Guilty as charged: A Legal Analysis of Criminal Case No. 26558 entitled ‘People of the Philippines v. Joseph Ejercito Estrada’” for plunder

Introduction

As a criminal law practitioner and professor of law, I write this analysis to outline simply and clearly the charge of plunder against former President Joseph Estrada, to explain the essential elements of the crime defined and penalized under R.A. No. 7080 (Law on Plunder) and to present the key findings of fact and law upon which the special division of the Sandigandayan made its decision. Certain legal questions are answered (“How can President Erap be convicted if jueteng money is not public funds? How can he be convicted while his co-conspirators acquitted?”) Legal consequences are likewise discussed. Political considerations and rhetoric there are none.

As a quick predicate, we emphasize that the prosecution utilized a “smoking gun,” a conspirator and necessarily an eyewitness to unravel the overall pattern of graft and corruption and secure conviction in this case.

The charge of plunder - elements of the crime

Former President Estrada a.k.a. “Asiong Salonga” and a.k.a. “Jo­se Velarde,” together with several others chiefly Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, Charlie “Atong” Ang, Edward Serapio, Yolanda T. Ricaforte and Delia Rajas were charged for the crime of plunder for allegedly taking advantage of his official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence from June 1998 to January 2001, to accumulate and acquire ill-gotten wealth in the total amount of P4,097,804,173.17 more or less thereby unjustly enriching themselves at the expense and to the damage of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.

The crime of plunder has three (3) elements as enumerated in the leading case of Joseph Ejercito Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148560, promulgated November 19, 2001) upholding the constitutionality of the Anti-plunder Law:

1. It is committed by a public officer. (The former President of the Republic is definitely a public officer.)

2. The aggregate amount or total value involved is at least P50,000,000. (The amount in the charge sheet was about P4 billion and the court found P800 million more or less.)

Only the third element is the subject of comment.

3. It is committed by any combination or series of the following six (6) categories of enumeration:

(a) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury;

(b) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned;

(c) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the national government;

(d) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;

(e) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or

(f) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.