Sen. Jinggoy Estrada
MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan has affirmed its acquittal of Sen. Jinggoy Estrada for direct and indirect bribery in connection with the controversial “pork barrel” scam, saying any reversal of its decision will be a violation of the rule on double jeopardy.
The antigraft court’s Special Fifth Division thus denied the Sept. 2 motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecution for “utter lack of merit,” arguing it already made a “valid indictment.”
“To revisit the factual milieu of this case would run afoul of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy,” read the 15-page resolution of the court penned by Associate Justice Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega and dated Nov. 27.
Associate Justices Maryann Corpus-Mañalac and Rafael Lagos, chair of the Special Division, concurred with her.
READ: Sandiganbayan reverses Jinggoy Estrada’s bribery conviction
Prosecutors had argued in their motion for reconsideration that the indirect and direct bribery charges were “essentially the same” and the only difference was that direct bribery requires an “indispensable element: the existence of an agreement between the public officer and the bribe-giver to perform or refrain from doing an act in consideration of the gift.”
Useless ritual
However, the court said it was not persuaded by this argument. “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,” the Sandiganbayan noted. “It would be a useless ritual for the Court to reiterate itself.”
“His acquittal cannot be assailed under the guise of a motion for reconsideration as the first jeopardy has already attached which will be discussed hereunder,” it added.
At the same time, the court also junked Estrada’s motion to remove from its records his argument that any move to revisit his acquittal would be “unfair, oppressive and constitutionally prohibited.”
Estrada also challenged the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction in recognizing the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration after it acquitted him.
The court, however, disagreed and maintained that the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration shall not be expunged from the records of his case.
The court also said that for the sake of “interest of justice and fair play,” the prosecution would be given its day in court to question the acquittal of Estrada “within the legal parameters.”
Court’s parting shot
“A final note: indeed, no litigant has vested right over the procedure to be undertaken by the courts in dealing with his or her case. No party to litigation has a vested right in a favorable decision,” it said.
The case involves the Sandiganbayan’s reversal in August of its conviction of Estrada for two counts of indirect bribery and one count of direct bribery for lack of sufficient evidence. He had been accused or receiving kickbacks worth P55.79 million through the transfer of his Priority Development Assistance Fund allocations to bogus foundations set up by Janet Napoles.
While Estrada was acquitted of a plunder charge in January, he was found guilty of bribery.