C.C. No. 26558 http://sandigan1.googlepages.com/index.html 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. 1 of 173 Wednesday, 12 September, 2007 11:08 AM C.C. No. 26558 http://sandigan1.googlepages.com/index.html 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 __________________________ 2 of 173 Wednesday, 12 September, 2007 11:08 AM C.C. No. 26558 http://sandigan1.googlepages.com/index.html 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 (FP 3 of 173 Wednesday, 12 September, 2007 11:08 AM C.C. No. 26558 http://sandigan1.googlepages.com/index.html Estrada), Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada (Jinggoy Estrada), and Edward S. Serapio (Serapio). Accused Sera filed his Urgent