Case Summary (G.R. No. 165407)
Ombudsman’s Investigation and Filing of Plunder Information
After preliminary investigation under RA 6770, the Ombudsman on April 4, 2001 recommended plunder charges against Estrada, Serapio and others, declaring no bail. On April 18, 2001 it filed an amended Information with the Sandiganbayan alleging that Estrada, “by himself and/or in connivance,” amassed P4.097 billion in ill-gotten wealth through “any or a combination or a series of overt or criminal acts.” Paragraph (a) charged Estrada and Serapio et al. with receiving P545 million from illegal gambling.
Arrest, Arraignment, and Bail Petitions
On April 25, 2001 the Sandiganbayan found probable cause and issued arrest warrants. Serapio voluntarily surrendered to PNP Chief Mendoza and was detained at Camp Crame. He filed an Urgent Petition for Bail (May 4, 2001) and related motions to hold in abeyance proceedings, seek reinvestigation, and quash the Information.
Motions to Quash and for Reinvestigation
Serapio’s motion to quash argued that, as to him, the Information did not allege the requisite “combination or series of overt acts” or a pattern of criminal acts, charging only bribery or illegal gambling, not plunder. He also sought reinvestigation before the Ombudsman on claimed exculpatory evidence. The Sandiganbayan denied both motions (April 25 and May 31, 2001), holding the Information sufficient and the issues already resolved.
Petitions for Certiorari and Habeas Corpus
Serapio lodged three Supreme Court petitions:
• G.R. No. 148468 – Certiorari and habeas corpus challenging denial of bail, motion to quash, and procedural orders
• G.R. No. 148769 – Certiorari attacking denial of motion to quash and alleged multiple-offense charging
• G.R. No. 149116 – Certiorari contesting denial of omnibus motion and motion for reconsideration
He claimed Sandiganbayan grave abuse of discretion, deprivation of due process, waiver of prosecution’s right to oppose bail, and insufficiency of the Information.
Issues
- Sufficiency of the Amended Information to charge Serapio with plunder under RA 7080.
- Sandiganbayan’s denial of motion to quash and omnibus motion for bail-related relief.
- Necessity of arraignment before bail hearings.
- Mandatoriness of joint bail hearings and joint hearing with trial of co-accused.
- Proper remedy for alleged denial of bail—application for bail versus writ of habeas corpus.
Supreme Court Rulings
• Constitution, statutes and rules: applied under the 1987 Constitution.
• Sufficiency of Information: Adequate. It alleged conspiracy and specified predicate acts (Section 1(d) RA 7080). “Series” and “combination” need only appear by allegation of “on several instances” and “conspiracy” language. Pattern evidence is evidentiary, not an Information requirement. Motion to quash properly denied.
• Omnibus motion and reinvestigation: No grave abuse. Preliminary investigation by the Ombudsman is discretionary and non-justiciable except for jurisdiction or abuse of discretion. Serapio’s grounds did not qualify as new evidence or error warranting reinvestigation under RA 6770.
• Arraignment and bail hearings: Arraignment is not a prerequisite to bail hearings. A person deprived of liberty may seek bail upon arrest or surrender. The
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 165407)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner Edward S. Serapio was Legal Counsel and Trustee of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, established February 2000 to assist deserving Muslim youth.
- In April 2000, Ilocos Sur Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, through assistant Yolanda Ricaforte, donated ₱200 million to the Foundation; Serapio received and turned over the funds for deposit.
- Late 2000, Singson publicly accused then-President Joseph Ejercito Estrada and associates (including Serapio) of receiving jueteng proceeds and other illegal activities.
- Multiple criminal complaints for graft, corruption, and related offenses were filed with the Ombudsman against Estrada, his sons (including Jinggoy Estrada), Serapio, and others.
Preliminary Investigation and Information
- Serapio and co-respondents filed counter-affidavits before the Ombudsman’s joint preliminary investigation.
- April 4, 2001: Ombudsman issued a resolution finding probable cause to charge Estrada, Serapio, and others with plunder under R.A. 7080 (Anti-Plunder Law).
- April 18, 2001: Amended Information filed in Sandiganbayan Criminal Case No. 26558—charges Estrada and co-accused (including Serapio) with plunder, alleging ₱4,097,804,173.17 in ill-gotten wealth “through any or a combination or series of overt or criminal acts.”
- No bail was recommended; case raffled to a special Sandiganbayan division; warrants of arrest issued.
Serapio’s Motions Before the Sandiganbayan
- April 6, 2001: Urgent Omnibus Motion—to hold in abeyance arrest/proceedings; determine probable cause; allow motion for reinvestigation; direct Ombudsman to reinvestigate.
- April 27, 2001: Urgent Petition for Bail.
- May 31, 2001: Sandiganbayan denied Urgent Omnibus Motion, finding probable cause already established.
- June 26, 2001: Motion to Quash Amended Information—arguing absence of “combination or series of overt or criminal acts” against him; alleging misjoinder of offenses.
- July 9, 2001: Sandiganbayan denied Motion to Quash.
Petitions for Relief in the Supreme Court
- G.R. No. 148468 (June 29, 2001): Petition for Certiorari and Habeas Corpus—challenged Sandiganbayan orders on bail scheduling, arraignment, and joint hearings.
- G.R. No. 148769 (July 20, 2001): Petition fo