G.R. No. 164368; April 2, 2009.
People of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Joseph Ejercito Estrada and the Honorable Special Division of the Sandiganbayan, Respondents.

FACTS

On April 4, 2001, an Information for illegal use of alias (Crim. Case No. 26565) was filed against former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada. The Amended Information alleged that on or about February 4, 2000, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, Estrada, without authority and taking advantage of his position, willfully represented himself as “Jose Velarde” in several transactions and used said alias in signing documents with Equitable PCI Bank and/or other corporate entities to conceal ill-gotten wealth and his identity. This case was consolidated with a plunder case (Crim. Case No. 26558) and a perjury case (Crim. Case No. 26905) for joint trial. After the prosecution rested its case, Estrada filed a demurrer to evidence in the illegal use of alias case. The prosecution’s evidence primarily consisted of testimonies from PCIB officers Clarissa Ocampo and Atty. Manuel Curato, who stated that on February 4, 2000, Estrada opened a numbered trust account and signed as “Jose Velarde,” and from PCIB Branch Manager Teresa Barcelan, who testified about deposits made by a certain Baby Ortaliza into a “Jose Velarde” savings account on various dates in 1999 and 2000. The Sandiganbayan granted the demurrer via a Joint Resolution dated July 12, 2004, prompting the People to file this Petition for Review.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in granting Joseph Ejercito Estrada’s demurrer to evidence in Crim. Case No. 26565 for illegal use of alias under Commonwealth Act No. 142, as amended.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Sandiganbayan’s Joint Resolution granting the demurrer to evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of illegal use of alias under CA No. 142, as amended, and as interpreted in Ursua v. Court of Appeals. The crime requires that the alias be used publicly and habitually. The Court agreed with the Sandiganbayan’s findings: (1) The Information was limited to acts on or about February 4, 2000, involving documents with Equitable PCI Bank, thus excluding subsequent transactions with other individuals like Ortaliza; (2) Estrada’s use of the alias “Jose Velarde” in opening a confidential numbered trust account, witnessed only by bank officers sworn to secrecy under the Bank Secrecy Law (R.A. No. 1405), did not constitute “public” use, as confidentiality negates publicity; (3) The single instance of signing the alias on February 4, 2000, without evidence of habitual use, did not meet the statutory requirement; and (4) The charge of illegal use of alias was not absorbed by the crime of plunder, as they are distinct offenses with different elements. The prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.