|
By Jomar Canlas and William B.
Depasupil Reporters
CONVICTED former President Joseph
Estrada filed his appeal before the Sandiganbayan Special Division
that convicted him of plunder, which closes the door to his being
granted a pardon—for now.
In his motion for
reconsideration, Estrada cited there was a clear mistrial of his
case, and that his rights guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution were
violated.
As this developed, the
influential Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP)
said it is not against the granting of absolute pardon to Estrada
but stressed that the assets he accumulated through plunder should
be returned to government.
Estrada argued he was deprived of
due process and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him. He contends this because the Sandiganbayan
proceeded on the assumption that the four counts of plunder alleged
in the amended information were separate and independent acts of
plunder, instead of being considered as the means through which only
one crime of plunder was committed.
Estrada said the September 12,
2007, decision of the Sandiganbayan is clearly erroneous, which
warrants the reversal of its ruling convicting.
“It is respectfully submitted
that the linkage of predicate acts so that they would constitute a
‘combination’ or a ‘series’ cannot simply be a common
beneficiary of the acts, rather than their nature, time of
commission, and like circumstances; otherwise, to constitute plunder
it would have been totally unnecessary to speak of
‘combination,’ or ‘series,’ or ‘pattern;’ rather, the
law could have simply provided that the commission of more than one
offense resulting in the accumulation or acquisition of more than
fifty million pesos (P50,000,000) would constitute plunder,” the
pleading read.
Estrada further contended he was
deprived of his right to be informed as he was convicted of an
offense that was not included in the amended information. The
prosecution did not allege in the information that the crimes
included therein were committed “by reason of his public
office.”
He also points out that his
plunder conviction is erroneous for it actually convicted him of
illegal gambling.
Estrada also argued that the
amended information alleged that the acts committed by the accused
were done “in consideration of toleration or protection of illegal
gambling,” yet no evidence was presented to prove that.
There was even no evidence to
prove that there was illegal gambling, since the money allegedly
collected by the principal witness, former Ilocos Sur Gov. Chavit
Singson, were all private moneys.
Estrada also said that it was not
the accused, but other persons, who amassed, accumulated or acquired
ill-gotten wealth, and these persons were not included in the
amended information as co-conspirators. Estrada contends the crime
of plunder is basically a crime involving conspiracy by many
persons, and yet the two alleged conspirators of Estrada—Atty.
Edward Serapio and Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, were acquitted.
Another ground for
reconsideration, Estrada said, is the inadmissibility of hearsay
evidence, which violated his right to confront witnesses against
him. While the court rejected the oral testimony of Singson to the
extent that the court had to acquit both Serapio and Jinggoy Estrada
from the charges leveled against them, the court nonetheless gave
credence to the former governor’s testimony.
The Sandiganbayan convicted the
former president of two counts of plunder and sentenced him to life
imprisonment.
|
