ESTRADA vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:
In connection with the impeachment proceedings against President Joseph Estrada, five criminal complaints
were filed against him, the members of his family, his associates, friends, and conspirators in the Office of the
Ombudsman. Respondent 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.

Respondent Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's 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 (YES)

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".
It was held in Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (2001) that 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 offence 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.