Senator Jinggoy Estrada emerges from the Sandiganbayan after the promulgation on his plunder case at the graft court on January 19, 2024 in Quezon City. Maria Tan, ABS-CBN News/File

MANILA — The Sandiganbayan has upheld its earlier decision to acquit Senate President Pro Tempore Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada of indirect bribery and direct bribery.

Jinggoy Estrada wins appeal in direct, indirect bribery conviction

In a resolution promulgated on November 27, the anti-graft court's Special Fifth Division denied the prosecution's motion for reconsideration and Estrada's preemptory challenge and motion to expunge for "utter lack of merit."

"Accordingly, the resolution dated August 22,2024 hereby stands," it said in the eight-page resolution.

The Sandiganbayan also acknowledged the manifestation filed by Estrada.

Last August, the anti-graft court reversed its decision and cleared Estrada of one count of direct bribery and two counts of indirect bribery due to lack of evidence. This case stemmed from the P183 million of alleged kickbacks from "fake projects" in collusion with businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles.

The prosecution argued that indirect bribery and bribery are the same except that the latter crime requires the existence of a deal between the public officer and the one giving the bribe "to perform or refrain from doing an act in consideration of the gift."

"At the outset, the issues raised by the prosecution were already discussed rigorously in the assailed resolution and there is no need to belabor the same. It would be a useless ritual for the Court to reiterate itself," it said.

"The instant motion seeks to revisit the actual findings of Estrada's acquittal that would place the latter in double jeopardy. His acquittal cannot be assailed under the guise of a motion for reconsideration as the first jeopardy has already attached," the resolution further read.

The anti-graft court earlier said the prosecution failed to establish Estrada's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It cited the lack of other evidence to prove that money was sent to Estrada.

ESTRADA'S ARGUMENT

In his challenge and motion, Estrada moved that the prosecution's appeal should be refused by the Court and removed from the records of the case. He relied on the Finality of Acquittal Rule, wherein a judgment, whether ordered by the trial or appellate court is "final, unappealable and immediately executory upon promulgation."

Jinggoy, Bong Revilla slam online bashers

"Citing several cases on double jeopardy, he insisted that the motion should not be heard by the Court since any further review of such judgment of acquittal is unfair, oppressive, and constitutionally prohibited. He further postulated that the application of the Finality of Acquittal Rule in the instant case in turn puts into effect the Doctrine of Immutability of Judgment which prohibits the modification of a final judgment," the resolution read.

The Special Fifth Division said Estrada relied on the "wrong premise" in his argument.

"The prosecution's motion for reconsideration shall not be expunged from the records of the case. The Constitution is explicit that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense…. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act," it said citing Section 21, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

"We agree with Estrada insofar as his acquittal can no longer be assailed by the prosecution as this would put him twice in jeopardy… The prosecution's motion for reconsideration seeks the reversal of the order of acquittal which is proscribed the Constitution and by the rules… To revisit the factual milieu of this case would run afoul of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy," the anti-graft court added.

Estrada also challenged the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction to take cognizance of the prosecution's motion for consideration following his acquittal in the disputed resolution.

"The argument is simply specious. We are mindful of the elementary rule that in criminal cases, a judgment of acquittal is immediately final upon its promulgation. A cursory reading of the Court's Minute Resolution dated September 16,2024 shows that it merely required Estrada to file his comment to the prosecution's motion without necessarily giving due course to the latter," the resolution read.

"Albeit judgments of acquittal are final, unappealable and immediately executory, the rudiments of due process shall not be dispensed with…. In the interest of justice and fair play, the prosecution shall also be given a day in court to question the acquittal within the legal parameters. The rules do not preclude the State to exhaust all the legal remedies available. Procedural due process is met when one is given notice and the opportunity to be heard and explain their side," it added.

The Special Fifth Division said "no litigant has vested right over the procedure to be undertaken by the courts in dealing with his or her case and that no party to litigation has a vested right in a favorable decision."

SEPARATE OPINION

In a separate opinion, Associate Justice Maryann Corpus-Mañalac concurred with the denial of the prosecution's motion for reconsideration.

Jinggoy acquitted of plunder; guilty of direct, indirect bribery in pork barrel scam

She said the prosecution did not invoke any exceptions in assailing a judgment of acquittal.

"Plainly, the grounds raised by the prosecution, i.e., 'grave errors,' 'wrong and irrelevant considerations' and 'gross misapprehension of facts and evidence,' do not refer to the proper and exceptional grounds that may be invoked against a judgment of acquittal, i.e., grave abuse of discretion and lack of due process," she wrote.

"As counsel for the People, the prosecution must not be unaware of the elementary rule that in assailing a judgment of acquittal, the only permissible grounds are 'grave abuse of discretion' and 'lack of due process.' The prosecution could have raised such grounds in the motion for reconsideration but it never did", Corpus-Mañalac added.

She said the prosecution failed to allege and prove how the reversal of the conviction of Estrada and Napoles constituted grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan.

"Considering that the purported 'grave errors,' 'wrong and irrelevant considerations' and 'gross misapprehension of facts and evidence' in the assailed judgment of acquittal do not appear to be patently or manifestly within the domain of the exceptions, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden to clearly demonstrate that the Court, by the reversal of the conviction, blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice or violated the prosecution's right to due process," Corpus-Mañalac said.

RELATED VIDEO: