G.R. No. 148965; February 26, 2002
JOSE “JINGGOY” E. ESTRADA, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, then Mayor of San Juan, was charged with plunder under Republic Act No. 7080 (the Anti-Plunder Law) in an Amended Information filed by the Office of the Ombudsman. The charge stemmed from the criminal complaints filed against former President Joseph Estrada and his associates. Petitioner filed a “Motion to Quash or Suspend” the Amended Information, arguing the Anti-Plunder Law was unconstitutional and that the information charged more than one offense. The Sandiganbayan issued a warrant for his arrest. Petitioner subsequently filed a “Very Urgent Omnibus Motion” seeking to be dropped from the information for lack of probable cause and to be granted bail as a matter of right, arguing his alleged involvement was limited to illegal gambling and did not constitute the “series or combination of acts” required for plunder.
The Sandiganbayan denied petitioner’s motions. It ruled that the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7080 had been settled in a prior case and found no merit in his other grounds. The court set his alternative prayer for bail for hearing after arraignment. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was denied. He was arraigned, and a plea of “not guilty” was entered for him after he refused to plead. He then filed this petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) not declaring R.A. No. 7080 unconstitutional on its face and as applied, violating equal protection; (2) not holding the law provides insufficient standards; (3) sustaining a charge allegedly disconnected from him, denying substantive due process; and (4) not fixing bail for his alleged single act of involvement.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan. On the constitutional challenge, the Court affirmed that the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7080 had been conclusively settled in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan. The law is not void for vagueness and provides sufficient standards. The petitioner’s “as applied” challenge, based on equal protection, was unavailing as he failed to demonstrate how the law was applied to him differently than to others similarly situated. The charge against him was based on allegations of conspiracy, where the act of one conspirator is the act of all. His claim of being charged for acts of co-accused misapprehends the nature of conspiracy, which does not require personal commission of every overt act. On the issue of bail, the Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s discretion to hold a hearing. Plunder is a capital offense; hence, bail is not a matter of right but of discretion, exercisable only after a hearing showing evidence of guilt is not strong. The Sandiganbayan correctly scheduled such a hearing. Its actions were within its jurisdiction and did not constitute grave abuse of discretion.