Mabini Hall - Access to Justice

“Combination” refers to at least two acts falling under different categories of enumeration. “Series” means two or more overt or criminal acts falling under the same category of enumeration.

In the charge sheet, the combination or series of criminal or overt acts was stated as follows:

(a) receiving or collecting money as a gift, share or kickback in the aggregate amount of P545,000,000 from illegal gambling, more popularly known as “jueteng money”;

(b) misappropriating or converting public funds in the amount of P130,000,000 in tobacco excise tax share allocated for the province of Ilocos Sur (“tobacco excise tax”);

(c) ordering and compelling GSIS and SSS to purchase shares of stock in Belle Corp. totaling P1,847,578,057.50 and collecting the percentage amount of P189,700,000 as commission from Belle Corp. (“GSIS-SSS-Belle”); and

(d) unjustly enriching himself through other forms of pecuniary benefits in connivance with unnamed persons in the amount of P3,233,104,173.17 and deposited in the so-called Jose Velarde account (the “Velarde account”).

Thus, the accused will be found guilty of plunder if any two of the four acts (“combination”) or, if under any one of the categories, at least two criminal acts (“series”), are proven beyond reasonable doubt. Note the conjunctive word, “or.”

Furthermore, in Jose “Jinggoy” E. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002), the Supreme Court ruled that receiving or collecting money from illegal gambling “on several instances” means that it was committed in a series. It is incorrect to claim that it was only one act consisting of “several instances” to get out of the finding that there was “a series of criminal acts.”

In the same case, the “GSIS-SSS-Belle” item can be broken into the act of (1) the President’s order of illegally conveying or disposing of government assets - GSIS-SSS funds, and (2) receiving commission, percentage or kickbacks from Belle by reason of his office. There is already a “combination.”

Jurisprudence and legal analysis

It is therefore erroneous to argue that President Estrada cannot be convicted of plunder because no public funds were involved because jueteng money is private funds. His receipt of jueteng money granting that it is private funds is a violation of the other categories of receiving kickbacks by reason of the office or position or 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 which do not necessarily involve public funds.

Interestingly, the rule of evidence in the Anti-plunder Law is different from other special penal laws. It says under Section 4 that for purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy.

The legislature took cognizance of the nature of the crime of plunder as it involves “acts done not in the public eye but in stealth and secrecy over a period of time, that may involve so many persons, here and abroad, and which touch so many states and territorial units resulting in material damage to the national economy. … The anatomy of graft and corruption has become more elaborate in the corridors of time as unscrupulous people relentlessly contrive more and more ingenious ways to milk the coffers of the government. Drastic and radical measures are imperative to fight the increasingly sophisticated, extraordinarily methodical and economically catastrophic looting of the national treasury.”

Moreover, procedurally, R.A. 7080 mandates that the separate transactions of graft and corruption be enumerated in a single information to establish the crime of plunder because “there is a common purpose for committing them, namely, that of amassing, accumulating or acquiring wealth through such overt or criminal acts. The pattern is the organizing principle that defines what otherwise would be discreet criminal acts into the single crime of plunder.” Prior to this law, “prosecutors found no appropriate law to deal with the multitude and magnitude of the acts allegedly committed by former President [Marcos] to acquire illegal wealth.” The existing legal regime was that “if the acts involved different transactions, different time and different personalities, then every transaction constituted a separate crime and required a separate case and the overall conspiracy had to be broken down into several criminal and graft charges.” It was legally cumbersome and procedurally difficult.

In this case, what was needed was to prove the “wheel” of conspiracy with President Estrada as the hub while the spokes are the other 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.

And what the Sandiganbayan found precisely was a pattern of:

(i) a series of acts of receiving bi-monthly collections from “jueteng,” a form of illegal gambling or repeated collections, during the period beginning November 1998 to August 2000 in the amount of P545,291,000; and

(ii) a combination consisting of two acts of ordering the GSIS and the SSS to purchase shares of stock of Belle Corp. and collecting or receiving commission from the sales of Belle Shares in the amount of P189,700,000 which was deposited in the Jose Velarde account.

The Court emphasized that either (i) or (ii) is sufficient for the conviction for plunder and it is academic to discuss if President Estrada was guilty of two counts of plunder because only one information was filed against him.

As to the conspiracy charge, it was not clear to the Court who among the accused benefited from the misappropriation of the tobacco excise tax share and in what amounts. The same is true for the Velarde account about which the prosecution failed to discharge this burden of proof. Verily, the court found that it was only President Erap who benefited from these transactions. Thus, the same charges were dismissed as to the other accused, namely Jinggoy Estrada and Edward Charles Serapio, for lack of evidence. However, the Court ruled still that there was conspiracy - between President Estrada and Gov. Luis “Chavit” Singson although the latter was granted immunity from suit for turning state witness.

Conclusion

President Estrada was sentenced to reclusion perpetua entailing an imprisonment of from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years, the death penalty having been abolished. Consonant with applicable laws, the period within which President Estrada has been under detention shall be credited to him in full as long as he agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.

The remaining issues relate to the filing of a motion for reconsideration and if denied, elevation to the Supreme Court, the finality of the decision, the eligibility under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, for parole and pardon, possible amnesty, the place and conditions of detention in the interim. Political considerations may enter. We continue to anchor our arguments on the spirit and letter of the law. In the meantime, the legal gobbledygook functus oficio, now fashionable, simply means of no force and effect.