Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Peoplevs.Sandiganbayan(SpecialDivision)
*
G.R.No.158754.August10,2007.
_______________
*ENBANC.
765
VOL.529,AUGUST10,2007 765
Peoplevs.Sandiganbayan(SpecialDivision)
ducedinthebailhearingtodeterminewhetherornotdeprivationoftheright
tobailiswarranted.Needlesstostress,agrantofbaildoesnotpreventthe
trieroffacts,thesameAntiGraftCourt,frommakingafinalassessmentof
the evidence after full trial on the merits. As jurisprudence teaches: x x x
Suchappreciation[ofevidence]isatbestpreliminaryandshouldnotprevent
the trial judge from making a final assessment of the evidence before him
after full trial. It is not an uncommon occurrence that an accused person
grantedbailisconvictedinduecourse.
SPECIALCIVILACTIONintheSupremeCourt.Certiorari.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
TheSolicitorGeneralforpetitioner.
Flaminiano, Cuevas, Agabin, Verzola, Fortun and Saguisag
forrespondents.
ManuelPamarancounseldeoficio.
GARCIA,J.:
_______________
JusticeEdilbertoG.Sandovalid.,atpp.231241.
766
766 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Sandiganbayan(SpecialDivision)
The factual antecedents which3
gave rise to this proceeding are set
forth in the Courts Decision of February 26, 2002, in G.R. No.
148965,towit:
In November 2000, as an offshoot of the impeachment
proceedings against Joseph Ejercito Estrada, then President of the
Republic of the Philippines, five criminal complaints against the
formerPresidentandmembersofhisfamily,hisassociates,friends
andconspiratorswerefiledwiththeOfficeoftheOmbudsman.
OnApril4,2001,theOmbudsmanissuedaJointResolution
findingprobablecausewarrantingthefilingwiththeSandiganbayan
ofseveralcriminalInformationsagainsttheformerPresidentandthe
other respondents therein. One of the Informations was for the
crime of plunder under Republic Act [RA] No. 7080 and among
the respondents was herein petitioner Jose Jinggoy Estrada,
thenmayorofSanJuan,MetroManila.
The Information was amended and filed on April 18, 2001.
Docketed as Criminal Case No. 26558, the case was assigned to
[the] respondent Third Division of the Sandiganbayan. xxx.
(Emphasisadded.)
The amended information referred to, like the original, charged
respondent Jinggoy, together with the former President and several
others,withplunder,definedandpenalizedunderRANo.7080,as
amended by Section 12 of RA No. 7659, allegedly committed as
follows:
That during the period from June, 1998 to January, 2001, in the
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused
Joseph Ejercito Estrada, THEN A PUBLIC OFFICER, , by himself
AND/ORinCONNIVANCE/CONSPIRACYwithhiscoaccused,WHOARE
MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY, RELATIVES BY AFFINITY OR
CONSANGUINITY, BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, SUBORDINATES AND/OR
OTHER PERSONS, BY TAKING UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF HIS
OFFICIALPOSITION,AUTHORITY,
_______________
3Estradav.Sandiganbayan,377SCRA538,54344.
767
VOL.529,AUGUST10,2007 767
Peoplevs.Sandiganbayan(SpecialDivision)
768
768 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Sandiganbayan(SpecialDivision)
What transpired next are narrated in the same February 26, 2002
DecisioninG.R.No.148965,thus:
On April 25, 2001, the respondent court issued a warrant of arrest for
[Jinggoy] and his coaccused. On its basis, [Jinggoy] and his coaccused
wereplacedincustodyofthelaw.
On April 30, 2001, [Jinggoy] filed a Very Urgent Omnibus Motion
alleging that: (1) no probable cause exists to put him on trial and hold him
liableforplunder,itappearingthathewasonlyallegedlyinvolvedinillegal
gambling and not in a series or combination of overt or criminal acts as
requiredinR.A.No.7080and(2)heisentitledtobailasamatterofright.
[He] prayed that he be excluded from the Amended Information . In the
alternative,[he]alsoprayedthathebeallowedtopostbail..
OnJune28,2001,[he]filedaMotiontoResolveMayorJoseJinggoy
EstradasMotionToFixBailOnGroundsThatAnOutgoingMayorLoses
Clout An Incumbent Has And That On Its Face, the Facts Charged In The
InformationDoNotMakeOutANonBailableOffenseAsToHim.
xxxxxxxxx
OnJuly9,2001,respondentSandiganbayanissuedaResolutiondenying
[Jinggoys] Motion to Quash and Suspend and Very Urgent Omnibus
Motion. [His] alternative prayer to post bail was set for hearing after
arraignmentofallaccused.xxx
xxxxxxxxx
_______________
4Id.,atpp.546548.
769
VOL.529,AUGUST10,2007 769
Peoplevs.Sandiganbayan(SpecialDivision)
The following day, July 10, 2001, [Jinggoy] moved for reconsideration of
the Resolution. Respondent court denied the motion and proceeded to
arraign[him].[He]refusedtomakehispleapromptingrespondentcourtto
5
enter a plea of not guilty for him. (Emphasis and words in brackets
added)
FromthedenialactionoftheSandiganbayanimmediatelyadverted
to, Jinggoy interposed a petition for certiorari before this Court
claimingthattherespondentSandiganbayancommittedgraveabuse
ofdiscretionin,interalia,(a)sustainingthechargeagainsthimfor
allegedoffensesandwithallegedconspiratorswithwhomheisnot
even connected, and (b) in not fixing bail for him. Pending
resolution of this petition, docketed as G.R. No. 148965, Jinggoy
filedwiththeSandiganbayananUrgentSecondMotionforBailfor
MedicalReasons.TheOmbudsmanopposedthemotion.Forthree
(3)daysinSeptember2001,theSandiganbayanconductedhearings
onthemotionforbail,withoneDr.RobertoAnastaciooftheMakati
6
MedicalCenterappearingassolewitnessforJinggoy.
OnDecember18,2001,JinggoyfiledwiththeCourtanUrgent
Motion praying for early resolution of his Petition for Bail on
Medical/Humanitarian Considerations. He reiterated his earlier
plea for bail filed with the Sandiganbayan. On the same day, the
Court referred the motion to the Sandiganbayan for resolution and
directed said court to make a7 report, not later than 8:30 in the
morningofDecember21,2001.
Thereportwassubmittedasdirected.AttachedtotheReportwas
acopyoftheSandiganbayansResolutiondatedDecember20,2001
denying Jinggoys motion for bail for lack of factual basis.
According to the graft court, basing its findings on the earlier
testimony of Dr. Anastacio, Jinggoy failed to submit sufficient
evidencetoconvincethecourtthatthe
_______________
5Id.,atp.545.
6Id.,atp.566.
7Id.,atp.566.
770
770 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Sandiganbayan(SpecialDivision)
_______________
8Id.,atp.566.
9Id.,atpp.567568.
10Rollo,Volume1,pp.283291.
11Supranote1.
771
VOL.529,AUGUST10,2007 771
Peoplevs.Sandiganbayan(SpecialDivision)
I.
II.
_______________
12Supranote2.
13Petition,pp.103104Rollo,pp.104105.
772
772 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Sandiganbayan(SpecialDivision)
III.
IV.
Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by
reclusionperpetuawhenevidenceofguiltisstrong,shall,beforeconviction,
be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be
providedbylaw.xxx.
Evenifthecapitaloffensechargedisbailableowingtotheweakness
of the evidence of guilt, the right to bail may
14
justifiably still be
denied if the probability of escape is great. Here, ever since the
promulgationoftheassailedResolutionsalittlemorethanfour(4)
yearsago,Jinggoydoesnot,asdeterminedbySandiganbayan,seem
tobeaflightrisk.Wequotewithapprovalwhatthegraftcourtwrote
inthisregard:
_______________
14Peoplev.Baldoz,G.RNo.140032,November20,2001,369SCRA690,708.
773
VOL.529,AUGUST10,2007 773
Peoplevs.Sandiganbayan(SpecialDivision)
It is not open to serious doubt that the movant [Jinggoy] has, in general,
been consistently respectful of the Court and its processes. He has not
ominously shown, by word or by deed, that he is of such a flight risk that
would necessitate his continued incarceration. Bearing in mind his conduct,
social standing and his other personal circumstances,
15
the possibility of his
escapeinthiscaseseemsremoteifnotnil.
_______________
15AssailedResolutiondatedMarch5,2003,p.30,Rollo,Volume1,p.229.
774
774 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Sandiganbayan(SpecialDivision)
under par. (c) and (d), albeit, he is not so named in the last three
paragraphs. And since the central figure in the overlapping
conspiracies, i.e., President Estrada, is charged with a capital
offense, all those within the conspiracy loop would be considered
chargedwiththesamekindofnonbailableoffense. 16
Explainingitspoint,petitionercitesPeoplev.Castelo which,as
here, also involves multiple levels of conspiracies. Just like in the
present case where the lead accused is a former President no less,
the prime suspect in Castelo was also a powerful highranking
government officiala former Judge who later rose to hold, in a
concurrent capacity, the positions of Secretary of Justice and
SecretaryofNationalDefense,tobeprecise.InCastelo,chargesand
countercharges were initially hurled by and between Castelo and
Senator Claro Recto, who was then planning to present Manuel
MonroyasstarwitnessagainstCasteloinascandalcase.Casteloleft
thePhilippinesforKorea.Whileaway,someoneshotMonroydead.
Evidence pointed to a conspiracy led by a certain Ben Ulo (who
appearstobethemastermind)andagroupofconfidentialagentsof
the Department of National Defense, one of whom was the
triggerman. Coincidentally, Ben Ulo was a close bodyguard of
Castelo. In the end, the Solicitor General tagged Ben Ulo (not
Castelo) as the central figure in the conspiracy. This
notwithstanding, the Court held Castelo guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for murder, because only he had a motive for desiring
Monroysdemise.TheconspiracybetweenCasteloandBenUlowas
thendeterminedtobeoverlappingwiththeconspiracybetweenBen
Uloandtheconfidentialagents,oneofwhomwasthetriggerman.
Further explaining the theory of overlapping 17
conspiracies,
petitionercitestherulinginPeoplev.TySuiWong, featur
_______________
16Peoplev.Castelo,G.R.No.L10774,May30,1964,11SCRA193.
17Peoplev.TySuiWong,G.R.No.L32529,May12,1978,83SCRA125.
775
VOL.529,AUGUST10,2007 775
Peoplevs.Sandiganbayan(SpecialDivision)
ingalovetriangleinvolvingacertainVictorandMariano,eachout
to win the heart of Ruby. Victor left Manila for Mindanao. While
Victorwasaway,thedeadbodyofMarianowasfoundwithmultiple
stab wounds in a dark alley in Pasay. Evidence pointed to a
conspiracy among Sampaloc hoodlums who had no direct link
with Victor. However, one of the neighbors of the Sampaloc
hoodlums was a classmate of Victor. In the end, on the basis of
interlocking confessions, the Court found Victor and his classmate
togetherwithalltheSampalochoodlumsguiltyofmurder.
PositingtheapplicabilityofCasteloandTySuiWong under the
premises,petitionerpresentlyargues:
ItshouldbenotedthatthisisthesamescenarioofaccusedJosephEstrada
conspiringwithformerGov.Singsonforthecollectionandreceiptofbribes
(jueteng protection money) and of former Gov. Singson involving
respondent Jinggoy Estrada in yet another level of conspiracy in pursuit of
thefirst,i.e.,theregularcollectionofjuetengprotectionmoneyforaccused
JosephEstradaand,respondentJinggoyEstrada,awareofthedetailsofthe
conspiracy between accused Joseph Estrada and Gov. Singson, agreeing to
remitthegreaterpartofhiscollectionofbribestoaccusedJosephEstradaas
its ultimate beneficiary. Thus, respondent Jinggoy Estrada reached an
agreement with former Gov. Singson, executed the plan and participated in
furtherance of the conspiracy for the receipt and collection of jueteng
protection money, i.e., collecting P3 Million in jueteng protection money
every month remitting P2 Million thereof to former Gov. Singson for
delivery to accused Joseph Estrada and retaining P1 Million thereof for
himself.
Similarly,therefore,respondentJinggoyEstradashouldhavebeendenied
bail since he is as guilty and
18
liable as accused Joseph Estrada for the non
bailableoffenseofPlunder.
Asweseeit,therulingsinCasteloandTySuiWongarenotonall
fours applicable to and of governing sway to the issue of the
proprietyofrevokingJinggoysreleaseonbail.
_______________
18PetitionersMemorandum,pp.127128,Rollo,pp.51955196.
776
776 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Sandiganbayan(SpecialDivision)
_______________
19AssailedResolutiondatedMarch5,2003,p.30Rollo,Volume1,p.229.
777
VOL.529,AUGUST10,2007 777
Peoplevs.Sandiganbayan(SpecialDivision)
_______________
20RevisedPenalCode,Article8,2ndparagraph.
21Peoplev.Ponce,G.R.No.126254,September29,2000,341SCRA352,361.
22Peoplev.DelRosario,G.R.No.127755,April14,1999,305SCRA740,755.
778
778 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Sandiganbayan(SpecialDivision)
graphicnotespurportingtoprovethatJinggoyhadbeendeepinside
thewebofimpliedconspiracyunderthesecondargumentofthis
petition.Fromtheimpliedconspiracytheory,itthenshiftsgearsto
embrace the equally guilty hypothesis under the fallback third
argument.
Regardless, however, of whatever legal strategy petitioner may
haveinmind,thefundamentalprinciplethattheCourtisnotatrier
of facts remains. Petitioners second and third arguments are to be
sure relevant to the proceedings for the grant or denial of bail that
were pending before in the Sandiganbayan. They are of little
momentherewheretheonlyissuenowiswhetherornottherewas
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan in
grantingbailtotheprivaterespondent.
Withtheviewwetakeofthiscase,therespondentcourtdidnot
commitgraveabuseofdiscretioninissuingitsassailedresolutions,
becausethegrantofbailthereinispredicatedonlyonitspreliminary
appreciation of the evidence adduced in the bail hearing to
determine whether or not deprivation of the right to bail is
warranted. Needless to stress, a grant of bail does not prevent the
trier of facts, the same AntiGraft Court, from making a final
assessment of the evidence after full trial on the merits. As
jurisprudenceteaches:
xxxSuchappreciation[ofevidence]isatbestpreliminaryandshouldnot
preventthetrialjudgefrommakingafinalassessmentoftheevidencebefore
himafterfulltrial.Itisnotanuncommonoccurrencethatanaccusedperson
23
grantedbailisconvictedinduecourse.
Petitionerslastargumentis,atbottom,anattempttohavetheCourt
reverse in this case its earlier holding in another caseG.R. No.
148965wherewestated:
_______________
23Peoplev.Baldoz,supra.
779
VOL.529,AUGUST10,2007 779
Peoplevs.Sandiganbayan(SpecialDivision)
of plunder. The first paragraph names all the accused, while the second
paragraph describes in general how plunder was committed and lays down
mostoftheelementsofthecrimeitself.Subparagraphs(a)to(d)describe
in detail the predicate acts that constitute the crime and name in
particular the coconspirators of former President Estrada in each
predicate act. The predicate acts alleged in the said four subparagraphs
correspondtotheitemsenumeratedinSection1(d)ofR.A.No.7080.Sub
paragraph (a) alleged the predicate act of receiving, on several
instances,moneyfromillegalgambling,inconsiderationoftolerationor
protectionofillegalgambling,andexpresslynamespetitioner[Jinggoy]
as one of those who conspired with former President Estrada in
committing the offense. This predicate act corresponds with the offense
describedinitem[2]oftheenumerationinSection1(d)ofR.A.No.7080.
Subparagraph (b) alleged the predicate act of diverting, receiving or
misappropriating a portion of the tobacco excise tax share allocated for the
provinceofIlocosSur,whichactistheoffensedescribedinitem[1]inthe
enumerationinSection1(d)ofthelaw.Thissubparagraphdoesnotmention
petitionerbutinsteadnamesotherconspiratorsoftheformerPresident.Sub
paragraph(c)allegedtwopredicateactsthatoforderingthe(GSIS)and
the(SSS)topurchasesharesofstockofBelleCorporation,andcollecting
or receiving commissions from such purchase from the Belle Corporation
which became part of the deposit in the Jose Velarde account at the
EquitablePCIBank.Thesetwopredicateactsfallunderitems[2]and[3]in
the enumeration of R.A. No. 7080, and was allegedly committed by the
formerPresidentinconnivancewithJohnDoesandJaneDoes.Finally,sub
paragraph (d) alleged the predicate act that the former President unjustly
enriched himself from commissions, gifts, kickbacks, in connivance with
John Does and Jane Does, and deposited the same under his account name
Jose Velarde at the EquitablePCI Bank. This act corresponds to the
offenseunderitem[6]intheenumerationofSection1(d)ofR.A.No.7080.
From the foregoing allegations of the Amended Information, it is clear
thatalltheaccusednamedinsubparagraphs(a)to(d),thrutheirindividual
acts, conspired with former President Estrada to enable the latter to amass,
accumulateoracquireillgottenwealth.AstheAmendedInformationis
worded, however, it is not certain whether the accused in sub
paragraphs (a) to (d) conspired with each other to enable the former
Presidentto
780
780 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Sandiganbayan(SpecialDivision)
Itshouldbeemphasizedthatinthecourseoftheproceedingsintheinstant
case, respondent Jinggoy Estrada waived the benefit of the said ruling and
opted, instead, to participate, as he did participate and later proceeded to
crossexaminewitnesseswhosetestimonieswereclearlyofferedtoprovethe
otherconstitutiveactsofPlunderallegedintheAmendedInformationunder
25
subparagraphsb,candd.
Wedisagree.
At bottom, the petitioner assumes that the ruling accorded
benefitstorespondentJinggoythatwereinexistentatthestartof
thatcase.Butnosuchbenefitswereextended,astheCourtdidnot
readintotheAmendedInformation,ascouched,somethingnotthere
in thefirstplace.Respondent Jinggoys participation, if that be the
case,intheproceedingsinvolvingsubparagraphsb,candd,
didnotchangethelegalsituationsetforthintheaforequotedportion
of the Courts ruling in G.R. No. 148965. For when it passed, in
G.R.No.148965,upontheinculpatoryactsenvisagedandascribed
in
_______________
24Supranote3at553554.
25PetitionersMemorandum,pp.209218,Rollo,pp.52775288.
781
VOL.529,AUGUST10,2007 781
Peoplevs.Sandiganbayan(SpecialDivision)
theAmendedInformationagainstJinggoy,theCourtmerelydefined
whathewasindictedandcanbepenalizedfor.Inlegaljargon,the
Courtinformedhimofthenatureandcauseoftheaccusationagainst
26
him,arightguaranteedanaccusedundertheConstitution. Infine,
allthattheCourtcontextuallydidinG.R.No.148965wasnomore
than to implement his right to be informed of the nature of the
accusationinthelightofthefilingoftheAmendedInformationas
worded. If at all, the Courts holding in G.R. No. 148965 freed
individual respondent from the ill effects of a wrong interpretation
thatmightbegiventotheAmendedInformation.
In all, the Court rules that public respondent Sandiganbayan
(Special Division) did not commit grave abuse of discretion when,
after conducting numerous bail hearings and evaluating the weight
oftheprosecutionsevidence,itdeterminedthattheevidenceagainst
individual respondent was not strong and, on the basis of that
determination,resolvedtogranthimbail.
Asafinalconsideration,theCourtnotesastatementmadebythe
respondentcourtwhichaddsanappropriatedimensiontoitsresolve
tograntbailsubjectofthisrecourse.Wrotethatcourtinitsassailed
resolutionofMarch6,2003:
xxxCorollarily,itisnotamisstostatethat,atthistime,thereloomsthe
possibility that, in case of conviction, [respondent Jinggoys] criminal
liability would probably not warrant the death penalty or reclusion
perpetua.(UnderscoringintheoriginalWordsinbracketadded).
WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionisDISMISSED.
Nopronouncementastocosts.
_______________
26Constitution,ArticleIII(BillofRights),Section14(2).
782
782 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
UniversalBroadcastingCorporationvs.Sandiganbayan(5th
Division)
SOORDERED.
Petitiondismissed.
o0o
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.