G.R. No.

148965               February 26, 2002 377 SCRA 538

JOSE "JINGGOY" E. ESTRADA, petitioner,
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, respondents.

ESTRADA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. No. 148965
February 26, 2002

FACTS:
In connection with the impeachment proceedings against President Joseph Estrada, five criminal
complaints were filed against him, the members of his family, his associates, friends, and
conspirators in the Office of the Ombudsman. Respondent Ombudsman found probable cause
warranting the filing with the Sandiganbayan of several criminal information against the former
President and the other respondents. One of the information filed was for the crime of plunder
under R.A. 7080 and among the respondents was petitioner Jinggoy.

Petitioner filed a "Very Urgent Omnibus Motion" alleging that: 1) no probable cause exists to
put him on trial and hold him liable for plunder, it appearing that he was only allegedly involved
in illegal gambling and not in a "series or combination of overt or criminal acts" as required in
R.A. 7080; and 2) he is entitled to bail as a matter of right.

Respondent Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's motion. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of

the Resolution. Respondent court denied the motion and proceeded to arraign petitioner.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the crime of plunder is proper (YES)

HELD:

1) Contrary to petitioner's contention, he was not charged with the commission of only one act,
considering the phrase "on several instances" stated in the Amended Information.

Petitioner's contention that R.A. 7080 does not apply to him is principally based on the premise
that the amended information charged him with only one act or offense which cannot constitute
plunder. However, examination of the information will show that it is divided into 3 parts:
1) first paragraph charges President Estrada with the crime of plunder together with petitioner
Jinggoy Estrada; 2) second paragraph spells out in general terms how the accused conspired in
committing the crime of plunder; and 3) the following four sub-paragraphs describe in detail the
predicate acts constitute of the crime of plunder and state the names of the accused who
committed each act.
The allegation in the information is that petitioner Jinggoy received or collected money from
illegal gambling "on several instances", meaning he committed the predicate act in series. Thus,
contrary to petitioner's contention, it cannot be said that he was charged with the commission of
only one act, considering the phrase "several instances".

It was held in Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (2001) that the words "combination" or "series" are

taken in their popular, not technical, meaning. "Series" is synonymous with the clause "on
several instances". "Series" refers to a repetition of the same predicate act in any of the items
in Section 1 (d) of the law. "Combination" contemplates the commission of at least any two
different predicate acts in any of said items.

2) If conspiracy is proven, the penalty of the petitioner shall be the same as former President
Estrada.

In the crime of plundering, different parties may be united by a common purpose. In the case at
bar, the different accused and their different criminal acts have a commonality - to help the
former President amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth.

In American jurisdiction, the presence of several accused in multiple conspiracies commonly

involves two structures:

1) "Wheel or circle conspiracy," in which there is a single person or group (the "hub") dealing
individually with two or more other persons or groups (the "spokes"); and 

2) "Chain conspiracy," usually involving the distribution of narcotics or other contraband, in

which there is successive communication and cooperation in much the same way as with
legitimate business operations between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and
retailer, and then retailer and consumer.

The case at bar appears similar to a wheel conspiracy. The hub is former President Estrada while
the spokes are all the accused, and the rim that encloses the spokes is the common goal in the
overall conspiracy, i.e. the amassing, accumulation, and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth.

Under Philippine jurisdiction, conspiracy may be alleged as a mode of committing a crime or as

constitutive of the crime itself.

When conspiracy is charged as a crime, the act of conspiring and all the elements of said crime
must be set forth in the complaint or information.

When conspiracy is charged as a mode of committing a crime, as in the case at bar, there is less
necessity of reciting its particularities because conspiracy is not the gravamen of the offence
charged. The conspiracy is significant only because it changes the criminal liability of all the
accused in the conspiracy and makes them answerable as co-principals regardless of the degree
of their participation in the crime. The liability of the conspirators is collective and each
participant will be equally responsible for the acts of others, for the act of one is the act of all.
In the case at bar, the information alleged in general terms how the accused committed the crime
of plunder. It used the words "in connivance/ conspiracy with his co-accused." These words are
sufficient to allege the conspiracy of the accused with the former President in committing the
crime of plunder.