Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 158754 August 10, 2007
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs.
SANIGAN!A"AN #S$%&'() '*'s'o+, (+- .OSE /.INGGO"/ ESTRAA,
Respondents.
D E C I S I N
GARCIA, J.:
!he instant petition for certiorari under Rule "# of the Rules of Court see$s to reverse
and set aside the Resolution
%
of herein respondent Sandi&anba'an (Special Division)
issued on March ", *++, in Cri-inal Case No. *"##., &rantin& bail to private
respondent Senator /ose 0/in&&o'0 Estrada (hereafter 0/in&&o'0 for brevit'), as
effectivel' reiterated in its Resolution
*
of Ma' ,+, *++,, den'in& the petitioner1s
-otion for reconsideration.
!he factual antecedents 2hich &ave rise to this proceedin& are set forth in the
Court1s Decision
,
of 3ebruar' *", *++*, in 4.R. No. %5.6"#, to 2it7
In Nove-ber *+++, as an offshoot of the i-peach-ent proceedin&s a&ainst /oseph
E8ercito Estrada, then President of the Republic of the Philippines, five cri-inal
co-plaints a&ainst the for-er President and -e-bers of his fa-il', his associates,
friends and conspirators 2ere filed 2ith the 9 ffice of the -buds-an.
n April 5, *++%, the 9 -buds-an issued a /oint Resolution findin& probable
cause 2arrantin& the filin& 2ith the Sandi&anba'an of several cri-inal Infor-ations
a&ainst the for-er President and the other respondents therein. ne of the
Infor-ations 2as for the cri-e of plunder under Republic Act :RA; No. <+.+ and
a-on& the respondents 2as herein petitioner /ose 0/in&&o'0 Estrada, then -a'or of
San /uan, Metro Manila.
!he Infor-ation 2as a-ended and filed on April %., *++%. Doc$eted as Cri-inal
Case No. *"##., the case 2as assi&ned to :the; respondent !hird Division of the
Sandi&anba'an. ===. (E-phasis added.)
!he a-ended infor-ation referred to, li$e the ori&inal, char&ed respondent /in&&o',
to&ether 2ith the for-er President and several others, 2ith plunder, defined and
penali>ed under RA No. <+.+, as a-ended b' Section %* of RA No. <"#6, alle&edl'
co--itted as follo2s7
!hat durin& the period fro- /une, %66. to /anuar', *++%, in the Philippines, and
2ithin the 8urisdiction of this ?onorable Court, accused /oseph E8ercito Estrada,
!?EN A P@BAIC 33ICER, 9, b' hi-self ANDBR in CNNICANCEBCNSPIRACD
2ith his coEaccused, F? ARE MEMBERS 3 ?IS 3AMIAD, REAA!ICES BD
A33INI!D R CNSAN4@INI!D, B@SINESS ASSCIA!ES, S@BRDINA!ES
ANDBR !?ER PERSNS, BD !AGIN4 @ND@E ADCAN!A4E 3 ?IS 33ICIAA
PSI!IN, A@!?RI!D, REAA!INS?IP, CNNEC!IN, R IN3A@ENCE, did
then and there 2ilfull' (sic), unla2full' and cri-inall' a-ass, accu-ulate and acHuire
BD ?IMSEA3, DIREC!AD R INDIREC!AD, illE&otten 2ealth in the a&&re&ate
a-ount R !!AA CAA@E of 3@R BIAAIN NINE!D SECEN MIAAIN EI4?!
?@NDRED 3@R !?@SAND NE ?@NDRED SECEN!D !?REE PESS AND
SECEN!EEN CEN!ACS :P5,+6<,.+5,%<,.%<;, -ore or less, !?EREBD @N/@S!AD
ENRIC?IN4 ?IMSEA3 R !?EMSEACES A! !?E EIPENSE AND ! !?E
DAMA4E 3 !?E 3IAIPIN PEPAE AND !?E REP@BAIC 3 !?E P?IAIPPINES,
throu&h AND R A co-bination R A series of overt R cri-inal acts, R SIMIAAR
SC?EMES R MEANS, described as follo2s7
(a) b' receivin& R collectin&, directl' or indirectl', on SECERAA
INS!ANCES, MNED IN !?E A44RE4A!E AM@N! 39
(P#5#,+++,+++.++), MRE R AESS, 3RM IAAE4AA 4AMBAIN4 IN !?E
3RM 3 4I3!, S?ARE, PERCEN!A4E, GICGBACG R AND 3RM 3
PEC@NIARD BENE3I!, BD ?IMSEA3 ANDBR in connivance 2ith coE
accused 9 /ose J/in&&o'1 Estrada, 9, :and; /?N DES AND /ANE
DES, in consideration 3 !AERA!IN R PR!EC!IN 3 IAAE4AA
4AMBAIN4K
(b) b' DICER!IN4, RECEICIN4, -isappropriatin&, convertin& R -isusin&
DIREC!AD R INDIREC!AD, for ?IS R !?EIR PERSNAA &ain and
benefit, public funds 9 :P%,+,+++,+++.++;, -ore or less, representin& a
portion of the 9 :P*++,+++,+++; tobacco e=cise ta= share allocated for the
Province of Ilocos Sur under R.A. No. <%<%, BD ?IMSEA3 ANDBR in
CNNICANCE 2ith coEaccused Charlie JAton&1 An&, Al-a Alfaro, /?N
DE a.$.a. Eleuterio !an R Eleuterio Ra-os !an or Mr. @', and /ane Doe
a.$.a. Delia Ra8as, AND !?ER /?N DES AND /ANE DESK
(c) b' directin&, orderin& and co-pellin&, 3R ?IS PERSNAA 4AIN AND
BENE3I!, the 4overn-ent Service Insurance S'ste- (4SIS) !
P@RC?ASE ,#%,.<.,+++ S?ARES 3 S!CG MRE R AESS, and the
Social Securit' S'ste- (SSS), ,*6,.##,+++ S?ARES 3 S!CG MRE
R AESS, 3 !?E BEAAE CRPRA!IN IN !?E AM@N! 3 MRE
R AESS 9 :P<55,"%*,5#+.++;, RESPEC!ICEAD, R A !!AA 3 MRE
R AESS 9 :P%,.5<,#<.,+#<.#+;K AND BD CAAEC!IN4 R RECEICIN4,
1
DIREC!AD R INDIREC!AD, BD ?IMSEA3 ANDBR IN CNNICANCE
FI!? /?N DES AND /ANE DES, CMMISSINS R
PERCEN!A4ES BD REASN 3 SAID P@RC?ASES 3 S?ARES 3
S!CG IN !?E AM@N! 9 :P%.6,<++,+++.++;, MRE R AESS, 3RM
!?E BEAAE CRPRA!IN F?IC? BECAME PAR! 3 !?E DEPSI!
IN !?E EL@I!ABAEEPCI BANG @NDER !?E ACC@N! NAME 0/SE
CEAARDE0K
(d) b' un8ustl' enrichin& hi-self 3RM CMMISSINS, 4I3!S, S?ARES,
PERCEN!A4ES, GICGBACGS, R AND 3RM 3 PEC@NIARD
BENE3I!S, IN CNNICANCE FI!? /?N DES AND /ANE DES, in the
a-ount of MRE R AESS 9 :P,,*,,,%+5,%<,.%<; AND DEPSI!IN4
!?E SAME @NDER ?IS ACC@N! NAME 0/SE CEAARDE0 A! !?E
EL@I!ABAEEPCI BANG.
5
Fhat transpired ne=t are narrated in the sa-e 3ebruar' *", *++* Decision in 4.R.
No. %5.6"#, thus7
n April *#, *++%, the respondent court issued a 2arrant of arrest for :/in&&o'; and
his coEaccused. n its basis, :/in&&o'; and his coEaccused 2ere placed in custod' of
the la2.
n April ,+, *++%, :/in&&o'; filed a 0Cer' @r&ent -nibus Motion0 alle&in& that7 (%)
no probable cause e=ists to put hi- on trial and hold hi- liable for plunder, it
appearin& that he 2as onl' alle&edl' involved in ille&al &a-blin& and not in a 0series
or co-bination of overt or cri-inal acts0 as reHuired in R.A. No. <+.+K and (*) he is
entitled to bail as a -atter of ri&ht. :?e; pra'ed that he be e=cluded fro- the
A-ended Infor-ation 9. In the alternative, :he; also pra'ed that he be allo2ed to
post bail 9..
n /une *., *++%, :he; filed a 0Motion to Resolve Ma'or /ose J/in&&o'1 Estrada1s
Motion !o 3i= Bail n 4rounds !hat An ut&oin& Ma'or Aoses Clout An Incu-bent
?as And !hat n Its 3ace, the 3acts Char&ed In !he Infor-ation Do Not Ma$e ut A
NonEBailable ffense As !o ?i-.0
= = = = = = = = =
n /ul' 6, *++%, respondent Sandi&anba'an issued a Resolution den'in& :/in&&o'1s;
0Motion to Luash and Suspend0 and 0Cer' @r&ent -nibus Motion.0 :?is; alternative
pra'er to post bail 2as set for hearin& after arrai&n-ent of all accused. ===
= = = = = = = = =
!he follo2in& da', /ul' %+, *++%, :/in&&o'; -oved for reconsideration of the
Resolution. Respondent court denied the -otion and proceeded to arrai&n :hi-;. :?e;
refused to -a$e his plea pro-ptin& respondent court to enter a plea of 0not &uilt'0 for
hi-.
#
(E-phasis and 2ords in brac$ets added)
3ro- the denial action of the Sandi&anba'an i--ediatel' adverted to, /in&&o'
interposed a petition for certiorari before this Court clai-in& that the respondent
Sandi&anba'an co--itted &rave abuse of discretion in, inter alia, (a) sustainin& the
char&e a&ainst hi- for alle&ed offenses and 2ith alle&ed conspirators 2ith 2ho- he
is not even connected, and (b) in not fi=in& bail for hi-. Pendin& resolution of this
petition, doc$eted as 4.R. No. %5.6"#, /in&&o' filed 2ith the Sandi&anba'an an
0@r&ent Second Motion for Bail for Medical Reasons.0 !he -buds-an opposed the
-otion. 3or three (,) da's in Septe-ber *++%, the Sandi&anba'an conducted
hearin&s on the -otion for bail, 2ith one Dr. Roberto Anastacio of the Ma$ati Medical
Center appearin& as sole 2itness for /in&&o'.
"
n Dece-ber %., *++%, /in&&o' filed 2ith the Court an @r&ent Motion pra'in& for
earl' resolution of his Petition for Bail on MedicalB?u-anitarian Considerations.0 ?e
reiterated his earlier plea for bail filed 2ith the Sandi&anba'an. n the sa-e da', the
Court referred the -otion to the Sandi&anba'an for resolution and directed said court
to -a$e a report, not later than .7,+ in the -ornin& of Dece-ber *%, *++%.
<
!he report 2as sub-itted as directed. Attached to the Report 2as a cop' of the
Sandi&anba'an1s Resolution dated Dece-ber *+, *++% den'in& /in&&o'1s -otion for
bail for 0lac$ of factual basis.0 Accordin& to the &raft court, basin& its findin&s on the
earlier testi-on' of Dr. Anastacio, /in&&o' 0failed to sub-it sufficient evidence to
convince the court that the -edical condition of the accused reHuires that he be
confined at ho-e and for that purpose that he be allo2ed to post bail.0
.
n 3ebruar' *", *++*, the Court dis-issed /in&&o'1s petition in 4.R. No. %5.6"#, on
the follo2in& rationale7
!he constitutional -andate -a$es the &rant or denial of bail in capital offenses hin&e
on the issue of 2hether or not the evidence of &uilt of the accused is stron&. !his
reHuires that the trial court conduct bail hearin&s ===. !he burden of proof lies 2ith
the prosecution to sho2 stron& evidence of &uilt.
!his Court is not in a position to &rant bail to :/in&&o'; as the -atter reHuires
evidentiar' hearin& that should be conducted b' the Sandi&anba'an. !he hearin&s
on 2hich respondent court based its Resolution of Dece-ber *+, *++% involved the
reception of -edical evidence onl' and 2hich evidence 2as &iven in Septe-ber
*++%, five -onths a&o. !he records do not sho2 that evidence on petitioner1s &uilt
2as presented before the lo2er court.
@pon proper -otion of :/in&&o';, respondent Sandi&anba'an should conduct
hearin&s to deter-ine if the evidence of :/in&&o'1s; &uilt is stron& as to 2arrant the
&rantin& of bail to :hi-;.
6
(@nderscorin& and 2ords in brac$ets added).
2
n April %<, *++*, /in&&o' filed before the Sandi&anba'an an -nibus Application
for Bail
%+
a&ainst 2hich the prosecution filed its co--ent and opposition. Bail
hearin&s 2ere then conducted, follo2ed b' the sub-ission b' the parties of their
respective -e-oranda.
In the herein assailed Resolution
%%
of March ", *++,, respondent Sandi&anba'an
(Special Division) &ranted the o-nibus application for bail, disposin& as follo2s7
F?ERE3RE, in li&ht of all the facts and applicable la2 and 8urisprudence, /SE
0/IN44D0 ES!RADA1s 0MNIB@S APPAICA!IN 3R BAIA0 dated April %", *++*
is 4RAN!ED. Bail for accusedE-ovant is fi=ed at 3ive ?undred !housand Pesos
(Php#++,+++.++) to be paid in cash and his release is ordered upon the postin&
thereof and its approval, unless -ovant is bein& held for so-e other le&al cause.
!his resolution is i--ediatel' e=ecutor'.
S RDERED.
Petitioner filed a -otion for reconsideration thereto 2hich the respondent court
denied via the herein eHuall' assailed Ma' ,+, *++, Resolution,
%*
the dispositive part
of 2hich reads7
F?ERE3RE, for lac$ of -erit, the prosecution1s 0M!IN 3R
RECNSIDERA!IN :RE7 4RAN! 3 /SE 0/IN44D0 ES!RADA1S PE!I!IN
3R BAIA; dated %, March *++, is DENIED.
S RDERED.
?ence, the present petition on the sub-ission
%,
that respondent Special Division of
the Sandi&anba'an acted 2ith &rave abuse of discretion a-ountin& to lac$ or e=cess
of 8urisdiction E
I.
IN 4RAN!IN4 BAIA ! RESPNDEN! /IN44D ES!RADA,9
:CNSIDERIN4; !?E FEAAEES!ABAIS?ED !?ERD 3 CERAAPPIN4
CNSPIRACIES AND, !?@S, 4RIEC@SAD DISRE4ARDED !?E
APPAICA!IN 3 ACCEP!ED CRIMINAA AAF PRECEP!S AND
!?EREBD SE! A DAN4ER@S PRECEDEN!.
II.
=== F?EN I! 4RAN!ED BAIA ! RESPNDEN! /IN44D ES!RADA
F?EN I! 3AIAED ! REC4NIME !?A! !?E CND@C! 3
RESPNDEN! /IN44D ES!RADA PIN!ED ! A CNC@RRENCE 3
SEN!IMEN! R CRIMINAA DESI4N INDICA!IN4 !?E EIIS!ENCE 3 A
CNSPIRACD BE!FEEN ACC@SED /SEP? ES!RADA AND /IN44D
ES!RADA.
III.
=== F?EN I! 4RAN!ED BAIA ! RESPNDEN! /IN44D ES!RADA
CNSIDERIN4 !?A! !?E @NDISP@!ED 3AC! CAEARAD ECIDENCES
!?A! RESPNDEN! /IN44D ES!RADA, ECEN FI!?@! A 3INDIN4
3 CNSPIRACD, IS EL@AAAD 4@IA!D AND AIABAE AS ACC@SED
/SEP? ES!RADA ?IMSEA3 BD ?IS INDISPENSABAE CPERA!IN
ANDBR DIREC! PAR!ICIPA!IN IN !?E CMMISSIN 3 !?E CRIME
3 PA@NDER.
IC.
=== F?EN I! AIMI!ED !?E CNSIDERA!IN 3 !?E ECIDENCE, AS
FEAA AS !?E P!EN!IAA :AIABIAI!D; 3 RESPNDEN! /IN44D
ES!RADA, ! S@BPARA4RAP? 0A0 3 !?E AMENDED IN3RMA!IN.
!he i-putation of &rave abuse of discretion to the public respondent is untenable.
!o be&in 2ith, Section %, of Article III (Bill of Ri&hts) of the Constitution -andates7
Section %,. All persons, e=cept those char&ed 2ith offenses punishable b' reclusion
perpetua 2hen evidence of &uilt is stron&, shall, before conviction, be bailable b'
sufficient sureties, or be released on reco&ni>ance as -a' be provided b' la2. ===.
Even if the capital offense char&ed is bailable o2in& to the 2ea$ness of the evidence
of &uilt, the ri&ht to bail -a' 8ustifiabl' still be denied if the probabilit' of escape is
&reat.
%5
?ere, ever since the pro-ul&ation of the assailed Resolutions a little -ore
than four (5) 'ears a&o, /in&&o' does not, as deter-ined b' Sandi&anba'an, see-
to be a fli&ht ris$. Fe Huote 2ith approval 2hat the &raft court 2rote in this re&ard7
It is not open to serious doubt that the -ovant :/in&&o'; has, in &eneral, been
consistentl' respectful of the Court and its processes. ?e has not o-inousl' sho2n,
b' 2ord or b' deed, that he is of such a fli&ht ris$ that 2ould necessitate his
continued incarceration. Bearin& in -ind his conduct, social standin& and his other
personal circu-stances, the possibilit' of his escape in this case see-s re-ote if not
nil.
%#
!he li$elihood of escape on the part individual respondent is no2 al-ost nil, &iven his
election on Ma' %+, *++5, as Senator of the Republic of the Philippines. !he Court
ta$es stoc$ of the fact that those 2ho usuall' 8u-p bail are shado2' characters
3
-indless of their reputation in the e'es of the people for as lon& as the' can flee fro-
the retribution of 8ustice. n the other hand, those 2ith a reputation and a
respectable na-e to protect and preserve are ver' unli$el' to 8u-p bail. !he Court,
to be sure, cannot accept an' su&&estion that so-eone 2ho has a popular -andate
to serve as Senator is harborin& an' plan to &ive up his Senate seat in e=chan&e for
beco-in& a fu&itive fro- 8ustice.
Petitioner1s first ar&u-ent deni&rates as &rave abuse of discretion the public
respondent1s re8ection of the theor' of overlappin& conspiracies, 2hich, in the
abstract, depicts a picture of a conspirator in the first level of conspirac' perfor-in&
acts 2hich i-ple-ent, or in furtherance of, another conspirac' in the ne=t level of
2hich the actor is not an active part'. As the petitioner1s lo&ic &oes follo2in& this
theor', respondent /in&&o' is not onl' liable for conspirin& 2ith for-er President
Estrada in the acHuisition of illE&otten 2ealth fro- 08ueten&0 under par. (a) of the
a-ended infor-ation. ?e has also a culpable connection 2ith the conspirac', under
par. (b), in the diversion of the tobacco e=cise ta= and in receivin& co--issions and
$ic$bac$s fro- the purchase b' the SSS and 4SIS of Belle Corporation shares and
other ille&al sources under par. (c) and (d), albeit, he is not so na-ed in the last three
para&raphs. And since the central fi&ure in the overlappin& conspiracies, i.e.,
President Estrada, is char&ed 2ith a capital offense, all those 2ithin the conspirac'
loop 2ould be considered char&ed 2ith the sa-e $ind of nonEbailable offense.
E=plainin& its point, petitioner cites People v. Castelo
%"
2hich, as here, also involves
-ultiple levels of conspiracies. /ust li$e in the present case 2here the lead accused
is a for-er President no less, the pri-e suspect in Castelo 2as also a po2erful hi&hE
ran$in& &overn-ent official N a for-er /ud&e 2ho later rose to hold, in a concurrent
capacit', the positions of Secretar' of /ustice and Secretar' of National Defense, to
be precise. In Castelo, char&es and counterchar&es 2ere initiall' hurled b' and
bet2een Castelo and Senator Claro Recto, 2ho 2as then plannin& to present
Manuel Monro' as star 2itness a&ainst Castelo in a scandal case. Castelo left the
Philippines for Gorea. Fhile a2a', so-eone shot Monro' dead. Evidence pointed to
a conspirac' led b' a certain 0Ben @lo0 (2ho appears to be the -aster-ind) and a
&roup of confidential a&ents of the Depart-ent of National Defense, one of 2ho-
2as the tri&&er-an. Coincidentall', Ben @lo 2as a close bod'&uard of Castelo. In the
end, the Solicitor 4eneral ta&&ed Ben @lo (not Castelo) as the central fi&ure in the
conspirac'. !his not2ithstandin&, the Court held Castelo &uilt' be'ond reasonable
doubt for -urder, because onl' he had a -otive for desirin& Monro'1s de-ise. !he
conspirac' bet2een Castelo and Ben @lo 2as then deter-ined to be overlappin&
2ith the conspirac' bet2een Ben @lo and the confidential a&ents, one of 2ho- 2as
the tri&&er-an.
3urther e=plainin& the theor' of overlappin& conspiracies, petitioner cites the rulin& in
People v. !' Sui Fon&,
%<
featurin& a love trian&le involvin& a certain Cictor and
Mariano, each out to 2in the heart of Rub'. Cictor left Manila for Mindanao. Fhile
Cictor 2as a2a', the dead bod' of Mariano 2as found 2ith -ultiple stab 2ounds in a
dar$ alle' in Pasa'. Evidence pointed to a conspirac' a-on& 0Sa-paloc hoodlu-s0
2ho had no direct lin$ 2ith Cictor. ?o2ever, one of the nei&hbors of the 0Sa-paloc
hoodlu-s0 2as a class-ate of Cictor. In the end, on the basis of interloc$in&
confessions, the Court found Cictor and his class-ate to&ether 2ith all the
0Sa-paloc hoodlu-s0 &uilt' of -urder.
Positin& the applicabilit' of Castelo and !' Sui Fon& under the pre-ises, petitioner
presentl' ar&ues7
It should be noted that this is the sa-e scenario of accused /oseph Estrada
conspirin& 2ith for-er 4ov. Sin&son for the collection and receipt of bribes (8ueten&
protection -one')K and of for-er 4ov. Sin&son involvin& respondent /in&&o' Estrada
in 'et another level of conspirac' in pursuit of the first, i.e., the re&ular collection of
8ueten& protection -one' for accused /oseph EstradaK and, respondent /in&&o'
Estrada, a2are of the details of the conspirac' bet2een accused /oseph Estrada
and 4ov. Sin&son, a&reein& to re-it the &reater part of his collection of bribes to
accused /oseph Estrada as its ulti-ate beneficiar'. !hus, respondent /in&&o'
Estrada reached an a&ree-ent 2ith for-er 4ov. Sin&son, e=ecuted the plan and
participated in furtherance of the conspirac' for the receipt and collection of 8ueten&
protection -one', i.e., collectin& P, Million in 8ueten& protection -one' ever' -onthK
re-ittin& P* Million thereof to for-er 4ov. Sin&son for deliver' to accused /oseph
Estrada and retainin& P% Million thereof for hi-self.
Si-ilarl', therefore, respondent /in&&o' Estrada should have been denied bail since
he is as &uilt' and liable as accused /oseph Estrada for the nonEbailable offense of
Plunder.
%.
As 2e see it, the rulin&s in Castelo and !' Sui Fon& are not on allEfours applicable to
and of &overnin& s2a' to the issue of the propriet' of revo$in& /in&&o'1s release on
bail.
As it 2ere, the petitioner erroneousl' eHuates the provisional &rant of bail to
respondent /in&&o' to his virtual acHuittal in Cri-inal Case No. *"##.. Petitioner is
2ron&. Castelo and !' Sui Fon& conte=tuall' dealt 2ith the &uilt of culprits therein for
the cri-es of -urder after all the evidence had been adduced. @nli$e in this
proceedin&, the propriet' of a &rant of bail, &iven the evidence for or a&ainst the bail
application, 2as not an issue in Castelo and !' Sui Fon&. And in the present case,
respondent Sandi&anba'an is still in the process of deter-inin& the facts and -erits
of the -ain case. In the 2ords of the public respondent7
As a cautionar' partin& 2ord, it -ust be cate&oricall' stated herein that in -a$in& the
above pronounce-ents, this Court :Sandi&anba'an; is not -a$in& an' 8ud&-ent as
to the final outco-e of this case either 2ith respect to -ovant :/in&&o'; or 2ith
respect to accused Estrada. !his Court :Sandi&anba'an; is si-pl' called to
deter-ine 2hether, at this sta&e, the evidence of -ovantOs &uilt is stron& as to
2arrant his te-porar' release on bail. ===.
%6
4
Revo$in& the bail thus &ranted to respondent /in&&o', as the petitioner ur&es, 2hich
necessaril' i-plies that the evidence of his &uilt is stron&, 2ould be tanta-ount to
preEe-ptin& the Sandi&anba'an1s on&oin& deter-ination of the facts and -erits of
the -ain case.
Petitioner1s second and third ar&u-ents focus on the possible de&rees of
participation of /in&&o' in the cri-e of Plunder. Noticeabl', both ar&u-ents, if
pursued to their respective lo&ical conclusions, tend to cancel each other out, one
leadin& as it 2ere to a direction Huite the opposite of the other. 3or 2hile the second
ar&u-ent atte-pts to establish an 0i-plied conspirac'0 bet2een /in&&o' and his
father E hence, the &uilt of one is the &uilt of the other E the third ar&u-ent esche2s
the idea of conspirac', but respondent /in&&o' is nonetheless 0eHuall' &uilt'0 as
President Estrada because of his indispensable cooperation andBor direct
participation in the cri-e of Plunder.
B' statutor' definition, conspirac' e=ists 2hen t2o or -ore persons co-e to an
a&ree-ent concernin& the co--ission of a felon' and decide to co--it it.
*+

Centurin& into the &ra' areas of the concept of conspirac', petitioner cites the
follo2in& obiter definin& 0i-plied conspirac',0 thus7
Fhen b' their acts, t2o or -ore persons proceed to2ard the acco-plish-ent of the
sa-e felonious ob8ect, 2ith each doin& his act, so that their acts thou&h see-in&l'
independent 2ere in fact connected, sho2in& a closeness of for-al association and
concurrence of senti-ent, conspirac' -a' be inferred.
*%
Ad-ittedl', direct proof is not essential to establish conspirac'. Since b' its nature
conspirac' is planned in ut-ost secrec', it can rarel' be proved b' direct evidence.
ConseHuentl', the presence of the concurrence of -inds 2hich is involved in
conspirac' -a' be inferred fro- proof of facts and circu-stances 2hich, ta$en
to&ether, apparentl' indicate that the' are -erel' parts of so-e co-plete 2hole. If it
is proved that t2o or -ore persons ai-ed b' their acts to2ards the acco-plish-ent
of the sa-e unla2ful ob8ect, each doin& a part so that their co-bined acts, thou&h
apparentl' independent, 2ere in fact connected and cooperative, indicatin& a
closeness of personal association and a concurrence of senti-ent, a conspirac' -a'
be inferred thou&h no actual -eetin& a-on& the- to concert is proved. !hat 2ould
be ter-ed an i-plied conspirac'.
**
3ro- the above pronounce-ents, petitioner then proceeds to present volu-inous
docu-ents and transcripts of steno&raphic notes purportin& to prove that /in&&o'
had been deep inside the 2eb of 0i-plied conspirac'0 under the second ar&u-ent of
this petition. 3ro- the 0i-plied conspirac'0 theor', it then shifts &ears to e-brace the
0eHuall' &uilt'0 h'pothesis under the fallEbac$ third ar&u-ent.
Re&ardless, ho2ever, of 2hatever le&al strate&' petitioner -a' have in -ind, the
funda-ental principle that the Court is not a trier of facts re-ains.1avvphi1
Petitioner1s second and third ar&u-ents are to be sure relevant to the proceedin&s
for the &rant or denial of bail that 2ere pendin& before in the Sandi&anba'an. !he'
are of little -o-ent here 2here the onl' issue no2 is 2hether or not there 2as &rave
abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandi&anba'an in &rantin& bail to the private
respondent.
Fith the vie2 2e ta$e of this case, the respondent court did not co--it &rave abuse
of discretion in issuin& its assailed resolutions, because the &rant of bail therein is
predicated onl' on its preli-inar' appreciation of the evidence adduced in the bail
hearin& to deter-ine 2hether or not deprivation of the ri&ht to bail is 2arranted.
Needless to stress, a &rant of bail does not prevent the trier of facts, the sa-e
AntiE4raft Court, fro- -a$in& a final assess-ent of the evidence after full trial on the
-erits. As 8urisprudence teaches7
=== Such appreciation :of evidence; is at best preli-inar' and should not prevent the
trial 8ud&e fro- -a$in& a final assess-ent of the evidence before hi- after full trial. It
is not an unco--on occurrence that an accused person &ranted bail is convicted in
due course.
*,
Petitioner1s last ar&u-ent is, at botto-, an atte-pt to have the Court reverse in this
case its earlier holdin& in another case E 4.R. No. %5.6"# E 2here 2e stated7
!he A-ended Infor-ation, in its first t2o para&raphs, char&es petitioner :/in&&o';
and his other coEaccused 2ith the cri-e of plunder. !he first para&raph na-es all the
accused, 2hile the second para&raph describes in &eneral ho2 plunder 2as
co--itted and la's do2n -ost of the ele-ents of the cri-e itself. Su01$(2(g2($3s
#(, to #-, -%s&2'0% '+ -%t(') t3% $2%-'&(t% (&ts t3(t &o+st'tut% t3% &2'4% (+-
+(4% '+ $(2t'&u)(2 t3% &o1&o+s$'2(to2s o5 5o24%2 P2%s'-%+t Est2(-( '+ %(&3
$2%-'&(t% (&t. !he predicate acts alle&ed in the said four subEpara&raphs
correspond to the ite-s enu-erated in Section % (d) of R.A. No. <+.+. SubE
para&raph (a) alle&ed the predicate act of receivin&, on several instances, -one'
fro- ille&al &a-blin&, in consideration of toleration or protection of ille&al &a-blin&,
and e=pressl' na-es petitioner :/in&&o'; as one of those 2ho conspired 2ith for-er
President Estrada in co--ittin& the offense. !his predicate act corresponds 2ith the
offense described in ite- :*; of the enu-eration in Section % (d) of R.A. No. <+.+.
SubEpara&raph (b) alle&ed the predicate act of divertin&, receivin& or
-isappropriatin& a portion of the tobacco e=cise ta= share allocated for the province
of Ilocos Sur, 2hich act is the offense described in ite- :%; in the enu-eration in
Section % (d) of the la2. !his subEpara&raph does not -ention petitioner but instead
na-es other conspirators of the for-er President. SubEpara&raph (c) alle&ed t2o
predicate acts N that of orderin& the 9 (4SIS) and the 9 (SSS) to purchase shares
of stoc$ of Belle Corporation, and collectin& or receivin& co--issions fro- such
purchase fro- the Belle Corporation 2hich beca-e part of the deposit in the 0/ose
Celarde0 account at the EHuitableEPCI Ban$. !hese t2o predicate acts fall under
ite-s :*; and :,; in the enu-eration of R.A. No. <+.+, and 2as alle&edl' co--itted
b' the for-er President in connivance 2ith /ohn Does and /ane Does. 3inall', subE
para&raph (d) alle&ed the predicate act that the for-er President un8ustl' enriched
hi-self fro- co--issions, &ifts, $ic$bac$s, in connivance 2ith /ohn Does and /ane
5
Does, and deposited the sa-e under his account na-e 0/ose Celarde0 at the
EHuitableEPCI Ban$. !his act corresponds to the offense under ite- :"; in the
enu-eration of Section % (d) of R.A. No. <+.+.
3ro- the fore&oin& alle&ations of the A-ended Infor-ation, it is clear that all the
accused na-ed in subEpara&raphs (a) to (d), thru their individual acts, conspired 2ith
for-er President Estrada to enable the latter to a-ass, accu-ulate or acHuire illE
&otten 2ealth 9. As the A-ended Infor-ation is 2orded, ho2ever, it is not certain
2hether the accused in subEpara&raphs (a) to (d) conspired 2ith each other to
enable the for-er President to a-ass the sub8ect illE&otten 2ealth. In li&ht of this lac$
of clarit', petitioner cannot be penali>ed for the conspirac' entered into b' the other
accused 2ith the for-er President as related in the second para&raph of the
A-ended Infor-ation in relation to its subEpara&raphs (b) to (d). Fe hold that
petitioner can be held accountable onl' for the predicate acts :ille&al &a-blin&; he
alle&edl' co--itted as related in subEpara&raph (a) of the A-ended Infor-ation
2hich 2ere alle&edl' done in conspirac' 2ith the for-er President 2hose desi&n 2as
to a-ass illE&otten 2ealth a-ountin& to -ore than P5 billion.
*5
(E-phasis
added.)1avvphi1
bviousl' hopin& to -aneuver around the above rulin& so as to i-plicate individual
respondent for predicate acts described in subEpara&raphs (b), (c) and (d) of the
A-ended Infor-ation, petitioner no2 ar&ues7
It should be e-phasi>ed that in the course of the proceedin&s in the instant case,
respondent /in&&o' Estrada 2aived the benefit of the said rulin& and opted, instead,
to participate, as he did participate and later proceeded to crossEe=a-ine 2itnesses
2hose testi-onies 2ere clearl' offered to prove the other constitutive acts of Plunder
alle&ed in the A-ended Infor-ation under subEpara&raphs 0b0, 0c0 and 0d0.
*#
Fe disa&ree.
At botto-, the petitioner assu-es that the rulin& accorded 0benefits0 to respondent
/in&&o' that 2ere ine=istent at the start of that case. But no such benefits 2ere
e=tended, as the Court did not read into the A-ended Infor-ation, as couched,
so-ethin& not there in the first place. Respondent /in&&o'1s participation, if that be
the case, in the proceedin&s involvin& subEpara&raphs 0b,0 0c0 and 0d,0 did not
chan&e the le&al situation set forth in the aforeHuoted portion of the Court1s rulin& in
4.R. No. %5.6"#. 3or 2hen it passed, in 4.R. No. %5.6"#, upon the inculpator' acts
envisa&ed and ascribed in the A-ended Infor-ation a&ainst /in&&o', the Court
-erel' defined 2hat he 2as indicted and can be penali>ed for. In le&al 8ar&on, the
Court infor-ed hi- of the nature and cause of the accusation a&ainst hi-, a ri&ht
&uaranteed an accused under the Constitution.
*"
In fine, all that the Court
conte=tuall' did in 4.R. No. %5.6"# 2as no -ore than to i-ple-ent his ri&ht to be
infor-ed of the nature of the accusation in the li&ht of the filin& of the A-ended
Infor-ation as 2orded. If at all, the Court1s holdin& in 4.R. No. %5.6"# freed
individual respondent fro- the ill effects of a 2ron& interpretation that -i&ht be &iven
to the A-ended Infor-ation.
In all, the Court rules that public respondent Sandi&anba'an (Special Division) did
not co--it &rave abuse of discretion 2hen, after conductin& nu-erous bail hearin&s
and evaluatin& the 2ei&ht of the prosecution1s evidence, it deter-ined that the
evidence a&ainst individual respondent 2as not stron& and, on the basis of that
deter-ination, resolved to &rant hi- bail.
As a final consideration, the Court notes a state-ent -ade b' the respondent court
2hich adds an appropriate di-ension to its resolve to &rant bail sub8ect of this
recourse. Frote that court in its assailed resolution of March ", *++,7
=== Corollaril', it is not a-iss to state that, at this ti-e, there loo-s the possibilit'
that, in case of conviction, :respondent /in&&o'1s; cri-inal liabilit' 2ould probabl' not
2arrant the death penalt' or reclusion perpetua. (@nderscorin& in the ori&inalK Fords
in brac$et added).
F?ERE3RE, the instant petition is DISMISSED.
No pronounce-ent as to costs.
S RDERED.
6