6/2/2021 Chronicles of a Lost Student: ESTRADA vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN

Higit Pa Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in

Chronicles of a Lost Student

Case digests. Updates on jurisprudence. Laws. Anything law related.

Home Case Digests CPA Board Exam Privacy Policy

S a t u r d a y, O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 7

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) Search This Blog

Search
HELD:

1) Contrary to petitioner's contention, he was not charged with the commission of Blog Archive

only one act, considering the phrase "on several instances" stated in the ▼ 2017 (22)
▼
Amended Information. ▼ October (22)
▼
INTOD vs CA
Petitioner's contention that R.A. 7080 does not apply to him is principally based on
PEOPLE vs.
the premise that the amended information charged him with only one act or
VILLACORTA
offense which cannot constitute plunder. However, examination of the information
URBANO vs. IAC
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) LONEY vs. PEOPLE
second paragraph spells out in general terms how the accused conspired in US vs. AH CHONG
committing the crime of plunder; and 3) the following four sub-paragraphs describe
VILLAREAL VS. PEOPLE
in detail the predicate acts constitute of the crime of plunder and state the names
NAVA vs. PALATTAO
of the accused who committed each act.
CAUNAN vs. PEOPLE
The allegation in the information is that petitioner Jinggoy received or collected JAVIER vs.
money from illegal gambling "on several instances", meaning he committed the SANDIGANBAYAN
predicate act in series. Thus, contrary to petitioner's contention, it cannot be said PEOPLE vs. MORILLA

chroniclesofaloststudent.blogspot.com/2017/10/estrada-vs-sandiganbayan.html 1/3
6/2/2021 Chronicles of a Lost Student: ESTRADA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
that he was charged with the commission of only one act, considering the phrase DELA CRUZ vs.
"several instances". PEOPLE
PEOPLE vs.
It was held in Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (2001) that the words "combination" or ENUMERABLE
"series" are taken in their popular, not technical, meaning. "Series" is 1.0 PRINCIPLES OF
synonymous with the clause "on several instances". "Series" refers to a TAXATION 1.1
Nature, scope, clas...
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 CPA Board Exam
predicate acts in any of said items. PEOPLE vs. ESTRADA
GONZALES vs. ABAYA
2) If conspiracy is proven, the penalty of the petitioner shall be the same as former
LADLAD vs. VELASCO
President Estrada.
GEROCHE vs. PEOPLE
In the crime of plundering, different parties may be united by a common purpose. GALVANTE vs.
In the case at bar, the different accused and their different criminal acts have a CASIMIRO
commonality - to help the former President amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten WHAT IS "EPISTOLARY
wealth. JURISDICTION"?
REPUBLIC ACT 7080
In American jurisdiction, the presence of several accused in multiple conspiracies (PLUNDER LAW)
commonly involves two structures: ESTRADA vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN
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 Labels

case digest
2) "Chain conspiracy," usually involving the distribution of narcotics or other
criminal law
contraband, in which there is successive communication and cooperation in much
the same way as with legitimate business operations between manufacturer and
Subscribe To
wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and consumer.
Posts
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 Comments
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.

*The above case digest is only a guide. I highly recommend that you read the FULL
TEXT.

at October 28, 2017

Labels: case digest, criminal law, plunder

No comments:

chroniclesofaloststudent.blogspot.com/2017/10/estrada-vs-sandiganbayan.html 2/3
6/2/2021 Chronicles of a Lost Student: ESTRADA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

Post a Comment

Enter your comment...

Comment as: hindipakamidoc Sign out

Publish Preview Notify me

Newer Post Home

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

INTOD vs CA

G.R. No. 103119 October 21, 1992 FACTS: At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening,
Petitioner, Mandaya, Pangasian, Tubio and D...

GONZALES vs. ABAYA

G.R. No. 164007 August 10, 2006 FACTS: Some armed members of the AFP had
abandoned their designated places of assignment with an ...

VILLAREAL VS. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 151258 February 1, 2012 FACTS: In February 1991, seven freshmen law
students (including Leonardo "Lenny"...

ESTRADA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. No. 148965 February 26, 2002 FACTS: In connection with the impeachment
proceedings against President Joseph Estrada, five criminal com...

Simple theme. Theme images by merrymoonmary. Powered by Blogger.

chroniclesofaloststudent.blogspot.com/2017/10/estrada-vs-sandiganbayan.html 3/3