Estrada vs.

Desierto
G.R. Nos. 146720-15
March 2, 2001
Ponente: Puno, J.
Joseph Estrada sues Obudsman Desierto
FACTS

 Chavit Singson went on air and accused Erap as a jueteng lord. Then the House Committee on
Public Order and Security decided to investigate the expose of Singson. Reps. Alvarez, Herrera,
and Defensor spearheaded the move to impeach Erap.
 House Speaker Villar transmitted the Articles of Impeachment signed by 115 representatives. The
Senate then formally opened the impeachment trial of the petitioner. Twenty-one senators took
their oath as judges with Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. presiding.
 Atty. Espiritu, petitioner’s Secretary of Finance, took the witness stand. He alleged that Erap
owned BW Resources Corporation with Mr. Dante Tan who was facing charges of insider
trading. With a vote of 11-10 the senator judges ruled against the opening of the second envelope
which allegedly contained evidence showing petitioner held P3.3 billion in a secret bank account
under the name “Jose Valera”
 Cases filed in the Ombudsman were set in motion.
ISSUES
1. W/N the petitions are justiciable
2. W/N Estrada is a President on leave while Respondent is an Acting President
3. W/N conviction in the impeachment proceedings is a condition precedent for the criminal
prosecution of petitioner Estrada. In the negative and on the assumption that petitioner is still
Persistent, whether he is immune from criminal prosecution.
4. W/N the prosecution of petitioner Estrada should be enjoined on the ground of prejudicial
publicity.
RULING
1. The petitions are justiciable because EDSA I presented a political question; EDSA II involves
legal questions. The former involves the exercise of people power which overthrew the whole
government. The latter invokes the freedom of speech and the right to assembly.
2. Resignation is not an abstract thing. It is factual and its elements are: there must be an intent to
resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment. Using the totality test, the Court
holds the petitioner resigned as President.
3. The Court rejects his argument that he cannot be prosecuted for the reason that he must first be
convicted in the impeachment proceedings.
4. The Court holds that there is not enough evidence to warrant this Court to enjoin the preliminary
investigation of petitioner by the respondent Ombudsman.
The petitions of Estrada challenging GMA as the de jure 14th President are DISMISSED.
 ESTRADA VS. DESIERTO
Motion for Reconsideration
April 3, 2001
ISSUES
1. W/N petitioner resigned or should be considered resigned as of January 20, 2001 - YES
2. W/N the Angara diary is inadmissible for being violative of the following rules on evidence:
hearsay, best evidence, authentication, admissions and res inter alios acta
3. W/N reliance on newspaper accounts is violative of the hearsay rule - NO
4. W/N Congress post facto can decide petitioner’s inability to govern considering Section 11,
Article II of the Constitution
5. W/N Prejudicial publicity has affected petitioner’s right fair trial. - NO
RULING
1.