REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SANDIGANBAYAN
QUEZON CITY
---
SPECIAL DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Criminal Case No. 26558
Plaintiff, For: PLUNDER
- versus –
JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA,
Former President of the
Republic of the Philippines,
JOSE “JINGGOY” ESTRADA,
CHARLIE “ATONG” TIU HAY SY ANG,
EDWARD S. SERAPIO,
YOLANDA T. RICAFORTE, PRESENT:
ALMA ALFARO,
JOHN DOE also known as LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, PJ, Chairperson
ELEUTERIO RAMOS TAN or MR. UY, VILLARUZ, JR., and
JANE DOE also known as PERALTA, JJ.
DELIA RAJAS,
JOHN DOES and JANE DOES, PROMULGATED:
Accused.
September 12, 2007
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
Republic Act (RA) No. 7080 as amended was approved on July 12, 1991, creating and introducing into our criminal legal system the crime of “plunder”. This law penalizes public officers who would amass immense wealth through a series or combination of overt or criminal acts described in the statute in violation of the public trust. RA No. 7080 or the Anti-Plunder Law was a consolidation of Senate Bill no. 733 and House Bill No. 22752. The Explanatory Note of Senate Bill No. 733, quoted in the case of Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002, 377 SCRA 538, 555), explains the reason behind the law as follows:
Plunder, a term chosen from other equally apt terminologies like kleptocracy and economic treason, punishes the use of high office for personal enrichment, committed thru a series of 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. The acts and/or omissions sought to be penalized do not involve simple cases of malversation of public funds, bribery, extortion, theft and graft but constitute plunder of an entire nation resulting in material damage to the national economy. The above-described crime does not yet exist in Philippine statute books. Thus, the need to come up with a legislation as a safeguard against the possible recurrence of the depravities of the previous regime and as a deterrent to those with similar inclination to succumb to the corrupting influence of power.
The majority opinion in the above-cited case, penned by Honorable Justice Josue N. Bellosillo, further explained the rationale behind the Anti-Plunder Law in this manner:
Our nation has been racked by scandals of corruption and obscene profligacy of officials in high places which have shaken its very foundation. 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. Such is the Plunder Law, especially designed to disentangle those ghastly tissues of grand-scale corruption which, if left unchecked, will spread like a malignant tumor and ultimately consume the moral and institutional fiber of our nation. The Plunder Law, indeed, is a living testament to the will of the legislature to ultimately eradicate this scourge and thus secure society against the avarice and other venalities in public office.
These are times that try men’s souls. In the checkered history of this nation, few issues of national importance can equal the amount of interest and passion generated by petitioner’s ignominious fall from the highest office, and his eventual prosecution and trial under a virginal statute. This continuing saga has driven a wedge of dissension among our people that may linger for a long time. Only by responding to the clarion call for patriotism, to rise above factionalism and prejudices, shall we emerge triumphant in the midst of ferment. [Emphasis Supplied]
The present case is the first of its kind to be filed charging the highest official of the land, a former President, among others, of the offense of plunder. Needless to state, the resolution of this case shall set significant historical and legal precedents.
Throughout the six years over which the court proceedings in this case unfolded, this Court confronted numerous novel and complicated legal issues (including the constitutionality of the plunder law, propriety of house arrest, among others), heard lengthy testimonies from several dozens of witnesses from both sides and perused voluminous documentary evidence and pleadings from the parties. Considering the personalities involved and the nature of the crime charged, the present case aroused particularly intense interest from the public. Speculations on the probable outcome of the case received unparalleled attention from the media and other sectors of society. Indeed, the factual and legal complexities of the case are further compounded by attempts to sensationalize the proceedings for various ends.
However, this Court is ever mindful of its imperative duty to act as an impartial arbiter: (a) to serve the interest of the State and the public in punishing those who would so severely abuse their public office and those private individuals would aid them or conspire with them and (b) to protect the right of the accused to be only convicted upon guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the decision of this Court follows, upon no other consideration other than the law and a review of the evidence on record.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
AND THE PROCEEDINGS
__________________________
This case for plunder commenced with the filing on April 4, 2001 of the Information which is quoted hereunder:
INFORMATION
The undersigned Ombudsman Prosecutor and OIC-Director, EPIB, Office of the Ombudsman, hereby accuses former Joseph Ejercito Estrada, together with Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, Charlie ‘Atong” Ang, Edward Serapio, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Alma Alfaro, Eleuterio Tan a.k.a. Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas, and John & Jane Does, of the crime of Plunder, defined and penalized under R.A. No. 7080, as amended by Sec. 12 of R.A. No. 7659, 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, by himself and in conspiracy with his co-accused, business associates and persons heretofore named, by taking advantage of his official position, authority, connection or influence as President of the Republic of the Philippines, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate and acquire ill-gotten wealth, and unjustly enrich himself in the aggregate amount of P4,097,804,173.17, more or less, through a combination and series of overt and criminal acts, described as follows:
(a) by receiving, collecting, directly or indirectly, on many instances, so-called “jueteng money” from gambling operators in connivance with co-accused Jose ‘Jinggoy’ Estrada, Yolanda T. Ricaforte and Edward Serapio, as witnessed by Gov. Luis ‘Chavit’ Singson, among other witnesses, in the aggregate amount of FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE MILLION PESOS (P545,000,000.00), more or less, in consideration of their protection from arrest or interference by law enforcers in their illegal “jueteng” activities; and
(b) by misappropriating, converting and miusing for his gain and benefit public fund in the amount of ONE HUNDRRED THIRTY MILLION PESOS (P130,000,000.00), more or less, representing a portion of the One Hundred Seventy Million Pesos (P170,000,000.00) tobacco excise tax share allocated for the Province of Ilocos Sur under R.A. No. 7171, in conspiracy with co-accused Charlie ‘Atong’ Ang, Alma Alfaro, Eleuterio Tan a.k.a Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, and Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas, as witnessed by Gov. Luis ‘Chavit’ Singson, among other witnesses; and
(c) by directing, ordering and compelling the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and the Social Security System (SSS) to purchase and buy a combined total of 681,733,000 shares of stock of the Belle Corporatiion in the aggregate gross value of One Billion Eight Hundred Forty-Seven Million Five Hundred Seventy Eight Thousand Fifty Seven Pesos and Fifty Centavos (P1,847,578,057.50), for the purpose of collecting for his personal gain and benefit, as in fact he did collect and receive the sum of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P 189,700,000.00), as commission from said stock purchase; and
(d) by unjustly enriching himself in the amount of THREE BILLION TWO HUNDRED THIRTY THREE MILLION ONE HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE PESOS AND SEVENTEEN CENTAVOS (P 3,233,104,173.17) comprising his unexplained wealth acquired, accumulated and amassed by him under his account name “Jose Velarde” with Equitable PCI Bank;
to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Various motions were filed by accused Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada (FPres. Estrada), Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada (Jinggoy Estrada), and Edward S. Serapio (Serapio). Accused Serapio filed his Urgent Omnibus Motion (a) to Hold in abeyance the issuance of warrant of arrest and further Proceedings; (b) to conduct a determination of probable cause; (c) for leave to file accused’s motion for reconsideration and /or reinvestigation; and (d) to direct the Ombudsman to conduct a reinvestigation of the charges against accused Serapio dated April 6, 2001. While accused FPres. Estrada filed three (3) motions; (1) Urgent Motion to Defer Proceedings, dated April 9, 2001, (2) Position Paper Re: Probable Cause (ex abundante ad cautelam) dated April 9, 2001 which was joined by accused Jinggoy Estrada, and (3) Motion to (a) remand the case to the Ombudsman for preliminary investigation consistent with the Honorable Supreme Court’s Resolution in G.R. No. 147512-19 (Joseph E. Estrada v. Hon. Aniano Desierto, et al.); and (b) hold in abeyance judicial action in the case particularly the issuance of a warrant of arrest and steps leading thereto until after the conduct of a proper preliminary investigation, dated April 11, 2001.
In a Resolution promulgated on April 16, 2001, the Court directed the prosecution to submit to the Court not later than April 18, 2001 the required affidavits, counter-affidavits, and supporting evidence as well as other supporting documents accompanying the Information, which were needed to determine the existence of probable cause for the issuance or non-issuance of a warrant of arrest. As directed, the prosecution filed on April 18, 2001 its Manifestation and Compliance.
On April 19, 2001, the prosecution filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to admit Amended Information, which is quoted hereunder:
AMENDED INFORMATION
The undersigned Ombudsman Prosecutor and OIC-Director, EPIB, Office of the Ombudsman, hereby accuses former PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, Joseph Ejercito Estrada a.k.a. “ASIONG SALONGA” AND a.k.a. “JOSE VELARDE”, together with Jose ‘Jinggoy’ Estrada, Charlie “Atong” Ang, Edward Serapio, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Alma Alfaro, JOHN DOE a.k.a. Eleuterio Tan OR Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas, and John DOES & Jane Does, of the crime of Plunder, defined and penalized under R.A. No. 7080, as amended by Sec. 12 of R.A. No. 7659, 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, BEING THEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, by himself AND/OR in CONNIVANCE/CONSPIRACY with his co-accused, WHO ARE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY, RELATIVES BY AFFINITY OR CONSANGUINITY, BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, SUBORDINATES AND/OR OTHER PERSONS, BY TAKING UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF HIS OFFICIAL POSITION, AUTHORITY, RELATIONSHIP, CONNECTION, OR INFLUENCE, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate and acquire BY HIMSELF, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount OR TOTAL VALUE of FOUR BILLION NINETY SEVEN MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE PESOS AND SEVENTEEN CENTAVOS [P4,097,804,173.17], more or less, THEREBY UNJUSTLY ENRICHING HIMSELF OR THEMSELVES AT THE EXPENSE AND TO THE DAMAGE OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, through ANY OR A combination OR A series of overt OR criminal acts, OR SIMILAR SCHEMES OR MEANS, described as follows:
(a) by receiving OR collecting, directly or indirectly, on SEVERAL INSTANCES, MONEY IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE MILLION PESOS (P545,000,000.00), MORE OR LESS, FROM ILLEGAL GAMBLING IN THE FORM OF GIFT, SHARE, PERCENTAGE, KICKBACK OR ANY FORM OF PECUNIARY BENEFIT, BY HIMSELF AND/OR in connivance with co-accused CHARLIE ‘ATONG’ ANG, JOSE ‘Jinggoy’ Estrada, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Edward Serapio, AND JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, in consideration OF TOLERATION OR PROTECTION OF ILLEGAL GAMBLING;
(b) by DIVERTING, RECEIVING, misappropriating, converting OR misusing DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, for HIS OR THEIR PERSONAL gain and benefit, public funds in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY MILLION PESOS [P130,000,000.00], more or less, representing a portion of the TWO HUNDRED MILLION PESOS [P200,000,000.00] tobacco excise tax share allocated for the Province of Ilocos Sur under R.A. No. 7171, BY HIMSELF AND/OR in CONNIVANCE with co-accused Charlie ‘Atong’ Ang, Alma Alfaro, JOHN DOE a.k.a. Eleuterio Tan OR Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, and Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas, AND OTHER JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES;
(c) by directing, ordering and compelling, FOR HIS PERSONAL GAIN AND BENEFIT, the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) TO PURCHASE, 351,878,000 SHARES OF STOCKS, MORE OR LESS, and the Social Security System (SSS), 329,855,000 SHARES OF STOCK, MORE OR LESS, OF THE BELLE CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF MORE OR LESS ONE BILLION ONE HUNDRED TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SEVEN PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS [P1,102,965,607.50] AND MORE OR LESS SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY FOUR MILLION SIX HUNDRED TWELVE THOUSAND AND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS [P744,612,450.00], RESPECTIVELY, OR A TOTAL OF MORE OR LESS ONE BILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT THOUSAND FIFTY SEVEN PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS [P1,847,578,057.50]; AND BY COLLECTING OR RECEIVING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY HIMSELF AND/OR IN CONNIVANCE WITH JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, COMMISSIONS OR PERCENTAGES BY REASON OF SAID PURCHASES OF SHARES OF STOCK IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS [P189,700,000.00], MORE OR LESS, FROM THE BELLE CORPORATION WHICH BECAME PART OF THE DEPOSIT IN THE EQUITABLE-PCI BANK UNDER THE ACCOUNT NAME “JOSE VELARDE”;
(d) by unjustly enriching himself FROM COMMISSIONS, GIFTS, SHARES, PERCENTAGES, KICKBACKS, OR ANY FORM OF PECUNIARY BENEFITS, IN CONNIVANCE WITH JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, in the amount of MORE OR LESS THREE BILLION TWO HNDRED THIRTY THREE MILLION ONE HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND AND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE PESOS AND SEVENTEEN CENTAVOS [P3,233,104,173.17] AND DEPOSITING THE SAME UNDER HIS ACCOUNT NAME “JOSE VELARDE” AT THE EQUITABLE-PCI BANK.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On April 20, 2001, the Court in its Minute Resolution granted and admitted the prosecution’s Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Admit Amended Information dated April 18, 2001.
On April 25, 2001, the Court promulgated its Resolution which stated:
Xxx xxx xxx the Court finds and so hold that probable cause for the offense of PLUNDER exists to justify issuance of warrants for the arrest of accused Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, Mayor Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, Charlie “Atong” Ang, Edward Serapio, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Alma Alfaro, John Doe a.k.a. Eleuterio Tan or Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, and Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas.
No bail is fixed for the provisional liberty of the accused for the reason that the penalty imposable for the offense of plunder under RA No. 7080, as amended by Sec. 12 of RA No. 7659, is reclusion perpetua to death.
Director General Leandro R. Mendoza, Chief of the Philippine National Police, shall implement the warrant of arrest upon service to him by Mr. Edgardo A. Urieta, Chief of the Sheriff and Security Services Division of the Sandiganbayan. Once arrested, all the accused shall undergo the required processes and be detained at the PNP Detention Center, Camp Crame, Quezon City subject to, and until, further orders from this Court.
On the 25th day of April 2001, on the basis of the said resolution, the Court issued an Order of Arrest and Hold Departure Order for all the named accused in the present information. The Philippine National Police (PNP) submittd its Report of Compliance dated April 25, 2001 which stated:
1. That in compliance with the Order of Arrest issued by the Honorable Court in the above captioned criminal case, accused Joseph E. Estrada and Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, both residence of no. 1 Polk Street, North Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila voluntarily surrendered to the undersigned on 25 April 2001 at about 3:00 o’clock PM at said residence in the presence of their counsels.
2. That right after their surrender, they were brought inside Camp Crame, Quezon City for the required processes and pending further orders from this Honorable Court they shall be kept in Camp Crame;
A Compliance/Return of Warrant of Arrest was also filed on April 26, 2001 by P/Chief Superintendent Nestor B. Gualberto.
As to accused Serapio, the PNP’s Report of Compliance reads in part:
2. That one of the accused named therein, Atty. Edward S. Serapio, surrendered to the Chief, Philippine National Police, through the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) in Camp Crame, Quezon City on April 25, 2001 at about 9:45 PM where the required processes were administered to him and pending further orders from this Honorable Court he shall be kept in Camp Crame;
The Court, in its Minute Resolution dated April 26, 2001, set the arraignment of the detained accused on May 3, 2001 which was cancelled due to the different motions filed by the accused. Accused Jinggoy Estrada filed his Motion to Quash or Suspend dated April 24, 2001 and a Very Urgent Omnibus Motion dated April 30, 2001. Among other motions, accused FPres. Estrada filed his Motion to Quash dated June 7, 2001 and accused Serapio filed his Motion to Quash (Re: Amended Information dated April 18, 2001) dated June 26, 2001. In its Resolution dated July 9, 2001, the Court denied all the aforesaid motions to quash and accused Jinggoy Estrada’s Very Urgent Omnibus Motion dated April 30, 2001. The Court’s Resolution dated July 9, 2001 was sustained by the Honorable Supreme Court in the Decisions rendered in Joseph Ejercito Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001) and Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002).
On July 10, 2001, the Court denied the motion to defer filed by accused FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada and proceeded with the arraignment of accused FPres. Estrada, Jinggoy Estrada, and Serapio under the Amended Information. The accused having refused to enter a plea, the Court entered a plea of not guilty for all the three (3) accused.
Petitions for Bail / House Arrest
With the detention of accused FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada in Camp Crame on April 25, 2001, both accused filed on the same day an Urgent Ex-parte Motion to Place on House Arrest.
The Court on June 9, 2001, issued a Resolution denying accused FPres. Estrada’s Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Place on House Arrest and issued an Order for the confinement of accused FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada at Fort Sto. Domingo, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, subject to the need for their continued confinement at the Veterans Memorial Medical Center (VMMC) where they were then confined. In view of the said resolution, accused FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada, on June 13, 2001, filed an Omnibus Motion (Re: Resolution promulgated on June 9, 2001) pressing in the alternative a Motion for Detention in Tanay, Rizal.
On March 17, 2004, FPres. Estrada filed a Motion to Modify Custodial Arrangement dated March 17, 2004 and, on March 30, 2004, the counsel de officio of accused FPres. Estrada filed a Manifestation dated March 29, 2004 informing the Court, among others, that the said accused was willing to have his property in Tanay, Rizal placed under the control and supervision of the Court and the Philippine National Police for the duration of his detention.
On July 12, 2004, the Court issued a joint resolution granting FPres. Estrada’s motion to modify Custodial Arrangement dated March 29, 2004 subject to the conditions imposed by the Court. Accused FPres. Estrada filed a Compliance and Acceptance of Conditions on July 13, 2004. Since then, accused FPres. Estrada has been detained in his property at Tanay, Rizal.
When the Court ordered the arrest and detention of the accused in these cases, accused Serapio filed his petition for bail on April 27, 2001. Accused Jinggoy Estrada’s petition for bail was included in his Very Urgent Omnibus Motion dated April 30, 2001.
Accused Serapio’s Petition for Bail was deferred indefinitely as prayed for by the said accused while, on August 14, 2001, accused Jinggoy Estrada filed an Urgent Second Motion for Bail for Medical Reasons dated August 16, 2001 which the prosecution opposed. On December 20, 2001, the Court issued its Resolution denying accused Jinggoy Estrada’s Urgent Second Motion for Bail for Medical Reasons.
Considering the denial of the said motion for bail for medical reasons, accused Jinggoy Estrada, on April 17, 2002, filed an Omnibus Application for Bail dated April 16, 2002. After hearing, the Court issued a Resolution on March 6, 2003 which granted accused Jinggoy Estrada’s Omnibus Application for Bail. The prosecution’s Motion for Reconsideration dated March 13, 2003 was denied in this Court’s Resolution dated April 30, 2003. The aforesaid Resolutions granting bail to Mayor Jinggoy Estrada were upheld by the Honorable Supreme Court in a Decision promulgated in G.R. No. 158754, People vs. Sandiganbayan (Special Division) and Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada (August 10, 2007).
As to accused Serapio, the Court’s Resolution dated September 12, 2003 also granted accused-movant Serapio’s Urgent Petition for Bail dated April 27, 2001. The Court fixed the amount of bail of accused Serapio and Jinggoy Estrada at Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) each which was to paid in cash.
While the case was already in the trial stage, on January 4, 2002 the counsels for the accused Estradas wrote a letter to the Acting Presiding Justice requesting for a re-raffle of the cases against the accused, citing as grounds the continuing uncertain composition of the justices handling the cases against the accused Former President, et al., at that time. The prosecution filed its Opposition to Request for Re-Raffle On January 9, 2002 and its Comment/Suggestion on January 10, 2002 that a Special Third Division be constituted to be composed of the present Presiding Justice, the only remaining member of the Third Division to which the case was raffled, and two other Sandiganbayan Justices who are not retirables within the next three (3) years. Justice Anacleto Badoy, the Chairman of the Third Division, was due to retire on October 2002, while Justice Ilarde, the other member, retired on November 27, 2001. On January 11, 2002, the Sandiganbayan En Banc issued its Resolution 01-2002 recommending to the Supreme Court that the cases against accused FPres. Estrada, et al., be referred to a Special Division. The Supreme Court on January 21, 2002 promulgated its Resolution Creating the Special Division of the Sandiganbayan which shall hear, try and decide with dispatch the Plunder Case and all related cases filed or may hereafter be filed against accused FPres. Estrada, and those accused with him, until they are resolved, decided and terminated. In the Special Division of the Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court retained, as Junior Member, the present Presiding Justice who was then the only remaining member of the Third Division to which the Plunder Case was raffled, and designated the then Presiding Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, as Chairperson, and Associate Justice Edilberto G. Sandoval as Senior Member. This was not the first time that a Special Division of the Sandiganbayan was constituted to try a case. A Special Division was previously constituted to try and decide the Aquino-Galman cases in that composition of the said Division was also maintained until the case was decided notwithstanding the subsequent changes in the composition of the Division due to promotions and/or retirement of its members.
During the same year, the counsel de parte of accused FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada all withdrew their appearances. The Court on March 1, 2002, in order to protect the rights and interest of the accused, appointed the Public Attorneys Office (PAO) and those who have been recommended by the Board of Governor of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, to represent accused FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada as counsel de oficio, namely, Former Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan Manuel Pamaran, Atty. Prospero Crescini, Atty. Irene Jurado and Atty. Manuel Malaya. The PAO lawyers mentioned their duration as counsel de oficio, hence, (Ret.) Presiding Justice Pamaran and the private practitioners represented accused FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada up to the time the prosecution rested its case and submitted to the Court its Formal Offer of Evidence. However, before the presentation of the evidence for the defense, accused FPres. Estrada, in a Letter dated September 1, 2004, informed the Court that he have decided to re-engage the services of the members of his original de parte panel of lawyers.
Upon conclusion of the presentation of prosecution evidence and after the Court have ruled on the offer of evidence of the prosecution, accused FPres. Estrada, Jinggoy Estrada and Serapio filed their respective motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence. In a Joint Resolution dated March 10, 2004, the Court granted accused FPres. Estrada’s Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence in Criminal Case Nos. 26905 and 26565 while it denied the same motion of all the accused in Criminal Case No. 26558 for lack of merit. Subsequently, the Demurrer to Evidence of accused FPres. Estrada was filed. In its Joint Resolution dated July 12, 2004, the Court resolved to deny FPres. Estrada’s Demurrer to Evidence in Criminal Case No. 26905 but granted the Demurrer to Evidence of FPres. Estrada in Criminal Case No. 26565.
After the presentation of the evidence for accused FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada, accused Serapio manifested that he opted not to present his own evidence but adopted the evidence presented by FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada. The said accused then formally offered their evidence. The Court issued its resolution on the formal offer of evidence for accused FPres. Estrada, Jinggoy Estrada and Serapio. On the other hand, the prosecution manifested that it was not presenting any rebuttal evidence but formally offered additional evidence and tendered excluded evidence in its Supplemental Formal Offer of Exhibits [Re: Exhibits Identified, Presented, and Marked during the Cross Examination of Defense Witnesses] with Tender of Excluded Evidence dated March 29, 2007. The Court issued its Minute Resolution dated April 19, 2007 on the said additional offer of evidence of the prosecution.
In an Order dated May 9, 2007, the Court gave the parties a period of time to file their respective memoranda and scheduled the Oral Summation requested by accused FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada on June 15, 2007. After the Oral Summation, the case was submitted for decision.
Incidentally, on November 10, 2006, the National Bureau of Investigation filed its Return of “Alias” Order of Arrest, informing the Court that one of the accused in this case, Atong Ang was extradited from the United States of America and was already under the custody of the said agency. At his arraignment, accused Atong Ang refused to enter a plea and the Court entered a plea of not guilty for the said accused.
On January 24, 2007, when the case was scheduled for Pre-Trial only for accused Atong Ang, the prosecution and the said accused, assisted by his counsel, manifested in open court that they had executed a Plea Bargaining Agreement. The Court’s Resolution dated March 14, 2007 approved the Plea Bargaining Agreement entered into by the parties.
On March 19, 2007, during accused Atong Ang’s re-arraignment, the said accused pleaded guilty to a lesser offense of Corruption of Public Officials under Article 212 in relation to Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code. On the same day, the Court rendered its decision against accused Atong Ang sentencing said accused to “two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional minimum, as minimum, to six (6) years of prision correccional maximum, as maximum, and to pay the amount of P25,000,000.00 to the Government as his civil liability”. Accused Atong Ang immediately filed a Petition for Probation (with Motion to Deduct Period of Preventive Imprisonment from the Term of Imprisonment and to Post Bail Pending Resolution thereof) which the Court granted in a Resolution dated May 25, 2007. Accused Atong Ang is now under probation.
STATEMENT OF THE STIPULATIONS
OF THE PARTIES AT PRE-TRIAL
________________________________
After the arraignment of the accused, the pre-trial was conducted which led to the issuance of the Amended Pre-Trial Order dated June 14, 2001, quoted in part hereunder:
When this case was called for pre-trial on September 3, 2001, accused JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, JOSE “Jinggoy” P. ESTRADA appeared, assisted by counsels, Atty. Jose B. Flaminiano, Atty. Cleofe Villar-Verzola, Atty. Rene A. V. Saguisag and Atty. Raymond Parsifal A. Fortun. Accused Edward S. Serapio likewise appeared, assisted by his counsels, Atty. Sabino Acut, Jr. and Atty. Martin Israel L. Pison. The People was represented by Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto, Deputy Ombudsman Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr., Deputy Special Prosecutor Robert E. Kallos, Ombudsman Prosecutor III Antonio T. Manzano and Humphrey T. Monteroso.
The accused Estradas and Edward S. Serapio submitted their WAIVER OF APPEARANCE dated September 3, 2001 stating as follows:
Accused Joseph Estrada, Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada and Edward S. Serapio hereby waive their appearance during the pre-trial and the trial of this case subject to the conditions that:
a) whenever his/her/their name/s/are mentioned at any stage of the proceedings of this/ these case/s whether in testimonial or documentary evidence, such name/s refer/s to his/her/them; and
b) whenever his/her/their appearance shall be require by the Court at any time, they will appear, otherwise warrant/s shall issue for their arrest.
The aforementioned three (3) accused verbally manifested in open Court that they fully understand and agree with their conditions contained in their Waiver of Appearance.
Xxx xxx xxx
The prosecution, the accused Estradas and accused Serapio agreed to stipulate on the following facts, as proposed by the prosecution to wit:
1. That accused Joseph Estrada (“Estrada” for short) took his oath of office as President of the Republic of the Philippines on 30th June 1998, [cf. Proposal No. 1(For all specifications) of accused Estrada’s Proposed Stipulation of Facts of the defense dated 01 August 2001];
2. That accused Joseph Estrada is married to Dra. (now Senator) Luisa P. Ejercito; [cf. Proposal No. 2 (For all Specifications) of accused Estrada’s Proposed Stipulation of Facts of the defense dated 01 August 2001];
3. That accused Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, Jr. (“Jinggoy” for short) is the son of accused Joseph Estrada; [cf. Proposal No. 3 (For all Specifications) of accused Estrada’s Proposed Stipulation of Facts of the defense dated 01 August 2001;
4. Edward S. Serapio is a lawyer and a former professor of law at the Ateneo de Manila University School of Law; [cf. Proposal No. 1 of accused Atty. Edward Serapio’s Request for Stipulation of Facts and Admission of Documents dated 01 August 2001;
5. On April 29 1999, Atty. Serapio was appointed by President Joseph Estrada as Presidential Assistant for Political Affairs with the rank of Undersecretary. [cf. Proposal No. 2 of accused Atty. Edward Serapio’s Request for Stipulation of Facts and Admission of Documents dated 01 August 2001;
6. He accepted such appointment. [cf. Proposal No. 2. 1 of specification of accused Atty. Edward Serapio’s Request for Stipulation of Facts and Admission of documents dated 01 August 2001.
The other stipulations of facts proposed by the accused Estradas and admitted by the prosecution were:
1. That From 1998-2001, Mr. Luis “Chavit” Singson was elected Governor of the province of Ilocos Sur; [cf. Proposal No. 6 (For all Specifications) of accused Estrada’s Proposed Stipulation of Facts of the defense dated 01 August 2001];
2. That the amount of P40 Million was withdrawn by a person representing herself to be accused Alma Alfaro from Land Bank of the Philippines-Shaw Branch on 28th August 1998; [cf. Proposal No. 5 of specification (b) of accused Joseph E. Estrada and Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada’s Stipulation of Facts and Admission of Documents dated 01 August 2001.
The accused Estradas proposed and the prosecution admitted the following stipulation of facts:
