ESTRADA vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 148965
February 26, 2002

FACTS:

Former President Joseph Estrada had five criminal complaints filed against him, the members of his
family, his associates, friends, and conspirators in the Office of the Ombudsman in connection to his
impeachment. The Ombudsman found probable cause warranting the filing with the Sandiganbayan of
several criminal information against the former President and the other respondents. One of the
information filed was for the crime of plunder under R.A. 7080 and among the respondents was
petitioner Jinggoy.

Petitioner filed a "Very Urgent Omnibus Motion" alleging that: 1) no probable cause exists to put him on
trial and hold him liable for plunder, it appearing that he was only allegedly involved in illegal gambling
and not in a "series or combination of overt or criminal acts" as required in R.A. 7080; and 2) he is
entitled to bail as a matter of right, but Sandiganbayan denied the motion. Petitioner moved for
reconsideration of the Resolution. Respondent court denied the motion and proceeded to arraign
petitioner.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the crime of plunder is proper

HELD:

1) Contrary to petitioner's contention, he was not charged with the commission of only one act,
considering the phrase "on several instances" stated in the Amended Information.

Petitioner's contention that R.A. 7080 does not apply to him is principally based on the premise that the
amended information charged him with only one act or offense which cannot constitute plunder.
However, examination of the information will show that it is divided into 3 parts: 1) first paragraph
charges President Estrada with the crime of plunder together with petitioner Jinggoy Estrada; 2) second
paragraph spells out in general terms how the accused conspired in committing the crime of plunder;
and 3) the following four sub-paragraphs describe in detail the predicate acts constitute of the crime of
plunder and state the names of the accused who committed each act.

The allegation in the information is that petitioner Jinggoy received or collected money from illegal
gambling "on several instances", meaning he committed the predicate act in series. Thus, contrary to
petitioner's contention, it cannot be said that he was charged with the commission of only one act,
considering the phrase "several instances". The words "combination" or "series" are taken in their
popular, not technical, meaning. "Series" is synonymous with the clause "on several instances". "Series"
refers to a repetition of the same predicate act in any of the items in Section 1 (d) of the law.
"Combination" contemplates the commission of at least any two different predicate acts in any of said
items.
2) If conspiracy is proven, the penalty of the petitioner shall be the same as former President Estrada.

In the crime of plundering, different parties may be united by a common purpose. In the case at bar, the
different accused and their different criminal acts have a commonality - to help the former President
amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth.

In American jurisdiction, the presence of several accused in multiple conspiracies commonly involves
two structures:

1) "Wheel or circle conspiracy," in which there is a single person or group (the "hub") dealing individually
with two or more other persons or groups (the "spokes"); and

2) "Chain conspiracy," usually involving the distribution of narcotics or other contraband, in which there
is successive communication and cooperation in much the same way as with legitimate business
operations between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and
consumer.

The case at bar appears similar to a wheel conspiracy. The hub is former President Estrada while the
spokes are all the accused, and the rim that encloses the spokes is the common goal in the overall
conspiracy, i.e. the amassing, accumulation, and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth.

Under Philippine jurisdiction, conspiracy may be alleged as a mode of committing a crime or as

constitutive of the crime itself.

When conspiracy is charged as a crime, the act of conspiring and all the elements of said crime must be
set forth in the complaint or information.

When conspiracy is charged as a mode of committing a crime, as in the case at bar, there is less
necessity of reciting its particularities because conspiracy is not the gravamen of the offense charged.
The conspiracy is significant only because it changes the criminal liability of all the accused in the
conspiracy and makes them answerable as co-principals regardless of the degree of their participation in
the crime. The liability of the conspirators is collective and each participant will be equally responsible
for the acts of others, for the act of one is the act of all.

In the case at bar, the information alleged in general terms how the accused committed the crime of
plunder. It used the words "in connivance/ conspiracy with his co-accused." These words are sufficient
to allege the conspiracy of the accused with the former President in committing the crime of plunder.

Petition was dismissed for failure to show that the respondent Sandiganbayan acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.