EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 10 2002.

G.R. No. 148965 (Jose “Jinggoy” E. Estrada, petitioner vs. Sandiganbayan [Third Division], People of the Philippines and Office of the Ombudsman, respondents.)

In our Decision of February 26, 2002, we dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by Jose “Jinggoy” E. Estrada assailing the Resolutions of respondent Sandiganbayan which denied his motion to quash the Amended Information filed against him, former President Joseph E. Estrada, Atty. Edward Serapio, Charlie “Atong” Ang, and others for the crime of plunder. We held that petitioner failed to show that respondent Sandiganbayan acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing said Resolutions.

For resolution is the Motion for Clarification filed by respondents People of the Philippines and the Office of the Ombudsman. Respondents seek clarification of our Decision which held, viz:

“x x x. We hold that petitioner can be held accountable only for the predicate acts he allegedly committed as related in sub-paragraph (a) of the Amended Information which were allegedly done in conspiracy with the former President whose design was to amass ill-gotten wealth amounting to more than P4 billion.”[1]

Interpreting the foregoing, respondents maintain that petitioner’s liability for plunder covers not only sub-paragraph (a) of the Amended Information but also sub-paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) thereof because he is indicted as principal and co-conspirator of the former President in the first and second paragraphs of the said Information.[2] Anticipating a contrary interpretation by petitioner, respondents pray that a clarification be issued for fuller guidance in the trial of Criminal Case No. 26558 before the Sandiganbayan.[3]

Petitioner filed his Comment claiming, among others, that the Motion for Clarification is a motion for reconsideration in disguise, and that when respondents filed said motion, petitioner had already terminated the services of his counsels; the fear of a contrary interpretation by petitioner is thus unfounded.

Our ruling is clear and respondents’ interpretation runs counter to its meaning.

For a better perspective, the afore-quoted portion of our Decision must be read together with the other paragraphs of which it forms an integral part. We held in our Decision:

“III.

Petitioner also faults the respondent Sandiganbayan for ‘sustaining the charge against petitioner for alleged offenses and with alleged conspirators, with which and with whom he is not even remotely connected – contrary to the dictum that criminal liability is personal, not vicarious – results in the denial of substantive due process.’[4]

The Solicitor General argues, on the other hand, that petitioner is charged not only with the predicate act in sub-paragraph (a) but also with the other predicate acts in sub-paragraphs (b), (c) & (d) because he is indicted as a principal and as co-conspirator of the former President. This is purportedly clear from the first and second paragraphs of the Amended Information.[5]

For better focus, there is a need to examine again the allegations of the Amended Information vis-à-vis the provisions of R.A. No. 7080.

The Amended Information, in its first two paragraphs, charges petitioner and his other co-accused with the crime of plunder. The first paragraph names all the accused, while the second paragraph describes in general how plunder was committed and lays down most of the elements of the crime itself. Sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) describe in detail the predicate acts that constitute the crime and name in particular the co-conspirators of former President Estrada in each predicate act. The predicate acts alleged in the said four sub-paragraphs correspond to the items enumerated in Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080. Sub-paragraph (a) alleged the predicate act of receiving, on several instances, money from illegal gambling, in consideration of toleration or protection of illegal gambling, and expressly names petitioner as one of those who conspired with former President Estrada in committing the offense. This predicate act corresponds with the offense described in item [2] of the enumeration in Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080. Sub-paragraph (b) alleged the predicate act of diverting, receiving or misappropriating a portion of the tobacco excise tax share allocated for the province of Ilocos Sur, which act is the offense described in item [1] in the enumeration in Section 1 (d) of the law. This sub-paragraph does not mention petitioner but instead names other conspirators of the former President. Sub-paragraph (c) alleged two predicate acts – that of ordering the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and the Social Security System (SSS) to purchase shares of stock of Belle Corporation, and collecting or receiving commissions from such purchase from the Belle Corporation which became part of the deposit in the “Jose Velarde” account at the Equitable-PCI Bank. These two predicate acts fall under items [2] and [3] in the enumeration of R.A. No. 7080, and was allegedly committed by the former President in connivance with John Does and Jane Does. 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 Equitable-PCI Bank. This act corresponds to the offense under item [6] in the enumeration of Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080.

From the foregoing allegations of the Amended Information, it is clear that all the accused named in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d), thru their individual acts, conspired with former President Estrada to enable the latter to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount of P4,097,804,173.17. As the Amended Information is worded, however, it is not certain whether the accused in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) conspired with each other to enable the former President to amass the subject ill-gotten wealth. In light of this lack of clarity, petitioner cannot be penalized for the conspiracy entered into by the other accused with the former President as related in the second paragraph of the Amended Information in relation to its sub-paragraphs (b) to (d). We hold that petitioner can be held accountable only for the predicate acts he allegedly committed as related in sub-paragraph (a) of the Amended Information which were allegedly done in conspiracy with the former President whose design was to amass ill-gotten wealth amounting to more than P4 billion.”[6]

We therefore reiterate, that petitioner Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada can be held liable only for the acts with which he is charged under sub-paragraph (a) of the Amended Information. His liability can not extend to the predicate acts in sub-paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of said Information.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondents’ Motion for Clarification is Noted. Let the parties to Criminal Case No. 26558 before the Sandiganbayan be guided accordingly.

* Further, the Court Resolved to: (a) NOTE the constancia dated 13 March 2002; (b) NOTE the supplemental constancia dated 15 March 2002; (c) NOTE and GRANT the manifestation and motion dated 16 March 2002, praying that leave be given to submit the therein attached Revised Consolidated Constancia; and (d) NOTE aforesaid revised consolidated constancia dated 16 March 2002, all filed by counsel for petitioner. (Carpio, J., no part.)

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

[1] Motion for Clarification, p. 3, Rollo, p. 852; Decision, p. 15.

[2] Motion for Clarification, pp. 5-6, Rollo, pp. 854-855.

[5] Comment of the Solicitor General, pp. 26-36, 85-91, Rollo, pp. 379-389, 438-444.

[6] Decision, pp. 13-15, Rollo, pp. 745-747; Emphasis and Footnotes as copied.