Jinggoy convicted of bribery, cleared of ‘pork’ plunder

Barred from public office? Appeal set on verdict

MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division has found Sen. Jinggoy Estrada guilty of one count of direct bribery and two counts of indirect bribery over his alleged involvement in the pork barrel scam – placing him in a position where he may eventually be booted out of office, pay fines and be imprisoned.

The court, however, acquitted Estrada and so-called pork barrel queen Janet Napoles of plunder over the misuse of the senator’s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel fund.

Estrada, who was detained for three years for the plunder and graft cases over the multibillion-peso pork barrel fund scam, was meted a total of up to 16 years in prison for the bribery conviction and was ordered to pay P3 million.

The conviction also involves the accessory penalties of temporary absolute disqualification and perpetual special disqualification from the right to vote.

Napoles, meanwhile, was found guilty of five and two counts of corruption of public officials under the Revised Penal Code’s (RPC) provisions on direct bribery and indirect bribery, respectively, for which she was sentenced to a total of up to 62 years in prison.

She was also found guilty of two counts of the same charge in relation to the RPC’s provisions on qualified bribery. Napoles was also ordered to pay a fine of P29.625 million.

Aside from these, Napoles was also ordered to indemnify the government over P262 million with 6 percent interest per annum from the finality of the decision.

In finding them not guilty of plunder, the anti-graft court said state prosecutors failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Estrada and Napoles “personally gained or benefited or had used the monies allegedly taken from the alleged transactions … in the amount of P50 million or more,” or the threshold for an illegally amassed fund to be covered by the plunder law.

While the court did not find the evidence “sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt the crime of plunder,” it explained that they may still be convicted of a lesser offense if prosecutors prove such a case under the variance doctrine.

Thus, the court decided to convict the pair instead of bribery and corruption of public officials, respectively, noting that direct bribery and indirect bribery are “necessarily included in plunder as some of the elements of the latter constitute those of the former,” based on a 2003 Supreme Court decision.

Direct bribery

In finding Estrada liable for direct bribery, the court said all elements of the crime were established in that Estrada is a public officer, he received bribes to endorse Napoles’ non-government organizations to implement his PDAF projects and his act of endorsing the NGOs itself.

For indirect bribery, the court found that Estrada received a percentage of a project’s cost through Napoles and that he received a percentage of the cost that’s enough for liability for direct or indirect bribery.

The prosecution established that Estrada received P1 million in bribe money, making him liable for direct bribery and that he received P1.5 million and P4.2 million from Napoles through Ruby Tuason, who has since turned whistle-blower, making the senator liable for indirect bribery.

Meanwhile, the cases against their co-accused Pauline Labayen, Estrada’s former chief-of-staff, and former government official John Raymund de Asis have been archived as they remain at-large.

“Let an alias warrant of arrest be issued against them and this case is ordered archived insofar as they are concerned, subject to reinstatement of the same once the Court acquires jurisdiction over their persons,” the court added.

Legal remedies

Estrada yesterday vowed to seek all legal remedies to appeal the Sandiganbayan’s verdict convicting him of direct and indirect bribery, even though he was acquitted of plunder over the pork barrel scam.

“In the information sheet, it is only the case of plunder. And I have already been acquitted. I have been exonerated of plunder,” Estrada told reporters after his sentence was read to him in court yesterday.

“I will ask my lawyers to exhaust all legal remedies, all legal options available for me. But I still believe in our justice system,” he added.

In a separate interview with CNN Philippines’ “The Source,” Estrada said that he was “confused” with the ruling to acquit him of plunder but convict him of bribery.

“Now that I have been exonerated by the court, I’m a bit worried, not worried, but I’m confused why all of a sudden this bribery case came up,” Estrada said.

He is also worried that one of the accessory penalties in his bribery conviction is the suspension from public office and disqualification from the right to suffrage.

One of the qualifications to run for public office is to be a registered voter.

“But I feel happy and elated that I was exonerated of the main charge of plunder. That’s the most important to me. I thank the Lord and feel vindicated, that this was really politically motivated by the past administration,” Estrada said.

“I did not steal any money,” Estrada stressed, adding that he would hold his press conference on Monday next week after going through the decision.

“Nothing is final. That is appealable. We will file the necessary motion for reconsideration before the Sandiganbayan. I will instruct all my lawyers, again, to exhaust all legal options, all legal remedies,” Estrada said in an ambush interview outside the courtroom.

For now, he said, I’m going to rest.”

Meanwhile, Estrada’s half-brother and fellow senator JV Ejercito wished his sibling well amid the legal troubles he is facing.

“I am sure that his legal team will exhaust all legal remedies on those cases he was convicted for. I wish him well and will continue to pray for Senator Jinggoy Estrada and his family,” Ejercito said.

Ejercito also asked the public to respect the court’s decision that found his brother guilty of bribery.

“I urge everyone to respect the wisdom and fairness of our justice system. Our justice system, despite its imperfection, is there to maintain law and order, protect our rights and provide justice,” he said.

While Estrada was charged with the non-bailable offense of plunder for misusing his PDAF from his term in the Senate from 2004 to 2010, he was allowed to post bail in 2017 due to lack of evidence to justify the charges against him or identify him in the charge sheet as “main plunderer” in the case.

Napoles, some of whose cases are still being heard, is currently serving her sentence of up to 150 years at the Correctional Institute for Women in Mandaluyong City after being convicted of graft and malversation.

Strong evidence

Following the Sandiganbayan’s decision to acquit Estrada from plunder, former senator Leila de Lima maintained that there was a strong case against him when the complaint was filed in 2014 when she was still Justice secretary.

“I believe that we had a strong case against Sen. Jinggoy when the DOJ-NBI Special Task Force filed the plunder complaint against him with the ombudsman,” said de Lima.

“This was buttressed by the statements of the middle-woman Ruby Tuason, who said she dealt directly with the senator and Napoles insofar as his PDAF funds were concerned. Even Benhur Luy stated he personally delivered Jinggoy’s kickbacks to his secretary, Pauline Labayen, who had since then gone missing.”

De Lima said she was “curious to find out what element or elements of the crime of plunder the Sandiganbayan deemed wanting and/or why the evidence was deemed insufficient to support a conviction for that crime.”

“All the same, I accept the decision of the Sandiganbayan limiting the conviction to bribery and indirect bribery. If Sen. Jinggoy appeals this conviction, there is still a chance that the SC will modify this judgment to either an acquittal, on one hand, or a plunder conviction, on the other,” she noted.

“Of course, I have yet to read the decision to find out whether Sen. Jinggoy risks a plunder conviction with the SC if he still appeals the SB decision convicting him only of bribery,” de Lima added.

“I am sure that is what his lawyers are already studying at this very moment. Because once they appeal to the SC, the SB judgment is opened wide for modifications, including a conviction for plunder, without violating the rule on double jeopardy.” — Marc Jayson Cayabyab, Cecille Suerte Felipe