charges under R.A. No. 7080.
- One Information, amended on April 18, 2001, charged former President Estrada and co-accused, including Mayor Jose “Jinggoya” Estrada, with plunder (Criminal Case No. 26558, Sandiganbayan Third Division).
- Arraignment scheduled July 10, 2001; no provisional bail fixed.
Motions Filed by Petitioner
- April 24, 2001: Motion to Quash or Suspend Amended Information, challenging the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7080 and the charging of multiple offenses.
- April 30, 2001: Very Urgent Omnibus Motion claiming lack of probable cause for plunder (illegal gambling only), and asserting bail as a matter of right.
- June 28, 2001: Motion to Fix Bail, arguing loss of mayoral influence and non-bailable offense not applicable to him.
- July 3, 2001: Motion to Strike Entry of Appearance, to compel Ombudsman’s explanation, and to resolve pending incidents.
Sandiganbayan Resolutions and Arraignment
- July 9, 2001: Resolution denied petitioner’s Motion to Quash and Very Urgent Omnibus Motion for lack of merit; set alternative prayer for bail hearing after arraignment.
- July 10, 2001: Motion for reconsideration denied; petitioner arraigned, refused to plead; court entered plea of not guilty for him.
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
- Petitioner claims Sandiganbayan acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, by:
- Failing to declare R.A. No. 7080 unconstitutional on its face or as applied.
- Upholding the Plunder Law despite allegedly insufficient standards.
- Imputing conspiratorial acts to him with which he had no connection, denying due process.
- Denying bail for alleged jueteng involvement as cruel and unusual punishment.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Constitutionality of R.A. No. 7080 on its face and as applied (equal protection).
- Suffi