G.R. No.

220598

GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, Petitioner,

vs
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division), Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 220953

BENIGNO B. AGUAS, Petitioner,

vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division), Respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

We resolve the consolidated petitions for certiorari separately brought to assail and annul the
resolutions issued on April 6, 2015 and September 10, 2015, whereby
1 2

the Sandiganbayan respectively denied their demurrer to evidence, and their motions for
reconsideration, asserting such denials to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Antecedents

On July 10, 2012, the Ombudsman charged in the Sandiganbayan former President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA); Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) Budget and Accounts
Officer Benigno Aguas; PCSO General Manager and Vice Chairman Rosario C. Uriarte; PCSO
Chairman of the Board of Directors Sergio 0. Valencia; Members of the PCSO Board of Directors,
namely: Manuel L. Morato, Jose R. Taruc V, Raymundo T. Roquero, and Ma. Fatima A.S. Valdes;
Commission on Audit (COA) Chairman Reynaldo A. Villar; and COA Head of Intelligence/Confidential
Fund Fraud Audit Unit Nilda B. Plaras with plunder. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No.
SB-12-CRM-O 174 and assigned to the First Division of the Sandiganbayan.

The information reads:

3

The undersigned Assistant Ombudsman and Gratl Investigation and Prosecution Officer III, Office of
the Ombudsman, hereby accuse GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, ROSARIO C. URIARTE,
SERGIO O. VALENCIA, MANUEL L. MORA TO, JOSE R. TARUC V, RAYMUNDO T. ROQUERO,
MA. FATIMA A.S. V ALOES, BENIGNO B. AGUAS, REYNALDO A. VILLAR and NILDA B. PLARAS,
of the crime of PLUNDER, as defined by, and penalized under Section 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, committed, as follows:

That during the period from January 2008 to June 2010 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in
Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused GLORIA MA
CAP A GAL-ARROYO, then the President of the Philippines, ROSARIO C. URIARTE, then General
Manager and Vice Chairman, SERGIO O. VALENCIA, then Chairman of the Board of Directors,
MANUEL L. MORA TO, JOSE R. TARUC V, RAYMUNDO T. ROQUERO, MA. FATIMA A.S. V
ALOES, then members of the Board of Directors, BENIGNO B. AGUAS, then Budget and Accounts
Manager, all of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), REYNALDO A. VILLAR, then
Chairman, and NILDA B. PLARAS, then Head of Intelligence/Confidential Fund Fraud Audit Unit,
both of the Commission on Audit, all public officers committing the offense in relation to their
respective offices and taking undue advantage of their respective official positions, authority,
relationships, connections or influence, conniving, conspiring and confederating with one another,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate and/or acquire. Directly or
indirectly, ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE
MILLION NINE HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTEEN PESOS
(PHP365,997,915.00), more or less, through any or a combination or a series of overt or criminal
acts, or similar schemes or means, described as follows:

(a) diverting in several instances, funds from the operating budget of PCSO to its
Confidential/Intelligence Fund that could be accessed and withdrawn at any time with
minimal restrictions, and converting, misusing, and/or illegally conveying or transferring the
proceeds drawn from said fund in the aforementioned sum, also in several instances, to
themselves, in the guise of fictitious expenditures, for their personal gain and benefit;

(b) raiding the public treasury by withdrawing and receiving, in several instances, the above-
mentioned amount from the Confidential/Intelligence Fund from PCSO's accounts, and or
unlawfully transferring or conveying the same into their possession and control through
irregularly issued disbursement vouchers and fictitious expenditures; and

(c) taking advantage of their respective official positions, authority, relationships, connections
or influence, in several instances, to unjustly enrich themselves in the aforementioned sum,
at the expense of, and the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of
the Philippines.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

By the end of October 2012, the Sandiganbayan already acquired jurisdiction over GMA, Valencia,
Morato and Aguas. Plaras, on the other hand, was able to secure a temporary restraining order
(TRO) from this Court in Plaras v. Sandiganbayan docketed as G.R. Nos. 203693-94. Insofar as
Roquero is concerned, the Sandiganbayan acquired jurisdiction as to him by the early part of 2013.
Uriarte and Valdes remained at large.

Thereafter, several of the accused separately filed their respective petitions for bail. On June 6,
2013, the Sandiganbayan granted the petitions for bail of Valencia, Morato and Roquero upon
finding that the evidence of guilt against them was not strong. In the case of petitioners GMA and
4

Aguas, the Sandiganbayan, through the resolution dated November 5, 2013, denied their petitions
for bail on the ground that the evidence of guilt against them was strong. The motions for
5

reconsideration filed by GMA and Aguas were denied by the Sandiganbayan on February 19,
2014. Accordingly, GMA assailed the denial of her petition for bail in this Court, but her challenge
6

has remained pending and unresolved todate.

Personal jurisdiction over Taruc and Villar was acquired by the Sandiganbayan in 2014. Thereafter,
said accused sought to be granted bail, and their motions were granted on different dates,
specifically on March 31, 2014 and May 9, 2014, respectively.
7 8

The case proceeded to trial, at which the State presented Atty. Aleta Tolentino as its main witness
against all the accused. The Sandiganbayan rendered the following summary of her testimony and
evidence in its resolution dated November 5, 2013 denying the petitions for bail of GMA and Aguas,
to wit:
She is a certified public accountant and a lawyer. She is a member of the Philippine Institute of
Certified Public Accountants and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. She has been a CPA for 30
years and a lawyer for 20 years. She has practiced accountancy and law. She became accounting
manager of several companies. She has also taught subjects in University of Santo Tomas, Manuel
L. Quezon University, Adamson University and the Ateneo de Manila Graduate School. She currently
teaches Economics, Taxation and Land Reform.

Presently, she is a Member of the Board of Directors of the PCSO. The Board appointed her as
Chairman of an Audit Committee. The audit review proceeded when she reviewed the COA Annual
Reports of the PCSO for 2006 2007 2008 and 2009 (Exhibits "D" "E" "F" and "G" respectively), and
the annual financial statements contained therein for the years 2005 to 2009. The reports were given
to them by the COA. These are transmitted to the PCSO annually after the subject year of audit.

One of her major findings was that the former management of the PCSO was commingling the
charity fund, the prize fund and the operating fund. By commingling she means that the funds were
maintained in only one main account. This violates Section 6 of Republic Act 1169 (PCSO Charter)
and generally accepted accounting principles.

The Audit Committee also found out that there was excessive disbursement of the Confidential and
Intelligence Fund (CIF). There were also excessive disbursements for advertising expenses. The
internal audit department was also merged with the budget and accounting department, which is a
violation of internal audit rules.

There was excessive disbursement of the CIF because the PCSO was given only P10 million in
2002, i.e. P5 million for the Office of the Chairman and P5 million for the Office of the General
Manager. Such allocation was based on the letters of then Chairman Lopez (Exh. "I") and then
General Manager Golpeo (Exh. "J"), asking for P5 million intelligence fund each. Both were dated
February 21, 2000, and sent to then President Estrada, who approved them. This allocation should
have been the basis for the original allocation of the CIF in the PCSO, but there were several
subsequent requests made by the General Manager during the time of, and which were approved
by, former President Arroyo.

The allocation in excess of P10 million was in violation of the PCSO Charter. PCSO did not have a
budget for this. They were working on a deficit from 2004 to 2009. The charter allows only 15% of
the revenue as operating fund, which was already exceeded. The financial statements indicate that
they were operating on a deficit in the years 2006 to 2009.

It is within the power of the General Manager to ask for additional funds from the President, but there
should be a budget for it. The CIF should come from the operating fund, such that, when there is no
more operating fund, the other funds cannot be used.

The funds were maintained in a commingled main account and PCSO did not have a registry of
budget utilization. The excess was not taken from the operating fund, but from the prize fund and the
charity fund.

In 2005, the deficit was P916 million; in 2006, Pl,000,078,683.23. One of the causes of the deficit for
2006 was the CIF expense of P215 million, which was in excess of the approved allocation of P10
million. The net cash provided by operating expenses in 2006 is negative, which means that there
were more expenses than what was received.
In the 2007 COA report, it was found that there was still no deposit to the prize and charity funds.
The COA made a recommendation regarding the deposits in one main account. There were also
excessive disbursements of CIF amounting to P77,478,705.

She received a copy of the PCSO corporate operating budget (COB) for the year 2008 in 2010
because she was already a member of its Board of Directors. The 2008 approved COB has a
comparative analysis of the actual budget for 2007 (Exh. "K"). It is stated there that the budget for
CTF in 2007 is only P25,480,550. But the financial statements reflect P77 million. The budget was
prepared and signed by then PCSO General Manager Rosario Uriarte. It had accompanying Board
Resolution No. 305, Series of 2008, which was approved by then Chairperson Valencia, and board
members Valdes, Morato, Domingo, and attested to by Board Secretary Atty. Ronald T. Reyes.

In the 2008 COA report, it was noted that there was still no deposit to the prize and charity funds,
adverted in the 2007 COA report. There was already a recommendation by the COA to separate the
deposits or funds in 2007. But the COA noted that this was not followed. The financial statements
show the Confidential and the Extra-Ordinary Miscellaneous Expenses account is P38,293,137,
which is more than the P10 million that was approved.

In the Comparative Income Statement (Exh. "K"), the 2008 Confidential/Intelligence Expense budget
was approved for P28 million. The Confidential and Extra-Ordinary Miscellaneous Expenses is the
account being used for confidential and intelligence expenses. The amount in the financial
statements is over the budgeted amount of P28 million. Further, the real disbursement is more than
that, based on a summary of expenditures she had asked the treasurer to prepare.

In the Comparative Income Statement for 2009 Budget against the 2008 Actual Budget (Exh. "L"),
the budget for CIF and expenses was P60 million.

In the 2009 COA report, it was noted that there was still no deposit to the prize and charity funds,
despite the instruction or recommendation of COA. The funds were still deposited in one account.
The COA observation in 2007 states that there is juggling or commingling of funds.

After she had concluded the audit review, she reported her findings to the Board of Directors in one
of their executive meetings. The Board instructed her to go in-depth in the investigation of the
disbursements of CIF.

The Audit Committee also asked Aguas why there were disbursements in excess of P10 million. He
explained that there were board resolutions confirming additional CIF which were approved by
former President Arroyo. Aguas mentioned this in one of their meetings with the directors and
corporate secretary. The board secretary, Atty. Ed Araullo, gave them the records of those
resolutions.

In the records that Araullo submitted to her, it appears that Uriarte would ask for additional CIF, by
letter and President Arroyo approves it by affixing her signature on that same letter-request. There
were seven letters or memoranda to then President Arroyo, with the subject "Request for Intelligence
Fund."

She then asked their Treasurer, Mercy Hinayon, to give her a summary of all the disbursements from
CIF from 2007 to 2010. The total of all the amounts in the summaries for three years is
P365,997,915.
After receiving the summaries of the disbursed checks, she asked Hinayon to give her the checks or
copies thereof. She also asked Dorothy Robles, Budget and Accounting Manager, to give her the
corresponding vouchers. Only two original checks were given to her, as the rest were with the bank.
She asked her to request certified true copies of the checks.

They were then called to the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, which was then investigating the
operation of PCSO, including the CIF. She was invited as a resource speaker in an invitation from
Chairman Teofisto Guingona III (Exh. "DD"). Before the hearing, the Committee Chairman went to
the PCSO and got some documents regarding the subject matter being investigated. Araullo was
tasked to prepare all the documents needed by the Committee. These documents included the CIF
summary of disbursements, letters of Uriarte and the approval of the former president.

She attended whenever there were committee hearings. Among those who also attended were the
incoming members if the PCSO Board Directors and the directors. Accused Valencia and Aguas
were also present in some hearings as resources speakers. They were invited in connection with the
past disbursements of PCSO related to advertising expenses, CIF, vehicles for the bishops, and the
commingling of funds.

The proceedings in the Committee were recorded and she secured a copy of the transcript of
stenographic notes from the Office of the Blue Ribbon Committee. In the proceeding on June 7, 2011
(Exh. ''EE"), Uriarte testified. The witness was about two to three meters away from Uriarte when the
latter testified, and using a microphone.

According to the witness, Uriarte testified that all the confidential intelligence projects she had
proposed were approved by President Arroyo; all the requests she gave to the President were
approved and signed by the latter personally in her (Uriarte's) presence; and all the documents
pertaining to the CIF were submitted to President Arroyo. On the other hand, Valencia and Taruc
said they did not know about the projects. Statements before the Committee are under oath.

After the Committee hearings, she then referred to the laws and regulations involved to check
whether the disbursements were in accordance with law. One of the duties and responsibilities of the
audit committee was to verify compliance with the laws.

She considered the following laws: R.A. 1169, as amended (PCSO Charter); P.D. 1445 (COA Code);
LOI 1282; COA Circular 92-385, as amended by Circular 2003-002, which provides the procedure
for approval of disbursements and liquidation of confidential intelligence funds. She made a
handwritten flowchart (Exh. "II") of the allocations/disbursements/liquidation and audit of the CIF,
based on LOI 1282 and the COA Circulars. A digital presentation of this flowchart was made
available.

The first step is the provision or allotment of a budget because no CIF fund can be disbursed without
the allocation. This is provided in the second whereas clause of Circular 92-385. For GOCCs,
applying Circular 2003-002, there must be allocation or budget for the CIF and it should be
specifically in the corporate operating budget or would be taken from savings authorized by special
provisions.

This was not followed in the PCSO CIF disbursement in 2008. The disbursement for that year was
P86,555,060. The CIF budget for that year was only P28 million, and there were no savings because
they were on deficit. This was also not followed for the year 2009. The CIF disbursement for that
year was P139,420,875. But the CIF budget was only P60 million, and there was also no savings, as
they were in deficit. For the year 2010, the total disbursement, as of June 2010, was P141,021,980.
The budget was only P60 million.
The requirements in the disbursement of the CIF are the budget and the approval of the President. If
the budget is correct, the President will approve the disbursement or release of the CIF. In this case,
the President approved the release of the fund without a budget and savings. Also, the President
approved the same in violation of LOI 1282, because there were no detailed specific project
proposals and specifications accompanying the request for additional CIF. The requests for the year
2008, 2009 and 2010 were uniform and just enumerated the purposes, not projects. They did not
contain what was required in the LOI.

The purpose of this requirement is stated in the LOI itself. The request for allocations must contain
full details and specific purposes for which the fund will be used. A detailed presentation is made to
avoid duplication of expenditures, as what had happened in the past, because of a lack of
centralized planning and organization or intelligence fund.

There was no reason for each additional intelligence fund that was approved by then President
Arroyo.

The third step is the designation of the disbursing officer. In this case, the Board of Directors
designated Uriarte as Special Disbursing Officer (SDO) for the portion of the CIF that she withdrew.
For the portion withdrawn by Valencia, there was no special disbursing officer designated on record.

The designation of Uriarte was in violation of internal control which is the responsibility of the
department head, as required by Section 3 of Circular 2003-002. When she went through copies of
the checks and disbursement vouchers submitted to her, she found out that Uriarte was both the
SDO and the authorized officer to sign the vouchers and checks. She was also the payee of the
checks. All the checks withdrawn by Uriarte were paid to her and she was also the signatory of the
checks.

Aside from Uriarte, Valencia also disbursed funds in the CIF. For the funds withdrawn by Valencia,
he was also the authorized officer to sign the vouchers and checks. He was also the payee of the
checks.

The confidential funds were withdrawn through cash advance. She identified the vouchers and
checks pertaining to the disbursements made by Uriarte and Valencia in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

The checks of Uriarte and Valencia had the treasurer as cosignatory. The treasurer who signed
depends on when the checks were issued

She knows the signatures of Uriarte, Valencia and Aguas because they have their signatures on the
records.

Uriarte and Valencia signed the vouchers to certify to the necessity and legality of the vouchers; they
also signed to approve the same, signify they are "okay" for payment and claim the amount certified
and approved as payee. Gloria P. Araullo signed as releasing officer, giving the checks to the
claimants.

Accused Aguas signed the vouchers to certify that there are adequate funds and budgetary
allotment, that the expenditures were properly certified and supported by documents, and that the
previous cash advances were liquidated and accounted for. This certification means that the cash
advance voucher can be released. This is because the COA rule on cash advance is that before any
subsequent cash advance is released, the previous cash advance must be liquidated first. This
certification allowed the requesting party and payee to get the cash advance from the voucher.
Without this certification, Uriarte and Valencia could not have been able to get the cash advance.
Otherwise, it was a violation of P.D. 1445 (Government Auditing Code).

The third box in the flowchart is the designation of the SDO. Board Resolutions No. 217, Series
of2009 (Exh."M"), No. 2356, Series of 2009 (Exh."N"), and No. 029, Series of 2010 (Exh. "O"),
resolved to designate Uriarte as SDO for the CIF. These resolutions were signed and approved by
Valencia, Taruc, Valdes, Uriarte, Roquero and Morato. The witness is familiar with these persons'
signature because their signatures appear on PCSO official records.

Valencia designated himself as SDO upon the recommendation of COA Auditor Plaras. There was
no board resolution for this designation. There was just a certification dated February 2, 2009 (Exh.
"Z4"). This certification was signed by Valencia himself and designates himself as the SDO since he
is personally taking care of the funds which are to be handled with utmost confidentiality. The
witness is familiar with Valencia's signature because it appears on PCSO official documents. Under
COA rules, the Board of Directors has authority to designate the SDO. The chairman could not do
this by himself.

Plaras wrote a letter dated December 15, 2008 to Valencia. It appears in the letter that to
substantiate the liquidation report, Plaras told Valencia to designate himself as SDO because there
was no disbursing officer. It was the suggestion of Plaras. Plaras is the head of the CIF Unit under
then COA Chairman Villar. Liquidation vouchers and supporting papers were submitted to them, with
corresponding fidelity bond.

COA Circulars 92-385 and 2003-002 indicate that to disburse CIF, one must be a special disbursing
officer or SDO. All disbursing officers of the government must have fidelity bonds. The bond is to
protect the government from and answer for misappropriation that the disbursing officer may do. The
bond amount required is the same as the amount that may be disbursed by the officer. It is based on
total accountability and not determined by the head of the agency as a matter of discretion. The
head determines the accountability which will be the basis of the bond amount.

The Charter states that the head of the agency is the Board of Directors, headed by the Chairman.
But now, under the Governance of Government Corporation law, it is the general manager.

Plaras should have disallowed or suspended the cash advances because there was no fidelity bond
and the disbursing officer was not authorized. There was no bond put up for Valencia. The records
show that the bond for Uriarte was only for the amount of Pl.5 million. This is shown in a letter dated
August 23, 2010, to COA Chairman Villar through Plaras from Aguas (Exh. "B 5"), with an attachment
from the Bureau of Treasury, dated March 2, 2009. It appears there that the bond for Uriarte for the
CIF covering the period February 2009 to February 2010 was only Pl.5 million.

Aguas submitted this fidelity bond certification, which was received on August 24, 2010, late,
because under the COA Circulars, it should have been submitted when the disbursing officer was
designated. It should have been submitted to COA because a disbursing officer cannot get cash
advances if they do not have a fidelity bond.

Once an SDO is designated, the specimen signature must be submitted to COA, together with the
fidelity bond and the signatories for the cash advances.

The approval of the President pertains to the release of the budget, not its allocation. She thinks the
action of the Board was done because there was no budget. The Board's confirmation was needed
because it was in excess of the budget that was approved. They were trying to give a color of legality
to them approval of the CIF in excess of the approved corporate operating budget. The Board
approval was required for the amount to be released, which amount was approved in excess of the
allotted budget for the year. The President cannot approve an additional amount, unless there is an
appropriation or a provision saying a particular savings will be used for the CIF. The approvals here
were all in excess of the approved budget.

Cash advances can be given on a per project basis for CIF. For one to get a cash advance, one
must state what the project is as to that cash advance. No subsequent cash advance should be
given, until previous cash advances have been liquidated and accounted for. If it is a continuing
project, monthly liquidation reports must be given. The difference in liquidation process between CIF
and regular cash advances is that for CIF, the liquidation goes to the Chair and not to the resident
auditor of the agency or the GOCC. All of the liquidation papers should go to the COA Chair, given
on a monthly basis.

In this case, the vouchers themselves are couched generally and just say cash advance from CIF of
the Chairman or from the GM's office in accordance with her duties. There is no particular project
indicated for the cash advance. Also, the requirement that prior advances be liquidated first for
subsequent advances to be given was not followed. The witness prepared a summary of the cash
advances withdrawn by the two disbursing officers covering the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 (Exh.
"D5"). The basis for this summary is the record submitted to them by Aguas, which were supposedly
submitted to COA. It shows that there were subsequent cash advances, even if a prior advance has
not yet been liquidated. Valencia submitted liquidation reports to Villar, which consists of a letter,
certification and schedule of cash advances, and liquidation reports. One is dated July 24, 2008
(Exh. "G5") and another is dated February 13, 2009 (Exh. "H5").

When she secured Exhibit "G5", together with the attached documents, she did not find any
supporting documents despite the statement in Exhibit "G5" that the supporting details of the
expenses that were incurred from the fund can be made available, if required. Aguas, the person
who processed the cash advances said he did not have the details or suppmiing details of
documents of the expenditures.

Normally, when liquidating CIF, the certification of the head of the agency is necessary. If there were
vouchers or receipts involved, then all these should be attached to the liquidation report. There
should also be an accomplishment report which should be done on a monthly basis. All of these
should be enclosed in a sealed envelope and sent to the Chairman of the COA, although the agency
concerned must retain a photocopy of the documents. The report should have a cover/transmittal
letter itemizing the documents, as well as liquidation vouchers and other supporting papers. If the
liquidation voucher and the supporting papers are in order, then the COA Chairman or his
representative shall issue a credit memorandum. Supporting papers consist of receipts and sales
invoices. The head of the agency would have to certify that those were all actually incurred and are
legal. In this case, there were no supporting documents submitted with respect to Valencia's cash
advances in 2008. Only the certifications by the SDO were submitted. These certifications stated that
he has the documents in his custody and they can be made available, if and when necessary.

When she reviewed the CIF, she asked Aguas to produce the supporting documents which were
indicated in Valencia's certification and Aguas's own certification in the cash advance vouchers,
where he also certified that the documents supporting the cash advance were in their possession
and that there was proper liquidation. Aguas replied that he did not have them.

She identified the letter of Uriarte to Villar dated July 24, 2008 as well as a transmittal letter by
Uriarte for August 1, 2008, a certification and schedule of cash advances and an undetailed
liquidation report. Among the attachments is Board Resolution 305, a copy of the COB for 2008, a
document for the second half of 2008, a document dated April 2, 2009, and a document for
liquidation of P2,295,000. She also identified another letter for P50 million, dated February 13, 2009,
attached to the transmittal letter. There is a certification attached to those two letters amounting to
P2,295,000. Also attached is the schedule of cash advances by Aguas and a liquidation report where
Aguas certified that the supporting documents are complete and proper although the supporting
documents and papers are not attached to the liquidation report, only the general statement. These
documents were submitted to them by Aguas.

She was shown the four liquidation reports (Exhibits "M5", "N5", "05" and "P5") attached to the
transmittal letter and was asked whether they were properly and legally accomplished. She replied
that they were couched in general terms and the voucher for which the cash advance was liquidated
is not indicated and only the voucher number is specified. She adds that the form of the liquidation is
correct, but the details are not there and neither are the supporting papers.

The liquidation report was dated July 24, 2008, but it was submitted only on August 1, 2008 to COA,
and it supposedly covered the cash advances of Uriarte from January to May 2008. This is stated in
her summary of liquidation that was earlier marked. There were no supporting papers stated on or
attached to the liquidation report.

She identified a set of documents to liquidate the cash advances from the CIF for the second
semester of 2008 by Uriarte. The transmittal letter of Uriarte was received by the COA on April 2,
2009. Upon inquiry with Aguas, he said that he did not have any of the supporting papers that he
supposedly had according to the certification. According to him, they are with Uriarte. Uriarte, on the
other hand, said, during the Senate hearing, that she gave them to President Arroyo.

When Plaras wrote Valencia on December 15, 2008, Aguas wrote back on behalf of Valencia, who
had designated himself as SDO. However, their designations, or in what capacity they signed the
voucher are not stated. Among the attachments is also a memorandum dated April 2, 2008 (Exhibit
"P5"), containing the signature of Arroyo, indicating her approval to the utilization of funds. Another
memorandum, dated August 13, 2008, indicating the approval of Arroyo was also attached to the
transmittal letter of Aguas on April 4, 2009. These two memoranda bear the reasons for the cash
advances, couched in general terms. The reasons were donated medicines that were sold and
authorized expenditures on endowment fund. The reasons stated in the memoranda are practically
the same. Uriarte did not submit any accomplishment reports regarding the intelligence fund. Aguas
submitted an accomplishment report, but the accomplishments were not indicated in definite fashion
or with specificity.

The witness narrated, based on her Summary of Liquidation Reports in 2009, that the total cash
advance made by Uriarte was P132,760,096. Arroyo approved P90 million for release. P10 million in
January 2009 and April 27, 2009, and then P50 million in May 6, 2009.In July 2, 2009, P10 million or
a total of P70 million. In October 2009, P20 million or a total of P90 million. The amount that was
cash advanced by Valencia was P5,660,779. Therefore, the total cash advances by these two
officials were P138,420,875, but all of these were never liquidated in 2009. Uriarte and Valencia only
submitted a liquidation voucher and a report to COA on April I2, 2010. For the January 22, 2009
disbursements, the date of the liquidation voucher was June 30, 2009, but it was submitted to COA
on April 12, 2010. Witness identified the transmittal letter for P28 million by Uriarte, dated October
19, 2009, which was received by the COA only on April 12, 2010, with an accompanying certification
from Uriarte as to some of the documents from which the witness's Summary of Liquidation was
based.

The cash advances made by Uriarte and Valencia violated par. I, Sec. 4 and Sec. 84 of P.D. I445
and par. 2, III, COA Circular No. 92-385.
Since these cash advances were in excess of the appropriation, in effect, they were disbursed
without any appropriation. These cash advances were also made without any specific project, in
violation of par. 2 of COA Circular No. 92-385. In this case, the cash advances were not for a specific
project. The vouchers only indicate the source of the fund. The vouchers did not specify specific
projects.

The total cash advances for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 to accused Uriarte and Valencia is more
than P366,000,000. Valencia cash advanced PI 3.3 million. The rest was made by Uriarte.

The memoranda to President Arroyo stated only the problems encountered by the PCSO. These
problems, as stated in each memorandum, included donated medicines sometimes ending up in
store for sale, unofficial use of ambulances, rise of expenditures of endowment fund, lotto
sweepstakes scams, fixers for programs of the PCSO, and other fraudulent schemes. No projects
were mentioned.

As regards the sixth step - the credit notice, the same was not validly issued by the COA. The credit
notice is a settlement or an action made by the COA Auditors and is given once the Chairman, in the
case of CIF Fund, finds that the liquidation report and all the supporting papers are in order. In this
case, the supporting papers and the liquidation report were not in order, hence, the credit notice
should not have been issued. Further, the credit notice has to follow a specific form. The COA
Chairman or his representative can: 1) settle the cash advance when everything is in order; 2)
suspend the settlement if there are deficiencies and then ask for submission of the deficiencies; or 3)
out rightly disallow it in case said cash advances are illegal, irregular or unconscionable, extravagant
or excessive. Instead of following this form, the COA issued a document dated January 10, 2011,
which stated that there is an irregular use of the price fund and the charity fund for CIF Fund. The
document bears an annotation which says, "wait for transmittal, draft" among others. The document
was not signed by Plaras, who was the Head of the Confidential and Intelligence Fund Unit under
COA Chairman Villar. Instead, she instructed her staff to "please ask Aguas to submit the
supplemental budget." This document was not delivered to PCSO General Manager J.M. Roxas.
They instead received another letter dated January 13, 2011 which was almost identical to the first
document, except it was signed by Plaras, and the finding of the irregular use of the prize fund and
the charity fund was omitted. Instead, the work "various" was substituted and then the amount of
P137,5000,000. Therefore, instead of the earlier finding of irregularity, suddenly, the COA issued a
credit notice as regards the total of P140,000,000. The credit notice also did not specify that the
transaction had been audited, indicating that no audit was made.

A letter dated May 11, 2009 from the COA and signed by Plaras, states that the credit notice is
hereby issued. Thus, it is equivalent to the credit notice, although it did not come in the required
form. It merely stated that the credit notice is issued for P29,700,000, without specifying for which
vouchers and for which project the credit notice was being given. It merely says "First Semester of
2008". In other words, it is a "global" credit notice that she issued and it did not state that she made
an audit.

Another letter, dated July 14, 2010 and signed by Plaras, supposedly covers all the cash advances
in 2009, but only up to the amount of P116,386,800. It also did not state that an audit was made.

There were no supporting papers attached to the voucher, and the certification issued is not in
conformity with the required certification by COA Circular 2003-002. The certification dated July 24,
2008 by Valencia was not in conformity with the certification required by COA. The required form
should specify the project for which the certification was being issued, and file code of the specific
project. The certification dated July 24, 2008, however, just specified that it was to certify that the P2
million from the 2008 CIF Fund was incurred by the undersigned, in the exercise of his functions as
PCSO Chairman for the various projects, projects and activities related to the operation of the office,
and there was no specific project or program or file code of the intelligence fund, as required by
COA. Furthermore, the certification also did not contain the last paragraph as required by COA.
Instead, the following was stated in the certification: "He further certifies that the details and
supporting documents and papers on these highly confidential missions and assignments are in our
custody and kept in our confidential file which can be made available if circumstances so demand."
No details or supporting documents were reviewed by the witness, and though she personally asked
Aguas, the latter said that he did not have the supporting papers, and they were not in the official
files of the PCSO. Two people should have custody of the papers, namely, The Chairman of COA
and the PCSO or its Special Disbursing Officer. The witness asked Aguas because Valencia was not
there, and also because Aguas was the one who made the certification and was in-charge of
accounting. The vouchers, supposedly certified by Aguas, as Budget and Accounting Department
Manager, each time cash advances were issued, stated that the supporting documents are
complete, so the witness went to him to procure the documents.

A certification dated February 13, 2009, stating that P2,857,000 was incurred by Valencia in the
exercise of his function as PCSO Chairman, related to the operations of his office without the
specific intelligence project. In the same document, there is a certification similar to one in the earlier
voucher. No details of this certification were submitted by Aguas.

Another certification dated July 24, 2008 was presented, and it also did not specify the intelligence
and confidential project, and it did not contain any certification that the amount was disbursed legally
or that no benefits was given to any person. Similarly, the fourth paragraph of the same document
states that Uriarte certified that details and supporting papers of the cash advance that she made of
P27,700,000 are "kept in their confidential" (sic). The same were not in the PCSO official records.

The certification dated October 19, 2009 for the amount of P2,498,300, was submitted to the witness
by Aguas. It also did not conform to the COA requirements, as it also did not specify the use of the
cash advance, did not contain any certification that the cash advance was incurred for legal
purposes, or that no benefits to other people were paid out of it. Again, no supporting documents
were found and none were given by Aguas. Similarly, a certification dated February 8, 2010 for the
amount of P2,394,654 was presented, and it also does not conform with the COA circular, as it only
stated that the amount was spent or incurred by Valencia for projects covering the period of July 1 to
December 31, 2009 to exercise his function as PCSO Chairman, thus no particular intelligence fund
or project was stated. As in the other certifications, though it was stated that the details were in the
confidential file, it appeared that these were not in the possession of PCSO. Another certification
dated October 19, 2009 submitted by Uriarte was examined by the witness in the course of her
audit, and found that it also did not conform to the requirements, as it only stated that the P25 million
and P10 million intelligence and confidential fund dated January 29, 2009 and April 27, 2009 were
used in the exercise of her function as PCSO Vice Chairman and General Manager.

All the documents were furnished by Aguas during the course of the audit of the financial
transactions of PCSO. Other documents given by Aguas include a letter by Valencia to COA
Chairman Villar, which was attached to the letter dated July 24, 2008. For the Certification issued by
Valencia for P2,857,000, there was also a certification attached dated February 13, 2009. As to
Exhibit "J5", together with the certification, there was a letter but no other documents were submitted.
Similarly, as to Exhibit "M6", it was attached to a letter dated October 19, 2009 and was submitted to
the witness by Aguas. Exhibit "N6" was attached to the letter of Valencia dated February 8, 2010, the
October 19, 2009 certification was attached to the October 19, 2009 letter to Chairman Villar.

The certification dated June 29, 2010, signed by Valencia in the amount of P2,075,000, also does
not conform with the COA requirement as it only specifies that the fund was disbursed by Valencia
under his office for various programs in the exercise of his function as Chairman. Though there was
a certification that the supporting papers were kept in the office, these papers were not found in the
records of the PCSO and Aguas did not have any of the records. The certification was attached to
the letter of Valencia to Villar dated June 29, 2010.

In the certification dated June 29, 2010 signed by Uriarte in the amount of P137 ,500,000, the
witness also said that the certification did not conform to the COA Circular because it only stated that
the amount was disbursed from a special intelligence fund, authorized and approved by the
President under the disposition of the Office of the Vice Chairman. Despite the statement certifying
that there were documents for the audit, no documents were provided and the same were not in the
official files of PCSO . The certification was attached to a letter by Uriarte dated July 1, 2010
addressed to Villar.

In the certification dated October 19, 2009 signed by Uriarte in the amount of P2,500,000, the
witness made the same finding that it also did not conform to the COA Circular, as it did not specify
the project for which the cash advance was obtained and there were also no records in the PCSO. It
was attached to the letter dated October 19, 2009.

Finally, in the certification dated February 9, 2010 signed by Uriarte in the amount of P73,993,846,
the witness likewise found that it did not conform with the requirements of the COA, as all it said was
the amount was used for the exercise of the functions of the PCSO Chairman and General Manager.
The documents related to this were also not in the PCSO records and Aguas did not submit the
same. It was attached to a letter dated February 8, 2010 from Uriarte to Villar.

There are two kinds of audit on disbursements of government funds: pre-audit and post-audit. Both
are defined in COA Circular 2009-002. Pre-audit is the examination of documents supporting the
transaction, before these are paid for and recorded. The auditor determines whether: (1) the
proposed expenditure was in compliance with the appropriate law, specific statutory authority or
regulations; (2) sufficient funds are available to enable payment of the claim; (3) the proposed
expenditure is not illegal, irregular, extravagant, unconscionable or unnecessary, and (4) the
transaction is approved by the proper authority and duly supported by authentic underlying evidence.
On the other hand, the post-audit requirement is the process where the COA or the auditor will have
to do exactly what was done in the pre-audit, and in addition, the auditor must supplement what she
did by tracing the transaction under audit to the books of accounts, and that the transaction is all
recorded in the books of accounts. The auditor, in post-audit, also makes the final determination of
whether the transaction was not illegal, irregular, extravagant, excessive, unconscionable or
unnecessary.

In this case, no audit was conducted. In a letter dated May 11, 2009 signed by Plaras, it was stated
that a credit advice was given. However, the letter did not conform to the requirements or form of a
credit notice. Such form was in COA Circular 2003-002, and should specify the liquidation report
number, the amount, check numbers, and the action taken by the auditor. The auditor should also
include a certification that these have been audited. In this instance, no certification that the
transaction was audited was given by Plaras. Other similar letters did not conform with the COA
Circular. All transactions of the government must be subject to audit in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution. Nevertheless, the requirements for audit are the same.

The effect of the issuance of the credit notice by the COA was that the agency will take it up in the
books and credit the cash advance. This is the seventh step in the flowchart. Once there is a cash
advance, the liability of the officers who obtained the cash advance would be recorded in the books.
The credit notice, when received, would indicate that the account was settled. The agency will credit
the receivable or the cash advance, and remove from the books as a liability of the person liable for
the cash advance. The effect of this was that the financial liabilities of Uriarte and Valencia were
removed from the books, but they could still be subject to criminal liability based on Sec. 10 of COA
Circular 91-368 (Government Accounting and Auditing Manuals, Vol. 1, implementing P.O. 1445),
which states: "The settlement of an account whether or not on appeal has been made within the
statutory period is no bar to criminal prosecution against persons liable." From the 2008 COA Annual
Audited Financial Statements of PCSO, it was seen that the procedure was not followed because
the liability of the officers was already credited even before the credit notice was received. In the
financial statements, it was stated that the amount due from officers and employees, which should
include the cash advances obtained by Uriarte and Valencia, were not included because the amount
stated therein was P35 million, while the total vouchers of Uriarte and Valencia was P86 million.

The witness also related that she traced the records of the CIF fund (since such was no longer
stated as a receivable), and reviewed whether it was recorded as an expense in 2008. She found
out that the recorded CIF fund expense, as recorded in the corporate operating budget as actually
disbursed, was only P21,102,000. As such, she confronted her accountants and asked them "Saan
tinago itong amount na to?" The personnel in the accounting office said that the balance of the P86
million or the additional P21 million was not recorded in the operating fund budget because they
used the prize fund and charity fund as instructed by Aguas. Journal Entry Voucher No. 8121443
dated December 31, 2008, signed by Elmer Camba, Aguas (Head of the Accounting Department),
and Hutch Balleras (one of the staff in the Accounting Department), showed that this procedure was
done.

The contents of the Journal Entry Voucher are as follows:

(a) Accounts and Explanation: Due to other funds. This means that the amount of P63,750,000 was
credited as confidential expense from the operating fund. The amount was then removed from the
operating fund, and it was passed on to other funds.

(b) PF Miscellaneous, Account No. 424-1-L P41,250,000 and CF Miscellaneous for 424-2-G for
P22,500,000. PF Miscellaneous means Prize Fund Miscellaneous and CF stands for Charity Fund
Miscellaneous. This means that funds used to release the cash advances to Uriarte and Valencia
were from the prize fund and charity.

Attached to the Journal Entry Voucher was a document which reads "Allocation of Confidential and
Intelligence Fund Expenses", and was the basis of Camba in doing the Journal Entry Voucher. In the
same document, there was a written annotation dated 12-31-2008 which reads that the adjustment
of CIF, CF and IF, beneficiary of the fund is CF and PF and signed by Aguas.

The year 2009 was a similar case, as the witness traced the recording of the credit notice at the end
of 2009, and despite the absence of the credit notice, the Accounting Department removed from the
books of PCSO the liability of Uriarte and Valencia, corresponding to the cash advances obtained in
2009. She based this finding on the COA Annual Audit Report on the PCSO for the year ended
December 31, 2009. It was stated in the Audit Report that the total liability due from officers and
employees was only P87,747,280 and it was less than the total cash advances of Uriarte and
Valencia, which was P138 million. As a result, the witness checked the corresponding entry for the
expenses in the corporate operating budget and found out that the same was understated. The CIF
expenses were only P24,968,300, as against the actual amount per vouchers, which was
P138,420,875. Upon checking with the Accounting Department, the department showed her another
Journal Entry Voucher No. 9121157, dated December 29, 2009, where the personnel removed
immediately the expense and recorded it as expense for the prize fund and charity fund by the end
of December 31.
The contents of the Journal Entry Voucher, especially the notation "due from'', means the
accountability of those who had cash advance was instead credited. It was removed, and the
amount was P106 million. The entry was confidential expense for P15,958,020 and then the due to
other funds was P90,428,780. The explanation for "424" was found in the middle part, stating: "424-
1-L" of miscellaneous prize fund was used in the amount of P58,502,740 and the charity fund was
used in the amount of P31, 916,040. The total amount of the receivables from Uriarte and Valencia
that was removed was P106,386,800 and P90,428,780 respectively which came from the prize fund
and charity fund.

The witness reported the discrepancy because there were violations of R.A. 1169, Sec. 6, which
provides for the different funds of PCSO namely: prize fund (55% of the net receipts), charity fund
(30% of the net receipts), and operating fund (15% ). The proceeds of the lotto and sweepstakes
ticket sales provide the money for these different funds, removing first the printing cost and the net
proceeds (98%) is divided among the three funds mentioned. The prize fund is the fund set aside to
be used to pay the prizes for the winnings in the lotto or sweepstakes draws, whether they are
jackpot or consolation prizes. Incentives to the lotto operators or horse owners are also drawn from
this fund, as all of the expenses connected to the winnings of the draw. On the other hand, the
charity fund is reserved for charity programs approved by the board of PCSO, and constitutes
hospital and medical assistance to individuals, or to help facilities and other charities of national
character. Operating expenses are charged to the expenses to operate, personnel services, and
MOOE. One kind of fund cannot be used for another kind, as they become a trust fund which should
only be used for the purpose for which it was authorized, not even with the approval of the board.

The amounts obtained from the charity fund and prize fund for 2008 was P63,750,000, and in 2009
P90,428,780. The Board of Directors was given a copy of the COA Audit Reports for years 2008 and
2009. The Board of Directors for both years was composed of: Chairman Valencia, and Board
Members Morato, Roquero, Taruc and Valdez. Uriarte was the Vice Chairman of the Board of
Directors. The witness did not know whether the Board checked the COA reports, but there was no
action on their part, and neither did they question the correctness of the statements. They also had
the Audit Committee (which was composed of members of the board) at that time, and one of the
duties of the Audit Committee was to verify the balances.

The witness identified the documents referring to the confirmation by the Board of Directors of PCSO
of the CIF. Board Resolution No. 217, approved on February 18, 2009, confirms the CIF approved by
the President. It did not state which CIF they were approving. They also assigned Uriarte as the
Special Disbursing Officer of the CIF, but it did say for what year. The signatories to the same Board
Resolution were Valencia, Taruc, Valdes, Uriarte, Roquero and Morato. The same were the witness's
findings for Board Resolution No. 2356 S. 2009, approved on December 9, 2009. As for Board
Resolution No. 29, S. 2010, approved on January 6, 2010, the Board confirmed the fund approved
by the President for 2010, though the approval of the President was only received on August 13,
2010 as shown in the Memorandum dated January 4. In effect, the Board was aware of the
requests, and because they ratified the cash advances, they agreed to the act of obtaining the same.

Apart from the President violating LOI 1282, the witness also observed that the President directly
dealt with the PCSO, although the President, by Executive Order No. 383 dated November 14, 2004,
and Executive Order No. 455 dated August 22, 2005, transferred the direct control and supervision
of the PCSO to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), and later to the
Department of Health (DOH). A project should first be approved by the Supervising and Controlling
Secretary of the Secretary of Health; that the President had transferred her direct control and
supervision, and lost the same. The witness said her basis was administrative procedure. In this
regard, President Aquino now has transferred the control and supervision of the PCSO back to the
Office of the President through Executive Order No. 14, S. 2010, dated November 19, 2010.
Uriarte should not have gone directly to the President to ask for the latter's approval for allocation.
Nonetheless, the release of the CIF must still be approved by the President. 9

The State also presented evidence consisting in the testimonies of officers coming from different law
enforcement agencies to corroborate Tolentino's testimony to the effect that the PCSO had not
10

requested from their respective offices any intelligence operations contrary to the liquidation report
submitted by Uriarte and Aguas.

To complete the evidence for the Prosecution, Atty. Anamarie Villaluz Gonzales, Office-in-Charge
and Department Manager of the Human Resources of PCSO; Flerida Africa Jimenez, Head of the
Intelligence and Confidential Fund Audit Unit of the COA; and Noel Clemente, Director of COA were
presented as additional witnesses.

After the Prosecution rested its case, GMA, Aguas, Valencia, Morato, Taruc V, Roquero and Villar
separately filed their demurrers to evidence asserting that the Prosecution did not establish a case
for plunder against them.

On April 6, 2015, the Sandiganbayan granted the demurrers to evidence of Morato, Roquero, Taruc
and Villar, and dismissed the charge against them. It held that said accused who were members of
the PCSO Board of Directors were not shown to have diverted any PCSO funds to themselves, or to
have raided the public treasury by conveying and transferring into their possession and control any
money or funds from PCSO account; that as to Villar, there had been no clear showing that his
designation of Plaras had been tainted with any criminal design; and that the fact that Plaras had
signed "by authority" of Villar as the COA Chairman could not criminally bind him in the absence of
any showing of conspiracy.

However, the Sandiganbayan denied the demurrers of GMA, Aguas and Valencia, holding that there
was sufficient evidence showing that they had conspired to commit plunder; and that the Prosecution
had sufficiently established a case of malversation against Valencia, pertinently saying:

Demurrer to evidence is an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the
evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out
a case or sustain the issue. The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole
evidence to sustain a verdict. The court then ascertains whether there is a competent or
sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.

xxxx

Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrer thereto is such evidence in character,
weight or amount as will legally justify the judicial or official action demanded to accord to
circumstances. To be considered sufficient therefore, the evidence must prove (a) the commission of
the crime, and (b) the precise degree of paiiicipation therein by the accused (Gutib v. CA, 110 SCAD
743, 312 SCRA 365 [1999]).

xxx xxx xxx

A. Demurrer filed by Arroyo and Aguas:

It must be remembered that in Our November 5, 2013 Resolution, We found strong evidence of
guilt against Arroyo and Aguas, only as to the second predicate act charged in the
Information, which reads:
(b) raiding the public treasury by withdrawing and receiving, in several instances, the above-
mentioned amount from the Confidential/Intelligence Fund from PCSO's accounts, and/or unlawfully
transferring or conveying the same into their possession and control through irregularly issued
disbursement vouchers and fictitious expenditures.

In the November 5, 2013 Resolution, We said:

It should be noted that in both R.A. No. 7080 and the PCGG rules, the enumeration of the possible
predicate acts in the commission of plunder did not associate or require the concept of personal
gain/benefit or unjust enrichment with respect to raids on the public treasury, as a means to commit
plunder. It would, therefore, appear that a "raid on the public treasury" is consummated where all the
acts necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. Thus a "raid on the public
treasury" can be said to have been achieved thru the pillaging or looting of public coffers either
through misuse, misappropriation or conversion, without need of establishing gain or profit to
the raider. Otherwise stated, once a "raider" gets material possession of a government asset
through improper means and has free disposal of the same, the raid or pillage is completed.
xxx

xxxx

Clearly, the improper acquisition and illegal use of CIF funds, which is obviously a government asset,
will amount to a raid on the public treasury, and therefore fall into the category of ill-gotten wealth.

xxxx

xxx It is not disputed that Uriarte asked for and was granted authority by Arroyo to use additional CIF
funds during the period 2008-2010. Uriarte was able [to] accumulate during that period CIF
funds in the total amount of P.352,681,646. This was through a series of withdrawals as cash
advances of the CIF funds from the PCSO coffers, as evidenced by the disbursement vouchers and
checks issued and encashed by her, through her authorized representative.

These flagrant violations of the rules on the use of CIF funds evidently characterize the series of
withdrawals by and releases to Uriarte as "raids" on the PCSO coffers, which is part of the
public treasury. These were, in every sense, "pillage," as Uriarte looted government funds and
appears to have not been able to account for it. The monies came into her possession and,
admittedly, she disbursed it for purposes other than what these were intended for, thus, amounting to
"misuse" of the same. Therefore, the additional CIF funds are ill-gotten, as defined by R.A. 7080, the
PCGG rules, and Republic v. Sandiganbayan. The encashment of the checks, which named her
as the "payee," gave Uriarte material possession of the CIF funds which she disposed of at
will.

As to the determination whether the threshold amount of P50million was met by the prosecution's
evidence, the Court believes this to have been established. Even if the computation is limited only to
the cash advances/releases made by accused Uriarte alone AFTER Arroyo had approved her
requests and the PCSO Board approved CIF budget and the "regular" P5million CIF budget
accorded to the PCSO Chairman and Vice Chairman are NOT taken into account, still the total cash
advances through accused Uriarte's series of withdrawals will total P189,681,646. This amount
surpasses the P50million threshold.

The evidence shows that for the year 2010 alone, Uriarte asked for P150 million additional CIF
funds, and Arroyo granted such request and authorized its use. From January 8, 2010 up to June 18,
2010, Uriarte made a series of eleven (11) cash advances in the total amount of
P138,223,490. According to Uriarte's testimony before the Senate, the main purpose for these
cash advances was for the "roll-out" of the small town lottery program. However, the
accomplishment report submitted by Aguas shows that P137,500,000 was spent on non-related
PCSO activities, such as "bomb threat, kidnapping, terrorism and bilateral and security relations." All
the cash advances made by Uriarte in 2010 were made in violation of LOI 1282, and COA Circulars
2003-002 and 92-385. These were thus improper use of the additional Cff funds amounting to raids
on the PCSO coffers and were ill-gotten because Uriarte had encashed the checks and came into
possession of the monies, which she had complete freedom to dispose of but was not able to
properly account for.

These findings of the Court clearly point out the commission by Uriarte of the crime of Plunder
under the second predicate act charged in the Information. As to Arroyo's participation, the
Court stated in its November 5, 2013 Resolution that:

The evidence shows that Arroyo approved not only Uriarte's request for additional CIF funds in 2008-
2010, but also authorized the latter to use such funds. Arroyo's "OK" notation and signature on
Uriartc's letter-requests signified unqualified approval of Uriarte's request to use the
additional CIF funds because the last paragraph of Uriarte's requests uniformly ended with
this phrase: "With the use of intelligence fund, PCSO can protect its image and integrity of its
operations.

The letter-request of Uriarte in 2010 was more explicit because it categorically asked for: "The
approval on the use of the fifty percent of the PR Fund as PCSO Intelligence Fund will greatly help
PCSO in the disbursement of funds to immediately address urgent issues."

Arroyo cannot, therefore, successfully argue that what she approved were only the request for the
grant or allocation of additional CIF funds, because Arroyo's "OK" notation was unqualified and,
therefore, covered also the request to use such funds, through releases of the same in favor
of Uriarte.11

The Sandiganbayan later also denied the respective Motions for Reconsideration of GMA and
Aguas, observing that:

In this case, to require proof that monies went to a plunderer's bank account or was used to
acquire real or personal properties or used for any other purpose to personally benefit the
plunderer, is absurd. Suppose a plunderer had already illegally amassed, acquired or accumulated
P50 Million or more of government funds and just decided to keep it in his vault and never used such
funds for any purpose to benefit him, would that not be plunder? Or, if immediately right after such
amassing, the monies went up in flames or recovered by the police, negating any opportunity for the
person to actually benefit, would that not still be plunder? Surely, in such cases, a plunder charge
could still prosper and the argument that the fact of personal benefit should still be evidence-based
must fail.

Also, accused Arroyo insists that there was no proof of the fact of amassing the ill-gotten wealth, and
that the "overt act" of approving the disbursement is not the "overt act" contemplated by law. She
further stresses that there was no proof of conspiracy between accused Arroyo and her co-accused
and that the Prosecution was unable to prove their case against accused Arroyo. What accused
Arroyo forgets is that although she did not actually commit any "overt act" of illegally
amassing CIF funds, her act of approving not only the additional CIF funds but also their
releases, aided and abetted accused Uriarte's successful raids on the public
treasury. Accused Arroyo is therefore rightly charged as a coconspirator of Uriarte who accumulated
the CIF funds. Moreover, the performance of an overt act is not indispensable when a
conspirator is the mastermind. 12

Considering that the Sandiganbayan denied the demurrers to evidence of GMA and Aguas, they
have come to the Court on certiorari to assail and set aside said denial, claiming that the denial was
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Issues

GMA pleads that the denial of her demurrer to evidence was in patent and flagrant violation of
Republic Act No. 7080, the law on plunder, and was consequently arbitrary and oppressive, not only
in grave abuse of discretion but rendered without jurisdiction because:

First Ground

On the basis of the above Resolutions, the Sandiganbayan has denied petitioner Arroyo's
Demurrer to Evidence and considering the reasons for doing so, would find petitioner Arroyo
guilty of the offense of plunder under Republic Act No. 7080 as charged in the Information
notwithstanding the following:

a. While the gravamen, indeed corpus delicti of the offense of plunder under R.A. No. 7080,
and as charged in the Information, is that the public officer ... "amasses, accumulates or
acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts as
described in Section l(d) hereof, in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million
pesos (P50,000,000.00)", the Sandiganbayan Resolutions extirpate this vital element of the
offense of plunder;

b. In point of fact, not a single exhibit of the 637 exhibits offered by the prosecution nor a
single testimony of the 21 witnesses of the prosecution was offered by the prosecution to
prove that petitioner amassed, accumulated or acquired even a single peso of the alleged ill-
gotten wealth amounting to P365,997,915.00 or any part of that amount alleged in the
Information;

c. Implicitly confirming the above, and aggravating its error, on the basis solely of petitioner
Arroyo's authorization of the release of the Confidential/Intelligence Fund from PCSO's
accounts, the Sandiganbayan ruled that she has committed the offense of plunder under R.A.
No. 7080 for the reason that her release of CIF funds to the PCSO amount to a violation of
Sec. l(d) [11 of R.A. No. 7080 which reads, as follows:

1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on

the public treasury;

which, "did not associate or require the concept of personal gain/benefit or un.just
enrichment with respect to raids on the public treasury", thereby disregarding the gravamen
or the corpus delicti of the offense of plunder under R.A. No. 7080.

Second Ground

Worsening the above error of the Sandiganbayan, the Resolutions, with absolutely no
justification in law or in the evidence, purportedly as the "mastermind" of a conspiracy, and
without performing any overt act, would impute to petitioner Arroyo the "series of
withdrawals as cash advances of the CIF funds from the PCSO coffers" by Uriarte as "raids
on the PCSO coffers, which is part of the public treasury" and "in every sense, 'pillage' as
Uriarte looted government funds and appears to have not been able to account for it".
Parenthetically, Uriarte has not been arrested, was not arraigned and did not participate in the
trial of the case.

Third Ground

That as an obvious consequence of the above, denial of petitioner Arroyo's Demurrer To

Evidence for the reasons stated in the Sandiganbayan Resolutions, amounting no less to
convicting her on the basis of a disjointed reading of the crime of plunder as defined in R.A.
No. 7080, aggravated by the extirpation in the process of its "corpus delicti" - the amassing,
accumulation or acquisition of ill-gotten wealth, hence, of a crime that docs not exist in law
and consequently a blatant deprivation of liberty without due process of law.

Fourth Ground

The Information alleges that the ten (10) persons accused in Crim. Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174,
namely: Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Rosario C. Uriarte, Sergio 0. Valencia, Manuel L. Morato,
Jose R. Taruc V, Raymundo T. Roquero, [M]a. Fatima A.S. Valdes, Benigno B. Aguas,
Reynaldo A. Villar and Nilda B. Plaras" ... all public officers committing the offense in relation
to their respective offices and taking undue advantage of their respective official positions,
authority, relationships, connections or influence, conniving, conspiring and confederating
with one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate
and/or acquire, directly or indirectly, ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value
of THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE MILLION NINE HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND NINE
HUNDRED FIFTEEN PESOS (PHP365,997,915.00), more or less, through any or a combination
or a series of overt or criminal acts, or similar schemes or means, described as follows ... " or
each of them, P36,599,791.50 which would not qualify the offense charged as "plunder" under
R.A. No. 7080 against all ten (10) accused together, for which reason the Information docs not
charge the offense of plunder and, as a consequence, all proceedings thereafter held under
the Information arc void. 13

On his part, Aguas contends that:

A. In light of the factual setting described above and the evidence offered and admitted, docs
proof beyond reasonable doubt exist to warrant a holding that Prosecution proved the guilt of
the accused such that there is legal reason to deny Petitioner's Demurrer'?

B. Did the Prosecution's offered evidence squarely and properly support the allegations in
the Information'?

PETITIONER STRONGLY SUBMITS THAT PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH BY PROOF

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THE EXISTENCE OF THE CORE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME
OF PLUNDER. 14

On the other hand, the Prosecution insists that the petitions for certiorari should be dismissed upon
the following grounds, namely:

A. CERTIORARI IS NOT THE PROPER REMEDY FROM AN ORDER OR RESOLUTION

DENYING DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE.
B. THERE IS NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION BECAUSE THE SANDIGANBAYAN MERELY
INTERPRETED WHAT CONSTITUTES PLUNDER UNDER LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE IN
LIGHT OF FACTS OF THE CASE. IT DID NOT JUDICIALLY LEGISLATE A "NEW" OFFENSE.

1. ACTUAL PERSONAL GAIN, BENEFIT OR ENRICHMENT IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF PLUNDER

UNDER R.A. No. 7080.

2. EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT ARROYO, BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION, CONSPIRED

WITH HER CO-ACCUSED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE COMPLEX, ILLEGAL SCHEME WHICH
DEFRAUDED PCSO IN HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PESOS, WHICH CONSTITUTES
PLUNDER.

3. ARROYO IS NOT SIMILARLY SITUATED WITH ACCUSED PCSO BOARD MEMBERS AND
CANNOT THUS DEMAND THAT THE SANDIGANBA YAN DISMISS THE PLUNDER CASE
AGAINST HER.

C. ARROYO'S BELATED, COLLATERAL ATTACK ON THE INFORMATION CHARGING HER

AND CO-ACCUSED FOR PLUNDER IS HIGHLY IMPROPER, ESPECIALLY AT THIS LA TE
STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING.

1. THE FACTS CONSTITUTING THE OFFENSE ARE CLEARLY ALLEGED IN THE

INFORMATION.

2. ARROYO'S ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCEEDINGS ARISING FROM OR RELATING

TO SB-12-CRM-0174 PROVES THAT SHE HAS ALWAYS KNOWN AND UNDERSTOOD THE
NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST HER.

D. ARROYO IS NOT ENTITLED TO A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER BECAUSE THE

CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN SB-12-CRM-0174 CANNOT BE ENJOINED. 15

Based on the submissions of the parties, the Court synthesizes the decisive issues to be considered
and resolved, as follows:

Procedural Issue:

1. Whether or not the special civil action for certiorari is proper to assail the denial of the demurrers
to evidence.

Substantive Issues:

1. Whether or not the State sufficiently established the existence of conspiracy among GMA, Aguas,
and Uriarte;

2. Whether or not the State sufficiently established all the elements of the crime of plunder:

a. Was there evidence of amassing, accumulating or acquiring ill-gotten wealth in the total amount of
not less than P50,000,000.00?

b. Was the predicate act of raiding the public treasury alleged in the information proved by the
Prosecution?
Ruling of the Court

The consolidated petitions for certiorari are meritorious.

I.
The Court cannot be deprived of its jurisdiction
to correct grave abuse of discretion

The Prosecution insists that the petition for certiorari of GMA was improper to challenge the denial of
her demurrer to evidence; that she also thereby failed to show that there was grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan in denying her demurrer to evidence; and that, on the
contrary, the Sandiganbayan only interpreted what constituted plunder under the law and
jurisprudence in light of the established facts, and did not legislate a new offense, by extensively
discussing how she had connived with her co-accused to commit plunder. 16

The Court holds that it should take cognizance of the petitions for certiorari because
the Sandiganbayan, as shall shortly be demonstrated, gravely abused its discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The special civil action for certiorari is generally not proper to assail such an interlocutory order
issued by the trial court because of the availability of another remedy in the ordinary course of
law. Moreover, Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that "the order
17

denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be
reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment." It is not an insuperable obstacle to this
action, however, that the denial of the demurrers to evidence of the petitioners was an interlocutory
order that did not terminate the proceedings, and the proper recourse of the demurring accused was
to go to trial, and that in case of their conviction they may then appeal the conviction, and assign the
denial as among the errors to be reviewed. Indeed, it is doctrinal that the situations in which the writ
18

of certiorari may issue should not be limited, because to do so

19

x x x would be to destroy its comprehensiveness and usefulness. So wide is the discretion of the
court that authority is not wanting to show that certiorari is more discretionary than either prohibition
or mandamus. In the exercise of our superintending control over other courts, we are to be
guided by all the circumstances of each particular case 'as the ends of justice may require.'
So it is that the writ will be granted where necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do
substantial justice. 20

The Constitution itself has imposed upon the Court and the other courts of justice the duty to correct
errors of jurisdiction as a result of capricious, arbitrary, whimsical and despotic exercise of discretion
by expressly incorporating in Section 1 of Article VIII the following provision:

Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may
be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.

The exercise of this power to correct grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government cannot be thwarted by
rules of procedure to the contrary or for the sake of the convenience of one side. This is because the
Court has the bounden constitutional duty to strike down grave abuse of
discretion whenever and wherever it is committed. Thus, notwithstanding the interlocutory character
and effect of the denial of the demurrers to evidence, the petitioners as the accused could avail
themselves of the remedy of certiorari when the denial was tainted with grave abuse of
discretion. As we shall soon show, the Sandiganbayan as the trial court was guilty of grave abuse of
21

discretion when it capriciously denied the demurrers to evidence despite the absence of competent
and sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment for plunder, and despite the absence of the factual
bases to expect a guilty verdict. 22

II.
The Prosecution did not properly allege and prove
the existence of conspiracy among GMA, Aguas and Uriarte

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony, and decide to commit it. In this jurisdiction, conspiracy is either a crime in itself or a mere
23

means to commit a crime.

As a rule, conspiracy is not a crime unless the law considers it a crime, and prescribes a penalty for
it. The exception is exemplified in Article 115 (conspiracy and proposal to commit treason), Article
24

136 (conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat, rebellion or insurrection) and Article
141 (conspiracy to commit sedition) of the Revised Penal Code. When conspiracy is a means to
commit a crime, it is indispensable that the agreement to commit the crime among all the
conspirators, or their community of criminal design must be alleged and competently shown.

We also stress that the community of design to commit an offense must be a conscious
one. Conspiracy transcends mere companionship, and mere presence at the scene of the crime
25

does not in itself amount to conspiracy. Even knowledge of, or acquiescence in, or agreement to
cooperate is not enough to constitute one a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in
the commission of the crime with a view to the furtherance of the common design and
purpose. Hence, conspiracy must be established, not by conjecture, but by positive and conclusive
26

evidence.

In terms of proving its existence, conspiracy takes two forms. The first is the express form, which
requires proof of an actual agreement among all the co-conspirators to commit the crime. However,
conspiracies are not always shown to have been expressly agreed upon. Thus, we have the second
form, the implied conspiracy. An implied conspiracy exists when two or more persons are shown to
have aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part
so that their combined acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative,
indicating closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. Implied conspiracy is
27

proved through the mode and manner of the commission of the offense, or from the acts of the
accused before, during and after the commission of the crime indubitably pointing to a joint purpose,
a concert of action and a community of interest. 28

But to be considered a part of the conspiracy, each of the accused must be shown to have
performed at least an overt act in pursuance or in furtherance of the conspiracy, for without being
shown to do so none of them will be liable as a co-conspirator, and each may only be held
responsible for the results of his own acts. In this connection, the character of the overt act has been
explained in People v. Lizada: 29

An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to
commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its
complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor
by the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete
offense. The raison d'etre for the law requiring a direct overt act is that, in a majority of cases,
the conduct of the accused consisting merely of acts of preparation has never ceased to be
equivocal; and this is necessarily so, irrespective of his declared intent. It is that quality of
being equivocal that must be lacking before the act becomes one which may be said to be a
commencement of the commission of the crime, or an overt act or before any fragment of the
crime itself has been committed, and this is so for the reason that so long as the equivocal
quality remains, no one can say with certainty what the intent of the accused is. It is necessary
that the overt act should have been the ultimate step towards the consummation of the design. It is
sufficient if it was the "first or some subsequent step in a direct movement towards the commission
of the offense after the preparations are made." The act done need not constitute the last
proximate one for completion. It is necessary, however, that the attempt must have a causal
relation to the intended crime. In the words of Viada, the overt acts must have an immediate
and necessary relation to the offense. (Bold underscoring supplied for emphasis)

In her case, GMA points out that all that the State showed was her having affixed her unqualified
"OK" on the requests for the additional CIFs by Uriarte. She argues that such act was not even an
overt act of plunder because it had no immediate and necessary relation to plunder by virtue of her
approval not being per se illegal or irregular. However, the Sandiganbayan, in denying the Motions
for Reconsideration of GMA and Aguas vis-a-vis the denial of the demurrers, observed that:

xxxx accused Arroyo insists that there was no proof of the fact of amassing the ill-gotten wealth, and
that the "overt act" of approving the disbursement is not the "overt act" contemplated by Jaw. She
further stresses that there was no proof of conspiracy between accused Arroyo and her co-accused
and that the Prosecution was unable to prove their case against accused Arroyo. What accused
Arroyo forgets is that although she did not actually commit any "overt act" of illegally amassing CIF
funds, her act of approving not only the additional CIF funds but also their releases, aided and
abetted accused Uriarte's successful raids on the public treasury. Accused Arroyo is therefore rightly
charged as a co-conspirator of Uriarte who accumulated the CIF funds. Moreover, the performance
of an overt act is not indispensable when a conspirator is the mastermind. 30

It is in this regard that the Sandigabayan gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess
of its jurisdiction. To start with, its conclusion that GMA had been the mastermind of plunder was
plainly conjectural and outrightly unfounded considering that the information did not aver at all that
she had been the mastermind; hence, the Sandigabayan thereby acted capriciously and arbitrarily.
In the second place, the treatment by the Sandiganbayan of her handwritten unqualified "OK" as an
overt act of plunder was absolutely unwarranted considering that such act was a common legal and
valid practice of signifying approval of a fund release by the President. Indeed, pursuant to People v.
Lizada, supra, an act or conduct becomes an overt act of a crime only when it evinces a causal
relation to the intended crime because the act or conduct will not be an overt act of the crime if it
does not have an immediate and necessary relation to the offense.

In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, the Court recognized two nuances of appreciating conspiracy as a

31

means to commit a crime, the wheel conspiracy and the chain conspiracy.

The wheel conspiracy occurs when there is a single person or group (the hub) dealing individually
with two or more other persons or groups (the spokes). The spoke typically interacts with the hub
rather than with another spoke. In the event that the spoke shares a common purpose to succeed,
there is a single conspiracy. However, in the instances when each spoke is unconcerned with the
success of the other spokes, there are multiple conspiracies. 32
An illustration of wheel conspiracy wherein there is only one conspiracy involved was the conspiracy
alleged in the information for plunder filed against former President Estrada and his co-conspirators.
Former President Estrada was the hub while the spokes were all the other accused individuals. The
rim that enclosed the spokes was the common goal in the overall conspiracy, i.e., the amassing,
accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth.

On the other hand, the American case of Kotteakos v. United States illustrates a wheel conspiracy
33

where multiple conspiracies were established instead of one single conspiracy. There, Simon Brown,
the hub, assisted 31 independent individuals to obtain separate fraudulent loans from the US
Government. Although all the defendants were engaged in the same type of illegal activity, there was
no common purpose or overall plan among them, and they were not liable for involvement in a single
conspiracy. Each loan was an end in itself, separate from all others, although all were alike in having
similar illegal objects. Except for Brown, the common figure, no conspirator was interested in
whether any loan except his own went through. Thus, the US Supreme Court concluded that there
existed 32 separate conspiracies involving Brown rather than one common conspiracy. 34

The chain conspiracy recognized in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan exists when there is successive
communication and cooperation in much the same way as with legitimate business operations
between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and
consumer. 35

This involves individuals linked together in a vertical chain to achieve a criminal

objective. Illustrative of chain conspiracy was that involved in United States v. Bruno, of the US
36 37

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. There, 88 defendants were indicted for a conspiracy to
import, sell, and possess narcotics. This case involved several smugglers who had brought narcotics
to retailers who, in turn, had sold the narcotics to operatives in Texas and Louisiana for distribution to
addicts. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that what transpired was a single
chain conspiracy in which the smugglers knew that the middlemen must sell to retailers for
distribution to addicts, and the retailers knew that the middle men must purchase drugs from
smugglers. As reasoned by the court, "the conspirators at one end of the chain knew that the
unlawful business would not and could not, stop with their buyers; and those at the other end knew
that it had not begun with their sellers." Each conspirator knew that "the success of that part with
which he was immediately concerned was dependent upon success of the whole." This means,
therefore, that "every member of the conspiracy was liable for every illegal transaction carried out by
other members of the conspiracy in Texas and in Louisiana." 38

Once the State proved the conspiracy as a means to commit a crime, each co-conspirator is as
criminally liable as the others, for the act of one is the act of all. A co-conspirator does not have to
participate in every detail of the execution; neither does he have to know the exact part performed by
the co-conspirator in the execution of the criminal act. Otherwise, the criminal liability of each
39

accused is individual and independent.

The Prosecution insisted that a conspiracy existed among GMA, Uriarte, Valencia and the Members
of the PCSO Board of Directors, Aguas, Villar and Plaras. The Sandiganbayan agreed with the
Prosecution as to the conspirators involved, declaring that GMA, Aguas, and Uriarte had conspired
and committed plunder.

A review of the records of the case compels us to reject the Sandiganbayan's declaration in light of
the information filed against the petitioners, and the foregoing exposition on the nature, forms and
extent of conspiracy. On the contrary, the Prosecution did not sufficiently allege the existence of a
conspiracy among GMA, Aguas and Uriarte.
A perusal of the information suggests that what the Prosecution sought to show was an implied
conspiracy to commit plunder among all of the accused on the basis of their collective actions prior
to, during and after the implied agreement. It is notable that the Prosecution did not allege that the
conspiracy among all of the accused was by express agreement, or was a wheel conspiracy or a
chain conspiracy.

This was another fatal flaw of the Prosecution.

In its present version, under which the petitioners were charged, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080
(Plunder Law) states:

Section 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. Any public officer who, by himself or in
connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates,
subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a
combination or series of overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof in the aggregate
amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of
plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the
said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise
be punished for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the
attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code,
shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their
interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares of stocks derived from
the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State. [As Amended by Section 12,
Republic Act No. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law)]

Section l(d) of Republic Act No. 7080 provides:

Section 1. Definition of terms. - As used in this Act, the term:

xxxx

d. "Ill-gotten wealth" means any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any
person within the purview of Section two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through
dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series
of the following means or similar schemes:

1. Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the

public treasury;

2. By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any/or
entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of
the public officer concerned;

3. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National

Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;

4. By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other
form of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in any business
enterprise or undertaking;
5. By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or
implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or

6. By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to

unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino
people and the Republic of the Philippines.

The law on plunder requires that a particular public officer must be identified as the one who
amassed, acquired or accumulated ill-gotten wealth because it plainly states that plunder is
committed by any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family,
relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses,
accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of at least
P50,000,000.00 through a combination or series of overt criminal acts as described in Section l(d)
hereof. Surely, the law requires in the criminal charge for plunder against several individuals that
there must be a main plunderer and her co-conspirators, who may be members of her family,
relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons. In other
words, the allegation of the wheel conspiracy or express conspiracy in the information was
appropriate because the main plunderer would then be identified in either manner. Of course,
implied conspiracy could also identify the main plunderer, but that fact must be properly alleged and
duly proven by the Prosecution.

This interpretation is supported by Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, where the Court explained the nature
40

of the conspiracy charge and the necessity for the main plunderer for whose benefit the amassment,
accumulation and acquisition was made, thus:

There is no denying the fact that the "plunder of an entire nation resulting in material damage to the
national economy" is made up of a complex and manifold network of crimes. In the crime of plunder,
therefore, different parties may be united by a common purpose. In the case at bar, the different
accused and their different criminal acts have a commonality - to help the former President amass,
accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. Sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) in the Amended Information
alleged the different participation of each accused in the conspiracy. The gravamen of the
conspiracy charge, therefore, is not that each accused agreed to receive protection money from
illegal gambling, that each misappropriated a portion of the tobacco excise tax, that each accused
ordered the GSIS and SSS to purchase shares of Belle Corporation and receive commissions from
such sale, nor that each unjustly enriched himself from commissions, gifts and kickbacks; rather, it is
that each of them, by their individual acts, agreed to participate, directly or indirectly, in the
amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth of and/or for former President
Estrada. [bold underscoring supplied for emphasis]

Here, considering that 10 persons have been accused of amassing, accumulating and/or acquiring
ill-gotten wealth aggregating P365,997,915.00, it would be improbable that the crime charged was
plunder if none of them was alleged to be the main plunderer. As such, each of the 10 accused
would account for the aliquot amount of only P36,599,791.50, or exactly 1/10 of the alleged
aggregate ill-gotten wealth, which is far below the threshold value of ill-gotten wealth required for
plunder.

We are not unmindful of the holding in Estrada v. Sandiganabayan to the effect that an information
41

alleging conspiracy is sufficient if the information alleges conspiracy either: (1) with the use of the
word conspire, or its derivatives or synonyms, such as confederate, connive, collude, etc; or (2) by
allegations of the basic facts constituting the conspiracy in a manner that a person of common
understanding would know what is being conveyed, and with such precision as would enable the
accused to competently enter a plea to a subsequent indictment based on the same facts. We are
not talking about the sufficiency of the information as to the allegation of conspiracy, however, but
rather the identification of the main plunderer sought to be prosecuted under R.A. No. 7080 as an
element of the crime of plunder. Such identification of the main plunderer was not only necessary
because the law required such identification, but also because it was essential in safeguarding the
rights of all of the accused to be properly informed of the charges they were being made answerable
for. The main purpose of requiring the various elements of the crime charged to be set out in the
information is to enable all the accused to suitably prepare their defense because they are presumed
to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constituted the offense charged. 42

For sure, even the Sandiganbayan was at a loss in this respect. Despite the silence of the
information on who the main plunderer or the mastermind was, the Sandiganbayan readily
condemned GMA in its resolution dated September 10, 2015 as the mastermind despite the absence
of the specific allegation in the information to that effect. Even worse, there was no evidence that
substantiated such sweeping generalization.

In fine, the Prosecution's failure to properly allege the main plunderer should be fatal to the cause of
the State against the petitioners for violating the rights of each accused to be informed of the
charges against each of them.

Nevertheless, the Prosecution insists that GMA, Uriarte and Aguas committed acts showing the
existence of an implied conspiracy among themselves, thereby making all of them the main
plunderers. On this score, the Prosecution points out that the sole overt act of GMA to become a part
of the conspiracy was her approval via the marginal note of "OK" of all the requests made by Uriarte
for the use of additional intelligence fund. The Prosecution stresses that by approving Uriaiie's
requests in that manner, GMA violated the following:

a. Letter of Instruction 1282, which required requests for additional confidential and intelligence
funds (CIFs) to be accompanied with detailed, specific project proposals and specifications; and

b. COA Circular No. 92-385, which allowed the President to approve the release of additional CIFs
only if there was an existing budget to cover the request.

The insistence of the Prosecution is unwarranted. GMA's approval of Uriarte's requests for additional
CIFs did not make her part of any design to raid the public treasury as the means to amass,
accumulate and acquire ill-gotten wealth. Absent the specific allegation in the information to that
effect, and competent proof thereon, GMA' s approval of Uriarte' s requests, even if unqualified,
could not make her part of any criminal conspiracy to commit plunder or any other crime considering
that her approval was not by any means irregular or illegal.

The Prosecution takes GMA to task for approving Uriarte's request despite the requests failing to
provide "the full detail [ ofJ the specific purposes for which said funds shall be spent and shall
explain the circumstances giving rise to the necessity for the expenditure and the particular aims to
be accomplished." It posits that the requests were not specific enough, contrary to what is required
by LOI 1282.

LOI 1282 reads:

LETTER OF INSTRUCTION No. 1282

To: All Ministries and Offices Concerned

In recent years intelligence funds appropriated for the various ministries and certain offices have
been, as reports reaching me indicate, spent with less than full regard for secrecy and prudence. On
the one hand, there have been far too many leakages of information on expenditures of said funds;
and on the other hand, where secrecy has been observed, the President himself was often left
unaware of how these funds had been utilized.

Effective immediately, all requests for the allocation or release of intelligence funds shall indicate in
full detail the specific purposes for which said funds shall be spent and shall explain the
circumstances giving rise to the necessity for the expenditure and the particular aims to be
accomplished.

The requests and the detailed explanations shall be submitted to the President personally.

It is imperative that such detailed presentations be made to the President in order to avoid such
duplication of expenditures as has taken place in the past because of the lack of centralized
planning and organized disposition of intelligence funds.

Full compliance herewith is desired.

Manila, January 12, 1983.

(Sgd.) FERDINANDE. MARCOS

President of the Philippines

However, an examination of Uriarte' s several requests indicates their compliance with LOI No. 1282.
The requests, similarly worded, furnished: (a) the full details of the specific purposes for which the
funds would be spent; (b) the explanations of the circumstances giving rise to the necessity of the
expenditure; and (c) the particular aims to be accomplished.

The specific purposes and circumstances for the necessity of the expenditures were laid down as
follows:

In dispensing its mandate, PCSO has been constantly encountering a number of fraudulent
schemes and nefarious activities on a continuing basis which affect the integrity of our operations, to
wit:

1. Donated medicines sometimes end up in drug stores for sale even if they were labeled "Donated
by PCSO- Not for Sale";

2. Unwarranted or unofficial use of ambulances by beneficiarydonees;

3. Unauthorized expenditures of endowment fund for charity patients and organizations;

4. Lotto and sweepstakes scams victimizing innocent people of winning the jackpot and selling
tampered tickets as winning tickets;

5. Fixers for the different programs of PCSO such as Ambulance Donation Project, Endowment Fund
Program and Individual Medical Assistance Program;

6. Other fraudulent schemes and activities which put the PCSO in bad light. 43
A reading of the requests also reveals that the additional CIFs requested were to be used to protect
PCSO's image and the integrity of its operations. The Court thus cannot share the Prosecution's
dismissiveness of the requests for not being compliant with LOI No. 1282. According to its terms,
LOI No. 1282 did not detail any qualification as to how specific the requests should be made. Hence,
we should not make any other pronouncement than to rule that Uriarte's requests were compliant
with LOI No. 1282.

COA Circular No. 92-385 required that additional request for CIFs would be approved only when
there was available budget. In this regard, the Prosecution suggests that there was no longer any
budget when GMA approved Uriarte's requests because the budget had earmarked intelligence
funds that had already been maxed out and used. The suggestion is not acceptable, however,
considering that the funds of the PCSO were comingled into one account as early as 2007.
Consequently, although only 15% of PCSO's revenues was appropriated to an operation fund from
which the CIF could be sourced, the remaining 85% of PCSO's revenues, already co-mingled with
the operating fund, could still sustain the additional requests. In short, there was available budget
from which to draw the additional requests for CIFs.

It is notable that the COA, although frowning upon PCSO's co-mingling of funds, did not rule such
co-mingling as illegal. As such, sourcing the requested additional CIFs from one account was far
from illegal.

Lastly, the Prosecution's effort to show irregularities as badges of bad faith has led it to claim that
GMA had known that Uriarte would raid the public treasury, and would misuse the amounts
disbursed. This knowledge was imputed to GMA by virtue of her power of control over PCSO.

The Prosecution seems to be relying on the doctrine of command responsibility to impute the actions
of subordinate officers to GMA as the superior officer. The reliance is misplaced, for incriminating
GMA under those terms was legally unacceptable and incomprehensible. The application of the
doctrine of command responsibility is limited, and cannot be true for all litigations. The Court ruled
in Rodriguez v. Macapagal-Arroyo that command responsibility pertains to the responsibility of
44

commanders for crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons
subject to their control in international wars or domestic conflict. The doctrine has also found
application in civil actions for human rights abuses. But this case involves neither a probe of GMA' s
actions as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, nor of a human rights
issue. As such, it is legally improper to impute the actions of Uriarte to GMA in the absence of any
conspiracy between them.

On the part of Aguas, the Sandiganbayan pronounced him to be as much a member of the implied
conspiracy as GMA was, and detailed his participation in this manner:

In all of the disbursement vouchers covering the cash advances/releases to Uriarte of the CIF funds,
Aguas certified that:

CERTIFIED: Adequate available funds/budgetary allotment in the amount of P___________ ;

expenditure properly certified; supported by documents marked (X) per checklist and back hereof;
account codes proper; previous cash advance liquidated/accounted for.

These certifications, after close scrutiny, were not true because: 1.) there were no documents which
lent support to the cash advances on a per project basis. The particulars of payment simply read: "To
draw cash advance form the CIF Fund of the Office of the Vice-Chairman and General Manager". No
particular purpose or project was specified contrary to the requirement under COA Circular 2003-002
that cash advances must be on a per project basis. Without specifics on the project covered by each
cash advance. Aguas could not certify that supporting documents existed simply because he would
not know what project was being funded by the cash advances; and 2.) There were no previous
liquidations made of prior cash advances when Aguas made the certifications. COA circular 2003-
002 required that cash advances be liquidated within one (1) month from the date the purpose of the
cash advance was accomplished. If the completion of the projects mentioned were for more than
one month, a monthly progress liquidation report was necessary. In the case of Uriarte' s cash
advances certified to by Aguas, the liquidation made was wholesale, i.e. these were done on a semi-
annual basis without a monthly liquidation or at least a monthly liquidation progress report. How then
could Aguas correctly certify that previous liquidations were accounted for? Aguas's certification also
violated Sec. 89 of P.D. 1445 which states:

Limitations on cash advance. No cash advance shall be given unless for a legally authorized specific
purpose. A cash advance shall be reported on and liquidated as soon as the purpose for which it
was given has been served. No additional cash advance shall be allowed to any official or employee
unless the previous cash advance given to him is first settled or a proper accounting thereof is
made.

There is a great presumption of guilt against Aguas, as his action aided and abetted Uriarte's being
able to draw these irregular CIF funds in contravention of the rules on CIF funds. Without Aguas's
certification, the disbursement vouchers could not have been processed for payment. Accordingly,
the certification that there were supporting documents and prior liquidation paved the way for Uriarte
to acquire ill-gotten wealth by raiding the public coffers of the PCSO.

By just taking cognizance of the series and number of cash advances and the staggering amounts
involved, Aguas should have been alerted that something was greatly amiss and that Uriarte was up
to something. If Aguas was not into the scheme, it would have been easy for him to refuse to sign
the certification, but he did not. The conspiracy "gravamen" is therefore present in the case of Aguas.
Moreover, Aguas's attempt to cover-up Uriarte's misuse of these CIF funds in his accomplishment
report only contributed to unmasking the actual activities for which these funds were utilized. Aguas'
s accomplishment report, which was conformed to by Uriarte, made it self-evidence that the bulk of
the CIF funds in 2009 and 2010 were allegedly spend for non-PCSO related activities, e.g. bomb
threats, kidnapping, terrorism, and others.45

Thus, the Sandiganbayan concluded that Aguas became a part of the implied conspiracy when he
signed the disbursement vouchers despite the absence of certain legal requirements, and issued
certain certifications to the effect that the budgetary allotment/funds for cash advance to be
withdrawn were available; that the expenditures were supported by documents; and that the
previous cash advances had been liquidated or accounted for.

We opine and declare, however, that Aguas' certifications and signatures on the disbursement
vouchers were insufficient bases to conclude that he was into any conspiracy to commit plunder or
any other crime. Without GMA's participation, he could not release any money because there was
then no budget available for the additional CIFs. Whatever irregularities he might have committed
did not amount to plunder, or to any implied conspiracy to commit plunder.

Under the circumstances, the Sandiganbayan's finding on the existence of the conspiracy to commit
plunder was unsustainable. It then becomes unavoidable for the Court to rule that because the
Prosecution failed to properly allege the elements of the crime, as well as to prove that any implied
conspiracy to commit plunder or any other crime existed among GMA, Aguas and Uriarte there was
no conspiracy to commit plunder among them. As a result, GMA and Aguas could be criminally
responsible only for their own respective actions, if any.
 III.
No proof of amassing, or accumulating, or acquiring
ill-gotten wealth of at least P50 Million
was adduced against GMA and Aguas

The Sandiganbayan sustained the sufficiency of the evidence to convict the petitioners for plunder
on the basis that the Prosecution established all the elements of plunder.

After a review of the records, we find and rule that the Prosecution had no case for plunder against
the petitioners.

To successfully mount a criminal prosecution for plunder, the State must allege and establish the
following elements, namely:

1. That the offender is a public officer who acts by herself or in connivance with members of her
family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons;

2. That the offender amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or
series of the following overt or criminal acts: (a) through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or
malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury; (b) by receiving, directly or indirectly, any
commission, gift, share, percentage, kickback or any other form of pecuniary benefits from any
person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office
or position of the public officer; (c) by the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets
belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of
Government owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries; (d) by obtaining, receiving or
accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or
participation including the promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;
(e) by establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or
implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or
(f) by taking advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly
enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people
and the Republic of the Philippines; and,

3. That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or
acquired is at least P50,000,000.00. 46

The corpus delicti of plunder is the amassment, accumulation or acquisition of ill-gotten wealth
valued at not less than P50,000,000.00. The failure to establish the corpus delicti should lead to the
dismissal of the criminal prosecution.

As regards the element that the public officer must have amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-
gotten wealth worth at least P50,000,000.00, the Prosecution adduced no evidence showing that
either GMA or Aguas or even Uriarte, for that matter, had amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-
gotten wealth of any amount. There was also no evidence, testimonial or otherwise, presented by
the Prosecution showing even the remotest possibility that the CIFs of the PCSO had been diverted
to either GMA or Aguas, or Uriarte.

The absolute lack of evidence on this material but defining and decisive aspect of the criminal
prosecution was explicitly noted in the concurring and partial dissenting opinion of Justice Rodolfo A.
Ponferrada of the Sandiganbayan, to wit:
Here the evidence of the prosecution failed to show the existence of the crime of plunder as no
evidence was presented that any of the accused, accumulated and/or acquired ill-gotten wealth. In
fact, the principal witness of the prosecution when asked, said that she does not know the existence
or whereabouts of the alleged ill-gotten wealth, to wit:

Q: Of course, you don't know where is this ill-gotten wealth are (sic) now?

A: Yes, Your Honors. We don't know whether they saved it, squandered it or what? We don't
know, Your Honor. [bold emphasis supplied]
47

After Atty. Tolentino, as the Prosecution's main witness, conceded lack of any knowledge of the
amassing, accumulating or acquiring of ill-gotten wealth of at least P50,000,000.00, nothing more
remained of the criminal prosecution for plunder. Hence, the Sandiganbayan should have granted
the demurrers of GMA and Aguas, and dismissed the criminal action against them.

IV.
The Prosecution failed to prove the
predicate act of raiding the public treasury

The Sandiganbayan observed that the Prosecution established the predicate act of raiding the public
treasury, to wit:

Secondly, the terms "unjust enrichment," "benefit," and "pecuniary benefit" are only mentioned in the
predicate acts mentioned in par. 2, 5 and 6 of Section 1 (d) of the Plunder Law. Paragraph 1 of the
same section where "raids on the public treasury" is mentioned did not mention "unjust enrichment"
or "personal benefit". Lastly, the predicate act covering "raids on the public treasury" is lumped up
with the phrases misappropriation, conversion, misuse and malversation of public funds. Thus, once
public funds, as in the case of CIF funds, are illegally accumulated, amassed or acquired. To the
tune of PSO Million or more, there will be no need to establish any motive to gain, or much more
establish where the money eventually ended up. As stated in Our Resolution dated November 5,
2013:

It should be noted that in both R.A. No. 7080 and the PCGG rules, the enumeration of the possible
predicate acts in the commission of plunder did not associate or require the concept of personal
gain/benefit or unjust enrichment with respect to raids on the public treasury, as a means to commit
plunder. It would, therefore, appear that a "raid on the public treasury" is consummated where all the
acts necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. Thus a "raid on the public
treasury" can be said to have been achieved thru the pillaging or looting of public coffers either
through misuse, misappropriation or conversion, without need of establishing gain or profit to the
"raider" gets material possession of a government asset through improper means and has free
disposal of the same, the raid or pillage is completed.

xxxx

Clearly, the improper acquisition and illegal use of CIF funds, which is obviously a government asset,
will amount to a raid on the public treasury, and therefore fall into the category of ill-gotten wealth.

xxxx

x x x It is not disputed that Uriarte asked for and was granted authority by Arroyo to use additional
CIF funds during the period 2008 - 2010. Uriarte was able to accumulate during that period CIF
funds in the total amount of P352,681,646. This was through a series of withdrawals as cash
advances of the CIF funds from the PCSO coffers, as evidenced by the disbursement vouchers and
checks issued and encashed by her, through her authorized representatives.

These flagrant violations of the rules on the use of CIF funds evidently characterize the series of
withdrawals by and releases to Uriarte as "raids" on the PCSO coffers, which is part of the public
treasury. These were, in every sense, "pillage," as Uriarte looted government funds and appears to
have not been able to account for it. The monies came into her possession and, admittedly, she
disbursed it for purposes other than what these were intended for, thus amounting to "misuse" of the
same. xxx

In this case, to require proof that monies went to a plunderer's bank account or was used to acquire
real or personal properties or used for any other purpose to personally benefit the plunderer, is
absurd. Suppose a plunderer had already amassed, acquired or accumulated P50 Million or more of
government funds and just decide to keep it in his vault and never used such funds for any purpose
to benefit him, would that not be plunder? Or, if immediately right after such amassing, the monies
went up in flames or recovered by the police, negating any opportunity for the purpose to actually
benefit, would that not still be plunder? Surely, in such cases, a plunder charge could still prosper
and the argument that the fact of personal benefit should still be evidence-based must fail. 48

The Sandiganbayan contended that in order to prove the predicate act of raids of the public
treasury, the Prosecution need not establish that the public officer had benefited from such act; and
that what was necessary was proving that the public officer had raided the public coffers. In support
of this, it referred to the records of the deliberations of Congress to buttress its observation.

We do not share the Sandiganbayan' s contention.

The phrase raids on the public treasury is found in Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080, which provides:

Section I .Definition of Terms. - x x x

xxxx

d) Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any
person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through
dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series
of the following means or similar schemes:

1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the

public treasury;

xxxx

To discern the proper import of the phrase raids on the public treasury, the key is to look at the
accompanying words: misappropriation, conversion, misuse or malversation of public funds. This
process is conformable with the maxim of statutory construction noscitur a sociis, by which the
correct construction of a particular word or phrase that is ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible
of various meanings may be made by considering the company of the words in which the word or
phrase is found or with which it is associated. Verily, a word or phrase in a statute is always used in
association with other words or phrases, and its meaning may, therefore, be modified or restricted by
the latter.
49
To convert connotes the act of using or disposing of another's property as if it were one's own; to
misappropriate means to own, to take something for one's own benefit; misuse means "a good,
50

substance, privilege, or right used improperly, unforeseeably, or not as

intended;" and malversation occurs when "any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his
51

office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same or shall take or
misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person
to take such public funds, or property, wholly or partially." The common thread that binds all the four
52

terms together is that the public officer used the property taken. Considering that raids on the public
treasury is in the company of the four other terms that require the use of the property taken, the
phrase raids on the public treasury similarly requires such use of the property taken. Accordingly,
the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in contending that the mere accumulation and gathering
constituted the forbidden act of raids on the public treasury. Pursuant to the maxim of noscitur a
sociis, raids on the public treasury requires the raider to use the property taken impliedly for his
personal benefit.

The Prosecution asserts that the Senate deliberations removed personal benefit as a requirement
for plunder. In not requiring personal benefit, the Sandiganbayan quoted the following exchanges
between Senator Enrile and Senator Taada, viz.:

Senator Emile. The word here, Mr. President, "such public officer or person who conspired or
knowingly benefited". One does not have to conspire or rescheme. The only element needed is
that he "knowingly benefited". A candidate for the Senate for instance, who received a political
contribution from a plunderer, knowing that the contributor is a plunderer and therefore, he knowingly
benefited from the plunder, would he also suffer the penalty, Mr. President, for life imprisonment?

Senator Taada. In the committee amendments, Mr. President, we have deleted these lines 1 to 4
and part ofline 5, on page 3. But, in a way, Mr. President, it is good that the Gentleman is bringing
out these questions, I believe that under the examples he has given, the Court will have to ...

Senator Emile. How about the wife, Mr. President, he may not agree with the plunderer to plunder
the country but because she is a dutiful wife or a faithful husband, she has to keep her or his vow of
fidelity to the spouse. And, of course, she enjoys the benefits out of the plunder. Would the
Gentleman now impute to her or him the crime of plunder simply because she or he knowingly
benefited out of the fruits of the plunder and, therefore, he must suffer or he must suffer the penalty
of life imprisonment?

The President. That was stricken out already in the Committee amendment.

Senator Taada. Yes, Mr. President. Lines l to 4 and part of line 5 were stricken out in the Committee
amendment. But, as I said, the eamples of the Minority Floor Leader are still worth spreading
the Record. And, I believe that in those examples, the Court will have just to take into consideration
all the other circumstances prevailing in the case and the evidence that will be submitted.

The President. In any event, 'knowingly benefited' has already been stricken off." 53

The exchanges between Senator Enrile and Senator Taada reveal, therefore, that what was
removed from the coverage of the bill and the final version that eventually became the law was a
person who was not the main plunderer or a co-conspirator, but one who personally benefited from
the plunderers' action. The requirement of personal benefit on the part of the main plunderer or his
co-conspirators by virtue of their plunder was not removed.
As a result, not only did the Prosecution fail to show where the money went but, more importantly,
that GMA and Aguas had personally benefited from the same. Hence, the Prosecution did not prove
the predicate act of raids on the public treasury beyond reasonable doubt.

V.
Summation

In view of the foregoing, the Court inevitably concludes that the Sandiganbayan completely ignored
the failure of the information to sufficiently charge conspiracy to commit plunder against the
petitioners; and ignored the lack of evidence establishing the corpus delicti of amassing,
accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth in the total amount of at least P50,000,000.00
through any or all of the predicate crimes. The Sandiganbayan thereby acted capriciously, thus
gravely abusing its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. To justify the issuance of the writ of certiorari, the abuse of
54

discretion must be grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by
reason of passion or personal hostility, and the abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to
an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all, in
contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to having acted without jurisdiction. 55

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petitions for certiorari; ANNULS and SETS ASIDE the
resolutions issued in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 by the Sandiganbayan on April 6, 2015
and September 10, 2015; GRANTS the petitioners' respective demurrers to
evidence; DISMISSES Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 as to the petitioners GLORIA
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO and BENIGNO AGUAS for insufficiency of evidence; ORDERS the
immediate release from detention of said petitioners; and MAKES no pronouncements on costs of
suit.

SO ORDERED.
 [G.R. No. 153559. June 8, 2004]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ANTONIO COMADRE,

GEORGE COMADRE and DANILO LOZANO, appellants.

DECISION
PER CURIAM:

Appellants Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano were

charged with Murder with Multiple Frustrated Murder in an information which
reads:

That on or about the 6th of August 1995, at Brgy. San Pedro, Lupao, Nueva Ecija,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to
kill and by means of treachery and evident premeditation, availing of nighttime to
afford impunity, and with the use of an explosive, did there and then willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously lob a hand grenade that landed and eventually exploded at
the roof of the house of Jaime Agbanlog trajecting deadly shrapnels that hit and killed
one ROBERT AGBANLOG, per the death certificate, and causing Jerry Bullanday,
Jimmy Wabe, Lorenzo Eugenio, Rey Camat, Emelita Agbanlog and Elena Agbanlog
to suffer shrapnel wounds on their bodies, per the medical certificates; thus, to the
latter victims, the accused commenced all the acts of execution that would have
produced the crime of Multiple Murder as consequences thereof but nevertheless did
not produce them by reason of the timely and able medical and surgical interventions
of physicians, to the damage and prejudice of the deceaseds heirs and the other
victims.

CONTRARY TO LAW. [1]

On arraignment, appellants pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits then

[2]

ensued.
As culled from the records, at around 7:00 in the evening of August 6,
1995, Robert Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, Gerry Bullanday, Rey Camat and [3]

Lorenzo Eugenio were having a drinking spree on the terrace of the house of
Roberts father, Barangay Councilman Jaime Agbanlog, situated in Barangay
San Pedro, Lupao, Nueva Ecija. Jaime Agbanlog was seated on the banister
of the terrace listening to the conversation of the companions of his son. [4]
 As the drinking session went on, Robert and the others noticed appellants
Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano walking. The three
stopped in front of the house.While his companions looked on, Antonio
suddenly lobbed an object which fell on the roof of the terrace. Appellants
immediately fled by scaling the fence of a nearby school. [5]

The object, which turned out to be a hand grenade, exploded ripping a

hole in the roof of the house. Robert Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, Gerry Bullanday,
Rey Camat and Lorenzo Eugenio were hit by shrapnel and slumped
unconscious on the floor. They were all rushed to the San Jose General
[6]

Hospital in Lupao, Nueva Ecija for medical treatment. However, Robert

Agbanlog died before reaching the hospital. [7]

Dr. Tirso de los Santos, the medico-legal officer who conducted the
autopsy on the cadaver of Robert Agbanlog, certified that the wounds
sustained by the victim were consistent with the injuries inflicted by a grenade
explosion and that the direct cause of death was hypovolemic shock due to
hand grenade explosion. The surviving victims, Jimmy Wabe, Rey Camat,
[8]

Jaime Agbanlog and Gerry Bullanday sustained shrapnel injuries. [9]

SPO3 John Barraceros of the Lupao Municipal Police Station, who

investigated the scene of the crime, recovered metallic fragments at the
terrace of the Agbanlog house. These fragments were forwarded to the
Explosive Ordinance Disposal Division in Camp Crame, Quezon City, where
SPO2 Jesus Q. Mamaril, a specialist in said division, identified them as
shrapnel of an MK2 hand grenade. [10]

Denying the charges against him, appellant Antonio Comadre claimed that
on the night of August 6, 1995, he was with his wife and children watching
television in the house of his father, Patricio, and his brother, Rogelio. He
denied any participation in the incident and claimed that he was surprised
when three policemen from the Lupao Municipal Police Station went to his
house the following morning of August 7, 1995 and asked him to go with them
to the police station, where he has been detained since. [11]

Appellant George Comadre, for his part, testified that he is the brother of
Antonio Comadre and the brother-in-law of Danilo Lozano. He also denied
any involvement in the grenade-throwing incident, claiming that he was at
home when it happened. He stated that he is a friend of Rey Camat and
Jimmy Wabe, and that he had no animosity towards them whatsoever.
Appellant also claimed to be in good terms with the Agbanlogs so he has no
reason to cause them any grief. [12]
 Appellant Danilo Lozano similarly denied any complicity in the crime. He
declared that he was at home with his ten year-old son on the night of August
6, 1995. He added that he did not see Antonio and George Comadre that
night and has not seen them for quite sometime, either before or after the
incident. Like the two other appellants, Lozano denied having any
misunderstanding with Jaime Agbanlog, Robert Agbanlog and Jimmy Wabe. [13]

Antonios father, Patricio, and his wife, Lolita, corroborated his claim that
he was at home watching television with them during the night in question.
Josie Comadre, Georges wife, testified that her husband could not have
[14]

been among those who threw a hand grenade at the house of the Agbanlogs
because on the evening of August 6, 1995, they were resting inside their
house after working all day in the farm. [15]

After trial, the court a quo gave credence to the prosecutions evidence and
convicted appellants of the complex crime of Murder with Multiple Attempted
Murder, the dispositive portion of which states:
[16]

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Finding accused Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Murder with
Multiple Attempted Murder and sentencing them to suffer the imposable
penalty of death;

2. Ordering Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano to pay jointly
and severally the heirs of Robert Agbanlog P50,000.00 as indemnification for
his death, P35,000.00 as compensatory damages and P20,000.00 as moral
damages;

3. Ordering accused Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano to

pay jointly and severally Jimmy Wabe, Rey Camat, Gerry Bullanday and
Jaime Agbanlog P30,000.00 as indemnity for their attempted murder.

Costs against the accused.

SO ORDERED.

Hence, this automatic review pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal

Code, as amended. Appellants contend that the trial court erred: (1) when it
did not correctly and judiciously interpret and appreciate the evidence and
thus, the miscarriage of justice was obviously omnipresent; (2) when it
imposed on the accused-appellants the supreme penalty of death despite the
evident lack of the quantum of evidence to convict them of the crime charged
beyond reasonable doubt; and (3) when it did not apply the law and
jurisprudence for the acquittal of the accused-appellants of the crime charged.
[17]

Appellants point to the inconsistencies in the sworn statements of Jimmy

Wabe, Rey Camat, Lorenzo Eugenio and Gerry Bullanday in identifying the
perpetrators. Wabe, Camat and Eugenio initially executed a Sinumpaang
Salaysay on August 7, 1995 at the hospital wherein they did not categorically
state who the culprit was but merely named Antonio Comadre as a
suspect. Gerry Bullanday declared that he suspected Antonio Comadre as
one of the culprits because he saw the latters ten year-old son bring
something in the nearby store before the explosion occurred.
On August 27, 1995, or twenty days later, they went to the police station to
give a more detailed account of the incident, this time identifying Antonio
Comadre as the perpetrator together with George Comadre and Danilo
Lozano.
A closer scrutiny of the records shows that no contradiction actually exists,
as all sworn statements pointed to the same perpetrators, namely, Antonio
Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano. Moreover, it appears that the
first statement was executed a day after the incident, when Jimmy Wabe, Rey
Camat and Lorenzo Eugenio were still in the hospital for the injuries they
sustained. Coherence could not thus be expected in view of their condition. It
is therefore not surprising for the witnesses to come up with a more
exhaustive account of the incident after they have regained their equanimity.
The lapse of twenty days between the two statements is immaterial because
said period even helped them recall some facts which they may have initially
overlooked.
Witnesses cannot be expected to remember all the details of the
harrowing event which unfolded before their eyes. Minor discrepancies might
be found in their testimony, but they do not damage the essential integrity of
the evidence in its material whole, nor should they reflect adversely on the
witness credibility as they erase suspicion that the same was perjured.
Honest inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters serve to strengthen
[18]

rather than destroy the credibility of a witness to a crime, especially so when,

as in the instant case, the crime is shocking to the conscience and numbing to
the senses. [19]

Moreover, it was not shown that witnesses Jimmy Wabe, Rey Camat,
Lorenzo Eugenio and Gerry Bullanday had any motive to testify falsely against
appellants. Absent evidence showing any reason or motive for prosecution
witnesses to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive
exists, and their testimony is thus worthy of full faith and credit.
The trial court is likewise correct in disregarding appellants defense of alibi
and denial. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not
only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the
crime but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus
delicti or within its immediate vicinity.
[20]

Apart from testifying with respect to the distance of their houses from that
of Jaime Agbanlogs residence, appellants were unable to give any
explanation and neither were they able to show that it was physically
impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime. Hence, the positive
identification of the appellants by eyewitnesses Jimmy Wabe, Jaime
Agbanlog, Rey Camat and Gerry Bullanday prevails over their defense of alibi
and denial.[21]

It was established that prior to the grenade explosion, Rey Camat, Jaime
Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe and Gerry Bullanday were able to identify the culprits,
namely, appellants Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano
because there was a lamppost in front of the house and the moon was bright.
[22]

Appellants argument that Judge Bayani V. Vargas, the Presiding Judge of

the Regional Trial Court of San Jose City, Branch 38 erred in rendering the
decision because he was not the judge who heard and tried the case is not
well taken.
It is not unusual for a judge who did not try a case to decide it on the basis
of the record for the trial judge might have died, resigned, retired, transferred,
and so forth. As far back as the case of Co Tao v. Court of Appeals we have
[23] [24]

held: The fact that the judge who heard the evidence is not the one who
rendered the judgment and that for that reason the latter did not have the
opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during the trial but
merely relied on the records of the case does not render the judgment
erroneous. This rule had been followed for quite a long time, and there is no
reason to go against the principle now. [25]

However, the trial courts finding of conspiracy will have to be

reassessed. The undisputed facts show that when Antonio Comadre was in
the act of throwing the hand grenade, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano
merely looked on without uttering a single word of encouragement or
performed any act to assist him. The trial court held that the mere presence of
George Comadre and Danilo Lozano provided encouragement and a sense of
security to Antonio Comadre, thus proving the existence of conspiracy.
 We disagree.
Similar to the physical act constituting the crime itself, the elements of
conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Settled is the rule that
to establish conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere
cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required.[26]

A conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence. It

must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the
crime itself. Mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not
make him a conspirator for conspiracy transcends companionship. [27]

The evidence shows that George Comadre and Danilo Lozano did not
have any participation in the commission of the crime and must therefore be
set free. Their mere presence at the scene of the crime as well as their close
relationship with Antonio are insufficient to establish conspiracy considering
that they performed no positive act in furtherance of the crime.
Neither was it proven that their act of running away with Antonio was an
act of giving moral assistance to his criminal act. The ratiocination of the trial
court that their presence provided encouragement and sense of security to
Antonio, is devoid of any factual basis. Such finding is not supported by the
evidence on record and cannot therefore be a valid basis of a finding of
conspiracy.
Time and again we have been guided by the principle that it would be
better to set free ten men who might be probably guilty of the crime charged
than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit. There being
[28]

no conspiracy, only Antonio Comadre must answer for the crime.

Coming now to Antonios liability, we find that the trial court correctly ruled
that treachery attended the commission of the crime. For treachery to be
appreciated two conditions must concur: (1) the means, method and form of
execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend
himself or retaliate; and (2) such means, methods and form of execution was
deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused. Its essence lies in the
adoption of ways to minimize or neutralize any resistance, which may be put
up by the offended party.
Appellant lobbed a grenade which fell on the roof of the terrace where the
unsuspecting victims were having a drinking spree. The suddenness of the
attack coupled with the instantaneous combustion and the tremendous impact
of the explosion did not afford the victims sufficient time to scamper for safety,
much less defend themselves; thus insuring the execution of the crime without
risk of reprisal or resistance on their part. Treachery therefore attended the
commission of the crime.
It is significant to note that aside from treachery, the information also
alleges the use of an explosive as an aggravating circumstance. Since both
[29]

attendant circumstances can qualify the killing to murder under Article 248 of
the Revised Penal Code, we should determine which of the two
[30]

circumstances will qualify the killing in this case.

When the killing is perpetrated with treachery and by means of explosives,
the latter shall be considered as a qualifying circumstance. Not only does
jurisprudence support this view but also, since the use of explosives is the
[31]

principal mode of attack, reason dictates that this attendant circumstance

should qualify the offense instead of treachery which will then be relegated
merely as a generic aggravating circumstance. [32]

Incidentally, with the enactment on June 6, 1997 of Republic Act No.

8294 which also considers the use of explosives as an aggravating
[33]

circumstance, there is a need to make the necessary clarification insofar as

the legal implications of the said amendatory law vis--vis the qualifying
circumstance of by means of explosion under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code are concerned. Corollary thereto is the issue of which law should be
applied in the instant case.
R.A. No. 8294 was a reaction to the onerous and anachronistic penalties
imposed under the old illegal possession of firearms law, P.D. 1866, which
prevailed during the tumultuous years of the Marcos dictatorship. The
amendatory law was enacted, not to decriminalize illegal possession of
firearms and explosives, but to lower their penalties in order to rationalize
them into more acceptable and realistic levels. [34]

This legislative intent is conspicuously reflected in the reduction of the

corresponding penalties for illegal possession of firearms, or ammunitions and
other related crimes under the amendatory law. Under Section 2 of the said
law, the penalties for unlawful possession of explosives are also lowered.
Specifically, when the illegally possessed explosives are used to commit any
of the crimes under the Revised Penal Code, which result in the death of a
person, the penalty is no longer death, unlike in P.D. No. 1866, but it shall be
considered only as an aggravating circumstance. Section 3 of P.D. No. 1866
as amended by Section 2 of R.A. 8294 now reads:

Section 2. Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby further

amended to read as follows:
Section 3. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or Possession of
Explosives. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion
temporal and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, assemble, deal in,
acquire, dispose or possess hand grenade(s), rifle grenade(s), and other explosives,
including but not limited to pillbox, molotov cocktail bombs, fire bombs, or other
incendiary devices capable of producing destructive effect on contiguous objects or
causing injury or death to any person.

When a person commits any of the crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code or
special law with the use of the aforementioned explosives, detonation agents or
incendiary devises, which results in the death of any person or persons, the use of
such explosives, detonation agents or incendiary devices shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance. (shall be punished with the penalty of death is
DELETED.)

x x x x x x x x x.

With the removal of death as a penalty and the insertion of the term xxx as
an aggravating circumstance, the unmistakable import is to downgrade the
penalty for illegal possession of explosives and consider its use merely as an
aggravating circumstance.
Clearly, Congress intended R.A. No. 8294 to reduce the penalty for illegal
possession of firearms and explosives. Also, Congress clearly intended RA
No. 8294 to consider as aggravating circumstance, instead of a separate
offense, illegal possession of firearms and explosives when such possession
is used to commit other crimes under the Revised Penal Code.
It must be made clear, however, that RA No. 8294 did not amend the
definition of murder under Article 248, but merely made the use of explosives
an aggravating circumstance when resorted to in committing any of the crimes
defined in the Revised Penal Code. The legislative purpose is to do away with
the use of explosives as a separate crime and to make such use merely an
aggravating circumstance in the commission of any crime already defined in
the Revised Penal Code. Thus, RA No. 8294 merely added the use of
unlicensed explosives as one of the aggravating circumstances specified in
Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. Like the aggravating circumstance of
explosion in paragraph 12, evident premeditation in paragraph 13, or
treachery in paragraph 16 of Article 14, the new aggravating circumstance
added by RA No. 8294 does not change the definition of murder in Article 248.
 Nonetheless, even if favorable to the appellant, R.A. No. 8294 still cannot
be made applicable in this case. Before the use of unlawfully possessed
explosives can be properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, it
must be adequately established that the possession was illegal or
unlawful, i.e., the accused is without the corresponding authority or permit to
possess. This follows the same requisites in the prosecution of crimes
involving illegal possession of firearm which is a kindred or related offense
[35]

under P.D. 1866, as amended. This proof does not obtain in the present
case. Not only was it not alleged in the information, but no evidence was
adduced by the prosecution to show that the possession by appellant of the
explosive was unlawful.
It is worthy to note that the above requirement of illegality is borne out by
the provisions of the law itself, in conjunction with the pertinent tenets of legal
hermeneutics.
A reading of the title of R.A. No. 8294 will show that the qualifier
[36]

illegal/unlawful ...possession is followed by of firearms, ammunition, or

explosives or instruments... Although the term ammunition is separated from
explosives by the disjunctive word or, it does not mean that explosives are no
longer included in the items which can be illegally/unlawfully possessed. In
this context, the disjunctive word or is not used to separate but to signify a
succession or to conjoin the enumerated items together. Moreover, Section 2
[37]

of R.A. 8294, subtitled: Section 3.Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition,

[38]

Disposition or Possession of Explosives, clearly refers to

the unlawful manufacture, sale, or possession of explosives.
What the law emphasizes is the acts lack of authority. Thus, when the
second paragraph of Section 3, P.D. No. 1866, as amended by RA No. 8294
speaks of the use of the aforementioned explosives, etc. as an aggravating
circumstance in the commission of crimes, it refers to those explosives, etc.
unlawfully manufactured, assembled, dealt in, acquired, disposed or
possessed mentioned in the first paragraph of the same section. What is per
se aggravating is the use of unlawfully manufactured or possessed
explosives. The mere use of explosives is not.
The information in this case does not allege that appellant Antonio
Comadre had unlawfully possessed or that he had no authority to possess the
grenade that he used in the killing and attempted killings. Even if it were
alleged, its presence was not proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt. Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure requires
the averment of aggravating circumstances for their application. [39]
 The inapplicability of R.A. 8294 having been made manifest, the crime
committed is Murder committed by means of explosion in accordance with
Article 248 (3) of the Revised Penal Code. The same, having been alleged in
the Information, may be properly considered as appellant was sufficiently
informed of the nature of the accusation against him. [40]

The trial court found appellant guilty of the complex crime of murder with
multiple attempted murder under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, which
provides:

Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. When a single act constitutes two or more grave
or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means of committing the
other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied
in its maximum period.

The underlying philosophy of complex crimes in the Revised Penal Code,

which follows the pro reo principle, is intended to favor the accused by
imposing a single penalty irrespective of the crimes committed. The rationale
being, that the accused who commits two crimes with single criminal impulse
demonstrates lesser perversity than when the crimes are committed by
different acts and several criminal resolutions.
The single act by appellant of detonating a hand grenade may
quantitatively constitute a cluster of several separate and distinct offenses, yet
these component criminal offenses should be considered only as a single
crime in law on which a single penalty is imposed because the offender was
impelled by a single criminal impulse which shows his lesser degree of
perversity.[41]

Under the aforecited article, when a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies the penalty for the most serious crime shall be
imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period irrespective of the
presence of modifying circumstances, including the generic aggravating
circumstance of treachery in this case. Applying the aforesaid provision of
[42]

law, the maximum penalty for the most serious crime (murder) is death. The
trial court, therefore, correctly imposed the death penalty.
Three justices of the Court, however, continue to maintain the
unconstitutionality of R.A. 7659 insofar as it prescribes the death penalty.
Nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority to the effect that the law
is constitutional and that the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the
case at bar.
 Finally, the trial court awarded to the parents of the victim Robert Agbanlog
civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, P35,000.00 as compensatory
damages and P20,000.00 as moral damages. Pursuant to existing
jurisprudence the award of civil indemnity is proper. However, the actual
[43]

damages awarded to the heirs of Robert Agbanlog should be modified,

considering that the prosecution was able to substantiate only the amount of
P18,000.00 as funeral expenses. [44]

The award of moral damages is appropriate there being evidence to show

emotional suffering on the part of the heirs of the deceased, but the same
must be increased to P50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing judicial policy.
[45]

With respect to the surviving victims Jaime Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, Rey
Camat and Gerry Bullanday, the trial court awarded P30,000.00 each for the
injuries they sustained. We find this award inappropriate because they were
not able to present a single receipt to substantiate their claims. Nonetheless,
since it appears that they are entitled to actual damages although the amount
thereof cannot be determined, they should be awarded temperate damages of
P25,000.00 each. [46]

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the appealed decision of the

Regional Trial Court of San Jose City, Branch 39 in Criminal Case No. L-
16(95) is AFFIRMED insofar as appellant Antonio Comadre is convicted of the
complex crime of Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder and sentenced to
suffer the penalty of death. He is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the
amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and
P18,000.00 as actual damages and likewise ordered to pay the surviving
victims, Jaime Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, Rey Camat and Gerry Bullanday,
P25,000.00 each as temperate damages for the injuries they sustained.
Appellants Gregorio Comadre and Danilo Lozano are ACQUITTED for lack of
evidence to establish conspiracy, and they are hereby ordered immediately
RELEASED from confinement unless they are lawfully held in custody for
another cause. Costs de oficio.
In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act 7659 amending Article 83 of
the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this Decision, let the records of this
case be forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of
pardoning power.
SO ORDERED.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Criminal Case No. 26558
Plaintiff, For: PLUNDER

- versus

JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, PRESENT:

Former President of the
Republic of the Philippines, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, PJ,
Chairperson
JOSE "JINGGOY" ESTRADA,
CHARLIE "ATONG" TIU HAY SY ANG, VILLARUZ, JR., and
EDWARD S. SERAPIO, PERALTA, JJ.
YOLANDA T. RICAFORTE,
ALMA ALFARO,
JOHN DOE also known as
ELEUTERIO RAMOS TAN or MR. UY,
PROMULGATED:
JANE DOE also known as
DELIA RAJAS,
JOHN DOES and JANE DOES, Accused. September 12, 2007

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------x

DECISION

Republic Act (RA) No. 7080 as amended was approved on July 12, 1991, creating and
introducing into our criminal legal system the crime of "plunder". This law penalizes public
officers who would amass immense wealth through a series or combination of overt or
criminal acts described in the statute in violation of the public trust. RA No. 7080 or the
Anti-Plunder Law was a consolidation of Senate Bill no. 733 and House Bill No. 22752.
The Explanatory Note of Senate Bill No. 733, quoted in the case of Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002, 377 SCRA 538, 555), explains the
reason behind the law as follows:

Plunder, a term chosen from other equally apt terminologies like kleptocracy and
economic treason, punishes the use of high office for personal enrichment,
committed thru a series of acts done not in the public eye but in stealth and
secrecy over a period of time, that may involve so many persons, here and
abroad, and which touch so many states and territorial units. The acts and/or
omissions sought to be penalized do not involve simple cases of malversation of
public funds, bribery, extortion, theft and graft but constitute plunder of an entire
nation resulting in material damage to the national economy. The above-described
crime does not yet exist in Philippine statute books. Thus, the need to come up
with a legislation as a safeguard against the possible recurrence of the depravities
of the previous regime and as a deterrent to those with similar inclination to
succumb to the corrupting influence of power.

The majority opinion in the above-cited case, penned by Honorable Justice Josue N.
Bellosillo, further explained the rationale behind the Anti-Plunder Law in this manner:

Our nation has been racked by scandals of corruption and obscene profligacy of
officials in high places which have shaken its very foundation. The anatomy of
graft and corruption has become more elaborate in the corridors of time as
unscrupulous people relentlessly contrive more and more ingenious ways to milk
the coffers of the government. Drastic and radical measures are imperative to fight
the increasingly sophisticated, extraordinarily methodical and economically
catastrophic looting of the national treasury. Such is the Plunder Law, especially
designed to disentangle those ghastly tissues of grand-scale corruption which, if
left unchecked, will spread like a malignant tumor and ultimately consume the
moral and institutional fiber of our nation. The Plunder Law, indeed, is a living
testament to the will of the legislature to ultimately eradicate this scourge and thus
secure society against the avarice and other venalities in public office.

These are times that try mens souls. In the checkered history of this nation, few
issues of national importance can equal the amount of interest and passion
generated by petitioners ignominious fall from the highest office, and his eventual
prosecution and trial under a virginal statute. This continuing saga has driven a
wedge of dissension among our people that may linger for a long time. Only by
responding to the clarion call for patriotism, to rise above factionalism and
prejudices, shall we emerge triumphant in the midst of ferment.[Emphasis
Supplied]

The present case is the first of its kind to be filed charging the highest official of the land, a
former President, among others, of the offense of plunder. Needless to state, the
resolution of this case shall set significant historical and legal precedents.

Throughout the six years over which the court proceedings in this case unfolded, this
Court confronted numerous novel and complicated legal issues (including the
constitutionality of the plunder law, propriety of house arrest, among others), heard
lengthy testimonies from several dozens of witnesses from both sides and perused
voluminous documentary evidence and pleadings from the parties. Considering the
personalities involved and the nature of the crime charged, the present case aroused
particularly intense interest from the public. Speculations on the probable outcome of the
case received unparalleled attention from the media and other sectors of society. Indeed,
the factual and legal complexities of the case are further compounded by attempts to
sensationalize the proceedings for various ends.

However, this Court is ever mindful of its imperative duty to act as an impartial arbiter: (a)
to serve the interest of the State and the public in punishing those who would so severely
abuse their public office and those private individuals would aid them or conspire with
them and (b) to protect the right of the accused to be only convicted upon guilt proven
beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the decision of this Court follows, upon no other
consideration other than the law and a review of the evidence on record.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

AND THE PROCEEDINGS
__________________________

This case for plunder commenced with the filing on April 4, 2001 of the Information which
is quoted hereunder:

INFORMATION

The undersigned Ombudsman Prosecutor and OIC-Director, EPIB, Office of the

Ombudsman, hereby accuses former Joseph Ejercito Estrada, together with Jose
"Jinggoy" Estrada, Charlie Atong" Ang, Edward Serapio, Yolanda T. Ricaforte,
Alma Alfaro, Eleuterio Tan a.k.a. Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, Jane Doe a.k.a.
Delia Rajas, and John & Jane Does, of the crime of Plunder, defined and
penalized under R.A. No. 7080, as amended by Sec. 12 of R.A. No. 7659,
committed as follows:

That during the period from June, 1998 to January, 2001, in the
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused
Joseph Ejercito Estrada, by himself and in conspiracy with his co-accused,
business associates and persons heretofore named, by taking advantage
of his official position, authority, connection or influence as President of the
Republic of the Philippines, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
criminally amass, accumulate and acquire ill-gotten wealth, and unjustly
enrich himself in the aggregate amount of P4,097,804,173.17, more or
less, through a combination and series of overt and criminal acts,
described as follows:

(a) by receiving, collecting, directly or indirectly, on many

instances, so-called "jueteng money" from gambling operators in
connivance with co-accused Jose Jinggoy Estrada, Yolanda T. Ricaforte
and Edward Serapio, as witnessed by Gov. Luis Chavit Singson, among
other witnesses, in the aggregate amount of FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-
FIVE MILLION PESOS (P545,000,000.00), more or less, in consideration
of their protection from arrest or interference by law enforcers in their
illegal "jueteng" activities; and

(b) by misappropriating, converting and miusing for his gain and

benefit public fund in the amount of ONE HUNDRRED THIRTY MILLION
PESOS (P130,000,000.00), more or less, representing a portion of the
 One Hundred Seventy Million Pesos (P170,000,000.00) tobacco excise
tax share allocated for the Province of Ilocos Sur under R.A. No. 7171, in
conspiracy with co-accused Charlie Atong Ang, Alma Alfaro, Eleuterio Tan
a.k.a Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, and Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas, as
witnessed by Gov. Luis Chavit Singson, among other witnesses; and

(c) by directing, ordering and compelling the Government Service

Insurance System (GSIS) and the Social Security System (SSS) to
purchase and buy a combined total of 681,733,000 shares of stock of the
Belle Corporatiion in the aggregate gross value of One Billion Eight
Hundred Forty-Seven Million Five Hundred Seventy Eight Thousand Fifty
Seven Pesos and Fifty Centavos (P1,847,578,057.50), for the purpose of
collecting for his personal gain and benefit, as in fact he did collect and
receive the sum of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE MILLION SEVEN
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P 189,700,000.00), as commission from
said stock purchase; and

(d) by unjustly enriching himself in the amount of THREE BILLION

TWO HUNDRED THIRTY THREE MILLION ONE HUNDRED FOUR
THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE PESOS AND
SEVENTEEN CENTAVOS (P 3,233,104,173.17) comprising his
unexplained wealth acquired, accumulated and amassed by him under his
account name "Jose Velarde" with Equitable PCI Bank;

to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the
Philippines.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Various motions were filed by accused Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada (FPres.
Estrada), Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada (Jinggoy Estrada), and Edward S. Serapio (Serapio).
Accused Serapio filed his Urgent Omnibus Motion (a) to Hold in abeyance the issuance of
warrant of arrest and further Proceedings; (b) to conduct a determination of probable
cause; (c) for leave to file accuseds motion for reconsideration and /or reinvestigation;
and (d) to direct the Ombudsman to conduct a reinvestigation of the charges against
accused Serapio dated April 6, 2001. While accused FPres. Estrada filed three (3)
motions; (1) Urgent Motion to Defer Proceedings, dated April 9, 2001, (2) Position Paper
Re: Probable Cause (ex abundante ad cautelam) dated April 9, 2001 which was joined by
accused Jinggoy Estrada, and (3) Motion to (a) remand the case to the Ombudsman for
preliminary investigation consistent with the Honorable Supreme Courts Resolution in
G.R. No. 147512-19 (Joseph E. Estrada v. Hon. Aniano Desierto, et al.); and (b) hold in
abeyance judicial action in the case particularly the issuance of a warrant of arrest and
steps leading thereto until after the conduct of a proper preliminary investigation, dated
April 11, 2001.

In a Resolution promulgated on April 16, 2001, the Court directed the prosecution to
submit to the Court not later than April 18, 2001 the required affidavits, counter-affidavits,
and supporting evidence as well as other supporting documents accompanying the
Information, which were needed to determine the existence of probable cause for the
issuance or non-issuance of a warrant of arrest. As directed, the prosecution filed on April
18, 2001 its Manifestation and Compliance.

On April 19, 2001, the prosecution filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to admit Amended
Information, which is quoted hereunder:

AMENDED INFORMATION

The undersigned Ombudsman Prosecutor and OIC-Director, EPIB, Office of the

Ombudsman, hereby accuses former PRESIDENT OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Joseph Ejercito Estrada a.k.a. "ASIONG SALONGA" AND a.k.a.
"JOSE VELARDE", together with Jose Jinggoy Estrada, Charlie "Atong" Ang,
Edward Serapio, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Alma Alfaro, JOHN DOE a.k.a.Eleuterio
Tan OR Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas, and
John DOES & Jane Does, of the crime of Plunder, defined and penalized under
R.A. No. 7080, as amended by Sec. 12 of R.A. No. 7659, committed as follows:

That during the period from June, 1998 to January, 2001, in the
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused
Joseph Ejercito Estrada, THEN A PUBLIC OFFICER, BEING THEN THE
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, by
himself AND/OR in CONNIVANCE/CONSPIRACY with his co-
accused, WHO ARE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY, RELATIVES BY
AFFINITY OR CONSANGUINITY, BUSINESS ASSOCIATES,
SUBORDINATES AND/OR OTHER PERSONS, BY TAKING UNDUE
ADVANTAGE OF HIS OFFICIAL POSITION, AUTHORITY,
RELATIONSHIP, CONNECTION, OR INFLUENCE, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate and acquire BY
HIMSELF, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate
amount OR TOTAL VALUE of FOUR BILLION NINETY SEVEN MILLION
EIGHT HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY
THREE PESOS AND SEVENTEEN CENTAVOS [P4,097,804,173.17],
more or less, THEREBY UNJUSTLY ENRICHING HIMSELF OR
THEMSELVES AT THE EXPENSE AND TO THE DAMAGE OF THE
FILIPINO PEOPLE AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, through ANY OR A combination OR A series of
overt OR criminal acts, OR SIMILAR SCHEMES OR MEANS, described
as follows:

(a) by receiving OR collecting, directly or indirectly, on SEVERAL

INSTANCES, MONEY IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF FIVE
HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE MILLION PESOS (P545,000,000.00), MORE OR
LESS, FROM ILLEGAL GAMBLING IN THE FORM OF GIFT, SHARE,
PERCENTAGE, KICKBACK OR ANY FORM OF PECUNIARY BENEFIT,
BY HIMSELF AND/OR in connivance with co-accused CHARLIE ATONG
ANG, JOSE Jinggoy Estrada, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Edward Serapio, AND
JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, in consideration OF TOLERATION OR
PROTECTION OF ILLEGAL GAMBLING;

(b) by DIVERTING, RECEIVING, misappropriating,

converting OR misusing DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, for HIS OR THEIR
PERSONAL gain and benefit, public funds in the amount of ONE
 HUNDRED THIRTY MILLION PESOS [P130,000,000.00], more or less,
representing a portion of the TWO HUNDRED MILLION PESOS
[P200,000,000.00]tobacco excise tax share allocated for the Province of
Ilocos Sur under R.A. No. 7171, BY HIMSELF
AND/OR in CONNIVANCE with co-accused Charlie Atong Ang, Alma
Alfaro, JOHN DOE a.k.a. Eleuterio Tan OR Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy,
and Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas, AND OTHER JOHN DOES AND JANE
DOES;

(c) by directing, ordering and compelling, FOR HIS PERSONAL

GAIN AND BENEFIT, the Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS) TO PURCHASE, 351,878,000 SHARES OF STOCKS, MORE OR
LESS, and the Social Security System (SSS), 329,855,000 SHARES OF
STOCK, MORE OR LESS, OF THE BELLE CORPORATION IN THE
AMOUNT OF MORE OR LESS ONE BILLION ONE HUNDRED TWO
MILLION NINE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
SEVEN PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS [P1,102,965,607.50] AND MORE
OR LESS SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY FOUR MILLION SIX HUNDRED
TWELVE THOUSAND AND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS
[P744,612,450.00], RESPECTIVELY, OR A TOTAL OF MORE OR LESS
ONE BILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN MILLION FIVE
HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT THOUSAND FIFTY SEVEN PESOS AND
FIFTY CENTAVOS [P1,847,578,057.50]; AND BY COLLECTING OR
RECEIVING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY HIMSELF AND/OR IN
CONNIVANCE WITH JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, COMMISSIONS
OR PERCENTAGES BY REASON OF SAID PURCHASES OF SHARES
OF STOCK IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE
MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS [P189,700,000.00],
MORE OR LESS, FROM THE BELLE CORPORATION WHICH BECAME
PART OF THE DEPOSIT IN THE EQUITABLE-PCI BANK UNDER THE
ACCOUNT NAME "JOSE VELARDE";

(d) by unjustly enriching himself FROM COMMISSIONS, GIFTS,

SHARES, PERCENTAGES, KICKBACKS, OR ANY FORM OF
PECUNIARY BENEFITS, IN CONNIVANCE WITH JOHN DOES AND
JANE DOES, in the amount of MORE OR LESS THREE BILLION TWO
HNDRED THIRTY THREE MILLION ONE HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND
AND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE PESOS AND SEVENTEEN
CENTAVOS [P3,233,104,173.17] AND DEPOSITING THE SAME UNDER
HIS ACCOUNT NAME "JOSE VELARDE" AT THE EQUITABLE-PCI
BANK.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

On April 20, 2001, the Court in its Minute Resolution granted and admitted the
prosecutions Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Admit Amended Information dated April 18, 2001.

On April 25, 2001, the Court promulgated its Resolution which stated:

xxx xxx xxx the Court finds and so hold that probable cause for the offense
of PLUNDER exists to justify issuance of warrants for the arrest of accused
 Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, Mayor Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada, Charlie
"Atong" Ang, Edward Serapio, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Alma Alfaro, John Doe a.k.a.
Eleuterio Tan or Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, and Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas.

No bail is fixed for the provisional liberty of the accused for the reason that the
penalty imposable for the offense of plunder under RA No. 7080, as amended by
Sec. 12 of RA No. 7659, is reclusion perpetua to death.

Director General Leandro R. Mendoza, Chief of the Philippine National Police,

shall implement the warrant of arrest upon service to him by Mr. Edgardo A.
Urieta, Chief of the Sheriff and Security Services Division of the Sandiganbayan.
Once arrested, all the accused shall undergo the required processes and be
detained at the PNP Detention Center, Camp Crame, Quezon City subject to, and
until, further orders from this Court.

On the 25th day of April 2001, on the basis of the said resolution, the Court issued an
Order of Arrest and Hold Departure Order for all the named accused in the present
information. The Philippine National Police (PNP) submittd its Report of Compliance dated
April 25, 2001 which stated:

1. That in compliance with the Order of Arrest issued by the Honorable

Court in the above captioned criminal case, accused Joseph E. Estrada and Jose
"Jinggoy" Estrada, both residence of no. 1 Polk Street, North Greenhills, San
Juan, Metro Manila voluntarily surrendered to the undersigned on 25 April 2001 at
about 3:00 oclock PM at said residence in the presence of their counsels.

2. That right after their surrender, they were brought inside Camp Crame, Quezon
City for the required processes and pending further orders from this Honorable
Court they shall be kept in Camp Crame;

A Compliance/Return of Warrant of Arrest was also filed on April 26, 2001 by P/Chief
Superintendent Nestor B. Gualberto.

As to accused Serapio, the PNPs Report of Compliance reads in part:

2. That one of the accused named therein, Atty. Edward S. Serapio, surrendered
to the Chief, Philippine National Police, through the Criminal Investigation and
Detection Group (CIDG) in Camp Crame, Quezon City on April 25, 2001 at about
9:45 PM where the required processes were administered to him and pending
further orders from this Honorable Court he shall be kept in Camp Crame;

The Court, in its Minute Resolution dated April 26, 2001, set the arraignment of the
detained accused on May 3, 2001 which was cancelled due to the different motions filed
by the accused. Accused Jinggoy Estrada filed his Motion to Quash or Suspend dated
April 24, 2001 and a Very Urgent Omnibus Motion dated April 30, 2001. Among other
motions, accused FPres. Estrada filed his Motion to Quash dated June 7, 2001 and
accused Serapio filed his Motion to Quash (Re: Amended Information dated April 18,
2001) dated June 26, 2001. In its Resolution dated July 9, 2001, the Court denied all the
aforesaid motions to quash and accused Jinggoy Estradas Very Urgent Omnibus Motion
dated April 30, 2001. The Courts Resolution dated July 9, 2001 was sustained by the
Honorable Supreme Court in the Decisions rendered in Joseph Ejercito Estrada vs.
Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001) and Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada vs.
Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002).

On July 10, 2001, the Court denied the motion to defer filed by accused FPres. Estrada
and Jinggoy Estrada and proceeded with the arraignment of accused FPres. Estrada,
Jinggoy Estrada, and Serapio under the Amended Information. The accused having
refused to enter a plea, the Court entered a plea of not guilty for all the three (3) accused.

Petitions for Bail / House Arrest

With the detention of accused FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada in Camp Crame on
April 25, 2001, both accused filed on the same day an Urgent Ex-parte Motion to Place on
House Arrest.

The Court on June 9, 2001, issued a Resolution denying accused FPres. Estradas Urgent
Ex-Parte Motion to Place on House Arrest and issued an Order for the confinement of
accused FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada at Fort Sto. Domingo, Sta. Rosa, Laguna,
subject to the need for their continued confinement at the Veterans Memorial Medical
Center (VMMC) where they were then confined. In view of the said resolution, accused
FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada, on June 13, 2001, filed an Omnibus Motion (Re:
Resolution promulgated on June 9, 2001) pressing in the alternative a Motion for
Detention in Tanay, Rizal.

On March 17, 2004, FPres. Estrada filed a Motion to Modify Custodial Arrangement dated
March 17, 2004 and, on March 30, 2004, the counsel de officio of accused FPres. Estrada
filed a Manifestation dated March 29, 2004 informing the Court, among others, that the
said accused was willing to have his property in Tanay, Rizal placed under the control and
supervision of the Court and the Philippine National Police for the duration of his
detention.

On July 12, 2004, the Court issued a joint resolution granting FPres. Estradas motion to
modify Custodial Arrangement dated March 29, 2004 subject to the conditions imposed by
the Court. Accused FPres. Estrada filed a Compliance and Acceptance of Conditions on
July 13, 2004. Since then, accused FPres. Estrada has been detained in his property at
Tanay, Rizal.

When the Court ordered the arrest and detention of the accused in these cases, accused
Serapio filed his petition for bail on April 27, 2001. Accused Jinggoy Estradas petition for
bail was included in his Very Urgent Omnibus Motion dated April 30, 2001.

Accused Serapios Petition for Bail was deferred indefinitely as prayed for by the said
accused while, on August 14, 2001, accused Jinggoy Estrada filed an Urgent Second
Motion for Bail for Medical Reasons dated August 16, 2001 which the prosecution
opposed. On December 20, 2001, the Court issued its Resolution denying accused
Jinggoy Estradas Urgent Second Motion for Bail for Medical Reasons.

Considering the denial of the said motion for bail for medical reasons, accused Jinggoy
Estrada, on April 17, 2002, filed an Omnibus Application for Bail dated April 16, 2002. After
hearing, the Court issued a Resolution on March 6, 2003 which granted accused Jinggoy
Estradas Omnibus Application for Bail. The prosecutions Motion for Reconsideration
dated March 13, 2003 was denied in this Courts Resolution dated April 30, 2003. The
aforesaid Resolutions granting bail to Mayor Jinggoy Estrada were upheld by the
Honorable Supreme Court in a Decision promulgated in G.R. No. 158754, People vs.
Sandiganbayan (Special Division) and Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada (August 10, 2007).

As to accused Serapio, the Courts Resolution dated September 12, 2003 also granted
accused-movant Serapios Urgent Petition for Bail dated April 27, 2001. The Court fixed
the amount of bail of accused Serapio and Jinggoy Estrada at Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P500,000.00) each which was to paid in cash.

While the case was already in the trial stage, on January 4, 2002 the counsels for the
accused Estradas wrote a letter to the Acting Presiding Justice requesting for a re-raffle of
the cases against the accused, citing as grounds the continuing uncertain composition of
the justices handling the cases against the accused Former President, et al., at that time.
The prosecution filed its Opposition to Request for Re-Raffle On January 9, 2002 and its
Comment/Suggestion on January 10, 2002 that a Special Third Division be constituted to
be composed of the present Presiding Justice, the only remaining member of the Third
Division to which the case was raffled, and two other Sandiganbayan Justices who are not
retirables within the next three (3) years. Justice Anacleto Badoy, the Chairman of the
Third Division, was due to retire on October 2002, while Justice Ilarde, the other member,
retired on November 27, 2001. On January 11, 2002, the Sandiganbayan En Banc issued
its Resolution 01-2002 recommending to the Supreme Court that the cases against
accused FPres. Estrada, et al., be referred to a Special Division. The Supreme Court on
January 21, 2002 promulgated its Resolution Creating the Special Division of the
Sandiganbayan which shall hear, try and decide with dispatch the Plunder Case and all
related cases filed or may hereafter be filed against accused FPres. Estrada, and those
accused with him, until they are resolved, decided and terminated. In the Special Division
of the Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court retained, as Junior Member, the present
Presiding Justice who was then the only remaining member of the Third Division to which
the Plunder Case was raffled, and designated the then Presiding Justice Minita V. Chico-
Nazario, as Chairperson, and Associate Justice Edilberto G. Sandoval as Senior Member.
This was not the first time that a Special Division of the Sandiganbayan was constituted to
try a case. A Special Division was previously constituted to try and decide the Aquino-
Galman cases in that composition of the said Division was also maintained until the case
was decided notwithstanding the subsequent changes in the composition of the Division
due to promotions and/or retirement of its members.

During the same year, the counsel de parte of accused FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy
Estrada all withdrew their appearances. The Court on March 1, 2002, in order to protect
the rights and interest of the accused, appointed the Public Attorneys Office (PAO) and
those who have been recommended by the Board of Governor of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, to represent accused FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada as counsel de
oficio, namely, Former Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan Manuel Pamaran, Atty.
Prospero Crescini, Atty. Irene Jurado and Atty. Manuel Malaya. The PAO lawyers
mentioned their duration as counsel de oficio, hence, (Ret.) Presiding Justice Pamaran
and the private practitioners represented accused FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada up
to the time the prosecution rested its case and submitted to the Court its Formal Offer of
Evidence. However, before the presentation of the evidence for the defense, accused
FPres. Estrada, in a Letter dated September 1, 2004, informed the Court that he have
decided to re-engage the services of the members of his original de parte panel of
lawyers.

Upon conclusion of the presentation of prosecution evidence and after the Court have
ruled on the offer of evidence of the prosecution, accused FPres. Estrada, Jinggoy
Estrada and Serapio filed their respective motion for leave of court to file demurrer to
evidence. In a Joint Resolution dated March 10, 2004, the Court granted accused FPres.
Estradas Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence in Criminal Case Nos. 26905 and
26565 while it denied the same motion of all the accused in Criminal Case No. 26558 for
lack of merit. Subsequently, the Demurrer to Evidence of accused FPres. Estrada was
filed. In its Joint Resolution dated July 12, 2004, the Court resolved to deny FPres.
Estradas Demurrer to Evidence in Criminal Case No. 26905 but granted the Demurrer to
Evidence of FPres. Estrada in Criminal Case No. 26565.

After the presentation of the evidence for accused FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada,
accused Serapio manifested that he opted not to present his own evidence but adopted
the evidence presented by FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada. The said accused then
formally offered their evidence. The Court issued its resolution on the formal offer of
evidence for accused FPres. Estrada, Jinggoy Estrada and Serapio. On the other hand,
the prosecution manifested that it was not presenting any rebuttal evidence but formally
offered additional evidence and tendered excluded evidence in its Supplemental Formal
Offer of Exhibits [Re: Exhibits Identified, Presented, and Marked during the Cross
Examination of Defense Witnesses] with Tender of Excluded Evidence dated March 29,
2007. The Court issued its Minute Resolution dated April 19, 2007 on the said additional
offer of evidence of the prosecution.

In an Order dated May 9, 2007, the Court gave the parties a period of time to file their
respective memoranda and scheduled the Oral Summation requested by accused FPres.
Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada on June 15, 2007. After the Oral Summation, the case was
submitted for decision.

Incidentally, on November 10, 2006, the National Bureau of Investigation filed its Return of
"Alias" Order of Arrest, informing the Court that one of the accused in this case, Atong Ang
was extradited from the United States of America and was already under the custody of
the said agency. At his arraignment, accused Atong Ang refused to enter a plea and the
Court entered a plea of not guilty for the said accused.

On January 24, 2007, when the case was scheduled for Pre-Trial only for accused Atong
Ang, the prosecution and the said accused, assisted by his counsel, manifested in open
court that they had executed a Plea Bargaining Agreement. The Courts Resolution dated
March 14, 2007 approved the Plea Bargaining Agreement entered into by the parties.

On March 19, 2007, during accused Atong Angs re-arraignment, the said accused
pleaded guilty to a lesser offense of Corruption of Public Officials under Article 212 in
relation to Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code. On the same day, the Court rendered its
decision against accused Atong Ang sentencing said accused to "two (2) years and four
(4) months of prision correccional minimum, as minimum, to six (6) years of prision
correccional maximum, as maximum, and to pay the amount of P25,000,000.00 to the
Government as his civil liability". Accused Atong Ang immediately filed a Petition for
Probation (with Motion to Deduct Period of Preventive Imprisonment from the Term of
Imprisonment and to Post Bail Pending Resolution thereof) which the Court granted in a
Resolution dated May 25, 2007. Accused Atong Ang is now under probation.

STATEMENT OF THE STIPULATIONS

OF THE PARTIES AT PRE-TRIAL
________________________________

After the arraignment of the accused, the pre-trial was conducted which led to the
issuance of the Amended Pre-Trial Order dated June 14, 2001, quoted in part hereunder:

When this case was called for pre-trial on September 3, 2001, accused JOSEPH
EJERCITO ESTRADA, JOSE "Jinggoy" P. ESTRADA appeared, assisted by
counsels, Atty. Jose B. Flaminiano, Atty. Cleofe Villar-Verzola, Atty. Rene A. V.
Saguisag and Atty. Raymond Parsifal A. Fortun. Accused Edward S. Serapio
likewise appeared, assisted by his counsels, Atty. Sabino Acut, Jr. and Atty. Martin
Israel L. Pison. The People was represented by Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto,
Deputy Ombudsman Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr., Deputy Special Prosecutor Robert
E. Kallos, Ombudsman Prosecutor III Antonio T. Manzano and Humphrey T.
Monteroso.

The accused Estradas and Edward S. Serapio submitted their WAIVER OF

APPEARANCE dated September 3, 2001 stating as follows:

Accused Joseph Estrada, Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada and Edward S. Serapio hereby
waive their appearance during the pre-trial and the trial of this case subject to the
conditions that:

a. whenever his/her/their name/s/are mentioned at any stage of the

proceedings of this/ these case/s whether in testimonial or
documentary evidence, such name/s refer/s to his/her/them; and

b. whenever his/her/their appearance shall be require by the Court at

any time, they will appear, otherwise warrant/s shall issue for their
arrest.

The aforementioned three (3) accused verbally manifested in open Court that they
fully understand and agree with their conditions contained in their Waiver of
Appearance.

xxx xxx xxx

The prosecution, the accused Estradas and accused Serapio agreed to stipulate
on the following facts, as proposed by the prosecution to wit:

1. That accused Joseph Estrada (Estrada for short) took his oath of
office as President of the Republic of the Philippines on 30th June
1998, [cf. Proposal No. 1(For all specifications) of accused
Estradas Proposed Stipulation of Facts of the defense dated 01
August 2001];

2. That accused Joseph Estrada is married to Dra. (now Senator)

 Luisa P. Ejercito; [cf. Proposal No. 2 (For all Specifications) of
accused Estradas Proposed Stipulation of Facts of the defense
dated 01 August 2001];

3. That accused Jose Jinggoy Estrada, Jr. (Jinggoy for short) is

the son of accused Joseph Estrada; [cf. Proposal No. 3 (For all
Specifications) of accused Estradas Proposed Stipulation of Facts
of the defense dated 01 August 2001;

4. Edward S. Serapio is a lawyer and a former professor of law at the

Ateneo de Manila University School of Law; [cf. Proposal No. 1 of
accused Atty. Edward Serapios Request for Stipulation of Facts
and Admission of Documents dated 01 August 2001;

5. On April 29 1999, Atty. Serapio was appointed by President Joseph

Estrada as Presidential Assistant for Political Affairs with the rank
of Undersecretary. [cf. Proposal No. 2 of accused Atty. Edward
Serapios Request for Stipulation of Facts and Admission of
Documents dated 01 August 2001;

6. He accepted such appointment. [cf. Proposal No. 2. 1 of

specification of accused Atty. Edward Serapios Request for
Stipulation of Facts and Admission of documents dated 01 August
2001.

The other stipulations of facts proposed by the accused Estradas and admitted by
the prosecution were:

1. That From 1998-2001, Mr. Luis "Chavit" Singson was elected

Governor of the province of Ilocos Sur; [cf. Proposal No. 6 (For all
Specifications) of accused Estradas Proposed Stipulation of Facts
of the defense dated 01 August 2001];

2. That the amount of P40 Million was withdrawn by a person

representing herself to be accused Alma Alfaro from Land Bank of
the Philippines-Shaw Branch on 28th August 1998; [cf. Proposal
No. 5 of specification (b) of accused Joseph E. Estrada and Jose
"Jinggoy" Estradas Stipulation of Facts and Admission of
Documents dated 01 August 2001.

The accused Estradas proposed and the prosecution admitted the following
stipulation of facts:

1. That accused Joseph Estrada personally knows Mr. Rodolfo

"Bong" Pineda; [cf. Paragraph 13 of the Prosecutions Additional
Stipulation of Facts dated 01 August 2001];

2. That accused Joseph Estrada personally knows "Atong" Ang; [cf.

Paragraph 17 of the Prosecutions Additional stipulation of Facts
 dated 01 August 2001];

3. That accused Joseph Estrada personally knows Mr. Lucio Co; [cf.
Paragraph 23 of the Prosecutions Additional Stipulation of Facts
dated 01 August 2001];

4. That accused Joseph Estrada personally knows Mr. Jaime

Dichaves; [cf. Paragraph 24 of the Prosecutions Additional
Stipulation of Facts dated 01 August 2001];

5. That accused President Estrada is a close and childhood friend of

Carlos A. Arellano; [cf. Paragraph 1 Re: Belle case of the
Prosecutions Additional Stipulation of Facts dated 01 August
2001];

6. That accused President Estrada appointed Carlos A. Arellano as

Chairman of the Social Security System on July 1, 1998; [cf.
Paragraph 2 re: Belle case of the Prosecutions Additional
Stipulation of Facts dated 01 August 2001];

7. That Carlos A. Arellano was appointed by accused President

Estrada as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Social
Security System; [cf. Paragraph 3 re: Belle case of the
Prosecutions Additional Stipulation of Facts dated 01 August
2001];

8. That accused President Estrada knew of the existence of Belle

Corporation; [cf. Paragraph 7 re: Belle case of the Prosecutions
Additional Stipulation of Facts dated 01 August 2001];

Proposed Stipulation of Facts of the prosecution admitted by accused Serapio:

1. That Erap Muslim Youth Foundation (hereinafter the

"Foundation") has a huge fund of more than P211 Million.

The only issue that was raised by the parties for resolution is whether or not
accused JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, JOSE "Jinggoy" P. ESTRADA and
ATTY. EDWARD S. SERAPIO are guilty of the offense charged in the Amended
Information.

The accused Estradas raise also the issue of whether or not the allegations in the
information would constitute the crime of plunder as defined by R.A. No. 7080.
(COMMENT ON, AND MOTION TO CORRECT PRE-TRIAL ORDER DATED
SEPTEMBER 13, 2001, filed by accused Estradas on September 21, 2001)

The evidence submitted by the prosecution and the defense in support of, or in denial, of
the speculations of the predicate acts adverted to in each of the paragraphs are discussed
hereunder in seriatim:
EVIDENCE PRESENTED:

RE: SUB-PARAGRAPH A OF THE

AMENDED INFORMATION
____________________________

(a) by receiving OR collecting, directly or indirectly, on SEVERAL

INSTANCES, MONEY IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF FIVE
HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE MILLION PESOS (P545,000,000.00), MORE OR
LESS, FROM ILLEGAL GAMBLING IN THE FORM OF GIFT, SHARE,
PERCENTAGE, KICKBACK OR ANY FORM OF PECUNIARY BENEFIT,
BY HIMSELF AND/OR in connivance with co-accused CHARLIE ATONG
ANG, JOSE Jinggoy Estrada, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Edward Serapio, AND
JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES,in consideration OF TOLERATION OR
PROTECTION OF ILLEGAL GAMBLING;

The alleged co-conspirators of accused Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada named
in this paragraph (a) are: Charlie "Atong" Tiu Hay Sy Ang (Atong Ang), Jose "Jinggoy"
Estrada, Yolanda T. Ricaforte (Ricaforte) and Edward S. Serapio. The paragraph also
refers to unidentified co-conspirators by the usual "Jane Does" and "John Does".

I. EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The principal witness of the prosecution in this first specification of the predicate acts of
plunder is Former Ilocos Sur Governor Luis "Chavit" C. Singson. He testified extensively
on the charge that FPres. Estrada accumulated ill-gotten wealth in the above-mentioned
amount through the monthly remittance to him of seems of money collected from
operations of illegal gambling, commonly known as "jueteng", based in the different
provinces of the country allegedly in consideration of the prosecution or unimpeded
operation of said illegal gambling.

The gist of the testimony of Singson relative to paragraph (a) of the Amended Information
is set forth hereunder:

GOVERNOR LUIS "CHAVIT" CRISOLOGO SINGSON (Gov. Singson) was 61 years old,
married, a businessman, and a resident of Mabini Street, Poblacion, Vigan, Province of
Ilocos Sur at the time he took the witness stand as prosecution witness. The examination
of the witness was done by Solicitor General Simeon Marcelo under the control and
supervision of the Ombudsman who was present. The counsel de oficio of accused FPres.
Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada, (Ret.) Justice Manuel R. Pamaran, objected to the
appearance of the Solicitor General, which the Court noted. [TSN dated July 17, 2002, pp.
166-167] The testimony of Gov. Singson was presented to corroborate the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses Maria Carmencita Itchon, Emma B. Lim and the Equitable PCI
Bank Branch Managers where Ricaforte opened accounts, and to prove that accused
FPres. Estrada, Jinggoy Estrada, Atong Ang, Ricaforte, Serapio and the other accused, in
conspiracy with one another, amassed and accumulated ill-gotten wealth for principal
accused FPres. Estradas benefit while he was the 13th President of the Republic of the
Philippines in the amount of Four Billion Ninety Seven Million Eight Hundred Four
Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Three Pesos and Seventeen Centavos
(P4,097,804,173.17), part of which was derived from:
 (1) the collection of jueteng protection money from November 1998 to August
2000, in the amount of Five Hundred Forty Five Million Pesos (P545,000,000.00)
more or less and the amount of Two Hundred Million Pesos (P200,000,000.00)
also from the said illegal gambling protection money; and

(2) misappropriation, diversion and conversion for his personal gain as benefit
public funds in the amount of One Hundred Thirty Million Pesos
(P130,000,000.00) more or less, representing a portion of the Two Hundred Million
pesos (P200,000,000.00) Tobacco Excise Share allocated for the Province of
Ilocos Sur under Republic Act No. 7171.

Gov. Singson was also presented by the prosecution to prove that Jinggoy Estrada and
Serapio conspired with and/or acted as co-principals by indispensable cooperation of
FPres. Estrada in the running of the illegal numbers game of jueteng and in the receipt by
FPres. Estrada of jueteng protection money; that accused Jinggoy Estrada regularly
collected jueteng protection money every month from January of 1999 to August 15, 2000,
as an indispensable part of the amassing and accumulating ill-gotten wealth by principal
accused FPres. Estrada and as part of the series and/or combination of overt or criminal
acts constituting the crime of plunder; that Serapio conspired with FPres. Estrada and the
other accused in receiving the Two Hundred Million Pesos (P200,000,000.00) which came
from jueteng operations and in hiding and/or laundering the same through the banking
system and that Serapio was the personal lawyer of FPres. Estrada and that in
furtherance of the conspiracy he set up various juridical entities to mask and/or hide
various illegal proprietary and business interests of FPres. Estrada. Gov. Singson would
also identify certain documents, checks, pictures and other facts relevant to the foregoing,
which tend to prove the combination and/or series of overt and criminal acts, constitutive
of the crime of plunder (and to oppose the petition for bail of Jinggoy Estrada. Gov.
Singsons testimony was also offered to prove the illegal use of alias). [TSN dated July 17,
2002, pp. 168-174]

Gov. Singson testified that he was called by FPres. Estrada at his house in Polk Street,
Greenhills, on August of 1998. Gov. Singson was then the Provincial Governor of Ilocos
Sur. Gov. Singson went to Polk Street in the evening. He was assisted by a security guard
towards the kitchen where he found Atong Ang and FPres. Estrada talking how to expand
the operations of jueteng, an illegal numbers game, in the provinces where there was yet
no jueteng protection money. Shortly, Bong Pineda arrived. Gov. Singson heard FPres.
Estrada told Bong Pineda that starting on that day not to bring money at his house
because it was very obvious. Gov. Singson did not know Bong Pineda very much but he
saw Bong Pineda in Congress when he was investigated regarding jueteng. The jueteng
money would protect jueteng operator from being arrested. FPres. Estrada then instructed
Bong Pineda to give the money to Atong Ang or to Gov. Singson because the latter was a
Governor so it would not be obvious if he brought money to FPres. Estrada. [TSN dated
July 17, 2002, pp. 178-187]

According to Gov. Singson, the day after the aforementioned meeting, Atong Ang started
meeting with the jueteng operators in his office near the municipal hall of San Juan. [Ibid,
p. 188] Atong Ang and the operators were bargaining how much protection money from
each province will be given to FPres. Estrada. [Ibid, p. 193] After the final talk, they started
collecting jueteng protection money, specifically from August of 1998. [Ibid, p. 203]

Gov. Singson knew FPres. Estrada for almost thirty (30) years before August of 1998.
FPres. Estrada was not yet a mayor but a movie actor as Gov. Singsons mother was a
producer. [Ibid, p. 191] Gov. Singson first met Atong Ang at the cockpit and gambling
places. He had known Atong Ang for a long time even when FPres. Estrada was still the
Vice President. According to Gov. Singson, Bong Pineda was a close "compadre" of
FPres. Estrada while his son, Jinggoy Estrada, was Bong Pinedas godson by marriage.
[Ibid, p. 197]

Gov. Singson claimed that he was present in not all but several meetings of Atong Ang
with the jueteng collectors. He was present when there was an agreement on the three
percent (3%) of total collections in every province, as fixed by Atong Ang. [TSN dated July
22, 2002, pp. 12-13] Jueteng money was delivered to FPres. Estrada initially every end of
the month, starting September of 1998 and later every 15 th and at the end of the month.
[Ibid, p.14]

On October of 1998, Gov. Singson and Atong Ang brought the jueteng protection money
of about Nine Million Pesos (P9,000,000.00) for the said month to FPres. Estrada at his
house, in No. 1 Polk Street in Greenhills, but FPres. Estrada and Atong Ang had a nasty
quarrel about the sugar allocation request of Atong Ang which was denied by FPres.
Estrada. Gov. Singson brought home the said P9,000,000.00 but, the following day,
FPres. Estrada called him up asking him to pay F.P. Estradas obligations which went on
until the said amount was consumed and Gov. Singson was instructed by FPres. Estrada
to continue the collection of the jueteng money. [Ibid, pp. 26, 22-23]

Gov. Singson continued the collection as instructed by FPres. Estrada, still with the help of
Atong Ang, from November of 1998 until August of 2000. The amounts of money collected
from jueteng during the said period were listed in the ledger per month and per province.
The ledger also listed the expenses paid for using the jueteng protection money. [Ibid, pp.
24-27]

Every fifteen (15) days, Gov. Singson himself delivered protection money to FPres.
Estrada in the amount of Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) or a total of Ten Million
Pesos (P10,000,000.00) every month. Emma B. Lim delivered once the jueteng money to
FPres. Estrada in Malacaang. The protection money was delivered usually in cash but
sometimes in check. Chavit Singon presented to this court two (2) sets of ledger. The first
set consisted of nine (9) pages covering the month of November of 1998 up to July of
1999 (Exh. W7 to Exh. E8). The September 1998 and October 1998 collections were not
reflected in the said ledger since the ledger was done only after FPres. Estrada and Atong
Ang quarreled in October 1998. The second set of ledger covered the months of August of
1999 to August of 2000 (Exh.A-4 to Exh. A-4-d). [TSN dated July 22, 2002, p. 27-31]

Gov. Singson prepared the pages of the first set of ledger (Exh. W7 to E8) with the help of
Emma B. Lim and Ma. Carmencita Itchon and on the following year, Ricaforte joined them.
[Ibid, pp. 35-36]

The pages of the second set of ledgers starting August of 1999 to August of 2000 [Exhibit
A-4 and submarkings] were prepared by Ricaforte under the supervision of Gov. Singson
who also checked the said ledger. [Ibid, pp. 36-37]

Ricaforte was introduced to Gov. Singson by FPres. Estrada before his birthday on April
19, 1999. She was designated by FPres. Estrada as auditor because FPres. Estrada was
strict with money. Gov. Singson was thankful for Ricafortes designation because he did
not want FPres. Estrada to distrust him. [Ibid, p. 40] Gov. Singson considered Ricaforte as
the employee of FPres. Estrada with respect to the jueteng collections because not only
was she introduced to Singson by FPres. Estrada, the latter also told Singson to give her
Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80, 000.00) monthly salary.

Ricaforte held office at LCS Building owned by Gov. Singson. [Ibid, pp. 42-43] Gov.
Singson did not know Yolanda Ricaforte or her husband Orestes Ricaforte before April of
1999. Gov. Singson identified Ricaforte from a picture (Exh. A-6-b-1) where she was
seated beside Menchu Itchon, the assistant of Gov. Singson. The picture was taken during
the wedding of Raquel, the daughter of Gov. Singson where FPres. Estrada and his wife
Senator Loi Ejercito stood as wedding sponsors. [Ibid, p. 45-48]

According to Gov. Singson, the jueteng collections were placed in a scratch paper as they
came every fifteen (15) days, at the middle and the end of the month or five (5) days after
the end of the month. When all the collections had arrived, the list was finalized and then
transferred to the computer. The ledgers were prepared upon instructions of FPres.
Estrada because the latter was strict with money. [Ibid, pp. 37-40, 41-42]

Gov. Singson explained in detail the entries on the left hand portion of the ledger for
November of 1998 up to July of 1999. In the province of Ilocos Sur, the total collection for
fifteen (15) days was Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P750,000.00), in the
province of La Union for 15 days, Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) total
collection, while in Bulacan for 15 days, One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) total collection
(Exh. W7) of protection money for FPres. Estrada. The entries for the other provinces were
similar. On the left side column were the names of the provinces, the middle column
pertained to the number of days, i.e., whether for 15 or 30 days and the right column, the
total amount of collections of jueteng protection money, in order that jueteng operators will
not be "arrested" or apprehended. There was one (1) collector for three (3) provinces.
[Ibid, pp. 53-54]

In the second set of ledger (Exh. A-4 to A-4-d) Ricaforte gave a code name for every
province below the title "Theme". The number of days, either 15 or 30, under the title
"days" and the total amount of protection money for FPres. Estrada below the title "points"
were indicated in the ledger. [Ibid, pp. 55-56]

Gov. Singson narrated that when FPres. Estrada was still the Vice President, they were
already collecting jueteng money but not in all provinces. When FPres. Estrada assumed
the presidency, he called Gov. Singson and Atong Ang to start jueteng collections in
provinces without protection money. Atong Ang talked to certain persons in the said
provinces so that the collection of protection money could start. Every province had a
collector but sometimes there was one collector for three (3) provinces. The collections
were submitted to Gov. Singson but sometimes they would get the money from the house
of the collectors. The jueteng collections which FPres. Estrada asked Gov. Singson to
operate for FPres. Estradas own benefit was at the national level, meaning nationwide.
They did not interfere with jueteng operations at the lower level. Before there were
"Kangaroo" type of jueteng operations or "Guerilla Type". They did it on their own and they
did not pay protection money. When the jueteng operators gave protection money to
FPres. Estrada, they were not apprehended anymore although there were instructions to
the contrary which were for show or for record purposes only. [Ibid, pp. 59-64]

There were local officials who did not allow jueteng like Governor Lina in Laguna. He
changed the Provincial Commander several times but jueteng still continued. In the other
places the protection money for jueteng given to the local officials was different from that
given to the higher levels. [Ibid, pp. 65-66]

In Exhibit A-4, ULAC stands for Bulacan and the figure 1.00 means One Million Pesos
(P1,000,000.00) for fifteen (15) days, as protection money for FPres. Estrada. If the
number of days was blank it meant 15 days, otherwise the number 30 was indicated.

In the ledger (Exh A-4-C up to A-4-I) covering the periods of January of 2000 up to August
of 2000, the same figures appeared but the code names of the provinces were replaced
by their original names as instructed by FPres. Estrada who was confused with the code
names. Under the sub-title "amount", the total amount of protection money given to FPres.
Estrada was reflected. For instance, in Ilocos Sur, the amount of 500 meant Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). [Ibid, pp. 67-68]

The other entries were similar, except for the substitution of the code names with actual
names of the provinces. For instance, the amount of protection money given to FPres.
Estrada corresponding to Ilocos Sur entered as 500, was Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00). For the province of Bulacan the number of days was blank and the figure
1,000 was entered. This means that for Bulacan for 15 days the total protection money
given to FPres. Estrada was One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00). According to Gov.
Singson, the collections were delivered in exact amount so they removed the zeroes in
the ledger so as not to lengthen the entries. [Ibid, pp. 69-70]

The two boxes of entries at the right bottom of the ledger marked as Exhibits A-4 to A-4-l,
reflected the expenses to show where some of the money collected went. [Ibid, p. 70] The
first entry (Exh. W7-1) showed that Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) went to "Jimpol",
which referred to then Secretary Jimmy Policarpio. The latter confirmed to Gov. Singson
this receipt of the said amount from Bong Pineda which Secretary Policarpio, then a
political liaison officer for Congress, would use for the media. [Ibid, pp. 74-75] In the ledger
for November of 1998, the entry 300 Goma (Exh W7-2) means that Three Million Pesos
(P3,000,000.00) was given to the Office of the Chief of the Philippine National Police
(PNP). [Ibid, pp.74-76] Gov. Singson himself brought the money at first to General
Lastimoso, the Chief of the PNP but he refused to receive the money. Later Atong Ang
identified the persons from PNP who will pick up the money and help them in the
operation. Gov. Singson called up FPres. Estrada to inform him that Lastimoso refused to
receive the money. Gov. Singson was worried Lastimoso may not coordinate with them.
One time, Gov. Singson was called to Malacanang and he met General Lastimoso there
and FPres. Estrada told the latter to coordinate with Gov. Singson about the operation of
jueteng. General Lastimoso expressed the need to coordinate with the Regional
Commanders to apprehend jueteng operations for show only ("kunwari"). [Ibid, pp. 77-80]

The entry "November 1998, 5.00, AS Sunday" (Exh W7-3) means that the amount for Five
Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) protection money was given to FPres. Estrada, whose
code name was "Asiong Salonga" on a Sunday. Gov. Singson himself gave the money to
FPres. Estrada. The next entry "1.000 Jing" (Exh W7-4), would show that One Million
Pesos (P1,000,000.00) was given to Jinggoy Estrada, whose code name was "Jing".
According to Gov. Singson, Jinggoy Estrada was the collector of protection money for the
Province of Bulacan which should be Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00) for every
month but Jinggoy Estrada kept the One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) and remit to Gov.
Singson only Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) or One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) for
every 15 days. [Ibid, pp. 80-82]

Atong Ang told Gov. Singson that Jinggoy Estrada got One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00)
and Jinggoy Estrada confirmed it but when they told FPres. Estrada about it, he instructed
them not to give Jinggoy Estrada money and he will be the one to give money to Jinggoy
Estrada. Gov. Singson removed the name of Jinggoy Estrada from the list and they kept it
a secret from FPres. Estrada that Jinggoy Estrada was taking jueteng money because
Jinggoy Estrada will get angry too if he was not given a share. Jinggoy Estrada was then
the Mayor of the Municipality of San Juan. Jinggoy Estrada collected money from the
Province of Bulacan at the later part of January of 1999. [Ibid, p. 82-85]

The entry "500 JD" (Exh W7-5) means that Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00)
went to Jude Estrada, a son of FPres. Estrada. Jude confirmed to Gov. Singson that he
received the said amount of jueteng protection money from Atong Ang who reported that
to Gov. Singson. The entry "1.800 ad check" (Exh W7-6) refers to One Million Eight
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,800,000.00) covered by a bad check, part of jueteng
money, which bounced. This was PCI Bank Check No. 0019063 (Exh. F8) given to Gov.
Singson by one Celso De Los Angeles. The entry "17.300 total expenses" (Exh. W 7-7)
represents the Seventeen Million Three Hundred Pesos (P17,300,000.00) the amount of
total expenses for the month of November of 1998. The total expenses every month were
entered in the ledger (Exh. X7 to E8, and Exh. A-4 to A-4-d. [Ibid, pp. 85-92])

In the entry for December of 1998 (Exh. X7), the first entry "5.00, AS" (Exh. X7-1) shows
the Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) that was given by Gov. Singson to FPres. Estrada
from the collection of jueteng protection money. The ledger for January 1999 bearing as
first entry "6.00 cash January 2, AS" (Exh Y7-1), reflected the Six Million Pesos
(P6,000,000.00) cash from the same source given personally by Gov. Singson to FPres.
Estrada. The entry "3.00 check, February 1, 1999, AS" (Exh. W7-2) shows that Three
Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00) in check was given to FPres. Estrada on February 1, 1999
as part of protection money. [Ibid, pp. 93-95] Another entry "5.00 check, February 1, 1999
AS" (Exh Y7-3), refers to the Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) Check given by Gov.
Singson to FPres. Estrada from jueteng protection money. This check (Metrobank Check
No.0000917, Exh G8-1) was deposited in the account of Paul Boghart, who was
mentioned during the impeachment trial at the Senate as a foreigner assisting in the "PR"
of FPres. Estrada. [Ibid, pp. 93-97]

The entry "3.500 cash, January 19, AS" (Exh. Y7-4) pertains to Three Million Five Hundred
Pesos (P3,500,000.00) cash from the protection money given by Gov. Singson to FPres.
Estrada on January 19 (1999). The entry "5.00, February 18, AS" (Exh. Z 7-1) refers to the
Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) given by Gov. Singson to FPres. on February 18, 1999
from the same protection money. Gov. Singson explained that the entry "400 tax" (Exh Z 7-
2) at the right hand portion of Exhibit Z7, refers to the Four Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P400,000.00) which he got for reimbursement of the expenses that he paid or would pay
but were not recorded in the ledger. In the ledger for March 1999 (Exh. A 8), April 1999
(Exh. B8), May 1999 (Exh. C8), June 1999 (Exh. D8), July 1999 (Exh. E8), and August 1999
(Exh A-4) there were similar entries of "tax" which were also intended for the same
purpose. Gov. Singson called them "butal". Gov. Singson had the permission of FPres.
Estrada that all amounts less than One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) were considered
"butal" which Gov. Singson kept for reimbursement of expenses which FPres. Estrada
would ask Gov. Singson to pay. If the total amount collection was Four Million Two
Hundred Pesos (P4,200,000.00), Gov. Singson got Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P200,000.00) of the said collection as "butal" and included the same in the ledger as
"tax". [Ibid, pp. 98-101]

In the ledger for February 1999 collection appears a handwritten entry "+ 4.00 capitol
February 3, 1999". This entry pertains to the Four Million Pesos (P4,000,000.00)
"kickback" which FPres. Estrada asked Gov. Singson to give him on February 3, 1999 out
of the Twenty Million Pesos (P20,000,000.00) allotted for the repair of the capitol of Ilocos
Sur. This P4 Million was added to the "total to date" of the collection which consequently
amounted to Thirty Eight Million Pesos (P38,000,000.00). [Ibid, pp. 102-103]

In the ledger for March 1999 (Exh. A8), the first entry "5.00, 4/6/99, AS" (Exh. A8-1) shows
that Five Mllion Pesos (P5,000,000.00) that Gov. Singson gave FPres. Estrada on April 6,
1999. Gov. Singson wrote on the ledger "AS", i.e. Asiong Salonga, the code name of
FPres. Estrada [Ibid, p. 103]

Regarding the entry "500 3/23 c/0 Malou AS" (Exh A8-2), Gov. Singson explained that
Malou Florendo, the Secretary of FPres. Estrada, coordinated with Gov. Singson by
telephone for the delivery of the amount of Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) to FPres.
Estrada. Emma B. Lim delivered the money as Gov. Singson was in the province when
FPres. Estrada called up Gov. Singson to tell him he needed money very badly. [Ibid, pp.
104-106]

On April 1, 1999, Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) were given by Gov. Singson to
FPres. Estrada from jueteng protection money as shown by the entry "5.00 4/1/99 AS"
(Exh B8-1). The next entry, "1.00, William Gatchalian" (Exh "B8-2), refers to the One Million
Pesos (P1,000,000.00) given by Gov. Singson to William Gatchalian upon instruction of
FPres. Estrada. Gatchalian had a Twenty Million Pesos (P20,000,000.00) check but
FPres. Estrada won only Nineteen Million Pesos (P19,000,000.00) in their mahjong game,
so FPres. Estrada asked Gov. Singson to give to Gatchalian the change of One Million
Pesos (P1,000,000.00) charged to the jueteng protection money. Gov. Singson gave
Gatchalian the said amount through a Metrobank Check No. 0001066 (Exh H 8 and H8-1).
[Ibid, pp.106-109]

The entry in Exhibit B8 which reads "200 Jerry and Len" (Exh B8-3) reflects the One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) each given to then Secretary Lenny De Jesus
and Secretary Jerry Barican, or a total amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P200,000.00), as "balato" as instructed by FPres. Estrada. [Ibid, pp. 109-110]

Senator Tessie Oreta and Sonny Osmena were also given One Million Pesos
(P1,000,000.00) each or a total of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) in Cebu aboard the
Presidential Yatch "Ang Pangulo" as shown by the entry "2.00 Tessie and Sonny" (Exh.
B8). Gov. Singson gave the said sums of money to the Senators, which he funded through
the jueteng protection money, in the form of Metrobank Check No. 0001081 (Exhs. I 8 and
I8 -1 and Metrobank Check No. 0001082 (Exhs. J8 and J8-1) upon instruction of FPres.
Estrada, as their "balato" for the winning of the latter in "Mahjong". [Ibid, pp. 112-114]

The amount of Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) was given by Gov. Singson to FPres.
Estrada from the jueteng protection money on each of the following dates as shown by the
entries in the ledger: (1) May 1, 1999 ("5.00 5/1/99 AS" Exh. C8-1); (2) May 18, 1999
("5.00 5/18/99 AS" Exh. C8-2); (3) June 1, 1999 ("5.00 6/1/99 AS" Exh. D8-1); (4) June
18, 1999 ("5.00 6/18/99 AS" Exh. D8-2); (5) July 31, 1999 ("5.00 7/1/99 AS" Exh. E8-1);
and (6) July 19, 1999 ("5.00 7/19/99 AS" Exh. E8-2). From May 1, 1999 to July 19, 1999,
the total amount of money given by Gov. Singson to FPres. Estrada would amount to
Thirty Million Pesos (P30,000,000.00) based on the ledger. [Ibid, pp.115-118]

The entry reading "123,000 total to date" (Exh E8-3) represents the total amount of One
Hundred Twenty Three Million Pesos (P123,000,000.00) that remained as of July 1999.
[Ibid, pp. 118-119]

After July 1999, particularly on August 1999, FPres. Estrada called Gov. Singson,
Ricaforte and Serapio to a meeting at Mandaluyong. Gov. Singson was instructed by
FPres. Estrada in the presence of Ricaforte and Serapio to turn-over all the balance of the
money from jueteng to the account of Ricaforte. Gov. Singson was keeping most of the
above-mentioned P123,000,000.00 in the bank and the others in cash in his office
because FPres. Estrada would ask for money from time to time. Gov. Singson turned-over
the aforementioned balance of the jueteng money partly in check and partly in cash in the
office of FPres. Estrada. Ricaforte and Serapio were there with the Former President.
[Ibid, pp.119-123]

Part of the aforesaid P123,000,000.00 was covered by Metrobank Check No. 0001360
(Exh K8 and K8-1) of Gov. Singson in the amount of Seventeen Million Two Hundred Ten
Thousand Pesos (P17,210,000.00) [Ibid, p. 123]. The second and third checks (Exhs A-2-
b and A-7-c) were PCI Bank checks in the account name of William Gatchalian each in the
amount of Thirty-Five Million Pesos (P35,000,000.00) or a total of Seventy Million Pesos
(P70,000,000.00). Gov. Singson narrated that the amount of Sixty-Two Million Pesos
(P62,000,000.00) from the jueteng protection money was lent to William Gatchalian. Out
of this transaction, FPres. Estrada earned Eight Million Pesos (P8,000,000.00) such that
William Gatchalian paid a total of Seventy Million Pesos (P70,000,000.00). [Ibid, pp. 124-
125]

Gov. Singson presented Metrobank Check No. 0001332 with account name Governor Luis
"Chavit" Singson, in the amount of Forty-Six Million Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P46,350,000,00) payable to William Gatchalian (Exh L8 and L8-1). This check, according
to Gov. Singson was part of the jueteng protection money lent to William Gatchalian. The
rest of the P62,000,000.00 were in cash and covered by other checks. [Ibid, pp. 126-127]

The Eight Million Pesos (P8,000,000.00) earned from the loan by FPres. Estrada was
taken as advance by the latter before due date of the P70,000,000.00 of Gatchalian. For
this reason, the P8,000,000.00 was not anymore added to the balance of
P123,000,000.00 of jueteng money. [Ibid, pp. 127-130] The advance of P8,000,000.00
was covered by Metrobank Check No. 0001388 with the account name Governor Luis
"Chavit" Singson (Exhs. M8 and M8-1). During the impeachment trial at the Senate, it
turned out that the P8,000,000.00 was deposited in the account of Senator Loi Estrada
[Ibid, pp. 130-131,139]

The fourth check which covered part of the total balance of P123,000,000.00 jueteng
protection money was a Far East bank Check in the amount of Thirty-Four Million Six
Hundred Forty Two Thousand Four Hundred Forty Two Pesos (P34,642,442.00) payable
to the order of Fontain Bleau, Inc. (Exh B6). [Ibid, p. 124] According to Gov. Singson, the
Far East Bank check payable to the order of Fontaine Bleau, Inc. was paid by Fontana to
Fontaine Bleau, Inc. which was a casino owned by FPres. Estrada and built with the use
of jueteng protection money. The bulk of the P123,000,000.00 were turned-over by Gov.
Singson in the form of checks. The cash amounted only to Eight Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P800,000.00) only. [TSN dated July 24, 2002, pp.8-9]

In the second set of ledger covering the months of August 1999 to August 2000 (Exh A-4)
are found the following entries: (1) "3.00 AS 9/6 8 oclock a.m." (Exh A-4.1) and (2) "5.00
AS 8/16/99" (Exh A-4.2). The entries represent the two (2) Five Million Pesos
(P5,000,000.00) given by Gov. Singson to FPres. Estrada on September 6 at 8 oclock in
the morning and on August 16, 1999 or a total of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) as
part of jueteng collection. [Ibid, pp. 10-13]

The other entries in the said ledger are: (1) "16.310 August 1-15" (A-4-3); (2) "13.150
August 16-31" (Exh. A-4-4); (3) "29.460 total for August" (Exh. A-4-5); (4) "15.200
expenses" (Exh. A-4-6); (5) "14.260 subtotal" (Exh. A-4-7); (6) ".260 tax" (Exh. A-4-8); (7)
"14.000 total to date" (Exh. A-4-9). Gov. Singson explained that the entries mean (1) that
the total collection for August 1-15, 1999 amounted to Sixteen Million Three Hundred Ten
Thousand Pesos (P16,310,000.00); (2) that from August 16-31, 1999 the total collection
was Thirteen Million One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P13,150,000.00); (3) that the
total collection for the whole month of August 1999 was Twenty Nine Million Four Hundred
Sixty Thousand Pesos (P29,460,000.00) which all went to FPres. Estrada. The expenses
for the said month reached Fifteen Million Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P15,200,000.00). The said amount of expenses was deducted from the total collection for
the same month. The remainder, described as "subtotal", amounted to Fourteen Million
Two Hundred Sixty Thousand Pesos (P14,260,000.00). Of the latter sum of money, Two
Hundred Sixty Thousand Pesos (P260,000.00) was treated as "butal" and taken by Gov.
Singson to be used as reimbursement for expenses which Gov. Singson was requested
by FPres. Estrada to pay. The balance of Fourteen Million Pesos (P14,000,000.00) was
deposited in the bank for President Estrada. [Ibid, pp. 14-18]

The "tax" entries in the ledger, starting Exhibit Z to Z-7, covered the amounts less than
One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) which were treated as "butal" that remained with Gov.
Singson to reimburse him for expenses which were not recorded in the ledger but should
be deducted from the money of FPres. Estrada. [Ibid, pp. 19-21]

Gov. Singson mentioned that he personally gave or handed to FPres. Estrada even if
Malou Florendo, FPres. Estradas secretary, was around. Gov. Singson either left the
money beside FPres. Estrada or behind the latters chair. FPres. Estrada would count the
money by the bundle [Ibid, pp. 22-23]. The Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) delivered
by Emma B. Lim to Malou Florendo not to FPres. Estrada personally was confirmed by the
latter to have been received by him. Emma B. Lim delivered the money to the Malacaang
Palace because of the changes in the instructions given by FPres. Estrada. [Ibid, pp. 23-
24]

The net balance of Fourteen Million Pesos (P14,000,000.00) for August 1999 was
deposited by Ricaforte at Equitable PCI Bank. The same was done to the net monthly
balances for September 1999, October 1999, November 1999, December 1999, January
2000, February 2000, March 2000, April 2000 and May 2000. [Ibid, pp. 25-27]

The other entries in the second set of ledger for September 1999 and October 1999 as
follows: (1) "AS 11:30 am/258 5.000" (Exh A-4-a-1); (2) "10/29 AS/258 5.000" (Exh A-4-b-
1"); (3) 10/14 AS/258 5.000 (Exh A-4-b-2), mean that Gov. Singson whose code name
was "258" gave FPres. Estrada, referred to as "AS", which stands for Asiong Salonga Five
Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) on each of the following dates: (a) in September 1999 at
11:30 in the morning; (b) on October 29, 1999; and (c) on October 14, 1999.

In the November 1999 ledger (Exh A-4-c), the following entries appear (1) "11/30 laptop
comp./print.105,850" (Exh. A-4-c-1) (2) "11/30 2 Starex 800 each/258 1.600" (Exh. A-4-C-
2); (3) "11:30 AS/258 12p.m PG5.000" (Exh. A-4-C-3); (4) "11/15 AS/258 at 4p.m 5.000"
( Exh. A-4-C-4 ), and (5) "11/08 Jimpol 2.400".

Gov. Singson explained the foregoing entries in the November 1999 ledger as follows: On
November 30, 1999, the amount of P105,850.00 was used to buy the laptop computer
with printer of Ricaforte. On November 30, 1999, Gov. Singson purchased Two (2) units of
Starex at Eight Hundred Thousand Pesos each or a total amount of One Million Six
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,600,000.00). One unit of Starex went to Ricaforte and was
registered in her name. The other was left in their office. At 12:00 noon on November 30,
1999, Gov. Singson brought Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) to FPres. Estrada in his
house at P. Guevarra St. at Greenhills as part of jueteng protection money. At that time,
Guia Gomez, one of the most loved of FPres. Estrada, resided at the said house. Gov.
Singson also gave Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) to former FPres. Estrada on
November 15, 1999 at 4:00 oclock in the afternoon. On November 8, 1999, the amount of
Two Million Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,400,000.00) was given by Bong Pineda to
Secretary Jimmy Policarpio, as confirmed by both of them to Singson. During the prior
months, only Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) per month were given to Policarpio, as
shown by the ledger, but this was increased by Four Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P400,000.00) because Policarpio told Gov. Singson that the Media was costly
("Magastos"). [Ibid, pp. 30-39]

The ledger for December 1999 (Exh. A-4-d), contains the following entries: (1) "12/30
AS/258 5.000" (Exh A-4-d-1) and (2) "12/04 AS/258 5.00" (Exh A-4-d-2). According to Gov.
Singson the aforesaid entries show that he gave to FPres. Estrada, as part of Jueteng
protection, the amount of Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) on December 30, 1999 and
another Five Million Pesos (P5 Million) on December 4, 1999. [Ibid, pp.39-41]

The ledger for January 2000 (Exh A-4-E) contains the following entries: (1) "1/31/00 AS at
PR 5.000" (Exh A-4-E-1); and (2) "1/15/00 AS at Pr 5.000". According to Gov. Singson
"PR" stands for Presidential Residence and "AS" for Asiong Salonga, that he gave to
FPres. Estrada the amount of Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) twice, one on January
31, 2000 and the other January 14, 2000, at the Presidential Residence. [Ibid, pp.41-43]

According to Gov. Singson, he was ordered by FPres. Estrada to give to him Five Million
Pesos (P5,000,000.00) of the jueteng collection every fifteen (15) days of the month. All
the jueteng collections were for FPres. Estrada. The total amount of Ten Million Pesos
(P10,000,000.00) were given to him every month plus the expenses ("gastos") and the
remainder or the rest of the collection were deposited in the bank for FPres. Estrada in the
name of Ricaforte. A total amount of Two Hundred Sixteen Million Pesos
(P216,000,000.00) were deposited in the bank for FPres. Estrada. [Ibid, pp. 43-44]

Gov. Singson agreed at first that he would not earn anything from jueteng, provided that
the share of Ilocos Sur from the excise tax under R.A. No. 7171 amounting to billions of
pesos would be released to them for their projects. Gov. Singson testified that, after the
One Hundred Thirty Million Pesos (P130,000,000.00) were taken from him, the release of
the funds did not continue. The Former President did not comply with the agreement. [Ibid,
pp. 44-46]

In the ledger for February 2000 (Exh A-4-F), the following entries appear: (1) "AS/258
5.000" (Exh A-4-F-1); and (2) "2/17/00 AS 258 5.000" (Exh A-4-F-2). Gov. Singson testified
that these entries mean that he gave to FPres. Estrada, Five Million Pesos
(P5,000,000.00) as part of jueteng protection money in an unspecified day in February of
2000 and another Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) of the same money on February 17,
2000. [Ibid, pp. 48-49]

The ledger for March 2000 (Exh A-4-G), bears the following entries: (1) "3/16/00 AS/258
5.000" (Exh A-4-g-1); and (2) "4/3/00 AS/258 5.000" (Exh A-4-G-2). According to Gov.
Singson the entries mean that he gave Five Million Pesos (P5 Million) on March 16, 2000
and another Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) on April 3,2000, both as part of jueteng
protection money. [Ibid, pp. 49-50] Gov. Singson explained that "258" was his code name
which he had been using even in their radio communication and that later, FPres. Estrada
would kid him with his code name when they played mahjong. [Ibid, p. 52]

In the April 2000 ledger (Exh A-4-H), the entry "4/14/00 AS/258 5.000" appeared twice,
(Exh A-4-H-1) because according to Gov. Singson he gave Five Million Pesos
(P5,000,000.00) twice, one in the morning and another in the afternoon on the same day,
April 14, 2000, or a total of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) from jueteng protection
money collection, because FPres. called him up twice on the said date as his birthday on
April 19, 2000 was nearing. [Ibid, pp. 53-54]

At the ledger for May 2000 (Exh A-4-i), the first entry also at the right hand portion was
"5/31 AS/258 5.000" (Exh A-4-i-1) and next entry was "5/13 AS/258 5.000" (Exh A-4-i-2).
Gov. Singson explained that the entries meant that he gave Five Million Pesos
(P5,000,000.00) on May 31, 2000 and another Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) to
FPres. Estrada on May 13, 2000, both part of the jueteng protection money. Gov. Singson
also mentioned that the entries sometimes were not in chronological order, but they were
for the same month. [Ibid, pp. 55-56]

The June 2000 ledger (Exh A-4-j), the entry at the right hand portion reads: "6/30 AS/258
3.300", and the next entry is "6/15 AS/258 5.000" (Exh A-4-j-2). According to Gov.
Singson, these means that he gave to FPres. Estrada Three Million Three Hundred
Thousand (P3,300,000.00) from jueteng protection money collection on June 30, 2000,
and Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) from the same collection, on June 15, 2000. [Ibid,
pp. 56-57]

The succeeding ledgers for July 2000 (Exh A-4-k) the following entries appear: (1) "7/14
AS/258 2.650" (Exh. "A-4-k-1) and (2) "8/12 AS/258 3.600" (Exh.A-4-k-2). Gov. Singson
explained that the entries mean respectively that he gave the amount of Two Million Six
Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P2,650,000.00) on July 14,2000 and Three Million Six
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P3,600,000.00) to FPres. Estrada as part of jueteng protection
money collection. [Ibid, pp.57-58] To the question of why the amounts were less than
P5,000,000.00 on the said occasions, Gov. Singson replied that it so happened that those
were the only cash in his possession when the requests for money were made and that
they stopped jueteng collection because Atong Ang started with "Pick 2" and later "Bingo 2
Balls" which according to FPres. Estrada would have a semblance of legality. [Ibid, pp. 59-
60]
The ledger for the month of August 2000 (Exh.A-4-L) contains the entry "8/16 AS/258
3.050" (Exh. A-4-L-1). Gov. Singson testified that he gave FPres. Estrada on August 16,
2000 the amount of Three Million Fifty Thousand Pesos (P3,050,000.00) as part of
protection money collected from jueteng. [Ibid, pp. 62-63] According to Gov. Singson the
President was very strict with money and so they had an auditor and he checked the
ledger monthly so that they could not make any kickback ("Kupit") from the jueteng
collection. [Ibid, pp. 63-64]

Gov. Singson testified that the jueteng collector for Bulacan on November and December
1998 was Jessie Viceo. In January 1999 the jueteng collector for Bulacan was Jinggoy
Estrada as shown by the ledger where he was identified as "Jing" who got One Million
Pesos (P1,000,000.00) (Exh. W7). Viseo and Jinggoy Estrada were friends so the latter
supervised the jueteng collection in Bulacan, although he was residing in San Juan. When
FPres. Estrada instructed Gov. Singson not to give money to Jinggoy Estrada and so that
the latter will not get mad at him, Gov. Singson and Jinggoy Estrada agreed to keep it a
secret from the FPres. that Jinggoy Estrada managed the jueteng collection in Bulacan
and that out of the total monthly collection of Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00) from
Bulacan, Jinggoy Estrada gave only Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) to Gov. Singson
and he retained One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00). The money was either picked-up
from the office or house of Jinggoy or the latter sent the money to Singson. The secret
arrangement started in November 1999 and lasted until the end of August 2000. [Ibid, pp.
69-70] However, the arrangement did not appear in the ledger because they will be
scolded by FPres. Estrada. [Ibid, p. 71] When asked whether Jinggoy Estrada personally
collected the jueteng money, Gov. Singson replied that it was Jinggoy Estrada and Jessie
Viceo who talked with each other, sometimes they got the jueteng money from the office
of Jinggoy Estrada or sometimes the latter sent it to the office of Singson, but Gov.
Singson knew that Jinggoy was in charge of the jueteng collection. The secret
arrangement came about because jueteng collection in Bulacan was a problem from the
start as there were delays or sometimes the checks paid by Jessie Viceo bounced. Viceo
agreed to the arrangement because he was a close friend of Jinggoy Estrada. [Ibid, pp.
71-72] Gov. Singson knew Viceo personally because he would see Viceo in the cockpits
which the latter frequented. [Ibid, p. 74]

Gov. Singson considered the biggest among the expenses charged to the "Tax" the One
Million Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,200,000.00) given to Laarni Enriquez whom
Gov. Singson described as the most beloved or favorite of FPres. Estrada [Ibid, p. 75].
According to Gov. Singson, he was assessed, like other persons who attended the
birthday party of Laarni, the aforesaid P1,200,000.00 as his share in the price of the
necklace birthday gift amounting to Thirteen Million Pesos (P13,000,000.00) for Laarni.
Jaime Dichaves collected the said amount from Gov. Singson after the party. Gov.
Singson paid by check which was deposited in the account of Laarni at PSBank. [Ibid, pp.
76-81] It was Congressman Mark Jimenez who pinpointed the guests who would share
(P1,200,000.00) each for the gift for Laarni after they had just finished playing mahjong
with FPres. Estrada during the party. [Ibid, p. 84] Gov. Singson charged the P1,200,000.00
as "tax" in the jueteng collection because it was "a big amount of money". [Ibid, pp. 87-88]

In the early part of the year 2000, FPres. Estrada instructed Gov. Singson to transfer Two
Hundred Million Pesos (P200,000,000.00) of jueteng money to Serapio. The instruction
was given by FPres. Estrada to Gov. Singson in Malacaang Palace in the presence of
Ricaforte and Serapio. According to Gov. Singson, Serapio said "Ako na ang bahalang
magpa-ikot-ikot" which Gov. Singson took it to mean that Serapio would see to it that the
Two Huundred Million Pesos (P200,000,000.00) jueteng money would not be traced
before it reached him. FPres. Estrada checked Gov. Singson in April 2000 when FPres.
Estradas birthday was approaching, whether the money was so transferred. The transfer
of funds was confirmed to Gov. Singson by both Ricaforte and Serapio. The jueteng
money delivered to Serapio initially amounted to One Hundred Twenty Three Million
Pesos (P123,000,000.00) but it was increased later to Two Hundred Sixteen Million Pesos
(P216,000,000.00). [Ibid, pp. 88-94]

Gov. Singson testified that Serapio was the trusted lawyer of FPres. Estrada who formed
fake corporations for FPres. Estrada which Serapio would narrate to Gov. Singson when
they often see each other in Malacaang Palace. Serapio was introduced to Gov. Singson
in 1999 after the birthday of FPres. Estrada.

Gov. Singson delivered jueteng money to FPresident Estrada in a black bag, like an
attach case. He delivered money at the houses of FPres. Estrada, particularly once at P.
Guevarra Street, twice or thrice or four times or five times at Polk Street. [Ibid, pp. 95-98]

Atty. Kenneth S. Tampal of the office of the Senate Legal Counsel brought the black bag
referred to by Gov. Singson which was marked as Exhibit "MMM" at the Senate
Impeachment Proceedings and the set of ledgers for the period beginning August 1999 to
August 2000 (Exhibits A-4 to A-4-l). The bag was a leatherette attach case with two (2)
combination locks numbered 000. [Ibid, pp. 103-105] According to Atty. Tampal, the
exhibits are in the custody of the Office of the Senate Legal Counsel. [Ibid, p. 110]

Gov. Singson testified that the abovementioned black bag (Exh. O 8) was one of the black
bags which they used to deliver money to FPres. Estrada in Malacaang Palace. [Ibid, p.
113] The said black bag can contain five or even six million pesos. [Ibid, pp. 115, 118] He
would leave the bag with money and brought with him the bag without money. The bag
contained two (2) combination locks. The combination of both was "000" although he
change it to "419", representing the birthdate of FPres. Estrada, April 19, at the time he
delivered money in Malacaang Palace to FPres. Estrada, but the latter asked him to
revert to "000" combination because FPres. Estrada could not open the lock. [Ibid, pp.
118-119] There were four (4) pieces of this type of bag. [Ibid, pp. 115-116]

The bills placed in the bag were in One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) denomination. Many
times Singson himself delivered the jueteng money to FPres. Estrada in Malacaang
Palace. To go to the Presidential Residence (PR), he passed through the main gate where
there were guards. At first, the Secretary would call to give the guards instruction not to
inspect the bag. Later on, the guards came to know Gov. Singson and allowed him to
enter without inspecting the bag. Jueteng money was either delivered to Gov. Singsons
office or picked-up by Gov. Singson, or his driver or his security or the people in his office.
[Ibid, pp. 121-124]

The total amount of money Gov. Singson collected from jueteng operations for FPresident
Estrada starting November 1998 to August 2000 was Five Hundred Forty Million Pesos
(P540,000,000.00) more or less, according to Gov. Singson.

Gov. Singson personally delivered about Two Hundred Million Pesos (P200,000,000.00) to
FPres. Estrada. [Ibid, p. 124-125]

In the ledger for March 1999 (Exh AAAAAAAA), the entry "Bicol15 1.100" means in the
Province of Bicol for fifteen (15) days the protection money collection for FPres. Esrada
was One Million One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,100,000.00). In the ledger for the
month of November 1998 (Exh. W7), there was an entry "1.500 Anton and 2.500 Anton".
According to Gov. Singson, the entry was made because Atong Ang told him the amounts
of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,500,000.00) and Two Million Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00), or a total of Four Million Pesos
(P4,000,000.00), collected from Bicol were recorded / listed in the name of Presidential
Assistant Anton Prieto. Atong Ang informed Gov. Singson that FPres. Estrada knew about
it and the latter so confirmed to Gov. Singson. [Ibid, pp. 125-127]

While jueteng protection money collection started in September 1998, the ledger started
only in November 1998 when Gov. Singson alone was asked to continue the jueteng
collection. [Ibid, pp. 128-129]

In the July 2000 ledger (Exh. A-4-k), the total amount of jueteng collection and the total
amount of expenses were the same so the balance at the end of the month was zero
because "Pick 2" replaced jueteng, as Gov. Singson, Dante Tan and FPres. Estrada
discussed in Malacaang and in his new home at New Manila called "Boracay". "Pick 2"
was the brainchild of Dante Tan and "Bingo 2 Ball" was the brainchild of Atong Ang. [Ibid,
pp. 129-132] In "Boracay", Bong Pineda told Dante Tan, Gov. Singson and FPres. Estrada
that "Pick 2" may be hard to be understood by the people because there will be 75
numbers. [Ibid, p. 134]

In August 2000, "Pick 2" started and, in September 2000, before his departure for the
United States, FPres. Estrada asked Gov. Singson to hasten the start of "Bingo 2 Balls".
Atong Ang called Gov. Singson when he was in Malaysia in September 6, 2000 and told
him that FPres. Estrada would like to rush the start of "Bingo 2 Balls". Gov. Singson
replied that was nice and asked that Atong Ang reserve Ilocos Sur for him. However, the
following day the son of Gov. Singson informed him that the other half of the franchise was
given to his political opponent, Eric Singson, whom he defeated in the election. Eric
Singson was his distant relative. [Ibid, pp. 138-141]

According to the son of Gov. Singson, Atong Ang told him that he had the provincial
commander transferred and the Chief of Police replaced. His father could not do anything
to stop "Bingo 2 Balls" as it was decided by FPres. Estrada and his political career was
finish. Gov. Singson talked with Atong Ang when he was in Malaysia and told him that they
should wait for FPres. Estrada to return. FPres. Estrada returned from the United States
on September 13, 2000. Gov. Singson also arrived from Malaysia the following day. The
following day, Gov. Singson asked FPres. Estrada over the phone why the franchise was
given to his political enemy. Gov. Singson told him that all the mayors will be
embarrassed. FPres. Estrada replied that he had nothing to do with it. Gov. Singson
thought that FPres. Estrada was fooling him. He told FPres. Estrada that it was a matter of
pride, that all his mayors were getting embarrassed. FPres. Estrada replied that he did not
care, so Gov. Singson told him "Kung dahil lang dyan pagkatapos ng lahat bibitawan mo
ako, bibitaw na rin ako sa iyo". [Ibid, pp. 142-146]

Gov. Singson then asked his lawyers to prepare his affidavit because he knew that his life
would be in danger if he would part ways with FPres. Estrada, who was very powerful and
Gov. Singson had no evidence. Gov. Singson then called Ricaforte and asked her to fax to
him the ledger. Ricaforte asked if they were going to Malacaang. Gov. Singson knew that
Ricaforte did not know yet what was happening. After she faxed the ledger from her house
to Gov. Singson, the latter asked his lawyer to continue with the preparation of his
affidavit. Gov. Singson said he prepared the affidavit so that if anything happened to him it
would be known who was responsible. When asked if he was threatened, Gov. Singson
replied that he knew FPres. Estrada and the men around him so he knew that his life was
in danger. [Ibid, pp. 146-150]

The first set of ledgers was faxed to Singson, while the second set (Exhs. A-4 to A-4-1)
was in the possession of Ricaforte which she produced during the impeachment
proceedings. The prosecution would have the latter subpoenaed fom the Senate.
Everyone that Gov. Singson consulted gave the same comment. Nobody will believe Gov.
Singson because FPres. Estrada was the most popular President elected. Gov. Singson
talked with Jinggoy Estrada. Gov. Singson told Jinggoy Estrada that his family got One
Hundred Thirty Million Pesos (P130,000,000.00) from him and that Jinggoy Estrada got
part of the said money. Gov. Singson also told Jinggoy Estrada that jueteng money all
went to his father and that Jinggoy Estrada also had a part of it. Jinggoy Estrada told Gov.
Singson, they would fix it. [Ibid, pp. 147-155]

Nothing happened so Gov. Singson talked with JV Ejercito, another son of FPres. Estrada.
JV Ejercito asked Gov. Singson not to come out and that he will talk with his father. Again
nothing happened so Gov. Singson approached Secretary Ronnie Zamora and showed
him the ledger. The latter reacted that the ledger was a serious matter, "Delikado ito".
Zamora asked Gov. Singson not to come out and he told Gov. Singson that he would see
FPres. Estrada. Gov. Singson then went to see Former Secretary Edgardo Angara at the
latters GMA Farm in Batangas and showed to him the ledger. Secretary Angara asked
Gov. Singson not to come out publicly because the ledger was a serious matter and even
they, the cabinet members may be affected. After that first meeting in Batangas, Chavit
Singon saw Secretary Angara at the Philippine Plaza and he latter told Gov. Singson that
it was alright as he was able to talk to FPres. Estrada. Secretary Angara, according to
Gov. Singson, told FPres. Estrada that Gov. Singson was a big help to them in politics and
that he was just asking for a small favor. Secretary Angara also asked FPres. Estrada not
to embarrass Gov. Singsons mayors. This matter might be known by the media. Secretary
Angara informed Gov. Singson that FPres. Estrada got mad and replied "Sinong tinakot
nya?" Before Secretary Angara left, he told FPres. Estrada that he saw Gov. Singsons
jueteng ledger and he found it a ground for impeachment. FPres. Estrada appeared
surprised ("Nagulat") but did not say anything. Secretary Angara assured FPres. Estrada,
he will first talk with Gov. Singson and fix it. For the third time, Gov. Singson saw
Secretary Angara at New World Hotel. He asked Gov. Singson to give him until the end of
September 2000 because the FPres. was a "macho" and would not easily give in.
However, Gov. Singson replied that he was already decided because his mayors kept on
calling him. Incidentally according to Gov. Singson, these political enemies were operating
the "Bingo 2 Balls". [Ibid, pp. 156-164]

After Secretary Angara, Gov. Singson also approached Congressman Mark Jimenez, who
said after he met with FPres. Estrada, General Lacson and Secretary Ronnie Zamora that
"Bingo 2 Balls" will not stop in Ilocos Sur but that Gov. Singson should lie low first. Gov.
Singson replied that he had decided already to come out and he informed his mayors that
he will expose the anomalies involving FPres. Estrada. Gov. Singson talked with Jimenez
over the phone when he was then at Holiday Inn on October 3, 2000. There was a
conference of the Mayors League in the Philippines. Gov. Singson left Holiday Inn
together with twenty-two mayors. According to Gov. Singson, armed men followed him at
about 11:30 that evening at San Marcelino Street and that his vehicle was blocked by
three cars and one motorcycle, all passengers by which were fully armed by armalite. Two
of the cars were TMG cars and the other, a civilian red car. Gov. Singson told the mayor
with whom he was talking over the phone that they should all go to San Marcelino, behind
Jai-Alai because of an emergency. His driver was instructed by Gov. Singson not to open
the door of his vehicle. [TSN dated July 29, 2002, pp. 11-19]

PAOC men signaled Gov. Singson to get out of his vehicle, a bullet-proof Ford Super Van
but he refused. He went out of the van after the mayors arrived one after another. The
PAOC team told Gov. Singson that they received information that he had a blinker that,
although he did not use it, mere possession was already a violation and that they wanted
to bring this to Crame and after he suggested that he be given a ticket of the volation but
he instead asked that they go to the police precincts at the United Nations Avenue. Only
the two TMG Officers went to the police precinct with Gov. Singson who rode in his own
van. There were media people at the police precinct. When asked why he was being
harassed although he was influencial to the FPres. Estrada, Gov. Singson replied to the
media that he will expose the anomalies of FPres. Estrada. [Ibid, pp. 20-26]

The following day the incident was published in the newspapers and shown on television.
The group of FPres. Esrada tried to settle with Singson. JV Ejercito was the first to call
repeatedly (every two minutes) to ask Gov. Singson to return the call of FPres. Estrada,
Gov. Singson called the latter who asked that they talk because he was confused with the
problems of the Abu Sayyaf and the First Lady. Gov. Singson replied he had already given
his word. They talked for the second time and then third time, it was FPres. Estrada
himself who called. The next person to call was Atong Ang who was pleading to Gov.
Singson to fix the matter. Gov. Singson brought up the P130 Million from the excise tax
which Gov. Singson said was taken by Atong Ang and FPres. Estrada. Atong Ang
promised that the said amount will be returned to Gov. Singson and that the "Bingo 2
Balls" will be given to Gov. Singson. Gov. Singson informed him that it was too late. Atong
Ang called Gov. Singson about twenty (20) times [Ibid, pp. 27-37]

After Atong Ang, Former Secretary Alfredo Lim called to convince Gov. Singson to settle
and to see FPres. Estrada. Alfredo Lim asked Gov. Singson to proceed with the press
conference but he should put the blame on Atong Ang and that they will take care of Atong
Ang. Alfredo Lim gestured with his right fist thumb down. Gov. Singson understood this to
mean that Atong Ang will be killed. Gov. Singson did not agree because he might be
implicated. He asked them to look for a good reason. [Ibid, pp. 38-42)

The next to call Gov. Singson was Jinggoy Estrada. The latter and Gov. Singson talked on
October 8, 2000. Jinggoy Estrada also sent many emissaries to talk with Gov. Singson.
That evening Gov. Singson went to Cardinal Sin at his San Miguel Residence. Gov.
Singson explained to Cardinal Sin the situation and left to him the evidences so that in
case anything happens to Gov. Singson, he would know who will be responsible. Gov.
Singson saw the Cardinal with his sisters. Cardinal Sin told Gov. Singson to go ahead that
he will pray for Gov. Singson and that God will be with them. [Ibid, pp. 42-26]

Gov. Singson returned to his house at 10:00 oclock in the evening where Jinggoy Estrada
called him and sent emissaries again to Gov. Singson. At 12:00 midnight Jinggoy Estrada
and some friends of his arrived at Gov. Singsons house in Blue Ridge, Quezon City.
Jinggoy Estrada pleaded to Gov. Singson until 3:00 oclock the following morning. Gov.
Singson told Jinggoy Estrada that it was too late because his press conference will
happen in a while and all that the Estradas could do was to deny what Gov. Singson will
reveal at the press conference. He further said to Jinggoy Estrada that he will not mention
the latters name. [Ibid, pp. 46-51]

Gov. Singson proceeded with his press conference on October 9, 2000 at Club Filipino.
He gave the two reasons: first, FPres. Estrada insulted him and wanted him killed so he
was not a true friend anymore; and second, he already had the evidence and they will kill
him even if he did not pursue his planned press conference. It was better for him to be
killed with honor and to show how corrupt the government was under the Estrada
Administration. According to Gov. Singson, FPres. Estrada wanted to replace jueteng with
"Bingo-2-Balls" because he will earn more, about Fifty Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00) a
day. Gov. Singson explained how much FPres. Estrada would receive from "Bingo 2
Balls". [Ibid, pp. 51-59]

Gov. Singson also mentioned that FPres. Estrada owned the "Boracay Mansion" in New
Manila. He identified this property through a computer generated picture (Exh. P 8). [Ibid,
pp. 60-67] Gov. Singson also described the house of FPres. Estrada at Polk St.,
Greenhills which he had visited frequently as well as the house of the FPres. in P.
Guevarra Street which was just 2 to 3 kilometers away from Polk Street. [Ibid, pp. 68-72]

Gov. Singson testified as to the other properties of FPres. Estrada like Fontainbleau, Inc.,
a casino. A check (Exh. V6) payable the order of Fonteinbleau, Inc. was among the checks
turned over to Ricaforte. Gov. Singson helped put up the said casino for FPres. Estrada.
However, his name does not appear as an incorporator of the said company in its Articles
of Incorporation (Exh. 22). According to Gov. Singson, the shares in the company were
distributed as follows: five percent (5%) to Butch Tenorio, the President of the casino;
twenty-five percent (25%) for Gov. Singson; seventy percent (70%) for FPres. Estrada
which were placed in the names of Jaime Dichaves and his classmate Susie Pineda. [Ibid,
pp. 72-76]

To prove his close relationship with FPres. Estrada, Gov. Singson mentioned that Jacob, a
son of the FPres. Estrada by Laarni Enriquez, was his baptismal godson while FPres.
Estrada stood as sponsor (in the wedding with his two children, Racquel and Randy).
[Ibid, pp.76-78]

On cross examination, Gov. Singson was confronted with his testimony during the Senate
impeachment trial, contained in the transcript of the stenographic notes of the proceedings
held on December 13, 2000 at pages 234 and 235 (Exh. 28-Serapio and submarkings). In
the said testimony, Gov. Singson did not mention that Serapio was present when he
turned over to Ricaforte the jueteng protection money, partly in cash and partly in check.
[TSN dated July 29, 2002, pp. 147-150] Gov. Singson insisted that Serapio was present
but he was being confused by the Senators sympathetic to FPres. Estrada. It appears,
however, that Singson was not asked during impeachment proceedings who were present
during the aforementioned turn-over of jueteng protection money. [Ibid, pp. 150-151] Gov.
Singson also testified that he did not know if Ricaforte withdrew the amount in cash. Gov.
Singson was only told by Ricaforte that she gave the Two Hundred Million Pesos
(P200,000,000.00) to Serapio. [Ibid, pp. 153-156 Gov. Singson also admitted that the
P200,000,000.00 were transferred to the Muslim Youth Foundation, Inc. [Ibid, p. 156] and
that he likewise testified before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee on October 17, 2000,
as shown by the transcript of Stenographic Notes of the hearing of that Committee (Exh.
29 and submarkings). Ibid, pp. 158-159]. Gov. Singson acknowledged that he had came
across the Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation,
Inc. (Exh 1-Serapio and submarkings). The said foundations Certificate of Incorporation
was dated November 17, 2000, and that the Articles of Incorporation was dated February
15, 2000. [Ibid, pp. 167-168] Gov. Singson saw for the first time during his cross-
examination the certification of the Branch Manager of Equitable-PCI Bank that the Erap
Muslim Youth Foundation, Inc. maintained an account in the total amount of Two Hundred
Three Million One Hundred Thirty-Six Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-One Pesos and
Twenty Seven Centavos (P203,136,931.27) (Exh 17; 17-a-Serapio). [Ibid, p. 169]

EMMA BARBON LIM (Emma Lim) worked for Gov. Singson since July 1987 as Liaison
Officer at the latters private office in LCS Building, San Andres corner Diamante Street,
San Andres Bukid, Metro Manila. LCS stood for Luis Chavit Singson. Emma Lim did
personal errands for Gov. Singson, like collecting jueteng money from different persons for
FPres. Estrada pursuant to the instructions of Gov. Singson.

As early as January 1999, Emma Lim was already receiving deliveries of jueteng money.
Gov. Singson told her to take care of the money that she was receiving because it was not
the money of Gov. Singson but of FPres. Estrada. She started collecting jueteng money
sometime in April 1999. She personally went to the person from whom she collected the
money. She knew that it was jueteng money because Gov. Singson told her so and that it
was also confirmed by Ricaforte.

She also knew that it was jueteng money because there was an instance that Ricaforte
scolded her for opening an envelope. Ricaforte told her that it was strictly confidential and
it was intended for FPres. Estrada. Emma Lim also personally delivered jueteng money to
Malacaang.

According to Emma Lim, Ricaforte was the accountant-auditor of FPres. Estrada. This
was how she was introduced by Gov. Singson to her and how she introduced herself
when she reported at the LCS Office. Ricaforte also held office in the same address.
Emma Lims other co-employee was Menchu Itchon. [TSN dated July 1, 2002, pp. 12-17]

Witness testified that she collected jueteng money from Undersecretary (USec) Anton
Prieto, Jinggoy Estrada and Bong Pineda.

USec Anton Prieto was the Presidential Assistant for Bicol Affairs. He was the one in
charge of jueteng collection in the Bicol Area. Witness met Prieto personally and he
introduced himself to the witness as such. Every time he called the office, he always said
that he was an Undersecretary in Malacaang.

Sometime on April 1999, Emma Lim met Prieto at the lobby of Dusit Hotel Nikko in Makati.
Usec Prieto handed to her a sealed mailing envelope which she brought to their office at
LCS Building. Emma Lim called Gov. Singson who asked her to open the envelope to
know how much she received. The envelope contained a post dated check (Exh F 7, F7-1 to
F7-5) in the amount of P1,190,000.00. Emma Lim deposited the check (Exh G 7, G7-1 to G7-
4) in the account of Gov. Singson at the Metrobank, Ayala Center Branch on April 7, 1999.

Three days after the check was deposited, the New Accounts Department of the
Metrobank Ayala branch informed Emma Lim that the check was dishonored because the
signature was different. The check was returned through Usec Prietos messenger.
Emma Lim usually deposited the PNB Naga Branch checks from Prieto in the Account No.
0963011682260 of Gov. Singson. The deposit slips (Exhibits I7 to Q7 and submarkings)
listed the deposits.

At one time, Ricaforte scolded her for opening the envelope because it was strictly
confidential and that it was for FPres. Estrada. Ricaforte took the check from the Emma
Lim. [Ibid, pp. 17-56]

Ricaforte first reported at the LCS building on April 16, 1999. She introduced herself as
the accountant-auditor of FPres. Estrada. Gov. Singson also introduced her as such.

Emma Lim collected jueteng money twice from Bong Pineda, who was in charge of the
jueteng collections in Pampanga because Gov. Singson told her so.

Sometime on January 2000, upon instruction of Gov. Singson, Emma Lim and Gov.
Singsons driver Faustino Prudencio went to the house of Bong Pineda at No. 2 Albany
Street, Northeast Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila to pick-up money. At Pinedas
house, Pinedas secretary, Marty, asked her to enter an office room to wait for Bongs
brother Romy Pineda. When Romy Pineda arrived, he placed a shopping bag on top of
the table and asked Emma Lim to count the contents. The money was P5,000,000.00 in
P1,000 denominations. After counting the money, they returned the money inside the
shopping bag and Mr. Pineda made her sign a half sheet of bond paper evidencing that
she received the money. Emma Lim then kept the money inside the vault at the LCS office
and informed Gov. Singson that she had picked up the money.

The second time Emma Lim collected money from Bong Pineda was sometime on
February 2000. They were on their way home after collecting money from Jinggoy
Estrada. Menchu Itchon called her and told her that Gov. Singson wanted her to drop by
the house of Mr. Bong Pineda to pick-up money. Emma Lim proceeded and Marty again
ushered her to the office room. Romy Pineda arrived. He opened what appeared to be a
bookshelf and came out with a red Salvatore Ferragamo shopping bag (Exhibit R 7)
containing P5,000,000.00. The money was in P1,000 bills and in 5 bundles containing
P1,000,000.00 each. Romy Pineda asked her to sign a paper that she received the
amount. She kept the money in the vault assigned to her at the LCS office. She informed
Gov. Singson that she received the money from Bong Pineda, and Gov. Singson told her
that he will pass by for it. [Ibid, pp. 58-80]

She collected jueteng money from Jinggoy Estrada three times. These were sometime in
January, February 2000 and March 17, 2000.

For the first collection, Gov. Singson called her up at the LCS office and told her to call the
office of Mayor Jinggoy Estrada to inquire if she can pick up what was to be picked up.
The staff of Jinggoy Estrada who answered the phone told her to go there after lunch.
Witness left the office at 1:00 oclock with the driver of Gov. Singson and proceeded to the
office of Mayor Jinggoy Estrada at the second floor of the Municipal Hall of San Juan,
Metro Manila.

When she arrived at the office, the staff at the receiving section gave her a sheet of paper
where she wrote her name and office. The bodyguard of Jinggoy Estrada arrived and
handed to her something which was wrapped in a magazine and sealed with scotch tape.
The bodyguard told her not to count the money because there were many people around.
She then brought the package back to the LCS office and kept it in the vault. She called
Gov. Singson and told him that she already picked up the money from Jinggoy Estrada.
When Gov. Singson arrived, witness counted the money in his presence and it was
P1,000,000.00 which she turned over to Gov. Singson.

Sometime in February 2000, she again collected jueteng money from Jinggoy Estrada.
Gov. Singson called her up and instructed her to call up the office of Jinggoy Estrada. She
was able to talk to Jinggoy Estradas secretary Josie and was told to go to their office after
lunch.

Josie ushered her inside the office of Jinggoy Estrada. Jinggoy Estrada was there.
Witness greeted him a good afternoon and he smiled. Josie asked her to sit in front of her
table which was about 4 to 5 meters away from Jinggoy Estrada. Josie took up a paper
bag from under her table and placed it on top of the table. She asked the witness to count
the contents. The witness counted that there were ten (10) bundles of P1,000.00 bills.
Each bundle had 100 pieces and the total amount was P1,000,000.00. She then asked
permission to leave. After coming from the office of Jinggoy Estrada, they proceeded to
the house of Bong Pineda.

She collected jueteng money for the third time from Jinggoy Estrada on March 17, 2000.
She again went to the office of Jinggoy Estrada after lunch after contacting Josie. When
she arrived there, she was ushered inside the office of Jinggoy Estrada. She can no
longer remember the number of staff inside the office. It was Josie who told her to sit
down in front of the table of Jinggoy Estrada. Jinggoy Estrada took out a check from his
wallet and gave it to her saying, "Sabihin mo kay Gob tseke na lang." Emma Lim then kept
the check inside her bag. The amount was P1,000,000.00 with United Overseas Bank
Philippines, San Juan Branch as the drawee bank. The witness deposited the check to the
account of Gov. Singson at Metrobank, Ayala Center. The deposit slip (Exhibit S 7) was
presented.

According to the witness, the check was personalized because it bore the picture of
Jinggoy Estrada at the background. Emma Lim had seen this kind of check of Gov.
Singson. [Ibid, pp. 82-111] Emma Lim maintained her testimony notwithstanding that she
was shown a certification dated December 11, 2000 issued by Isabelita M. Papa,
Executive Vice President of United Overseas Bank of the Philippines, stating that Mr. Jose
P. Estrada, also known as Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, never had a current or checking
account with the said bank. [TSN dated July 10, 2002]

She knew that the money she kept in the vault assigned to her were jueteng collections
because Governor Singson and Ricaforte told her so. [TSN dated July 1, 2002, p. 81]

On July 3, 2002, Emma B. Lim continued her direct examination and testified that she
personally met FPres. Estrada when she delivered jueteng money to Malacanang. As
instructed by Gov. Singson, she was fetched by Singsons driver, personal aide and
security guard at Singsons office at LCS. She boarded the Ford Expedition when they
passed by the LCS office.Singson called to ask Emma Lim to double check the money
inside the car if it was Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00). Gov. Singsons driver Faustino
Prudencio, personal aide Jemis Singson and security guard Frederico Artates were inside
the car too when she bundle count the money. They proceeded to the residence of FPres.
Estrada at Polk Street, Greenhills. However, Artates and Jamis Singson were informed by
the security guards that Malou Florendo and FPres. Estrada were not at home. They
waited outside and decided to take their lunch in a restaurant in Greenhills. They brought
the black bag containing the money with them at the restaurant. Gov. Singsons personal
aide was holding the bag. Driver Faustino Prudencio received instruction from Singson for
them to proceed to Malacanang. It was already 1:00 oclock, after lunchtime in 1999
during the Maslog book scam in Malacanang. She recalled it because her companion
warned her not to open the bag because "Baka ma-maslog ka ". In that incident, Maslog
was caught bringing money inside Malacanang. Emma Lim was dropped-off at the circle
inside Malacanang. She carried the black bag containing P5,000,000.00. Emma Lim
introduced herself to the security guard as Emma from the office of Governor Gov.
Singson and told him Malou Florendo was expecting her. The amount of P5,000,000.00
was in One thousand (P 1,000.00) peso bills. [TSN dated July 3, 2002, pp. 190-207] The
security guard allowed her to enter, without passing the bag through the x-ray. The guard
was not strict and pointed to her the Presidential Residence. There was another security
guard in front of the house and Emma Lim gave the same introduction and that Malou
Florendo was expecting her. Emma was allowed to enter. She was met by Malou inside
the residence, Emma Lim saw FPres. Estrada, wearing a cream polo. Emma Lim handed
the black bag to Malou Florendo. Emma Lim and FPres. Estrada were within each others
view. Malou placed the black bag beside an office table. Emma Lim heard Malou told Gov.
Singson over the phone that she was already there. Emma Lim left for the LCS office.
[Ibid, pp. 242-261] Emma Lim described the black bag as rectangular with numbered
combination lock. The width was about 8 inches, the length, 18 inches and the height was
12 inches. It was made of canvass or synthetic material. Emma demonstrated in court that
she could carry a bag of similar size with P 5,000,000.00 inside. Five bundles of bills
weighed four (4) kilos and eight (8) grams. [Ibid, pp. 263-279,280] The bag weighed 2
kilos and 6 grams. The bag and its contents weighed 7 kilos and 4 grams. [Ibid, p. 288]

On cross-examination, Emma Lim testified that she worked for Gov. Singson since 1987.
She started living at LCS Office since 1989 until she got married in 1996. She did not pay
rent just like the other employees of Singson. She was not related to Singson. Her brother
Roy Barbon worked as driver for Singson between 1990 and 1992. She did not feel
beholden to Gov. Singson because she worked for her salary. She did not owe him a debt
of gratitude but it should be the other way around because she got embroiled in this
trouble because of jueteng collections. [Ibid, pp. 296-308]

Emma Lim attended a dinner at Malacaang Palace on February 16, 2001. [TSN dated
July 17, 2002, pp. 75-77] She was appointed at John Hay Development Corporation
during the term of President Arroyo. She received Eight Thousand Pesos (P8,000.00) per
board meeting. Emma Lim also worked as liaison officer of Gov. Singson for overseas
workers. [Ibid, pp.87-88] She knew that she was collecting jueteng money because Gov.
Singson said so and Ricaforte comfirmed. Further the money delivered was bundled by
millions and no money of that amount arrived their office when Gov. Singson was not yet a
collector. [Ibid, p. 99]

MARIA CARMENCITA ANCHETA ITCHON (Itchon), a Certified Public Accountant,

testified that she was hired by Gov. Singson to be an accountant of Fountain Bleau
Incorporated (later renamed Fontain Bleau Incorporated) on February 19, 1999. According
to Itchon, the said corporation, which was set-up to build a casino in Clark Air Base,
Pampanga, was owned by former President Estrada. Witness knew that this was owned
by Estrada because Gov. Singson said so and it was confirmed by Mrs. Ricaforte. [TSN,
June 17, 2002, pp. 115-118]
She allegedly knew that Fontain Bleau Incorporated got its funding from
the jueteng collections of FPres. Estrada because Gov. Singson would always tell her to
wait for the jueteng collection of FPres. Estrada every time she asked for funds. [Ibid, pp.
119-122]

As Accountant, she was the one who made the listings of the pre-operation and expenses
of Fontain Bleau and during that time she was the Accountant, she already
received jueteng collections for FPres. Estrada.

Itchon further testified that she received jueteng collections, amounting to a total of around
Six Million Pesos (P6,000,000.00) in cash and check, about six (6) times. She received
these jueteng collections from the messengers of Mr. Anton Prieto and former San Juan
Mayor Jinggoy Estrada or Jingle Bells. After receiving the collections, she would inform
Gov. Singson and then either Gov. Singson took the collection from her or they turned it
over to Mrs. Yolanda Ricaforte.

Itchon identified Fontain Bleus original Certificate of Incorporation (Exh. P 6) and the
Articles of Incorporation and By Laws attached (Exh. P6-1), which were in her possession.
These incorporation documents showed the date of Fontain Bleaus registration with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (April 5, 1999), the names of its incorporators, and
its office address at the 2nd Floor, LCS Building, San Andres Bukid, Manila. Itchons sketch
of the office was marked as Exh. Q6. [Ibid., pp. 123-124,132-137]

Itchon averred that before she personally met Yolanda Ricaforte at the office in LCS,
Ricaforte used to call their office and introduced herself as the Accountant Auditor for
FPres. Estrada. As early as March 19, 1999, Singson told Itchon that she would be
working with Yolanda Ricaforte, the Accountant of FPres. Estrada. Ricaforte began to
report for work in the same office as Itchon on April 16, 1999. [Ibid, pp. 129-132, 138-141]

Singson and Ricaforte told Itchon that Ricaforte will be her [Itchons] immediate
supervisor. Ricaforte checked Itchons entries in her journal. Ricaforte signed the check
that Itchon prepared for payment for the supplier of Fontain Bleau and Ricaforte brought
Itchon every time she went to the Pampanga office.

Itchon proceeded to narrate how in the course of their work she and Ricaforte became
close and had many conversations including among others how FPres. Estrada came to
appoint Ricafortes husband Orestes Ricaforte as undersecretary of Tourism and how
FPres. Estrada gifted Orestes with the Black Lexus that Yolanda and Itchon usually used
in traveling to the Pampanga office. Itchon had photographs of gatherings she attended
with Ricaforte (Exh. A-6-vvvvv). [Ibid, pp. 143-152]

Itchon knew Ricaforte to be the AccountantAuditor of FPres. Estrada in Fontain Bleau

Incorporated and for jueteng collections because Ricaforte reported directly to FPres.
Estrada. Itchon then narrated how on June 15, 1999, she and Mrs. Regina Lim (one of the
incorporators of Fontain Bleau) brought Ricaforte to Malacaang at around 3:30 p.m. They
brought her there because Ricaforte said she would report to FPres. Estrada. Before
going to Malacaang, Ricaforte took their records of Fontain Bleau, got Itchons journal
and the list of expenses and then Itchon briefed her regarding their expenses. [Ibid, pp.
155-162]

Itchon also testified that Ricaforte also reported to FPres. Estrada by phone, sometimes
using the landline in the office and sometimes using her [Ricafortes] cell phone. Itchon
knew that the calls were made to FPres. Estrada because she was around when Ricaforte
was making calls, and Ricaforte would ask her to keep quiet because she was calling the
President. The calls were made inside the LCS office.

Itchon explained that she knew that the cell phone number of Ricaforte was 0918-
9021847 because the number was originally issued in Itchons name. The cell phone was
supposed to be hers. When they were in Fontain Bleau, they bought cell phones and the
application form for the number was under Itchons name. Itchon was the one who
assigned it to herself. But when the cell phones came, Itchon testified that Ricaforte took
the cell phone no. 0918-9021847 and the number 0918-9021849 originally assigned to
Ricaforte went to Itchon. Itchon also testified that Ricaforte called up Estrada in her
presence about five times.

Itchon prepared a summary of the calls (Exh. R6 with submarkings) made by Ricaforte.
Itchon explained that these were the summary of phone calls of Ricaforte to FPres.
Estrada at the presidential residence; to Mayor Jinggoy Estrada or Jingle Bells, to Mr.
Edward Serapio, to Governor Singson and to Mr. Romy Pineda, the brother of Bong
Pineda. She took the information from the fifteen (15) Statements of Account of Ricaforte
for her cell number 0918-9021847. The phone billings of Ricaforte particularly with
reference to cell phone no. 0918-9021847 were with Itchon. [Ibid, pp. 163-175]

Itchon averred that she prepared or came up with a summary of calls made by Mrs.
Ricaforte upon the advice of her lawyer Atty. Pablito Sanidad because when she and Mrs.
Ricaforte testified in the Senate Blue Ribbon Hearing Committee, Mrs. Ricaforte testified
that she seldom or never called up President Joseph Estrada, Mr. Jinggoy Estrada, Atty.
Edward Serapio, Governor Singson and Mr. Romy Pineda. Itchon also testified that when
she prepared the summary based on the entries on the particular phone billings, she
found out several phone calls to those persons mentioned. [TSN, June 19, 2002, pp. 8-12]

Fifteen (15) Statements of Account (Exhs. S6, S6-1 up to S6-14) issued by Smart
communications were also identified by Itchon purporting to be statements of account of
Cell phone No. 0918-9021847. The Statements of Account covered the billing period
ending July 1999 and billing period ending August 31, 2000. The billing statements of
account were received by Itchon from the company for her to pay. The cell phone bills
were being paid by Fontain Bleau, but when Fontain Bleau ceased to exist, the phone bills
were paid by Ricaforte with money from juetengcollections. [Ibid, pp. 15-18]

Itchon affirmed that she was present during Mrs. Ricafortes phone call to the presidential
residence in five instances. During these times, Mrs. Ricaforte was at the LCS office and
Itchon was either beside her or in front of Mrs. Ricafortes office table. Itchon pointed out
in the sketch (Exh. Q6) she prepared where she was during the five times when the calls
were made in her presence.

The number or numbers Ricaforte called up were 736-8855 and 736-8858. Itchon testified
that she knew that the numbers pertain to the numbers in the Presidential Residence
because they had office records and she also tried calling the number. When she dialed
the numbers she asked if it was the PMS. The answer was it was the Presidential
Residence. When asked why Itchon checked and called the numbers in the first place,
she answered that when she checked Mrs. Ricafortes cell phone bills, she found out that
the numbers were there so she tried calling to check whether it was the Presidential
Residence.

When asked what was the nature or gist of the conversation from the end of Mrs.
Ricaforte when she called up the Presidential residence, Itchon answered that Mrs.
Ricaforte said: "Malou, this is Yolly. Is the President already calling for me? If he needed
me, just call me on the cell phone." According to Itchon, Malou was the secretary of
FPres. Estrada and Itchon knew this because it was Mrs. Ricaforte who told her. [Ibid., pp.
18-23]

According to Itchon, there were also calls made to former San Juan Mayor Jinggoy
Estrada and, in her summary, Ricaforte called up Mayor Jinggoy Estrada twenty-four (24)
times. On at least five occasions, Itchon testified that she was present when Ricaforte
called up Jinggoy Estrada while they [Itchon and Ricaforte] were both in the LCS office.
Itchon distinctly remembered two dates of Ricafortes phone calls to Mayor Jinggoy
Estrada (a) August 16, 1999 when Ricaforte called up Jinggoy in his residence because
that was the first call of Ricaforte when she started concentrating as the accountant-
auditor of former President Estrada in his "jueteng" collections; and (b) November 15,
1999 because Ricaforte called up Mayor Jinggoy several times as they were waiting for
Mayor Jinggoys jueteng collection from which they would get their salaries.

The cell phone number of Jinggoy Estrada was 0917-526-0217 and his landline number
was 724-4736. Itchon knew that these numbers pertain to Jinggoy Estrada because she
got the numbers from Gov. Singson. She got the number because she wanted to check
the cell phone bills of Ricaforte because there were times that she remembered that
Ricaforte had been calling the number of Jinggoy Estrada which Itchon was not aware of.
[Ibid, pp. 23-28]

Based on Itchons as well as the phone billings, Ricaforte called up Atty. Edward Serapio
six (6) times at cell phone No. 0918-9012071. Itchon also got the number of Atty. Serapio
from Gov. Singson. Based on the Smart Communications phone billings, Ricaforte called
up Atty. Serapio on March 23 and 24, 2000, and April 3, 12, 13, and 14, 2000. (Exh.
S6 with submarkings) [Ibid., pp. 29-35]

According to Itchons summary, Mrs. Ricaforte called up Gov. Singson 209 times at cell
phone nos. 0917-8387171 and 0918-9002443. Itchon was present several times when
Ricaforte called up Gov. Singson. Itchon knew that these numbers pertained to Gov.
Singson because she was familiar with these cell phone numbers. [Ibid, pp. 37-38]

Itchon also testified to calls made by Ricaforte to a certain Romy Pineda, the brother Bong
Pineda, whom she knew was a jueteng lord. Itchon testified that Ricaforte called up Romy
Pineda in his landline number, 722-7366. Based on the Summary that Itchon prepared,
Ricaforte called up Romy Pineda twice. [Ibid, pp. 38-39]

Itchon further testified that Fontain Bleau, Inc. was not able to operate because Fontain
Bleau could not comply with PAGCORs requirement for a 200-room hotel accommodation
so it was not issued a license to operate.

After the non-issuance of the license to operate, Fontain Bleau entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement with RN Development Corporation on July 19, 1999 (Exhs.
T6, T6-1 to T6-2). The Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA") stipulated that RN Development
Corporation will reimburse all the pre-operations expenses of Fontain Bleau and that
Fontain Bleau will have a 10% share from the casino that will be established by RN
Development Corporation. Itchon was present during the signing of the MOA. She
identified the signatures of the witnesses to the MOA; namely, a certain Pax who was
introduced to Itchon as Atong Angs sister (Exh. T6-2-c) and Yolanda Ricaforte (Exh. T6-2-
d). Itchon testified that she came to know Atong Ang during the negotiation of the MOA
and that Atong Ang was present during the signing.

As far as Itchon knew, the pre-operational expenses of Fontain Bleau was around Sixty
Five Million Pesos (P65,000,000.00). This was reimbursed by RN Development
Corporation to Fontain Bleau pursuant to their Memorandum of Agreement. Itchon brought
with her a copy of RN's deposit slip and their first payment in the amount of Thirty Million
Pesos (P30,000,000.00) (Exh. U6) and testified that the depositors signature therein was
Emma Lims, one of the secretaries in the LCS office. Itchon also had a photocopies of the
second check that RN paid to Fontain Bleau in the amount of Thirty Four Million Six
Hundred Forty Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Two Pesos (P34,640,442.00) (Exh. V 6)
and of the acknowledgement receipt (Exh. V6-1) signed by Ricaforte and Atty. Manuel
Singson, as Director and Corporate Secretary, respectively of Fontain Bleau. Itchon
further testified that Ricaforte got the originals of these documents but Itchon had them
photocopied for her record before Ricaforte took the originals.

Since Fontain Bleau was unable to operate, all the employees of Fontain Bleau in the
Pampanga office were terminated. It was only Itchon and Mrs. Ricaforte who were
retained. [Ibid, pp. 39-58]

In August 1999, Ricaforte already concentrated on being the accountant-auditor of FPres.

Estrada in his "jueteng" operation and then Itchon was told by Gov. Singson to help
Ricaforte. Nothing happened to Fontain Bleau anymore. Itchon allegedly knew that in
August 1999, Ricaforte concentrated in the jueteng collection because Itchon was there
when Gov. Singson briefed Ricaforte regarding the collection of the jueteng operation and
she [Ricaforte] was given the code name "Madam Auring" by Gov. Singson. [Ibid, pp. 58-
60]

Itchons testimony then detailed how she participated in the "jueteng" collections. She was
tasked to receive the "jueteng" collections that were brought to the office. There were also
times when Itchon or Emma Lim were called by Ricaforte to help compute and count the
money turned over to Ricaforte such as double checking through a calculator. Collections
that Itchon received were brought by messengers of Mr. Anton Prieto and sometimes by
the messengers of Gov. Singson who picked up the jueteng collections from Mayor
Jinggoy Estrada. Itchon knew Prietos messenger because when the messenger came,
the checks were inside the white envelope with markings "Menchu/Emma" and then the
messenger introduced himself as messenger of Anton Prieto. Itchon was also present
when Gov. Singson was giving instructions to his messengers to get jueteng collections
from Mayor Jinggoy Estrada. Gov. Singsons messengers were Mr. Jamis Singson and
Edward Iverra. Each collection was One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) per collection in
cash. She remembers these collections from Mayor Jinggoy Estrada on two (2) occasions
because it was from there that they (Ricaforte, Lim, Itchon and Iverra) took their salary.

According to Itchon, these jueteng collections came in around 15 th and 30th of the month.
From the time that they started concentrating on the jueteng collection for the former
President on August 1999, Itchon received these collections about six (6) times, covering
the period August 1999 to August 2000. The total collections she received after August
1999 was around Seven Million Pesos (P7,000,000.00). With respect to the Seven Million
Peso collections that she received, there were times when Gov. Singson took the
collection directly from her and there were times when Gov. Singson instructed her to turn
over the collection to Ricaforte. As Accountant of Fontain Bleau, she also received six (6)
collections, for the period February 1999 to July 1999. All in all Itchon averred she
received twelve (12) collections. [Ibid, pp. 61-66]

Itchon also testified that Emma Lim was the secretary of Governor Singson and also a co-
employee at the LCS Office. Since Emma Lim was also helping in the jueteng collections,
she also received salary from Ricaforte. [Ibid, pp. 71-72]

On cross examination, Itchon explained that the name of the former President allegedly
did not appear in the Articles of Incorporation of Fontain Bleau because of his public
position and because the source of its funds was illegal [TSN, June 24, 2002, pp. 19-20].
Emma Lim, Jamis Singson, Edward Iverra and sometimes Ricaforte collected jueteng
money from Jinggoy Estrada. Jamis Singson turned over to Itchon the jueteng collection
about once or twice in 2000 between January to August 2000. Itchon testified that they
helped Gov. Singson count Five Million pesos (P5,000,000.00) from the jueteng
collections sent through the messengers and some from the collections of Gov. Singson
himself and placed the said amount of money in a black bag to be brought to FPres.
Estrada but she admitted she did not see the delivery to President Estrada. [Ibid, pp. 23-
30, 101]

Itchon and the others at the office would allegedly wait for the call of Ricaforte to Jinggoy
every pay day because their salaries would come from Jinggoys jueteng collection. Itchon
was only present around five (5) times that Ricaforte called Jinggoy, although Ricaforte
called Jinggoy 24 times. (Ibid, pp. 39-46) Itchon also mentioned during her cross-
examination that Gov. Singson was reimbursed for the jueteng money advanced to
Fontain Bleau when the latter was acquired by RN Development Corporation. RN
Development Corporations partial payment in the amount of Thirty Million Pesos
(P30,000,000.00) was deposited in the account of Fontain Bleau by Ricaforte and
Ricaforte thereafter returned to Singson the said amount through a Metrobank check
payable to Singson. (Exhs. X6, X6-1, X6-2) [Ibid, pp. 125-127; TSN, June 26, 2002, pp. 25-
26]

According to Itchon, the use by Ricaforte of the cell phone no. 0918-9021847 in the name
of Itchon was proven by the cell phone number declared by Ricaforte in the bank where
she deposited money (Ibid, p. 19). She admitted that she and Emma Lim were appointed
by President Arroyo as Director of John Hay Poro Point Development Corporation on
September 2001. (Exh. 26, 26-a to 26-c-1) [TSN, June 26, 2002, pp. 51-56]

On redirect, Itchon referred to the acknowledgement receipt dated March 12, 1999 (Exh.
Y-6) for the advance rental of Thirty Million Pesos (P30,000,000) as well as the landscape
plan of said company (Exhs. E7, E7-1 to E7-6) as proof that that original name of Fontain
Bleau was spelled Fountain Bleau Holding, Inc. [Ibid, p. 100]

Smart Communications billings identified by Itchon were marked as Exhs. X 6, X6-1 to X6-2
[Ibid, pp. 101-105]. Itchon also brought to court the journal (Exhs. A7-1 to A7-5) and
computerized list (Exh. B7, B7-1 to B7-3) of the pre-operation expenses of Fountain Bleau
amounting to Sixty Five Million (P65,000,000.00) which were reimbursed by RN
Development Corporation. She also presented the computerized list of said expenses with
specifics (Exh. C7, C7-1 to C7-4) and some of the checks of Gov. Singson which were used
to pay the expenses of Fountain Bleau from March 3, 1999 to June 20, 1999 (Exh. D7, D7-
1 to D7-95) The funds of Fountain Bleau were taken by Gov. Singson from jueteng
collections. The check covering part of the reimbursement to Fountain Bleau in the
amount of Thirty Four Million Six Hundred Forty Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Two
Pesos (P34,640,442.00) was marked as Exh. V6 (with submarkings). [Ibid, pp. 106-117]

VICENTE RAGIL AMISTAD (Amistad) was a Philippine National Police (PNP) officer
stationed at Vigan City Police Station, assigned to former Gov. Singson since 1989 until
the time of his testimony. On three (3) occasions in 1999 and 2000, Amistad was
instructed by Gov. Singson to go to the house of Bong Pineda at Albany Street, Northeast
Greenhills and received from Romy Pineda, Bong Pinedas brother, the followings sums of
money: Seven Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P7,750,000.00); Five Million
Pesos (P5,000,000.00) and Three Million Two Hundred Fifty Pesos (P3,250,000.00).
Amistad would bundle count, place the money in a plastic bag and bring it to Gov. Singson
at LCS building, after signing a receipt prepared by Romy Pineda. [TSN, September 16,
2002, pp. 15-56]

Amistad also testified that upons instruction of Singson, he went to the office of then
Mayor Jinggoy Estrada at the second floor of the Municipal Hall of San Juan in 1999. After
Mayor Jinggoy Estrada called up someone, he [Jinggoy] asked Amistad to go down and
get what Jinggoy would give him in front of the Municipal Hall. At the ground floor, the
security guard of Mayor Jinggoy Estrada gave him a package wrapped in a newspaper
with scotch tape, which he brought to Gov. Singson at LCS Building. Amistad testified that
he was was scolded by Gov. Singson because the money inside the package was short.
Gov. Singson called up Jinggoy and informed the latter about the shortage. The following
day Amistad was informed by Gov. Singson that the shortage of Jinggoy was already
given to him.

JAMIS BATULAN SINGSON (Jamis) was the personal aide of Gov. Singson, who was
not related to him. Jamis Singson knew FPres Estrada and Gov. Singson to be close
friends who played mahjong and drank together. Jamis Singson was constantly with Gov.
Singson when he delivered jueteng money to FPres Estrada. [TSN, September 18, 2002,
pp. 25-31] Jamis Singson saw Gov. Singson counting the jueteng money before he placed
them in a black bag which he would carry.

Jamis also testified that in March 1999, he, Artates and driver Prudencio went to the
house of Bong Pineda. Artates went inside the house and when he went out, he was
carrying a shopping bag full of money. Jamis then transferred the money to a black bag
which Gov. Singson used to deliver money to FPres. Estrada. Jamis described the black
bags measurements and how it was opened from the top with a combination (lock) ( Exh.
"08"). The money totalled Five Million Pesos (P 5,000,000.00 ) in five (5) bundles of One
Million Pesos ( P1,000,000.00 ) each. They proceed to LCS Building in San Andres to pick
up Emma Lim as instructed by Gov. Singson. Inside the vehicle, Emma Lim counted the
money. [Ibid, pp. 68-81] They went to the Polk Street house of FPres. Estrada but the
latter was not home. While having lunch at a restaurant, Emma Lim received a call from
Gov. Singson instructing them to go to Malacaang. Emma Lim alighted from the vehicle
with the black bag and entered passing through the guard house in going to the
Presidential residence. They waited outside. Emma Lim asked to be fetched later and she
was no longer holding the black bag. [TSN, ibid, pp. 83-90]
Jamis also testified to one occasion in the middle of 1999 when he himself was instructed
by Gov. Singson to collect money from the house of Bong Pineda. That time Jamis
received Seven Million Pesos (P7,000,000.00) in a shopping bag from Romeo "Romy"
Pineda. Romy made Jamis sign a blue book and then Jamis brought the money to Gov.
Singson in the latters office. [Ibid, pp. 91-101]

Jamis also testified he collected jueteng money from Mayor Jinggoy Estrada twice on Gov.
Singsons instructions. For the first occasion, on or about October 1999 Jamis went to the
office of then Mayor Jinggoy Estrada at the second floor Municipal Hall of San Juan at
around 4pm to 5 pm. Inside the said office, Jinggoy Estradas bodyguard Nestor showed a
sando plastic bag to Jinggoy Estrada and after that Jamis saw Jinggoy pointing to him
[Jamis]. Jamis brought the plastic bag, which Jamis subsequently saw contained an
indeterminable amount of money, to Singson at the latters office. [Ibid, pp. 105-121]

The second time Jamis collected jueteng money from Jinggoy Estrada was immediately
after the first time, in the evening.Thus, Gov. Singson instructed Jamis to proceeed to the
house of Mayor Jinggoy Estrada in Greenhills. At Mayor Jinggoys house, Jamis again
received a plastic sando bag from "Nestor". Jamis brought the bag to Gov. Singsons
office and handed it to Menchu (Ma. Carmencita) Itchon as Gov. Singson instructed.
Jamis identified Menchu in Court. He said she was the companion of Ricaforte in the
office. [Ibid., pp. 121-132]

ATTY. DAVID JONATHAN YAP (Atty. Yap), the Senate Legal Counsel, testified that he
acted as the Deputy Clerk of the Senate Impeachment Court. Among others, his office
was in charge of receiving all documents and pleadings relating to the impeachment trial.
He was in charge of marking the Exhs. requested by the parties and keeping them in
custody. He brought to this Court in compliance with a subpoena a fifteen (15)-paged
document marked in this case as prosecutions Exhs. "A-4" to "A-4-L" [TSN, September
25, 2002, p. 63] He identified his signatures that he affixed on the Exhibits on December
7, 2002. He testified that he saw Yolanda Ricaforte when she brought those documents to
the Senate Impeachment Court in compliance with a subpoena dated December 5, 2000
(Exh. E) issued by Chief Justice Davide. Atty. Yap was present when Ricaforte took her
oath on the witness stand on December 7, 2000 He identified Ricaforte from a photograph
(Exh. A6-V5-1). The Original documents were placed in a vault inside his office, where they
had been kept and deposited since they were turned to him during the impeachment trial,
except only when they were sent over to the Sandiganbayan as requested. [Ibid., p. 77]

Atty. Yap was at the back of Yolanda Ricaforte at the Senate Impeachment Trial when she
gave her testimony that the ledger she brought is an ordinary "listahan." [TSN, Senate
Impeachment Trial, p. 144; see also TSN of these cases,September 25, 2002, pp. 78-79]

EDELQUINN DE GUZMAN NANTES (Nantes) was the Branch Manager of Equitable-PCI

Bank, Scout Tobias-Timog Branch on September 1, 1999. Nantes knew Yolanda Ricaforte
because the latter was a client of the bank. Ricaforte told Nantes that she [Ricaforte] was
in the real estate and fish pond business.

Nantes personally attended to Ricaforte when the latter opened checking and savings
account with the branch on September 1, 1999. She asked Ricaforte to fill up all the
required documents for opening current and savings accounts such as the signature cards
for Current Account No. 0107-00638-9 and Savings Account No. 0157-04227-0. (Exhs. A-
6, A-6-a and A-6-b) [TSN, May 22, 2002, pp. 67-72]

Ricaforte opened one checking account, one savings account, seven special savings
accounts and a PCI Emerald Fund. The initial amount of deposit in the savings account
was Seventeen Million Two hundred Five Thousand Pesos (P17,205,000.00) as shown by
the deposit slip for Savings Account No. 0517-042227 (Exh. A-6-aa). The Seventeen
Million Two Hundred Ten Thousand Pesos (P17,210,000.00) was in check payable to
cash. The Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) was deposited in the checking account No.
0107-001638-9 (Exh. A-6-bb) and the balance of Seventeen Million Two Hundred Five
Thousand Pesos (P17,205,000) was deposited in the savings account. [Ibid, pp. 80-85]

There were deposits made on the savings account of Ricaforte after the initial deposit.
Nantes presented and identified the deposit slips and the statement of accounts of
Ricaforte (Exh. A-6 and submarkings) which were: Deposit Slip dated September 1, 1999
(Exh. A-6-aa) with the amount of Seventeen Million Two Hundred Five Thousand Pesos
(P17,205,000.00); Deposit Slip dated September 7, 1999 (Exh. A-6-cc) with the amount of
Three Million Seven Hundred Thousand Pesos (P3,700,000.00); Deposit Slip dated
September 29, 1999 (Exh. A-6-dd) with the amount of One Million Six Hundred Ninety
Seven Thousand Pesos (P1,697,000.00); Deposit Slip dated September 7, 1999 (Exh. A-
6-ee) with the amount of Ten Million Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P10,400,000.00);
Deposit Slip dated September 15, 1999 (Exh. A-6-ff) with the amount of Five Million Seven
Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P5,775,000.00); Deposit Slip dated September
17, 1999 (Exh. A-6-gg) with the amount of Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P750,000.00); Deposit Slip dated October 4, 1999 (Exh. A-6-hh) with the amount of Nine
Million Fifty Thousand Pesos (P9,050,000.00); Deposit Slip dated October 19, 1999 (Exh.
A-6-ii) with the amount of Six Million Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P6,650,000.00);
Deposit Slip dated November 4, 1999 (Exh. A-6-jj) with the amount of Six Million Nine
Hundred Thirty Thousand Pesos (P6,930,000.00); Deposit Slip dated November 16, 1999
(Exh. A-6-kk) with the amount of Four Million Six Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P4,600,000.00); Deposit Slip dated November 19, 1999 (Exh. A-6-ll) with the amount of
One Million Seven Hundred Eleven Thousand Pesos (P1,711,000.00); Deposit Slip dated
December 7, 1999 (Exh. A-6-mm) with the amount of Nine Hundred Eighty Nine Thousand
One Hundred Fifty Pesos (P989,150.00); Deposit Slip dated January 10, 2000 (Exh. A-6-
2) with the amount of Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00); and a deposit slip (Exh. A-6-3)
with the amount of Two Million Four Hundred Sixty Thousand Pesos (P2,460,000.00).

Bank statements reflected withdrawals (Exhs. A-6-nn to A-6-zz) from the savings account
for the period September 30, 1999 to October 31, 2000. [Ibid, pp. 87-97]

With respect to the Current Account No. 0107-00638-9, witness identified the specimen
signature card (Exh. A-6-a and A-6) to show that the initial deposit slip was Five Thousand
Pesos (P5,000.00) (Exh. A-6-bb). [Ibid, p. 98]

Ricaforte signed in the presence of Nantes the Authority to Debit and Transfer Funds
(Exh. A-6-G) which allowed funds to be automatically transferred from savings to current
account to cover checks issued. [TSN dated May 27, 2002, pp. 11-16]

The initial deposit for the First Special Savings Account No. 0157-90392-6 was Seventy
Million Pesos (P70,000,000.00) as shown by the Special Savings Passbook (Exh. A-6-S 3)
of Ricaforte dated December 2, 1999. The account was closed on April 13, 2000. It had a
balance of Seventy One Million Three Hundred Ninety Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy
Five and Eight Centavos (P71,390,875.08) which was transferred to Ricafortes regular
Savings Account. [Ibid, pp. 22-24, 43]

In the Second Special Savings Account covered by Special Savings Passbook No.
392093 dated February 7, 2000 (Exh. A-6-X3) showed the initial deposit of Ten Million
Pesos (P10,000,000.00) was taken from the regular savings account. A withdrawal of the
whole amount of Ten Million One Hundred Thirteen Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Six
Pesos and Fifty Seven Centavos (P10,113,836.57) was made on April 13, 2000 reflected
in the Credit Advice dated April 13, 2000 (Exh. A-6-ZZZ). [Ibid, pp. 49-60]

The Third Special Savings Account was opened on March 29, 2000 for Two Million Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00). The money was taken from her regular
Savings Account No. 0157-04427-0. The amount of Two Million Five Hundred One
Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Six Pesos and Sixty Six Centavos (P2,501,666.66) was
withdrawn from the special savings account as shown by the certified true copy of the
Credit Advice dated April 13, 2000 (Exh. A-6-C4). [Ibid, pp. 84, 93-95]

The Fourth Special Savings Account No. 3157-00073-9 covered by the Special Savings
Passbook No. 392178 (Exh A-6-E4) had an initial deposit of Nine Million Seven Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P9,700,000.00) as found in the deposit receipt dated April 5, 2000 (Exh
A-6-D4). On April 13, 2000, the Special Savings was cancelled and preterminated. The
amount of Nine Million Seven Hundred Three Thousand (P9,703,000) was credited to
Savings Account No. 0157-04227-0. [Ibid, pp. 115-124]

The Fifth Special Savings Account (Exh. A-6-G4) which was opened on May 29, 2000
under the name of Yolanda T. Ricaforte had an initial deposit of Two Million Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00). The initial deposit was withdrawn from her regular
Savings Account. The Special Savings was closed on September 4, 2000 and the amount
of Two Million Five Hundred Fifty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Eleven Pesos and Twenty
Centavos (P2,559,411.20) was credited to her Regular Savings Account 0157-04227-0.
[Ibid, pp. 128-129, 135, 138]

The Sixth Special Savings Account (Exh. A-6-L4), under the name of Yolanda T. Ricaforte,
was opened on May 4, 2000 for One Million Nine Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P1,900,000.00). The account was closed on September 4, 2000 as per Debit Advice
dated September 4, 2000 (Exh. A-6-P4) for the matured Special Savings Account worth
Two Million Twenty Two Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Nine Pesos and Eighteen
Centavos (P2,022,429.18). [Ibid, pp. 147153]

The Seventh Special Savings Account No. 3157-00088-7 dated June 1, 2000 (Exh. A-6-
Q4) was worth Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) in cash. The account was closed on
September 4, 2000 and the proceeds were credited to the Regular Savings Account No.
0157-04227-0. The balance (Exh. A-6-T4) then was Two Million Thirty Five Thousand
Thirty Five Pesos and Ninety One Centavos (P2,035,035.91). [Ibid, pp. 156, 166]

The PCI Emerald Fund was in the amount of Six Million Six Hundred Sixteen Thousand
Six Hundred Seventy Six Pesos and Nineteen Centavos (P6,616,676.19) (Exh. A-6-U 4 and
Exh. A-6-V4). The fund was then rolled-over monthly as evidenced by the Confirmation
letter (Exh. A-6-Z4) dated December 6, 2000. It was again rolled-over several times until it
was redeemed on June 5, 2002. [Ibid, p. 168, 176 -193]
The first four Special Savings Accounts were all debited on April 13, 2000 and Ricaforte
purchased a Cashiers Check payable to Cash for Ninety One Million Pesos
(P91,000,000). The Application for Cashiers check (Exh. "A-6- R 5") was signed by
Ricaforte as purchaser. The Cashiers check (Exh. A-6- S5 and Exh. A-6-U5) was cleared
and accepted by Equitable PCI Bank, Makati Pacific Star Branch, based on the dorsal
portion of the check.

The last three Special Savings Accounts (Special Savings Account Nos. 3157-00077-1,
3157-00080-1, and 3157-00088-7) were closed on September 4, 2000 and all the
proceeds were credited to the regular savings account, and then invested in the PCI
Emerald Fund for Six Million Six Hundred Thousand Pesos (P6,600,000.00). [Ibid, pp.
168, 206-207]

Nantes met Ricaforte more than twenty times and identified the latter through a picture
shown by the prosecution. (Exh. A-6-V5) [TSN, May 29, 2002, pp. 16-20]

The current account balance is at Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) (Exh. A-6-W 5) and
that of the Savings Account is One Hundred Ninety Seven Thousand Seven Hundred
Thirty Six and Sixty Nine Centavos (P197,736.69) (Exh. A-6-X5). The last withdrawal from
the savings account was made on October 5, 2000 for automatic transfer to the current
account in the amount of Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Four and Eighty
Centavos (P79,664.80). The last deposit was on October 4, 2000, through a credit
memorandum of Thirty Seven Thousand Twenty Nine Pesos and Seventeen Centavos
(P37,029.17) which represented the interest of the PCI Emerald Fund. After October 5,
2000 there were no more counter transactions, only the entry of interest earned and
withholding tax. [Ibid, pp. 23-27]

ROSARIO SALUDO BAUTISTA (Bautista) is the Senior Branch Manager of the

Equitable, PCI Bank, Diliman, Matalino Branch. Bautista personally attended to Yolanda
Ricaforte who was a walk-in client of the branch on November 19, 1999. Ricaforte opened
a savings account and used her California drivers license and passport for identification.

The duly accomplished specimen signature card (Exh. A-7-z) was presented to show the
existence of the savings account. It was personally accomplished by Mrs. Ricaforte in the
presence of Bautista. The initial deposit of Mrs. Ricaforte was Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P500,000.00) in cash. [TSN, May 29, 2000, pp. 93-96]

Ricaforte returned to the branch on November 22, 1999. She opened a combo account
and closed the savings account she opened on November 19, 1999. The combo account
was Savings Account Number 0288-02037-0 and Current Account Number 0238-00853-0.
As a new account, Bautista required Mrs. Ricaforte to accomplish signature cards (Exh. A-
7 and A-7-a). When the combo account was already opened, Ricaforte presented for
deposit two (2) checks totaling Seventy Million Pesos (P70,000,000.00). Each check (Exh.
A-7-B and A-7-C) was payable to cash for Thirty Five Million Pesos (P35,000,000.00). The
drawer was William T. Gatchalian and the drawee bank was PCI Bank, main office in
Makati City.

Ricaforte told Bautista that the money came from the proceeds of the sale of a prime
property sold to Mr. Gatchalian. As precautionary measure, the branch of Bautista
checked with the drawee bank PCI Makati and they learned that Gatchalians account was
a good account.

There were additional deposits made to the account. One deposit made on November 23,
1999 was a check (Exh. A-7-h) issued by Governor Luis Gov. Singson dated November
22, 1999 for One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) payable to cash. The drawee bank was
Metro Bank, Ayala. The second check deposit made was on December 16, 1999 payable
to cash with PNB, Naga Branch as drawee bank. The check (Exh. A-7-i) was dated
December 9, 1999. The check was deposited and subsequently cleared.

On December 2, 1999, Ricaforte deposited Three Million Fifty Thousand Pesos

(P3,050,000.00) in cash (Exh. A-7-d). The cash was in big bills, P1,000 and P500
denominations. Ricaforte explained to Bautista that the amount came from other accounts
in other banks because she planned to transfer all her other accounts to Equitable,
Diliman, Matalino Branch. Another cash deposit (Exh. A-7-f and Exh. A-7-aa) was made
on January 28, 2000 for One Million Pesos. [Ibid, pp. 100-130]

Ricaforte also opened a special saving account number 3288-00079-3 in the amount of
Seventy Million Pesos (P70,000,000.00). The initial deposit was taken from Ricafortes
savings account (Exh. A-7-j). The account was opened with passbook number 394979
(Exh. A-7-bb) and the specimen signature card (Exh. A-7-cc). The account has already
been closed. [Ibid, pp. 132-135]

On February 24, 2000, Mrs. Ricaforte again transferred Seven Million Pesos (P7,000,000)
from her ordinary savings account to a special savings account deposit (Exh. A-7-w) with
Account Number 3288-00087-4. Ricaforte also accomplished a specimen signature card
(Exh. A-7-dd) for the Special Savings Account.

On April 13, 2000 Mrs. Ricaforte applied for a Sevety Seven Million Peso (P77,000,000)
cashiers check against her special savings deposit account. She accomplished an
application form (Exh. A-7-l) for the transaction. Ricaforte had to accomplish a deed of
undertaking (Exh. A-7-n) because the cashiers check was payable to cash. The cashiers
check (Exh. A-7-ee) was deposited on April 25, 2000 at the Pacific Star Branch of
Equitable PCI Bank in Makati. The name and account number were not indicated on the
check. [Ibid, pp. 148 -159]

Mrs. Ricaforte always dealt with Bautista as the Bank Manager for her transactions.
Bautista identified Ricaforte as the one wearing red (Exh. A-6-vvvvv-1) when shown a
group picture. Bautista also identified the girl beside Mrs. Ricaforte as Mrs. Itchon, one of
the witnesses in the impeachment proceedings. Aside from the personal visits of Mrs.
Ricaforte, Bautista also called her on cell phone no. 0918-9021847 or home landline
9518854 whenever there was a maturity or an updating of interest. [Ibid, pp. 162-168]

At the time of Bautistas testimony, the balance in the account of Ricaforte was around
Two Million Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,200,000.00). It is still earning interest.

SHAKIRA CASTRILLO YU (Yu) was the Manager of Equitable PCI Bank, Pedro Gil-
Robinsons Branch since it opened on August 1999. Yu knew Yolanda T. Ricaforte as she
was one of their depositors. Ricaforte told Yu that she was connected with Fil-East Travel
and Tours which is located at the second floor of the Manila Midtown Hotel. Ricaforte first
opened a Regular Savings Account, participated in the Reverse Repurchase Agreement
and subsequently opened a Special Savings Account.
Ricaforte opened the Regular Savings Account on January 6, 2000. It was Ms. Evelyn
Ponce, the Cash Operations Officer who attended to her as Yu was not around. Yu
brought with her the specimen signature card (Exh. A-8-P) for Savings Account No.
027602029-3 and the New Accounts Record (Exh. A-8-Q) which were filled out by
Ricaforte. [TSN, June 3, 2002, pp. 85-92]

The initial deposit (Exh. A-8-Q-3) of the Regular Savings Account was Six Million Pesos
(P6,000,000.00) in cash (Exh. A-8-R). When witness asked Ricaforte where the initial
deposit came from, Ricaforte said it was proceeds of a sale of a property. [Ibid, pp. 97-
100]

Other deposits made to the Regular Savings Account were the following: a check deposit
amounting to Two Million Nine Hundred Sixty-Five Thousand (P2,965,000) with Governor
Luis Chavit Singson as drawer; a cash deposit of One Million Five Hundred Forty
Thousand Pesos (P1,540,000) deposited on January 25, 2000 and a One Million Three
Hundred Forty Thousand Pesos (P1,340,000) check deposit (Exh. A-8-D) with Governor
Singson as drawer (Exh. A-8-D-1). [Ibid, pp. 101-112]

On January 31, 2000, Ricaforte told Yu that she wanted to earn higher interest so witness
advised her to participate in the Reverse Repurchase. Ricaforte asked Yu to debit her
Regular Savings Account for about Eight Million Nine Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P8,900,000.00) (Exh. "A-8-P"). On February 29, 2000 Ricaforte informed Yu that she did
not want the Reverse Repurchase and she wanted a bank product that earned a higher
interest with passbook as documentation. The Certificate of Participation without
Recourse (Exh. A-8-F) was then paid on February 29, 2000 in the amount of Eight Million
Nine Hundred Forty Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty-Two Pesos and Eighty Two Centavos
(P8,940,752.82).

Yu then advised Ricaforte to open a Special Savings Account. They took out her
participation in the Reverse Repurchase for P8,900,000.00 plus interest and Ricaforte
asked them to debit more or less One Million Fifty-One Thousand Pesos (P1,051,000.00)
from her Regular Savings Account because she wanted her Special Savings Account to
be in the amount of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00). The specimen signature card of
the Special Savings Account and the Credit Memo (Exh. A-8-G) under the account name
Yolanda Ricaforte for the Account No. 276-90238-5 dated 2/29/2000 were shown as
evidence of the existence of the account. The three signatures appearing in the card
belonged to Mrs. Yolanda Ricaforte signed in front of Yu.

Subsequently, Ricaforte withdrew her Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) plus interest
from the Special Savings Account and transferred the amount to her Regular Savings
Account. The Special Savings passbook of Mrs. Ricaforte (Exh. A-8-H) contained the
entry Out of Return P10,019,555,55. [Ibid, 113-120]

On April 13, 2000, Ricaforte applied for a cashiers check in the amount of Eleven Million
Pesos (P11,000,000) debited to her Regular Savings Account. The application for
Cashiers check (Exh. A-8-I), the receiving copy of the Cashiers check, the Letter of
Undertaking and Cashiers check (Exh. A-8-T) were all presented. The Application for
Cashiers Check stated that the Cashiers Check is allowed to be payable to cash except
that the bank will not be held responsible for the loss thereof or a demand for a refund or
replacement. It is no longer allowed starting around July or August 2000.
Ricaforte instructed Yu to transfer Eight Hundred Thousand Pesos (P800,000.00) from her
Regular Savings Account on May 23, 2000 to her Special Savings Account to earn higher
interest. A Special Savings Account Passbook (Exh. A-8-L) was issued to Mrs. Ricaforte
which credited the Eight Hundred Thousand Pesos (P800,000.00) to the Special Savings
Account. [Ibid, pp.120-127]

At present, the outstanding balance of the Special Savings Account is more or less Six
Hundred Thirty Four Thousand Pesos (P634,000.00). The regular Savings Account has an
outstanding balance of more or less Sixty-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Pesos
(P69,800.00).

After being shown a photograph, Yu identified Yolanda Ricaforte as the person wearing
maroon or red in the picture (Exh. A-6-Z5). Yu was able to talk to Mrs. Ricaforte over the
phone around six (6) times. She used the cell phone number indicated in the records.
[Ibid, pp. 128-132]

VERGEL LEJARDE PABILLON (Pabillon) knew a person by the name of Yolanda

Ricaforte because Ricaforte opened regular Savings Account No. 0193-61496-8 and
Special Savings Account No. 02193-15050-3 with Equitable PCI Bank T.M. Kalaw Branch
on February 8, 2000 while Pabillon was still manager of the branch.

Ricaforte mentioned to Pabillon that she was connected with a certain company under the
name of Phil. East Travel and Tours located at Ramada Hotel, Mabini. She handed her
California Drivers license as identification card and signed the specimen signature cards
about one foot away from the witness.

Pabillon brought the Individual Account Record (Exh. A-9-C) and the signature cards
signed by Mrs. Ricaforte as evidence of the Account. The initial deposit made were in the
form of a PNB Managers Check (Exh. A-9-A) in the amount of Ten Million Seven
Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Seven Pesos and Seventy-Eight Centavos
(P10,007,777.78) and One Million Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,400,000.00) in cold
cash. Eleven Million Pesos (P11,000,000.00) of that amount was placed in the Special
Savings Account and Four Hundred Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Seven
Pesos and Seventy Eight Centavos (P407,777.78) was placed under the Regular Savings
Account. [TSN, June 5, 2002, pp. 98-109]

On April 13, 2000, Mrs. Ricaforte went to the bank and informed the witness that she
needed Eleven Million Pesos (P11,000,000.00) in the form of managers check, payable to
cash, to be taken out from the existing Special Savings Account No. 02193-6-15050-3.
The managers check dated April 13, 2000 payable to cash was presented (Exh. A-9-B).
Ricaforte had to sign a Purchasers Undertaking bearing her name as purchaser. (Exh. A-
9-F) [Ibid, pp. 113-127]

Mrs. Ricaforte opened a third account, Special Savings Accounts No. 02-193-15177-1, in
the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). A debit memo (Exh. A-9-G)
showed the transfer of the P500,000 from the regular Savings Account 0193-64196-8 to
the special savings account.

On August 31, 2000, Mrs. Ricaforte went to the bank and requested for another Two
Hundred Fifty Thousand Peso (P250,000.00) managers check payable to her to be
deducted from Special Savings Account No. 02193-15177-1. A bank document which
served as a registered copy of the issuance of the managers check was presented. (Exh.
A-9-H) [Ibid, pp. 128-129]

Pabillon identified Ricaforte from a group photograph (Exh. A-6-B5) [Ibid, pp. 133-134]

The witness availed of the early retirement offered by Equitable PCI. He testified in the
impeachment trial even if he was already supposed to go on early retirement because he
just wanted to tell the truth regarding what transpired to the opening of the account of Mrs.
Ricaforte. [TSN, June 10, 2002, pp. 54-56]

EDGARDO LIM ALCARAZ (Alcaraz) was the branch manager of Equitable PCIBank,
Scout Albano branch for almost three years. He met Yolanda Ricaforte because she was
one of their clients. She opened three accounts with the bank on March 2, 2000 and he
was the one who personally attended to her. These were savings account and current
account under the automatic transfer facility and a special savings account.

Alcaraz testified on documents to show that Yolanda Ricaforte opened these three
accounts, such as the individual account record which showed information about
Ricaforte, her special instructions and the summary of the accounts that she opened. The
other documents pertained to the specimen signature cards signed by Ricaforte for
Checking Account No. 5732-01-975-7, Savings Account No. 5733-15154-3 and Special
Savings Account No. 5733-00721-0. Ricaforte submitted her local drivers license and her
California drivers license for identification. She told witness that she was engaged in the
prawn business in Iloilo. Alcaraz contacted Ricaforte two or three times using the numbers
she wrote in the account record. He also had a calling card from Ricaforte (Exh. A-10-F).
[TSN, June 10, 2002, pp. 79-84]

The initial deposit in cash for the savings account opened by Ricaforte was One Million
Nine Hundred Ninety Five Thousand (P1,995,000.00). The initial deposit for Checking
Account 5732-01-975-7 was Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00). The initial deposit for
Special Savings Account No. 5733-0721-0 was Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000). Copies of
the deposit slips (Exhs. A-10-G, A-10-H, A-10-I) [Ibid. pp. 97-99]

On April 12, 2000, Ricaforte pre-terminated the special savings account. This is shown by
its passbook (Exh. A-10-J). A credit memo (Exh. A-10-L) showed that Ricaforte requested
that the proceeds of the special savings account be credited under the Savings Account
No. 5733-15154-3.

On the same day, Mrs. Ricaforte applied for a managers check in the amount of Three
Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00) payable to bearer. The application form for managers
check (Exh. A-10-C), the proof sheet copy of the managers check (Exh. A-10-K) and the
copy of the check were presented (Exh. A-10-M). [Ibid, pp.102-108]

As of the time of Alcaraz testimony, the regular savings account still existed with an
outstanding balance of One Hundred Three Thousand Pesos (P103,000.00). The
checking account was still active with an outstanding balance of Five Thousand Pesos
(P5,000.00). With respect to the checking account, Ricaforte issued a check in the amount
of P500,000.00 on March 12, 2000. Since the accounts are automatic transfer accounts,
the funds from the savings account were automatically transferred to the checking
account. [Ibid, pp. 100-101]

EMMA AVILA GONZALES (Gonzales) had been the Branch Manager of Equitable
Savings Bank, Isidora Hills Branch for more than three years up to time she testified in this
Court. Gonzales knew a person by the name of Yolanda Ricaforte who was one of the
clients of the bank.

She first met Ricaforte on March 15, 2000 when she opened a special savings account
with the branch. She walked into the bank, approached the witness and told her that she
wanted to open an account and that she was a valued client of other branches of
Equitable Savings Bank. The specimen signature card (Exh. A-11) and deposit slip (Exh.
A-11-A) were shown to prove the opening of the special savings account. The initial
deposit was Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) cash, in ten bundles of five
hundred (500) peso bills. Ricaforte said she was a businesswoman but did not specify the
kind of business she was engaged in. With respect to the initial deposit of Ricaforte, the
account is still outstanding. The original copy of the Equitable Special Savings Passbook
No. 123727 (Exh. A-11-I) shows the outstanding balance to be Five Hundred Ninety Three
Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Six Pesos and Thirty Two Centavos (P593,496.32) as of
June 10, 2002. The difference in the amount was the interest earned from the time it was
opened. There was no movement of the fund except for the interest. [TSN, June 10, 2002,
pp. 162-169, June 17, 2002, p. 10]

Ricaforte also opened Special Savings Account No. 077090498-6 (Exh. A-11-H and Exh.
A-11-D) amounting to Seven Million Pesos (P7,000,000.00). The initial deposit was an
MBTC (Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co.) Ayala Branch Check No. 1070. It was payable in
cash and the drawer was Governor Luis "Chavit" Singson. It was cleared after three days.
The account was pre-terminated on April 14, 2000. The withdrawal slip (Exh. A-11-E)
showed that the amount withdrawn was Seven Million Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred
Thirty Six Pesos and Eleven Centavos (P7,019,736.11). Ricaforte received the payment in
the form of a Cashiers check (Exh. A-11-F) payable to cash in the amount of Seven
Million Pesos (P7,000,000.00) and cash in the amount of Nineteen Thousand Seven
Hundred Thirty Six Pesos and Eleven Centavos (P19,736.11). The dorsal portion of the
Cashiers check showed that it was deposited in Equitable Banking Corporation, Makati
Pacific Star. On the other hand, the amount of Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty
Six Pesos and Eleven Centavos (P19,736.11) cash was used to open regular Savings
Account No. 0770009375 (Exh. A-11-I). The latest bank statement (Exh. A-11-J) showed
that the account still existed but the balance was no longer Nineteen Thousand Seven
Hundred Thirty Six Pesos and Eleven Centavos (P19,736.11). [TSN, June 10, 2002, pp.
172-189]

Witness was able to verify the phone number given by Mrs. Ricaforte because when she
called the number, Mrs. Ricaforte answered the phone. [TSN, June 17, 2002, pp. 11-13]

ANTONIO MARTIN SAGRITALO FORTUNO (Fortuno) was the Bank Operations Officer
of Equitable PCI Bank, Pacific Star Branch since January 28, 2002. The witness averred
that he handled the opening of accounts; supervised the investment section; the foreign
telegraphic transfer as well as the domestic telegraphic transfer and the safekeeping of
the records of deposits; and other transactions which transpired in their branch.

Fortuno brought with him documents relating to the deposit of six (6) cashiers/managers
checks in the total amount of Two Hundred Million Pesos (P200,000,000.00) to the Pacific
Star Branch and the transfer of these funds from cashiers checks to the account of the
Erap Muslim Youth Foundation in the 100 Strata Branch of Equitable PCI Bank. [TSN
dated September 27, 2002, p. 127]

He identified an Acknowledgement Letter [Exh. I9, with sub markings; Exh. 16-a (Serapio)]
dated April 25, 2000 addressed to Atty. Edward Serapio from Beatriz L. Bagsit, who was
then Division Head of the Makati Area. The letter acknowledged receipt of six (6) checks
for deposit on a staggered basis and on various different dates to the account of Erap
Muslim Youth Foundation maintained at the Ortigas Strata Branch. The checks were as
follows:

(1) PCIBank Managers Check NO. 573-000035822 dated April 12, 2000 for P3
Million (Exh. A-10-m);

(2) PCIBank Managers Check No. 019L-000061146 dated April 13, 2000 for
P11 Million (Exh. A-9-b);

(3) Equitable Bank Cashiers Check No. 0226-00949 dated April 13, 2000 for
P11 Million (Exh. A-8-t);

(4) Equitable Bank Cashiers Check No. 0238-000941 dated April 13, 2000 for
P77 Million (Exh. A-7-ee);

(5) Equitable Bank Cashiers Check No.107-013064 dated April 13, 2000 for
P91 Million; (Exh. A-6-r5)

(6) Equitable Bank Cashiers Check No.6720-00042 dated April 14, 2000 for P7
Million; (Exh. A-11-g)

Fortuno also identified the passbook for Bearer Account No. 0279-04225-5 (Exh. J 9, with
sub markings) which was opened on April 25, 2000. A bearer account is an account
wherein there is no name mentioned in the account. According to Fortuno, the six (6)
managers checks were the managers checks that were deposited on April 25, 2000 in
the bearer account for the total amount of Two Hundred Million (P200,000,000.00).

According the witness, the instruction in the letter was to deposit the funds on a staggered
basis and they can do so if they first deposit all the checks simultaneously for the three-
day clearing.

On the basis of debit memos, managers check applications, detailed report transaction
and deposit slips or receipts, the Two Hundred Million Pesos (P200,000,000.00) was
gradually withdrawn from the bearer account and transferred to the Erap Muslim Youth
Foundation from April 27, 2000 to May 11, 2000.

The six (6) checks were deposited in Bearer Account No. 0279-04225-5 of which fourteen
(14) withdrawals in Managers Checks (Exh. K9 to X9, with sub markings) were made in
various amounts and these withdrawals were further divided into twenty-eight (28)
deposits into the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation. Each withdrawal was divided into two
deposits, as shown by the Account Information Slips, Deposit Receipts and Detailed
Report for Transfers and Debit/Credit Memos (DRTM) (See Exhs. K9 to X9, with sub
markings) brought by the witness. [Ibid, pp. 32-96]

The bearer account was closed on November 14, 2000 as evidenced by the Fund
Transfer Memo (Exh. Z9), and contained the interest for Ninety Seven Thousand Three
Hundred Ninety Two Pesos (P97,392) which was transferred to the account of the
Foundation. [Ibid, pp. 97-98]

AIDA TUAZON BASALISO (Basaliso) was the operations officer of Equitable PCIBank,
Ortigas-Strata 100 Branch since July 1997. She brought with her bank documents on the
accounts of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation maintained at the Equitable PCIBank,
Strata-Ortigas Branch including the inter-branch deposits from the Equitable PCIBank,
Pacific Star Branch for the total amount of P200 million to the Account No. 0192-85835-6
in the name of Erap Muslim Youth Foundation.

The signature card for Savings Account No. 0192-85702-3 (Exh. A10) of the Treasurer-in
trust has the signature of Mr. George Go, the former Chairman of the Board of the bank.
The list of Contribution (Exh. B10) also had the signature of the treasurer, Mr. George Go.
The two documents were given to Basaliso by Catherine Mercado, someone who usually
transacted business at the branch.

Witness also identified the Signature Cards of the Savings and Checking Accounts of the
Erap Muslim Youth Foundation. On the signature cards (Exh. C10) pertaining to the
Savings Account No. 0192-85835-6, the signatures of Mr. Raul De Guzman, Mr. George
Go, Mr. Edward Serapio and Mr. Danilo Reyes, Ms. Mila Reforma appear. Two signature
cards were needed for the same account because the corporation consisted of five (5)
signatories.

The signature cards (Exh. D10 and Exh. D10-1) for current Account No. 0142-62890-2
showed the signatures of the same five persons.

She identified the Secretarys Certificate (Exh. E10) showing that the Corporate Secretary
was Edward S. Serapio, the Certificate of Incorporation with SEC Registration No.
2000002526 (Exh. F10) and the Articles of Incorporation (Exh. G10) and the by-laws (Exh.
H10).

Witness also testified on a debit memo (Exh. I10) dated April 20,2000 in Savings Account
No. 019285702-3 amounting to One Hundred Thousand Two Hundred One Pesos and
Ten Centavos (P100,201.10) and credited (Exh. I10-2) to 014262890-2 the amount of Ten
Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for the opening of the checking account of the Erap Muslim
Youth Foundation and a Credit Advice (Exh. I10-1) to Savings Account No. 019285835-6
amounting to Ninety Thousand Two Hundred One Pesos and Ten Centavos (P90,201.10)
to open the savings account of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation.

Basaliso also testified on "no book cash deposits" made to the savings account of the
Erap Muslim Youth Foundation. No book meant that the deposit was made by the
depositor without bringing his savings passbook. DRTM (Detailed Report of Transfer Debit
and Credit memos) (Exhs. J10 to R10) were presented to show the transactions. The
following deposits were made: Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) total deposit on April
27, 2000, Six Million Seven Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P6,725,000.00) and
Eight Million Two Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P8,275,000.00) on April 28,
2000, Five Million One Hundred Eight Thousand Pesos (P5,108,000.00) and Nine Million
Eight Hundred Ninety Two Thousand Pesos (P9,892,000.00) totaling Fifteen Million Pesos
(P15,000,000.00) on May 2, 2000, Three Million Ninety One Thousand Four Hundred Fifty
Pesos (P3,091,450.00) and Six Million Nine Hundred Eight Thousand Five Hundred Fifty
Pesos (P6,908,550.00) totaling Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) on May 3, 2000, Six
Million One Hundred Eighteen Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Five Pesos
(P6,118,225.00) and Eight Million Eight Hundred Eighty One Thousand Seven Hundred
Seventy Five Pesos (P8,881,775.00) totaling Fifteen Million Pesos (P15,000,000.00) on
May 4, 2000, Five Million Nine Hundred Thirty Six Thousand Pesos (P5,936,000.00) and
Nine Million Sixty Four Thousand Pesos (P9,064,000.00) totaling Fifteen Million Pesos
(P15,000,000.00) on May 8, 2000, Seven Million Pesos (P7,000,000.00) and Eight Million
Pesos (P8,000,000.00) totaling Fifteen Million Pesos on May 9, 2000, Seven Million Two
Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P7,250,000.00), Seven Million Three Hundred Ninety
Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Pesos (P7,399,800.00), Nine Million Three Hundred
Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P9,375,000.00), Nine Million Four Hundred Forty Nine
Thousand Four Hundred Pesos (P9,449,400.00), Nine Million Six Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P9,600,000.00) and Eleven Million Nine Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Eight
Hundred Pesos (P11,925,800.00) totaling to Fifty Five Million (P55,000,000.00) on May
10, 2000, Six Hundred Thirty Four Thousand Pesos (P634,000.00), Two Million Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00), Three Million Eight Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P3,800,000.00), Five Million Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P5,200,000.00), Nine Million
One Hundred Thirty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Pesos (P9,139,280.00), Nine
Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P9,500,000.00), Nine Million Eight Hundred Thirty
Six Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P9,836,500.00) and Nine Million Eight Hundred
Eighty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Pesos (P9,889,720.00) totaling about Fifty
Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00) on May 11, 2000. There was also a credit memo made on
November 14, 2000 amounting to Ninety Seven Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Two
Pesos and Fifty Centavos (P97,392.50) (Exh. S10). Bank statements pertaining to the
periods April 1-28, 2000 up to December 2000, except statements for July, August and
October were presented.

At the time of Basalisos testimony, the current account of the Erap Muslim Youth
Foundation with a balance of Eight Thousand Six Hundred Pesos (P8,600.00) (Exh. T 10)
was dormant. The Savings Account No. 0192-85835-6 was inactive with a balance of Two
Hundred Seven Million One Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Three Pesos and Fifty Three
Centavos (P207,001,883.53) (Exh. U10).

Witness also testified that any two persons out of the five signatories of the Foundation
were authorized to transact regarding the accounts. Based on record, the amount of Two
Hundred Million Pesos (P200,000,000.00) was deposited into the account without a single
centavo being lost. The passbook [See Exh. U10,36(Serapio)] had a balance of Two
Hundred Seven Million One Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Three Pesos and Fifty Three
Centavos (P207,001,888.53) because it already earned interest. There were no
withdrawals from the Savings and Current Account from the time they were opened. [TSN
dated October 2, 2002 and October 7, 2002]

ATTY. CECILIO ALEJANDRO VILLANUEVA (Villanueva) is the assistant Corporate

Secretary of PAGCOR. Witness brought with him the Minutes No. 36 of PAGCORs
Regular Board Meeting dated September 5, 2000, under Agenda Item No. 002646 of the
Best World Gaming and Entertainment Corporation Cancellation of Quick Pick bingo and
conduct of PAGCORs Two Balls Bingo Games (Exh. S15). Witness brought with him pp.
28-30 with referred to Item Agenda No. 002646. Villanuevas testimony was offered
corroborate the testimony of Gov. Singson that the consultancy firm of Atong Ang will
receive 6% of the gross income from Bingo Two Balls.

On cross examination, witness testified that he has no personal knowledge whether the
Bingo 2 Balls was actually implemented. [TSN dated December 2, 2002 and TSN dated
December 4, 2002]

MARIANITO MANIGBAS DIMAANDAL (Dimaandal) was the Assistant Director of the

Malacaang Records Department since 1993. Dimaandal identified the appointment
papers of Atty. Serapio as Presidential Assistant for Political affairs, Office of the
Presidential Adviser for Political Affairs (Exh. V10) and Mr. Orestes Ricaforte as
Undersecretary, Department of Tourism (Exh. W10) and the assumption into office by Ms.
Yolanda Ricaforte to the PCGG representing the San Miguel Campo Creo Group (Exh.
X10).

Witness also brought a Certification (Exh. Y10) issued by the Office of the President that
the phone numbers 736-8856 and 736-8858 were in fact the telephones assigned to and
connected to the presidential residence during the incumbency of FPres. Estrada.

On December 16, 2002, Dimaandal was recalled to the witness stand. He further
presented and identified the Appointment of Edward S. Serapio as Member Ad Interim of
the Judicial and Bar Council representing the Private Sector dated July 1, 2000 (Exh. I 17)
issued by FPres. Estrada; a Memorandum to All Heads of Office and Units signed by
Former Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora (Exh. J17); and a Memorandum to All Heads
of Office and Units from the Office of the President dated April 29, 1999 (Exh. K 17 with
submarkings) with the subject title "Special Instructions to the Presidential Assistant for
Political Affairs" and with the contents read as follows: "Be informed that I have given
special instructions to Atty. Edward S. Serapio, Presidential Assistant I for Political Affairs,
to undertake, in addition to his regular duties and responsibilities, the following functions:
1) provide prompt objective and independent advice on any legal question, matter, or
issue which may be of special concern to the President; 2) update the President on recent
developments in law or jurisprudence on such subjects, areas, or issues which the
President may so specify; 3) study and review documents, deeds, contracts, memoranda
or other papers which the President may opt to refer to him for study and review; 4)
coordinate with various units of the Office of the President, Departments, and other
agencies and instrumentalities of the government on any legal matter which the President
may refer to him; and 5) perform other duties and responsibilities as may be directed by
the President. Atty. Serapio will be directly reporting to the President on any of the
foregoing matters. For your information and guidance."

On March 31, 2003, witness Dimaandal was again recalled to the witness stand. He
presented and identified copies of Proclamation No. 145 dated July 17, 1999 (Exh. X 19),
Proclamation No. 194 dated October 11, 1999 (Exh. Y19), Proclamation No. 202 dated
October 21, 1999 (Exh. Z19), Proclamation No. 205 dated October 25, 1999 (Exh. A20),
Proclamation No. 225 dated January 30, 2000 (Exh. B20), Proclamation No. 234 dated
January 28, 2000 (Exh. C20), Proclamation No. 273 dated April 23, 2000 (Exh. D20),
Proclamation No. 355 (Exh. E20), Administrative Order Nos. 28, 29, 32, 50, 59, 69, 73, 87,
89 (Exhs. F20 N20), Memorandum Order Nos. 82, 88, 89 (Exhs. O20-Q20) and
memorandum Circular No. 45 (R20) . These documents were signed by FPres. Estrada
and his signatures were marked accordingly. [TSN dated October 7, 2002; December 16,
2002; and March 31, 2003]

SALVADOR ROSAL SERRANO (Serrano) was the Vice-President of Security Bank

Corporation and the head of its Centralized Operation and Control Division. [TSN dated
November 25, 2002] He was responsible for the day to day operations of one hundred
nineteen (119) branches of the Security Bank Corporation; supervised the record keeping
and accounting of the branch transactions; ensured the compliance of their branches to
bank policies and procedures; supervised the safekeeping of all documents of all branch
transactions; and issued certified true copies of documents in relation to the original
documents kept by the bank.

Serrano was called by the prosecution to corroborate the testimony of prosecution witness
Gov. Singson that he issued a check payable to cash from funds of jueteng protection
money to accused FPres. Estrada and that the said accused, in turn, delivered the check
to Mr. Paul Bograd who subsequently deposited the check to his account at the Security
Bank Corporation; and to identify and authenticate the documents he was subpoenaed to
bring.

Serrano identified a microfilm copy of Metro Bank Check No. 0000917 for the amount of
Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) that was deposited through Security Bank Corporation
on February 2, 1999. The maker of this check was Gov. Singson and which check was
deposited to Account No. 061-0-14636-7 whose account holder was Paul Gary Bograd as
evidenced by a deposit slip of Security Bank Corporation (Exhs. N 14; N14-1; N14-2; N14-3;
O14; O14-1; O14-2; and O14-3).

Also presented was a statement of account showing that an amount of Five Million Pesos
(P5,000,000) was credited on February 2, 1999 to the account of Paul Gary Bograd
(Exhs. P14 and P14-1). Serrano also identified the specimen signature card of Paul Gary
Bograd showing that the latter was a depositor in their bank and that he [Bograd] held the
Account No. 061-0-14636-7 of Security Bank Corporation (Exhs, Q 14; Q14-1; and Q14-2).

PATRICK DEE CHENG (Cheng), an employee of CITIBANK for 12 years, became the
Branch Banking Head of CITIBANK on November 2001. [TSN dated October 7, 2002 and
TSN dated October 9, 2002] As banking head, he had overall supervision and
responsibility for all the branch banking operations of CITIBANK in all of its six (6)
branches.

Cheng presented and identified the following:

(1) deposit slip (Exh. Z10, with sub markings) dated October 4, 1999 for the
account of Luisa P. Ejercito ("Mrs. Ejercito") under Account No. 166820 covering
the deposit of Metrobank Check No. 00138 (See Exh. M8 as original and Exh.
A11 as micro film copy) dated September 29, 1999 by Gov. Singson in the amount
of Eight Million Pesos (P8,000,000) and another check in the amount of Four
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000);

(2) Account Opening Form (Exh. B11) for Account No. 166820 of Mrs. Ejercito;

(3) Hold-all-Mail Agreement (Exh. C11, with sub markings) dated March 9, 2000 of
Mrs. Ejercito which designated Ms. Lucena Baby Ortaliza to be her authorized
 representative;

(4) deposit slip (Exh. D11, with sub markings) of William T. Gatchalian dated August
20, 1999 with Account No. 8131201377 for Forty Six Million Three Hundred Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P46,350.000.00) which covered the deposit of Metrobank
Check No. 000132 dated August 21, 1999 of Gov. Singson in the amount of
P46,350,000.00;

(5) certified copy of the microfilm of the Metrobank Ayala Center Branch Check
NO. 000132 (See Exh. E11, with sub markings) dated August 21, 1999 drawn by
Gov. Singson, payable to William Gatchalian in the amount of P46,350,000;

(6) Relationship Opening Form Personal (Exh. F11, with sub markings) of Mr.
William T. Gatchalian; and

(7) Signature Card (Exh. G11, with sub markings) of Mr. William T. Gatchalian for a
Peso Checking Account with Account No. 8131201377 opened on March 13,
1996.

MELCHOR SUAREZ LATINA (Latina) is head of Remedial Management, Globe

Telecommunication in charge of terminated accounts. [TSN dated October 9, 2002]

He brought with him a certification (Exh. H11) October 4, 2002 issued by Atty. Melchor S.
Latina, and subscribed before Atty. Gilbert Escolo that Globe Cellular Phone No. 0917-
5260217 was registered in the name of Jinggoy Estrada. The certification was supported
with the Service Agreement for Cellular Mobile Phone Service (See Exh. H 11-1, with sub
markings) executed by the applicant Jinggoy Estrada and the supporting documents
required in connection with the subscription of cell phone; specifically, a photocopy of
Jinggoy Estradas drivers license (Exh. H11-2) and statement of his Philippine National
Bank Visa (Exh. H11-3) as proof of billing. The cellular phone issued to Jinggoy Estrada
has already been cut-off since December 15, 2000 based on Globe Telecom records (Exh.
H11-4).

ATTY. OSWALDO CHONG SANTOS (Atty. Santos) was a partner of the De Borja Santos
Law Firm during the time of the impeachment proceedings against the accused Former
President Joseph Ejercito Estrada. [TSN dated January 6, 2003 and TSN dated January
8, 2003]

In a letter dated December 22, 2000, the De Borja Santos Law Firm was requested by the
Prosecution Panel of the House of Representatives to conduct an investigation regarding
the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, Inc. (Exhibit A-12-a)

Atty. Santos testified that the commissioned law firm of which he was a member started
conducting research and investigation on the alleged foundation on December 28, 2000.
They gathered available documents pertaining to the Muslim Youth Foundation, Inc. from
the Records Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). On January 5,
2001, witness Santos then went to the corporate address of the subject foundation
indicated in the SEC documents (Exh. V17) that the investigating team gathered which was
at 15th Floor, Strata 100 Building, Emerald Avenue, City of Pasig. He found out from his
inquiries that the said office address was occupied by the law firm of De Borja Medialdea
Bello Guevarra and Jerodias. Atty. Santos clarified that his partner named De Borja was
not the same person indicated in the aforementioned law firm and that the witness had no
idea if they were related. Thereafter, the witness contacted the phone number of the
subject foundation indicated in the SEC documents that the investigating team had but got
the response that the phone number belonged to the aforesaid law firm and not to the
subject foundation.

The witness then presented and identified a copy of the Report (Exh. A 12) of the
investigating team on the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, Inc. He said that the original
copy was submitted to the Prosecution Panel of the House of Representatives and he
attested as to the truth of the contents of the report. Atty. Santos mentioned that the said
report stated that the law firm occupying the supposed corporate office of the Erap Muslim
Youth Foundation, Inc. "used to be the law firm of the Acting Corporate Secretary Atty.
Edward S. Serapio".

Atty. Santos also identified the SEC documents that the investigating team had gathered
which were previously produced and identified by prosecution witness Atty. David
Jonathan Villegas Yap. These SEC documents were as follows: a Certificate of Corporate
Filing / Information dated December 28, 2000 pertaining to the Erap Muslim Youth
Foundation, Inc.; a Certificate of Incorporation of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, Inc.
dated February 17, 2000 with SEC Reg. No. A20002526; a Covering Sheet of the Erap
Muslim Youth Foundation, Inc.; the Articles of Incorporation of the Erap Muslim Youth
Foundation, Inc.; a Certificate of Filing of the Amended By-Laws of the Erap Muslim Youth
Foundation, Inc. dated April 3, 2000; another Covering Sheet of the Erap Muslim Youth
Foundation, Inc.; and the Amended By-Laws of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, Inc.
(Exhs. T17, U17 V17, W17 with submarkings, X17, Y17 and Z17 with submarkings)

The witness testified on cross examination that the Erap Muslim Foundation, Inc. was duly
organized and obtained a juridical personality in accordance to law. The Amended By-
Laws of the subject corporation, which was approved by the SEC, allegedly provided that
the members of the Board of Trustees were not entitled to receive allowances or honoraria
in the performance of their duties. Atty. Santos was not, however, familiar to the Minutes of
the Organizational Meeting of the Board of Trustees held on March 22, 2000 (Exh. 4-
Serapio); the Community Tax Certificate (Exh. 5-Serapio) of the foundation; and the
Mayors Permit (Exh. 6-Serapio) as well as the Business Permit (Exh. 9-Serapio) of the
foundation. He qualified that he verified from the Office of the Bureau of Permit of Pasig
City that the foundation had registered its Business License though he did not see the
Mayors Permit of the foundation and mentioned the same in the report. Atty. Santos
likewise admitted that he did not come across documents relating to the operations of the
foundation but testified consistently on matters pertained the report. (Exhs. 7-Serapio, 8-
Serapio, 10-Serapio to 15-Serapio, and 21-Serapio to 27-Serapio, inclusive of
submarkings)

CAROLINA SANTIAGO GUERRERO (Guerrero) is the Branch Manager of PS Bank

Murphy Branch, Quezon City. She brought with her a deposit slip (Exh. A 13) processed on
December 23, 1999. The deposit involved a Metrobank Ayala Center Check No. 001547
(Exh. N8) issued by Luis Chavit Singson in the amount of One Million Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P1,200,000). The check was deposited to the account of Laarni
Enriquez with Account No. 0180409000-3. The account statement for the month of
December 1999 (Exh. C13, with sub markings) of Laarni Enriquez showed that the amount
of One Million Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,200,000) was credited to her account
on December 24, 1999.

The signature card (Exh. B13) showed that the account was opened on July 18, 1996. The
card contained Enriquezs address as 95 8th Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City and her
description as Filipino, 55", 34 years old, brown, medium built and tiny mole on the right
cheek.

Guerrero further testified that the biggest single check deposit of Ms. Enriquez in the
particular savings account was made on August 4, 1998 for P40 Million. This was shown
through a bank statement of account (Exh. D13) brought by the witness. The subject
account was already closed as shown by the December 27, 2000 bank statement. The
address given in the statement had changed to 771 Harvard Street, Wac-wac Subdivision,
Mandaluyong. (TSN dated October 30, 2002, pp. 6-28)

DR. ROGELIO V. QUEVEDO (Dr. Quevedo) was, at the time of his testimony, the Head of
the Legal and Carrier Business of Smart Communications, Incorporated. The prosecution
offered his testimony to corroborate the Itchons testimony regarding the Smart cellular
phone numbers used by Atty. Serapio and Ricaforte.

Dr. Quevedo identified a Certification signed by him that Smart Cellular Phone Nos. 0918-
9012071 and 0918-9021847 were registered in the names of Atty. Edward Serapio and
Fontain Bleu, Inc., respectively. (Exh. G12) [TSN dated October 28, 2002, p. 74]

With respect to Smart Cellular Phone No. 0918-9012071, witness identified the application
form accomplished by an Edward S. Serapio of the De Borja Medialdea Bello Guevarra
Serapio Law Office (Exh. H12), Certification regarding mobile phone number, phone model,
INEI and ICCID (Exh. I12), Official Receipt No. 82116771 (Exh. J12), Sales Invoice No.
A0161625 (Exh. K12), Account Summary dated March 6, 1999 (Exh. L12), photocopy of
Statement for Atty. Serapios Philippine National Bank Visa Card (Exh. M12), photocopy of
Atty. Serapios Citibank card (Exh. N12), Customer Inquiry Menu (Exh. O12), Customer
Address Inquiry (Exh. P12), On Line Aging Information (Exh. Q12), Service Disconnection
document showing termination of the account upon request of the customer on December
20, 2000 (Exh. R12) and Certification Account Memo Inquiry (Exh. S12). [Ibid., pp. 75-90]

With respect to Smart Cellular Phone No. 0918-9021847, Dr. Quevedo presented and
identified the application form of Fontain Bleau, Inc. for two (2) cellular phones for Yolanda
Ricaforte and Maria Carmencita Itchon showing that the number 0918-9021847 was
issued to Itchon while the number 0918-9021849 was issued to Ricaforte (Exh. T 12),
Customer Inquiry Menu (Exh. U12), Customer Address Inquiry (Exh. V12), Account
Maintenance Inquiry (Exh. W12), On Line Aging Information (Exh. X12) and audio recording
for the voice mail of 0918-9021847 by a certain "Yolly" (portion of TSN marked as Exh.
Y12). [Ibid., pp. 91-115] Dr. Quevedo further testified that the account for 0918-9021847
had already been disconnected.

II. EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

The following are the witnesses for the defense under paragraph (a):

FORMER PRESIDENT JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA (FPres. Estrada) took the

witness stand on March 22, 2006, March 29, 2006, April 5, 2006, April 19, 2006, April 26,
2006, May 24, 2006, May 31, 2006, June 7, 2006, June 14, 2006, June 21, 2006 and
June 28, 2006. At the outset, FPres. Estrada denied that Gov. Singson was his close
friend because he had only one close friend, the late actor Fernando Poe, Jr. Gov.
Singson was just an ordinary friend and a political ally to him. He seldom saw Gov.
Singson when he was a Mayor of San Juan. Although he admitted that they sometimes
went out, as they had common friends.

FPres. Estrada stated that all allegations in specification (a) of the Amended Information
were lies, as he did not receive a single centavo from any form of illegal gamling, even
when he was still a mayor and he never conspired with jueteng lords. As mayor of San
Juan, his policy ws to make San Juan jueteng free so he directed the Chief of Police of
San Juan to go all out against all forms of gambling. He even personally raided all gamling
dens and had all indulging in jueteng and other forms of gamling arrested and jailed.
However, their wives and children came to him and explained that their husbands could
not find other jobs. He promised to put up a livelihood program for them. (TSN, April 5,
2006, morning session, pp.20-26)

FPres. Estrada also cited national artist Nick Joaquins book "Joseph Estrada and other
Sketches" (Exh. 457), particularly the article in the said book "Erap In a New Role" (Exh.
457-a), which narrated an incident when he padlocked a gambling den when he was still
mayor. (Exhs.457-a-1; and 457-a-2) [TSN, April 5, 2006, pp.35-36]

FPres. Estrada asserted that his policy against gambling had not changed, even when he
was a senator, Vice President and President. However, he realized when he was a mayor
that jueteng which was a gambling for the poor was illegal and its collectors were
harassed while the casino for the rich was legal. He delivered his first privilege speech at
the senate on November 25, 1987 (Exh. 458) where he advocated the legalization of
jueteng in order that the government through PAGCOR could earn Twelve Million Pesos
(P 12, 000,000.00) everyday or Three Hundred Sixty Million Pesos (P 360, 000,000.00) a
month which could be used to provide essential services for the poor instead of the
enrichment of the police and illegal operators. Although when he was Vice-President and
appointed by President Fidel V. Ramos as Chairman of the Presidential Anti-Crime
Commission, jueteng was not part of his mandate but he was to go against kidnapping,
carnapping and illegal drugs. As President, he appointed Justice Cecilia Munoz-Palma as
Chairperson of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and asked her to study
how to legalize jueteng. She retired only after less than two (2) months to take care of her
sick husband. Later it was assigned to her successor Rosario Lopez, who begged off as
she was new on the job. Chairperson Alice Reyes of PAGCOR took over and finished the
study.

Chairperson Reyes reported to former FPres. Estrada that the answer to jueteng was
Bingo-2-Balls and that if jueteng was to be legalized the government could earn no less
than Five Billon Pesos (P5,000,000,000.00). The study of jueteng showed that from
Regions I to V only the collectors, cabos and runners numbering one hundred fifty
thousand (150,000) benefit from jueteng whereas if jueteng is legalized, the jueteng
cobradors will became members of the SSS or GSIS, they would have decent jobs,
ceased to be harassed and victims of extortion. First Lady Loi Ejercito woud have funds to
provide dialysis machines for the poor. The legalization of jueteng will minimize if not
totally eradicate corruption among police officials and local government officials (Ibid,
pp.43-48) According to Alice Reyes, the Presidential social funds could be augmented if
jueteng was to be legalized. However, FPres. Estrada told Reyes that instead the Mayors
and governors social fund should be created because these local officials are besieged
with requests for medicines, funerals, bills, bills for tuition fees etc. [Ibid, pp.47-50]

FPres. Estrada instructed Chairperson Reyes to implement right away the Bingo-2-Balls.
There was a dry-run in Bulacan and it was very successful. It earned Twenty Four Million
Pesos (P24, 000,000.00) in less than three (3) weeks in a few towns in Bulacan.
Unfortunately, the jueteng lords who were against it caused trouble and it was stopped.
There were allegations that FPres. Estrada was receiving jueteng money. [Ibid, pp.53-54]

FPres. Estrada denied that in August 1998 he had a meeting with Atong Ang at the kitchen
of his residence at Polk Street, Greenhills, which was allegedly witnessed by Gov.
Singson who arrived later, followed by Bong Pineda. From the start, FPres. Estrada had
told Ang to distance himself from the former President, Ang never stepped into his house
nor in Malacaang except during the wedding of his daughter where he did not even see
Ang. Bong Pineda too had never stepped into his house. Gov. Singson only fabricated the
alleged meeting. His testimony in the impeachment that he saw Bong Pineda when he
arrived at Estradas house and the testimony in this trial that Pineda arrived later were
conflicting. [Ibid, pp.55-62] FPres. Estrada also belied the testimony of Singson that he
told Bong Pineda that he should not be the one to bring the jueteng money because it
would be very obvious. FPres. Estrada denied that he entered into any transaction
regarding any illegal form of gambling specially jueteng. [Ibid, pp.57-70] He admitted that
Bong Pineda was his "kumpadre". The father of the wife of his son Jinggoy, Precy, was a
friend of Bong Pineda. They were from Pampanga. The family of Precy, not the Estradas,
got Mrs. Pineda, the wife of Bong, as principal sponsor at the wedding of Jinggoy and
Precy. He wondered why Bong Pineda was not presented by the prosecution as witness
when Singson kept on referring to him. [Ibid, pp.70-74]

On the delivery to him of jueteng money, FPres. Estrada denied Singson delivered jueteng
protection money to him at his house at Polk Street, the Presidential Residence in
Malacaang and at P. Guevara Street. He also denied that Emma Lim delivered jueteng
money to his Secretary Malou Florendo at Malcaang and that contrary to the testimony
of Emma Lim, it was hard for anybody, including his dentist, to enter the Presidential
Residence in Malacaang without passing through the strict security check. He never
heard of Emma Lim except during the impeachment trial. He never asked Singson to pay
his obligations, as he did not have any debt, nor did he ask Singson to buy any appliance
for him. He refused gifts like appliances which he would just raffle off during Christmas. He
had never seen Carmencita Itchon, who he learned was a relative of Singson. Emma Lim
and Carmencita Itchon were rewarded for testifying against him at the trial with their
appointment as member of the Board of Directors of Camp John Hay [Poro Point
Development Corporation, now Poro Point Management Corporation] (Exh. 459-A-2, 459-
A-3) He emphatetically stated that he did not receive a single centavo of jueteng money.
[TSN, April 5, 2006, afternoon session, pp.3-19]

FPres. Estrada denied any knowledge of the ledgers of jueteng money testified to by
Singson. He stated he had not seen said ledgers, he had nothing to do with them and he
could not understand them. He first saw the ledgers on television during the impeachment
trial. Acording to him, Singson only fabricated the ledgers; like the documents pertaining to
the excise tax. [Ibid., pp.24-35, 46, 49, 52-55]

FPres. Estrada also called a lie the testimony of Singson that he instructed Singson to pay
Mr. Paul Bograd Five Million Pesos (P 5, 000,000.00) from the jueteng money. He did not
ask Singson to keep money from him, so he could not order Singson to pay Paul Bograd
and he did not owe the latter anything. [TSN, April 19, 2006, p.14] He explained that the
check for P1,200,000.00 (Exh. N8) which Singson allegedly gave as birthday gift for Laarni
Enriquez was actually intended for his son Jacob and his two siblings, specifically,
P1,000,000.00 for Jacob, the godson of Singson and P100, 000.00 each for Jacobs two
(2) siblings, as Christmas gift. The check was dated December 22, 1999 whereas the
birthday of Laarni was September 22, 1999, Former President Estrada was surprised at
the big amount and he thought that Singson was trying to ingratiate himself to him. [TSN,
April 19, 2006, pp.15-16]

FPres. Estrada also belied the claim of Singson that he advanced the Eight Million Pesos
(P8,000,000.00) interest from the Sixty-Two Million Pesos (P62, 000,000.00) of jueteng
money lent to Wlliam Gatchalian. He denied too that he ordered Singson to lend the said
amount of money to Gatchalian because he did not ask Singson to keep any money for
him. [Ibid., pp.23-25]

Regarding Yolanda Ricaforte, former President Estrada admitted he knows Yolanda, who
is the wife of the Former Tourism Attache in Tokyo, Orestes Ricaforte. Orestes met him
when he arrived at the airport for a speaking engagement for Overseas Filipino Workers in
Tokyo. He met Orestes again after four (4) or five (5) years when he, then already the
Vice-President, had a speaking engagement with the Filipino community in Los Angeles.
There Orestes introduced his wife Yolanda to FPres. Estrada. He met Yolanda again
during the oath-taking of Orestes as Undersecretary of Tourism. He appointed him
Undersecretary as he promised if he would become President when they were in Los
Angeles. He also appointed Yolanda as director of Campo Carne as requested by Orestes
because their income was not enough as they had two (2) children studying in Los
Angeles. [Ibid., pp.27-30]

FPres. Estrada however denied that Yolanda at any time was his employee. He seldom
saw Yolanda after the oath-taking of her husband. He did not approve her auditor for
jueteng as claimed by Singson. He had nothing to do with the money deposited by
Yolanda, as he did not have in his possession any bank documents. [Ibid., pp.30-33]

Regarding the testimony of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, Former President Estrada
testified that even before he became mayor and when he was a mayor, he was giving
scholarships to poor deserving students, since he believed that education would give
them the opportunity to rise above poverty. His number one program as mayor was to put
up the first municipal high school, which as cited by national artist Nick Joaquin in his
book (Exhs. 457 and 457-A-3), was the project closest to his heart as it will offer free
education to the needy young. He said that 60% of elementary graduates could not afford
to go to high school and thereby they could become a potential trouble group. This is the
root cause of criminality and he would rather spend money on free high school than spend
it to enlarge the municipal jail. [Ibid., pp.33-35]

Former President Estrada also established the Movie Workers welfare Foundation
(MOWELFUND) when he was still an actor (Exh. 460). The MOWELFUND sent to the
United States to study film making seven (7) scholars who were shown in The Evening
Post, June 1, 1981 edition (Exh. 461). He also put up the ERAP Foundation in 1988 to
give scholarship to poor but deserving students. ERAP is the acronym of Education
Research and Assistance Program. It was registered with the SEC as shown by its Articles
of Incorporation (Exh. 462) The incorporators of the Foundation were: former Senate
President Joverto Salonga; former President Estradas brother-in-law, Raul P. de Guzman,
former Vice-President of the University of the Philippines and member of its Board of
Regents; Mr. Anthony Dee, former owner of China Banking; Mr. Dee K Chong, member of
the Board of Directors of China Banking; Mr. Manuel Zamora, a businessman and bar
topnotcher; Mr. Antonio Abacan, now President of Metrobank; Mr. Ronald Allan Poe, also
known by his screen name Fernando Poe, Jr.; Mr. Iigo Zobel of Makati; Mr. Carlos
Tuason, a former Chairman of the Philippine Sports Commission and a cousin of Mr. Jose
Mike Arroyo; Mr. Danny Dolor, a businessman; Mr. Hermogenes Tantoco, a big fishpond
owner in Malolos, Bulacan; and Mdme. Maria Clara Lobregat former City Mayor of
Zamboanga (Exh. 462-B). According to the memorandum of Executive Director of the
ERAP Foundation, Jing Ancheta (Exh. 463), for school year 1988-1989 to 2005-2006, a
total of 6,574 availed of the scholarship of the said Foundation, of which 2,512 graduated,
2,251 discontinued and 811 then currently enrolled. There were scholars from Cordillera
Administrative Region. (Exh. 464); National Capital Region (Exh. 464-A); Regions I to XIIb
(Exhs. 464-B, 464-C, 464-D, 464-E, 464-F, 464-G, 464-H, 464-I, 464-J, 464-K, 464-L, and
464-M); ARMM (Exh. 464-N); CARAGA Region (Exh. 464-O). The list of schools attended
by the scholars and the attachment to the memorandum of Mr. Ancheta which was a
Report of the e-Cares Program of Fr. Larry Faraon, dated March 19, 2006 re: Students
and Profile were marked as Exhs. 463-C and 465 (with submarkings) respectively. [TSN,
ibid, pp.43-58]. According to Former President Estrada, the seed money for the
foundations came from his salary as mayor. He said that from the time that he was a
mayor, then Senator, Vice-President and President, he never received a single centavo
from his salary. They all went to the Foundations. [Ibid, p.60]

FPres. Estrada testified that he devoted his salaries as public official to scholarship for the
poor because without them, there would be no Erap. The poor patronized his movies and
supported him in his political career. He solicited donations for his scholarship programs
but donors wanted to remain anonymous. He put up the ERAP Muslim Youth Foundation
because it was his campaign promise for the people of Mindanao. In the Mindanao State
Colleges, in Marawi City, he promised to send one hundred (100) Muslim Youth yearly to
Australia and America. When he was elected President, he spoke on January 25, 1999 of
his project Muslim Youth Foundation in Smokey Mountains (Exh. 466) and in Angelicum
College in Sto. Domingo Church at Quezon City during the launching of the Educational
Reentry, Agenda for the President to the Poor (Exh. 467 and 467-a). To comply with this
promise, he asked his brother-in-law, Dr. Raul de Guzman to put up the Erap Muslim
Youth Foundation, whose articles of Incorporation was duly registered with the SEC (Exh.
252 [also Exhs. G10, W17 to W17-6 of Prosecution]) [TSN, April 26, 2006, pp.11-24]

Aside from Dr. de Guzman, the other incorporators of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation
were Professor Danilo Reyes of the University of the Philippines (UP) who had a Masteral
and Doctorate Degree in Pulic Administration at UP, another UP Professor, Mila Reforma,
Mr. George Go, one of the owners PCI-Equitable Bank, and Atty. Edward Serapio, a
valedictorian of the Ateneo de Manila College of Law and a bar topnotcher. The latter was
introduced to him in 1999 by then Secretary Lito Banayo of the Philippine Tourism
Authority. He appointed Serapio as Presidential Assistant on Political Affairs because he
was impressed by his bio-data. Serapio is not that close to him as he dealt with Serapio
on an official and professional level. He denied that Serapio established a fictitious
("kalokohan") corporation for him. He described Serapio as an ex-seminarian, a scholar, a
very respectable person, very conservative, very professional, a family man and of
unquestionable integrity [Ibid., pp.24-28]. Former President Estrada was automatically the
Chairman Emeritus of the foundations that he established. He was the number one fund-
raiser but he is not a signatory to the checks of the foundation. The seed money of the
foundation came from his salary. He sponsored an Erap Golf Tournament which raised
P27,000,000.00, some part of which went to MOWELFUND and most of it to the Erap
Muslim Youth Foundation. Funds were also raised from Valentines Ball at Manila Hotel
and from solicitations from his businessman friends and classmates. [Ibid., p.29]

Regarding the meeting allegedly attended by him, Singson, Ricaforte and Serapio where
he instructed Singson to give to the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, through Serapio,
jueteng money in the amount of Two Hundred Million Pesos (P200, 000,000.00. former
President Estrada claimed that no such meeting took place. He only learned from Atty.
Serapio that Singson gave P200,000,000.00 to the foundation which he said came from
an anonymous donor. He ordered Atty. Serapio to return the money to Singson because
his immediate reaction was that it was jueteng money. The Former President Estrada
emphatically stated: "Im sure its from jueteng." [Ibid., p.34] He knew because Singson
had been offering this to him a long time ago. According to Serapio he did not know it was
jueteng money and that he received the money in good faith. When the former President
told Serapio to take all possible means to return the money, Serapio replied that he would
consult the Board of Trustees first. Former President Estrada did not know what happened
after that because rallies and the impeachment started. (Ibid, pp.34-36). He learned later
that the money was intact at the Equiatble-PCI Bank and that it earned interest, per bank
certification (Exh. 257-C) and passbook (Exh. 257, 257-A and 257-B). At the time of the
testimony, the money based on the aforesaid documents amounted to P 213, 000,000.00.
(Exh. 257-B) [TSN, ibid, pp.41-45] Dr. Raul d Guzman informed him that the scholarship
was continuing but the foundation could not send scholars to the US but only to the
universities in the Philippines. One of the scholars, Janice Halim Negrosa was in the
courtroom, at the time of this testimony of the former President [Ibid., p.46]. He was happy
with the continuation of the scholarship because it was his vow to help the poor who
supported him in his election as Mayor, Senator, Vice-President and President. [Ibid,
pp.47-48] He established two (2) foundations, the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation and the
Erap Para sa Mahirap Foundation to emphasize the assistance to our Muslim brothers,
the true pure-blooded Filipinos who defended us from foreign invaders. It was impossible
to use the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation for money laundering because he was not a
signatory to the checks of the foundation. Its treasurer was the Chairman of the bank who
would not allow his name to be used in money laundering. If the Foundation would be
dissolved, all its assets would go to the government. [Ibid., pp.50-55; and Exh. 252-C]

In support of his policy to go after illegal gambling, former President Estrada cited the
memorandum and verbal directives that he issued to the PNP to implement this policy. In
a memorandum dated August 3, 1998 (Exh. 132) of Acting PNP Chief Roberto Lastimoso
pertaining to the aforesaid directives, he reported that he conducted 1,600 operations
resulting in the arrest of 807 suspects, confiscation of P320,039.70 in cash and jueteng
paraphernalia, the filing of 253 cases in court with 13 cases still under investigation. The
report gave the statistics of illegal gambling for the semester 1998 and informed the
former President that he [Lastimoso] gave an ultimatum to all PRO Directors to pursue the
anti-illegal gambling campaign without end, until finally stopped and eradicated. Another
report of the PNP Acting chief stated in part:

"Dear President Estrada: This pertains to our compliance with the presidential
directive dated August 14, 1998, regarding the resurgence of illegal gambling
operations in the country. Please be informed that the directive was sent to all
PNP Regional Directors to identify, find, arrest and file charges appropriate in
 Court against individuals who are using the name of President Estrada, or
supposed connection with his office to promote these illegal activities, and to come
up with rigid measures and tangible results and immediately stop all forms of
illegal gambling, particularly jueteng and masiao." (Exh. 134) [TSN, April 26, 2006]

On October 7, 2000, Former President Estrada issued a Memorandum to the Secretary of

Inetrior and Local Government, the Director General of PNP that pending review of
PAGCORs Bingo-Two-Ball which was in the meantime suspended, they were directed to
intensify anti-jueteng operations to prevent unscrupulous individuals from taking
advantage of the situation. (Exh. 468) He also issued another memorandum to the
incoming Director General Panfilo Lacson reiterating his directive against illegal gambling
and requiring periodic and timely reports on all actions relative thereto. (Exh. 469) [TSN,
ibid., pp.56-64]

On the testimony of Gov. Singson that he was used and humiliated by the former
President and ordered killed by the latter, the former President testified that on the
contrary, it was Singson who used his name specifically in jueteng collections and Singson
made it appear that he could influence him, that Singson was close to him, and that
Singson joined his state visits even if he was not invited. Singson was accosted by the
Traffic Management Group (TMG) because he was illegally using sirens and blinkers, as
testified to by TMGs General Paredes. [Ibid, pp.65-66]

According to Former President Estrada, Singson leveled the serious accusations against
him because of his mounting problems. Singson had only two (2) sources of income, the
tobacco excise tax under R.A. No. 7171 and jueteng. Singson could not liquidate his cash
advance from the tobacco excise tax share of Ilocos Sur. He told Singson that he could
not help him because COA was an independent constitutional body. Singson was also
against Bingo-2-Ball which was already conceptualized because he would lose his source
of income. [TSN, April 26, 2006, pp.64-69] Former President Estrada was informed that
Singson talked to then Secretary Alfredo Lim seeking his intercession to seek a meeting
with Former President Estrada so that jueteng would not be legalized or that if legalized
(through Bingo-2-Ball) the franchise be given to him, otherwise it would mean his
[Singsons] political death. Former President Estrada refused to talk with Singson and told
Secretary Lim to talk to Chairperson Alice Reyes. Singson approached also other persons
aside from Secretary Lim and Senator Edgardo Angara. Senator Angara told FPRes.
Estrada that Singson went to see him on a Sunday asking help about jueteng and Bingo-
2-Ball. He told Senator Angara to tell Singson not to talk to him but to Chairperson Alice
Reyes. Angara mentioned that Singson threatened to expose him but he said he had
nothing to hide and if Singson wanted so, to let him do it. Former President Estrada then
immediately had the accusations investigated as he had confirmed that for a long time,
Singson had already been using his name, specifically in jueteng collection. He was hurt
by the accusations of Singson as he was turned from being a President, with the biggest
mandate in a clean election, into a prisoner because of a big lie started by one person,
Governor Singson. Moreover his son Jinggoy and Atty. Serapio were also detained for two
(2) years when they knew nothing about jueteng [TSN, April 26, 2006, pp.69-77.]

JOSE "JINGGOY" ESTRADA was elected Vice Mayor of San Juan in 1988 and Mayor of
San Juan in 1992. [ TSN, November 17, 2004, pp. 15-16.]

Mayor Jinggoy stated that he first got to know Gov. Singson, whom he considered as an
acquaintance, during the presidential campaign of his father, FPres. Estrada, in the 1998
elections. At that time, Gov. Singson supported FPres. Estrada and hosted a lunch for
FPres. Estradas entourage when they campaigned in Ilocos Sur. After the presidential
campaign, he said he met Gov. Singson only occasionally. [Ibid., pp. 16-17]

Mayor Jinggoy denied the testimony of Gov. Singson that he was the collector for jueteng
protection money in the province of Bulacan starting January 1999 to August 2000.
Witness also stated that he has never been called "Jingle Bell" nor had he received or
heard communication where he was called "Jingle Bell". Witness also denied the
statement of Gov. Singson that a certain Jessie Viceo was the collector of jueteng
protection money in the province of Bulacan from January 1999 to August 2000, because
witness had never been a collector or protector of jueteng. However, Mayor Jinggoy
admitted that he came to know Jessie Viceo when the latter was running for congressman
since Viceo was also aligned with their political party during the time witness was
assigned to campaign for his father in the province of Bulacan. After that, witness stated
that he met Viceo three times in social functions. Again, witness considered Viceo as an
acquaintance. [Ibid., 18-22]

Mayor Jinggoy also denounced for being untrue the allegation that as collector of jueteng
protection money in Bulacan, he collected Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00) monthly of
which One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) was retained by him and the other Two Million
Pesos (P2,000,000.00) was sent to Gov. Singsons office or was picked up by Gov.
Singsons aides from witness office in the municipal hall of San Juan or from witness
residence. [Ibid., p. 22]

He further added that he had never used a personalized check with his picture printed on
the check as testified to by Emma Lim who allegedly deposited such check drawn against
the United Overseas Bank of the Philippines, San Juan Branch to Gov. Singsons account
with Metro Bank Ayala Branch. Mayor Jinggoy presented a certification to prove that he
does not maintain a current account with the said bank. [Ibid., pp. 25-26]

Witness also denied the testimony of prosecution witnesses Vicente Amistad and Jamis
Singson who both claimed to have collected/received jueteng protection money from the
witness. With respect to the statements of Jamis Singson, Mayor Jinggoy asserted they
were untrue since he did not have a security aide named Nestor. Further, the testimony of
Jamie Singson that on other occasion, the latter got protection money from witness
residence at Polk St., Greenhills is also not true because he does not live in Polk St. but in
97 Kennedy St., North Greenhills. [Ibid., pp. 26-28]

As regards the rest of the testimony of Gov. Singson, Mayor Jinggoy also stated that
following were totally untrue: that in his conversation with Gov. Singson, witness confirmed
that he received a part (or Fifteen Million Pesos) of the One Hundred Thirty Million Pesos
that came from the tobacco excise funds because witness was never involved nor did he
know anything about it; that before the press conference held on October 9, 2000 at the
Club Filipino, witness tried to dissuade Singson from making the expose because at that
time witness was in Australia watching the Sydney Olympics. [Ibid., pp. 29-32] Witness,
however, admitted that three weeks before he left for Australia, Singson called him up
before meeting him at the Kamayan, EDSA where witness was having dinner with his
basketball team to ask if witness can convince his father or Atong Ang to give Singson the
franchise of Bingo 2 Ball and not to his (Singson) political enemies, to which Mayor Jingoy
replied that he will try to talk to Atong Ang. Witness also denied the allegation that he
called up Gov. Singson at midnight of October 8, 2000, on the eve of the press conference
where according to Gov. Singson, witness told Gov. Singson that "baka naman isama mo
pa ako dito, Governor", because witness was then shooting a movie with Judy Ann
Santos. [Ibid., pp. 34-39, 102]

Bong Pineda was an acquaintance of Jinggoy Estrada. He denied having known Orestes
Rusty Ricaforte and Yolly Ricaforte, while he admitted having known Bonito Singson
whom he met once or twice. [Ibid., 65-68]

Jinggoy Estrada testified that the Municipality of San Juan maintained a current account
with the Philippine National bank and Land Bank and not with the United Overseas Bank.
He, himself maintained a personal account with United Coconut Planters Bank. [Ibid., pp.
86-88]

Mayor Jinngoy knew Atong Ang personally, whose real name was Charlie and he first
come to know him even before the 1998 presidential elections. He testified that he did not
know Alma Alfaro, Eleuterio Tan, Victor Tan Uy, or a Jojo Uy, and a yatch by the name of
Escalera. [Ibid., 99-104]

ALICIA PEREZ LLAMADO REYES (Reyes) was the Chairperson and Chief Executive
Officer of PAGCOR since January 2, 1987. She was appointed by Former President
Corazon C. Aquino, reappointed by Former President Fidel V. Ramos, and again
reappointed by Former President Joseph E. Estrada. [TSN, March 7, 2005]

The witness testified that Atong Ang proposed to her the operation of Bingo Two Balls
sometime in the year of 2000. She welcomed the idea since Atong Ang successfully
handled the Jai-Alai operations of PAGCOR. Witness Reyes then suggested for a written
proposal from Atong Ang. In a Letter dated September 1, 2000 addressed to the Director
of PAGCOR Jose Rodriguez III (Exh. 286), Atong Ang proposed the feasibility of the Bingo
Two Balls. The proposal was duly approved for negotiation by the Board of Directors of
PAGCOR in a Memorandum dated September 5, 2000 (Exh. 287 with submarkings).
Witness Reyes added that the proposal had the confirmation of FPres. Estrada who even
told her to "study the proposal and if it will displace Jueteng then he [was] all for it". For
the purpose of implementing the initial operation of Bingo Two Balls, the officers of
PAGCOR called a meeting in Paraaque Casino and invited several personalities
knowledgeable in number gaming operations in the Philippines. Gov. Singson did not
attend the meeting since the latter was not interested according to Atong Ang. The
operation of Bingo Two Balls in Ilocos Sur was nonetheless offered to three relatives of
Gov. Singson.

Among the conditions for the operation of Bingo Two Balls was the drawing of winning
numbers in public and that no payments will be made "under the table". It was agreed that
23% of the total revenue will be remitted to PAGCOR and 77% of the total revenue will
inure to the benefit of the operators. The Bingo Two Balls nationwide operation was
estimated to gain P50 to 65 Million of sales a day. Atong Ang was supposed to be given a
management fee of 8% but was reduced to 7% and then to 5%. The management fee was
finally recommended to be reduced at 2% by the head of the Bingo Department of
PAGCOR in a Recommendation Letter dated November 30, 2000 (Exh. 290).

The dry-run operation of Bingo Two Balls lasted for 20 days particularly in the Province of
Bulacan. According to witness Reyes, PAGCOR got P24 Million from the initial operation
of Bingo Two Balls from the Province of Bulacan alone. FPres. Estrada then ordered for
the suspension of the operation of Bingo Two Balls allegedly because of adverse publicity
and criticisms from the press.

On cross examination, witness Reyes clarified that there was no written agreement for the
dry-run operation of the Bingo Two Balls and that the conditions set forth in the initial
operation was not final. She also stated that the P24 Million that was remitted to PAGCOR
represented the 23% share that was agreed upon and that part of this share was remitted
to the Social Fund of the Office of the President. The 77% share of the income was
returned to the operators.

On re-direct examination, the witness testified that the Social Fund of the Office of the
President was created during the term of Former President Aquino. During her
administration, this fund was utilized mostly for building school houses which policy was
also adopted during the administration of Former Presidents Ramos and Estrada.

ATTY. EMILIA SAMONTE PADUA (Padua) was the Managing Head of the Entertainment
and Bingo Department of PAGCOR since July of 1996 to June of 2001. She managed,
supervised, and controlled the nationwide commercial bingo operations and bingo
derivatives, such as Quick-Pick Games and Bingo Two Balls. [TSN, March 9, 2005]

The witness testified that her department reviewed and evaluated the Bingo Two Ball
Project Proposal of Atong Ang to PAGCOR. The said project proposal was approved for
an initial operation and that the Officer-In Charge for the project was Jose Rodriguez III
while the Consultant of the project was the Prominent Marketing Consultancy Group, Inc.
of which Atong Ang was the General Manager. Atong Ang also served as the Marketing
Agent of PAGCOR for the project and, as such, he identified the operational areas and the
pre-qualified applicants. The Bingo Two Ball Project was partially implemented from
September 18, 2000 to October 7, 2000 in the provinces of Bataan, Bulacan, CAR,
Cordillera Administrative Region, Albay, Bicol, Cavite, Marinduque, Lucena, Batangas,
Northern and Southern Luzon, and in Visayas. PAGCOR allegedly attained its financial
goals and objectives in the organizational stage of the project. Witness Padua presented
and identified PAGCORs Share Based on Reported Sales Quota (Exh. 288) prepared by
the consultancy group of Atong Ang to corroborate the success of the initial operation of
the Bingo Two Balls Project.

Based on a Memorandum dated November 14, 2000 (Exh. 290) approved by the Board of
Directors of PAGCOR, the 20-day operation of the Bingo Two Ball Project aggregated a
gross sale of P106,206,661.00 and that P24,427,532.00 was collected by PAGCOR which
represented its 23% share. The consultancy group of Atong Ang gained 2% from the 23%
share of PAGCOR. Though there was no written agreement between PAGCOR and the
consultancy group of Atong Ang as regards the payment of the latters 2% share, the
Board of Directors of PAGCOR decided that the consultancy group of Atong Ang was
entitled to such share.

Witness Padua also testified that among the objectives of the Bingo Two Ball Project were
to eradicate the illegal number games such as Jueteng and to create employment
opportunities. However, the said project was ordered suspended by the Office of the
President because of adverse criticisms and questions of legality from the public.

On cross examination, witness Padua admitted that there was no bidding conducted by
PAGCOR in awarding the operation of the Bingo Two Ball Project to Prominent Marketing
Consultancy Group, Inc. She explained that since Atong Ang also headed the Power
Management Corporation which successfully handled the Jai-Alai Operations of
PAGCOR, the Board of Directors of PAGCOR decided to engage the services of the
Prominent Marketing Consultancy Group, Inc. of Atong Ang to handle the Bingo Two Ball
Project. The witness further testified that some of the appointed operators of the Bingo
Two Ball Project were reputed as Jueteng Operators but qualified that she only knew them
as such after the initial operation of the said project.

On re-direct examination, witness Padua testified that assuming the Bingo Two Ball
Project was not suspended and a contract was perfected between PAGCOR and the
operator the contract would nonetheless pass the review and approval of the Office of the
Government Corporate Council (OGCC) and the Office of the President.

SENATOR ALFREDO SIOJO LIM (Sen. Lim) was appointed as the Secretary of the
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) on January 8, 2000. [TSN, March
14, 2005]

On October 7, 2000, Sen. Lim read in the newspaper the alleged attempted ambush on
the life of Gov. Singson and discussed the issue with Congressman Luis "Baby" Asistio
during their breakfast meeting at the Manila Yacht Club. Thereafter, Sen. Lim and Baby
Asistio visited Gov. Singson at his residence in Blue Ridge, Quezon City. Governor
Casimiro Ynares, Jr. later arrived and joined their conversation. According to Lim, Gov.
Singson related to them the details of the attempted plot against the life of Gov. Singson
on the late evening of October 3, 2000. On said date, members of the Traffic Management
Group (TMG) armed with long rilfes and not wearing proper uniforms, accosted the
vehicle occupied by Gov. Singson along San Marcelino Street, for beating a red light and
having a blinker on top of his vehicle. Gov. Singson initially refused to alight from his
vehicle and got down only when the mayors that he just had a meeting with arrived on the
scene. Singson argued with the TMG Officers and refused to be brought to Camp Crame.
The dispute ended when the TMG Officers finally agreed that they will no longer force
Gov. Singson to be brought to Camp Crame since the blinker of the vehicle of Gov.
Singson was surrendered to them.

Gov. Singson allegedly said that Atong Ang and Ping Lacson were the persons
responsible for the attempted ambush on his life, and that both conspired to have him
killed because Gov. Singson was against the Bingo Two Balls gaming proposal of Atong
Ang and that there was an arrangement for the raising of campaign funds for the
presidential candidacy of Ping Lacson. Sen. Lim further related that Gov. Singson also
implicated FPres. Estrada on the alleged attempted ambush on his life on the theory that
Atong Ang and Ping Lacson will not have the courage to have him killed without the
approval of FPres. Estrada. Gov. Singson also grumbled about the awarded franchises for
the operation of the Bingo Two Balls in Ilocos by Atong Ang to the political opponents of
Gov. Singson. Gov. Singson also mentioned that FPres. Estrada did not help him sort out
his problems with the Commission on Audit (COA).

Sen. Lim further testified that on the following day, October 8, 2000, he and Congressman
Baby Asistio went to the Malacaang Palace and met FPres. Estrada. The witness relayed
to FPres. Estrada the sentiments and allegations of Gov. Singson. FPres. Estrada denied
Gov. Singsons accusations that he had something to do with the attempted ambush and
that he would initiate an investigation on the matter. FPres. Estrada said that Gov. Singson
was his good friend and that he was with Lim in Cebu City and Cagayon de Oro during the
alleged incident. As to the issue regarding the Bingo Two Ball Project of Atong Ang, FPres.
Estrada said that he was convinced by PAGCOR that it could triple its proceeds as
compared to the operations of Jai-Alai. FPres. Estrada would also trigger an investigation
regarding Gov. Singsons allegation that Atong Ang had planned to divert the proceeds of
the Bingo Two Ball Project of PAGCOR. Witness Lim added that FPres. Estrada admitted
that he left Gov. Singson to explain to COA because he had no control and supervision
over the said constitutional body.

The witness also refuted the testimony of Gov. Singson that he conveyed the impression
to Gov. Singson that FPres. Estrada gave the signal to kill Atong Ang. Witness Lim
claimed that his thumbs down gesture to Gov. Singson meant that FPres. Estrada would
have Atong Ang ordered investigated and not to have the latter killed.

On cross examination, witness Lim testified that he had no personal knowledge as to the
purchase of shares from Bell Corporation by GSIS and SSS; as to the matters regarding
the Ilocos Sur Excise Taxes; and as to the Jueteng collection ledger of Yolanda Ricaforte.

VIOLETA SUAREZ DAMITAN (Damitan) was the Executive Assistant of the Erap Muslim
Youth Foundation employed by Raul P. De Guzman on January 1, 2004 (Exh. 278). [TSN,
March 16, 2005] She was responsible, among others, for the safekeeping of the records
of the said corporation such as the Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws, and the records
of applicants to the scholarship program of the foundation.

Damitan testified that the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation provided scholarship education
programs to the less privileged Muslim youth Filipinos. The applications and
recommendations filed were reviewed by the Screening Committee and approved by the
Board of Trustees of the foundation.

Damitan presented and identified the credentials and pertinent records of Sittie Shahani
Laminero who was one of the applicants granted a scholarship program by the Erap
Muslim Youth Foundation (Exhs. 295, 296, 297 and submarkings). She likewise presented
and identified several documents enumerating and showing other grantees of the said
scholarship program, namely, Salvador Ongay Domona, Sohayle Hadji Abdul Rachman,
Janice Halim Negrosa, Roque Santos Morales, and Ahmad Robert (Exhs. 279, 280, 298,
299 and submarkings). The witness further presented and identified a Minutes of the
Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation on July 21, 2000 to
show the appointment of the other employees of the foundation and the accounts of the
scholarship program (Exh. 274 and submarkings).

SALVADOR ONGAY DOMONA [TSN, March 16, 2005], JANICE HALIM

NEGROSA [TSN, March 30, 2005], ROQUE SANTOS MORALES [TSN, March 30,
2005] and H. SOLAYHE A.A. MARANGIT [TSN, March 28, 2007], all similarly testified
that they were granted scholarships by the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation. Witness
Domona applied and was admitted for the scholarship program on the year 2003; witness
Negrosa applied and was admitted to the said program on the year 2004; witness Morales
applied and was admitted to the same program on the year 2004 and witness Marangit
applied and was admitted to the same program in 2004. These witnesses also presented
and identified their respective credentials and pertinent documentary evidence. (see also
Exhs. 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, and submarkings)

ATTY. CARINA JAVIER DEMAISIP (Demaisip) was appointed Assistant Corporate

Secretary of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, Inc. on January 1, 2004 (Exh. 277). She
assisted the release of funds and prepared the minutes of the meetings of the Board of
Trustees of the foundation. [TSN dated March 30, 2005 and TSN dated April 4, 2005]

Demaisip testified that Raul P. De Guzman solicited her services for the Erap Muslim
Youth Foundation sometime on July of 2003 which was after the incarceration of Atty.
Edward S. Serapio, the Corporate Secretary. The foundation was located at the 4 th Floor of
VAG Building in Greenhills, Ortigas Avenue. The witness then identified several minutes of
the meetings approved by the Board of Trustees of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation
(Exhs. 279, 281, 312, and submarkings) and corroborated the testimony of witness Violeta
S. Damitan regarding the approved and awarded scholarship programs by the foundation
(Exh. 313 and submarkings). She also testified that among the reasons why the
foundation had no scholars for the years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, except for Salvador
O. Domona, were because of (a) the ineffectiveness of the Board of Trustees brought by
the charges against FPres. Estrada, (b) the lack of funds to operate the foundation due to
the freeze orders, and (c) the failure of the institutions to comply with the requirements of
the scholarship program. The funds of the foundation became available on November 11,
2003. Hence, the foundation started releasing checks only thereafter although some of the
applications for the scholarship program were already reviewed and approved before the
availability of the funds.

MARIA LOURDES LOVERO FLORENDO (Florendo) was an Executive Assistant in the

Office of the Vice President and the Confidential Secretary of accused FPres. Estrada.
[TSN, April 20, 2005 and April 25, 2005]

Florendo testified that she did not know and had never met on any occasion Emma Lim.
The witness said that she was shocked when she read from the newspaper that Emma
Lim allegedly gave her a black bag containing P5,000,000.00 at the Presidential
Residence. She refuted the statements that Emma Lim gave during the Impeachment
Trial on December 11, 2000 that the latter went straight to her and handed a black bag
which contained P5,000,000.00; that Emma Lim was not required at the guardhouse of
the Presidential Residence to have her black bag examined in the X-Ray Machine; that
there were no furniture or sala sets at the right side of the entrance of the Presidential
Residence; that witness Florendo received the black bag and placed it near a table and
that she talked to Gov. Singson and told him that "they already arrived"; and that Emma
Lim went out running towards her vehicle after giving the black bag to witness Florendo
(Exh. 320-C and submarkings).

NORMAN DELOS SANTOS BORDADORA (Bordadora) was a reporter of the Philippine

Daily Inquirer since July of 1996. He testified that he was the author of an article in the
Philippine Daily Inquirer Newspaper entitled "Chavit, I Have Never Been Into Jueteng"
which was published on May 21, 2005 (Exh. 335). The source of the contents of his article
was allegedly Governor Luis "Chavit" Singson whom witness Bordadora had interviewed
through a cellular phone which was not recorded. The witness clarified that he interviewed
Gov. Singson on the alleged jueteng involvement of Archbishop Cruz and not on the
jueteng expose in the year 2000. [TSN, June 22, 2005]

ATTY. JOSEPH QUION ORSOS (Orsos), P/SUPT. ARTURO LACSINA

PAGLINAWAN (Paglinawan), P/SUPT. RODOLFO SANTOS AZURIN,
JR. (Azurin), POLICE CHIEF INSPECTOR NOEL BIACA VALLO (Vallo), P/SUPT.
ELISEO DECENA DE LA PAZ (Dela Paz), JONIRO FORMILLEZA
FRADEJAS (Fradejas) and RENATO MENDOZA PAREDES (Paredes), all testified to
matters related to the October 3, 2000 traffic incident involving Gov. Singson and the
Traffic Management Group ("TMG").

Orsos, a Police Officer and the Chief of the Legal Services of the TMG, presented and
identified a Roster of Troops dated October 3, 2000; a Disposition of Personnel as of
August 28, 2000 dated October 31, 2000; a Memorandum dated October 4, 2000
regarding the apprehended motor vehicle of Gov. Singson; and another Memorandum
dated October 4, 2000 (Exh. 360) regarding the traffic violation of the driver of Gov.
Singson. He admitted he had no personal knowledge of the incident. [TSN, July 13, 2005,
Exhs. 358-61 with submarkings] Paredes, Director of the TMG, identified a Memorandum
dated October 4, 2000 signed by him and previously marked as Exh. 360. [TSN dated
August 17, 2003] Paglinawan, Chief of the General Assignment Section of the Western
Police District, testified that there were no records in the WPD that Gov. Singson filed a
case in relation to the October 3, 2000 incident. [TSN, July 18, 2005] Azurin, Chief of the
Special Operations Division of the TMG, testified that, on October 3, 2000, he was called
by Vallo for assistance in some misunderstanding with Gov. Singson. He also testified to
what happened after they proceeded to the WPD headquarters in UN Avenue and related
that the agents of the TMG Group were wearing proper uniform but admitted that he
himself was not in proper uniform. Azurin testified that the blinker and siren found in the
vehicle of Gov. Singson were confiscated for violation of a Memorandum dated July 14,
1998 issued by the Office of the President. [TSN, July 18, 2005, and Exh. 362 with
submarkings] Vallo, Chief of the Operation Task Force Limbas of the TMG, testified to the
TMGs spotting of an accelerating vehicle (Gov. Singsons), the chase and the accosting
of the vehicle for a traffic violation. Dela Paz, Police Chief Superintendent of the Philippine
National Police, identified his signature in a Memorandum sent to relevant offices
pertaining to the use of blinkers [TSN, August 8, 2005, Exh. 364] Fradejas, Executive
Assistant II of the Traffic Engineering Center of the Metro Manila Development Authority,
identified a Certification pertaining to the DPWH Phase I installation of traffic lights in
Metro Manila. [TSN dated August 8, 2005, Exh. 384]

DR. GEMMA BAULA DAVID (David) had been the dentist of FPres. Estrada since the
latter was still a Senator. David testified that she provided dental treatments to FPres.
Estrada at the latters residence in No. 1 Polk Street, Greenhills, and at the Presidential
Residence in Malacaang. The witness related that, every time she visited FPres. Estrada
at his residence in Greenhills as well as in the Presidential Residence in Malacaang for
the scheduled dental appointment, she had to pass the strict security protocols conducted
at the entrance of both locations. She further related that at there was a walk-through
metal detector at the Presidential Residence in Malacaang. [TSN, May 30, 2005]

MARICHU ANDUEZA VILLANUEVA (Villanueva) was a Journalist of the Philippine Star

Newspaper and a member of the Malacanang Press Group. She authored the article
entitled "Palace Backs Ping on Anti-Jueteng Drive" in the June 17, 2000 issue of the said
newspaper which was based on a press conference she attended in Malacaang Palace
on June 16, 2000. [TSN, September 26, 2005; Exh. 415 and submarkings]

ATTY. RICARDO VILLANUEVA PUNO, JR., a practicing lawyer, testified that he joined
the government as Press Secretary and Presidential Spokesperson on or about March 16,
2000 and stayed in that position until January 20, 2001. In such position, he would only
speak of information that he was authorized to disseminate to the public or the media at
that particular time. His position gave him the privilege of being present at discussions on
policies, which included Presidential meetings. [TSN, October 3, 2005]

To the best of his recollection, the policy of the FPres. Estrada then was always to fight
illegal gambling. That has been the declared policy even during the tenure of the witness
as Press Secretary and Presidential Spokesperson. He had a general recollection of this
policy, but he had no specific recollection of the times it was actually mentioned.

He could not recall specifically a press conference held on June 16, 2000, although he
saw the June 17, 2000 issue of the Philippine Star attached to the subpoena [Exh. 415],
but there was a time when he held a series of briefings for media at 2:00 p.m., and it was
probably during one of those briefings that the points in the article were raised. The article
referred to a drive by the then Director General of the Philippine National Police
against jueteng. The question asked of the witness at the time was probably, whether
FPres. Estrada in fact prescribed jueteng reduction. It was very clear that it was in fact the
policy at that time, based on their previous conversations. The article, however, referred to
the drive allegedly initiated by then PNP Director Panfilo Lacson. Up to the time that the
witness left in January 2001, he could not remember any reversal of that policy. He would
not know, however, if jueteng continued despite the campaign against it, because his
office as Press Secretary was not monitoring the situation.

ATTY. HILARIO PAUL HAVOC RAGUNJAN, JR. was a commissioned Notary Public who
notarized the Letter dated May 28, 2005 of Rodolfo Q. Pineda (Exh. 331) addressed to the
Chairman of the Committee on Games and Amusements of the House of the House of
Representatives, Hon. Mario Z. Almario. Witness Ragunjan, Jr. testified that he personally
knew the affiant of the letter but had no personal knowledge as to the contents of the said
letter. [TSN, June 6, 2005]

MARIBETH ANG ESCOBAR, Officer-in-Charge of the United Overseas Bank (UOB) San
Juan Branch, testified on a Certification dated June 28, 2002 addressed to Atty, Irene
Jurado issued by Ms. Elma Gutierrez, who was no longer connected with UOB. Witness
had been the OIC of UOB San Juan since Ms. Gutierrez resignation. (TSN, November 22,
2004, p. 48)

The said Certification stated: "This is to certify that based on our records from 1999 up to
the present, we have no current account listed under the name of the client Mayor Jose
"Jinggoy" Estrada." She verified the facts stated in the Certification by personally checking
the records on file in their system and there was no reading of an account under the name
of Senator Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada, upon receipt of the subpoena. (Ibid., p. 54)

Escobar also testified that she was not aware and has not seen any check with photo of
the client on the face of the check. She has never processed a customized check but has
seen one with the logo of a company like Sunlife. Witness stated that the Certification was
issued based on the letter dated June 28, 2002 of Atty. Irene D. Jurado to the Manager of
UOB San Juan. (Ibid., pp. 54-58)

Witness testified that although the certification stated only that Jose Jinggoy Estrada had
no current account, her verification of their their records showed that there was no Jose
Jinggoy Estrada on the list of active accounts of UOB San Juan, as well as in the dormant
accounts. Similarly, the Municipality of San Juan had no account with the UOB San Juan,
more so the Municipality of Marikina. (Ibid., pp. 94-98)
ROSEMARIE J. SAN GREGORIO, Community Affairs Officer II of the Municipal
Government of San Juan, testified that she didnt know personally a lady by the name of
Emma Lim, but has seen her testify before the Impeachment Court on television. She
remembered particularly the testimony of Emma Lim because Emma Lim mentioned the
name of her officemate, Josie, who was with the witness when they were watching the
proceedings in the television along with Lauro Quirino, who was their receptionist in the
Mayors Office. Witness remembered that among the testimony of Emma Lim was that
she went to the Municipal Office to collect money. Witness stated that she and Josie
Ramos were surprised and amazed with Emma Lims testimony since she [Emma Lim] did
not go to the Mayors Office. Josie Ramos was the one handling papers for the signature
of the Mayor. [TSN, November 24, 2004, pp. 26-42]

JOSEFINA QUIAZON RAMOS worked as one of the secretaries in the Office of the
Mayor, Municipality of San Juan for 1998 to 2001, preparing documents for signature of
then Mayor Jinggoy Estrada. Witness Ramos corroborated the testimony of Rosemarie
San Gregorio that Emma Lim did not go to the Office of then Mayor Jose "Jinggoy"
Estrada in January, February and March 2000 to pick up allegedly jueteng money from the
Office of the Mayor.

Ramos described as untrue the testimony of Emma Lim that Emma Lim talked to Ramos
and was asked to sit in front of Ramos table in the Office of the Mayor on February and
March 2000. Witness stated that Emma Lim never went to the Office of the Mayor in San
Juan. Witness was surprised when Emma Lim mentioned her name during the
impeachment trial, and that she told this to Mayor Estrada who called her up after Emma
Lim testified. Mayor Estrada was also surprised and told her that "what is that woman
saying, that woman is a liar". [TSN, December 6, 2004]

SUSAN MACALLA AVILES was the Social Secretary of Ms. Guia Gomez and a resident
of No. 1 Ibuna Street corner P. Guevarra Street, San Juan, Metro Manila. She testified
that, as social secretary, she was the one who received guests, entertained them and was
the one who would call to serve the visitors coffee or juice at the house of Guia Gomez at
No. 1 Ibuna Street corner P. Guevarra Street, San Juan. Aviles asserted that Gov. Singson
never went to the house at P. Guevarra. [TSN, December 1, 2004, p.16-17] She clarified
that the house on P. Guevarra and Ibuna were one and the same because their address
was No. 1 Ibuna Street corner P. Guevarra Street, San Juan. (Ibid., p.44)

NOEL ISRAEL BUENDIA was previously a security guard assigned at the residence of
Guia Gomez at No. 1 Ibuna corner P. Guevarra Streets, San Juan, from February 26,
1998 up to 2002, and as such, was stationed at the gate along Ibuna St. from 6:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. and the one assigned in the front and in-charge of asking visitors. During his
assignment at Guia Gomezs residence, Buendia testified that he did not see Gov.
Singson go there. [TSN, December 1, 2004]

CONGRESSMAN LUIS A. ASISTIO (Cong. Asistio) testified that he was at San

Francisco, California on July 24, 2000 as part of the official Philippine Delegation
accompanying then President Joseph E. Estrada in his state visit to the United States of
America, and that it was there that he saw Gov. Singson, at the lobby of the Fairmont
Hotel where they stayed, telling him of the latters problem that FPres. Estrada did not
want to see him. Cong. Asistio, together with Gov. Singson, went to the room of FPres.
Estrada, and Gov. Singson asked FPres. Estrada to call the Chairman of the COA for the
relief of the Auditor assigned in his province to which FPres. Estrada replied that he might
get into trouble as the Chairman of the COA is a constitutional appointee and suggested
that Gov. Singson instead talk to then Executive Sectary Ronaldo Zamora to resolve his
problem.

Witness also testified that after returning from the U.S. and prior to the expose or press
conference made by Gov. Singson in October 2000, he received a call from the latter
asking him if they could meet it Manila Peninsula, and, at the same time, Gov. Singson
told him of his problem and his grievances (sama ng loob) against FPres. Estrada,
including placing his political opponents in positions of power in his province, such as, the
relief of the Provincial Commander and conferring on his brother, Bonito, who is his mortal
enemy, a position regarding jueteng.

Cong. Asistio clarified that in the many meetings he had with Gov. Singson during the
period late August to September 2000, they mainly talked about the state of the Ilocos Sur
provincial leadership and occasionally Gov. Singsons suspicions regarding Atong Angs
designs to corner bingo two balls and ease him out. According to Cong. Asistio, Gov.
Singson is worried that his continued provincial leadership will be affected by the
developments. Cong. Asistio also testified they never talked about jueteng, or receipt of
jueteng monies or the alleged receipt of money from R.A. 7171 since according to him, he
knew of these issues only during the Impeachment Trial and he thinks that these are mere
figments of Gov. Singsons imagination.

Cong. Asistio also testified that he, together with Mayor Lim, went to the house of Gov.
Singson to persuade the latter not to push through with the press conference.

Cong. Asistio also testified that in his visits to Malacaang during the time of FPres.
Estrada, at least three times a week, he never saw Atong Ang there because Atong Ang
was banned by the FPres. Estrada from entering Malacaang. [TSN, October 11, 2004
and October 13, 2004]

ATTY. ESTELITA D. CORDERO (Cordero) testified that she was a close friend Mrs. Lydia
"Honey Girl" Singson, sister of Gov. Singson, and worked as a legal consultant for Mrs.
Honey Girl Singson when the latter was appointed as Director General of the Technology
and Livelihood Resource Center (TLRC) until October 12, 2000. [TSN, November 8, 2004,
pp. 9, 11-12, 14]

Cordero testified that in October 2001, members of the Save Ilocos Sur Alliance (SISA)
visited her in her office and requested her to go over several audit reports (1999 to 2000,
SAO Special Report 1999) of the province and to find out if there is any basis for filing any
action against responsible public officials of the province. [Ibid., p. 38] After going through
the documents, witness Cordero, together with members of SISA and other concerned
citizens, decided to file criminal complaints against Gov. Singson and other responsible
officers of the province who did some anomalous transactions to the detriment of the
province. [Ibid., pp. 44-45]

Witness thought that the testimony of Emma Lim in the impeachment trial were all lies
because from the statement of Gov. Singson, he did not have anything to do with jueteng
and the delivery of the money. Thus, witness claimed that all of these were fabricated
statements on the part of Emma Lim. [TSN, November 10, 2004, pp. 26-28]

Witness Cordero also testified that Gov. Singson was the jueteng lord in their province and
neighboring provinces, and all matters relating to jueteng, such as, employment, people,
operations were under the control of Gov. Singson. [Ibid., pp. 29-30]

BRIG. GEN. RODOLFO DOCTOR DIAZ, a retired military officer, was assigned as the
Commanding Officer of the Presidential escorts, one of the major units of the Presidential
Security Group, in 1998 when FPres. Estrada assumed office. He testified that he was
familiar with the private residence of FPres. Estrada in No. 1 Polk Street. Quezon City.
According to Gen. Diaz, only the First Familys vehicles were allowed to park in the
garage. Only five vehicles could be accommodated there and usually the cars parked
there were the Presidents primary and secondary car, as well as an SUV and two more
cars. Witness also detailed the security measures followed in Polk Street. In Polk Street,
visitors were never allowed to park their cars inside the garage. [TSN, June 1, 2005, pp.
50-56]

The witness did not see Atong Ang either at No. 1 Polk Street or in Malacanang since the
President has been elected. He had seen Mr. Jaime Dichaves twice; Mr. Baby Asistio,
once or twice. He did not see Governor Singson in No. 1 Polk Street [Ibid., pp. 81-83]

RICARDO GREY GOLPEO, General Manager of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes

Office (PCSO) from February 2000 to February 2001, testified that he and then PSCO
Chairman Rosario Lopez were summoned by FPres. Estrada to Malacaang in March
2000. On that occasion, FPres. Estrada informed them that jueteng had become a big
problem to him and wanted to know if the PCSO can do something to fight jueteng. The
witness replied that they will study the instruction of the President. Chairman Lopez
instructed witness to personally handle the matter. At the time the witness left PCSO, he
testified that the PCSO had not come up with a suggestion to the President on how to
eradicate jueteng. [TSN, April 11, 2005, pp. 11-17, 19, 30)]

DANILO DELA ROSA REYES was a Member of the Board of Trustees of the Erap
Muslim Youth Foundation, Inc. and the Acting Treasurer of the said foundation. He was
also an Associate Professor at the National College of Public Administration and
Governance in the University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman and the Vice President for
Educational Services for the "Erap Para sa Mahirap" Foundation

Reyes testified that the "Erap Para sa Mahirap" Foundation was duly established in 1988
and had 14,000 recipients of scholarships as of the year 2000. Among the Incorporators of
the said foundation was FPres. Estrada. The "Erap Para sa Mahirap" Foundation,
however, encountered financial constraints so the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, Inc.
came into existence.

Reyes related that Raul P. De Guzman, a brother-in-law of FPres. Estrada, invited him to
join in establishing a foundation for the poor and deserving Muslim students in line with
the vision of FPres. Estrada of developing a new generation of Muslim leaders. He then
identified the documents related to the registration of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation,
Inc. (Exhs. 251 to 255, 262 to 271, inclusive of submarkings) with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC). The Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, Inc. was duly
organized in accordance with law and had conducted its business upon incorporation for
bona fide purposes as stated in its Articles of Incorporation (Exh. 252) and Amended By-
Laws (Exh. 255). The original Members of the Board of Trustees were: Prof. Mila
Reformina, Dr. Raul P. De Guzman, Atty. Edward S. Serapio, Dr. Danilo Reyes, and Mr.
George L. Go, who later resigned.

The word ERAP affixed to the name "Muslim Youth Foundation" was allegedly an acronym
for "Education, Research, and Assistance Program". The funding of the said foundation
was provided by the Erap Golf Cup, which donated the amount of Ten Million Pesos
(P10,000,000.00); the contributions of the Board of Trustees in the amount of P20,000.00
each; and a Two Hundred Million Peso (P200,000,000.00) donation from a donor which,
according to Serapio, would like to remain anonymous. The amount of Ten Million One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P10,100,000.00) was deposited with the UCPB and eventually
transferred to Metrobank while the Two Hundred Million Pesos (P200,000,000.00) was
deposited with Equitable PCI Bank. The Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) was the
source of the foundations operating expenses and for minimal scholarship program during
the time material in this case.

According to Reyes, the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, Inc. had (four (4) scholars for MA
in Islamic Studies in the University of the Philippines for school year 2004-2005. For the
second semester of that school year, the foundation added four (4) more scholars for
Masters Degree, two in the University of the Philippines and the other two in the Philippine
Normal University. The scholars were only given Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) per
semester. Reyes explained that the foundation was in hiatus for three (3) years because
its funds were frozen by a court order and that they conducted meetings after the
recuperation of Dr. De Guzman who got sick, and after the release on bail of Atty. Serapio.

Reyes also testified as to the appointment papers of the employer of the foundation, such
as the Executive Assistant, the Assistant Corporate Secretary and the Utility Messenger.
The office address of the foundation was transferred from Pasig to the VAG Building in
San Juan. [TSN, February 21, 2005; February 23, 2005; and March 2, 2005]

EUGENE MACAMASBAD, a Police Senior Inspector with the Philippine National

Police, brought with him the documents required in the subpoena addressed to Gen.
Arturo Lomibao of the PNP or his authorized representative. He produced a certified true
copy of a Memorandum Circular 2000-003, certified by Celia Redison (Exh. 365). As to
the memorandum dated July 19, 2000 which was subpoenaed, the same could not be
located as shown by a certification dated 29 July 2005 issued by the Deputy Chief of the
PACER. (Exh. 380) [TSN, August 1, 2005, pp. 60-69] The witness came to Court and
produced the above documents only upon verbal instruction from his officers. He was not
the records custodian and he did not have any knowledge about records being maintained
by their office. [Ibid., pp. 70-72, id.]

SEN. EDGARDO ANGARA, a lawyer and a senator when he testified in Court, knew Gov.
Singson. They were compadres, being godfathers at the wedding of Singsons niece. In
September 2000, Gov. Singson made an unexpected visit at Senator Angaras farm to
request that the witness talk to President Estrada about the 2-balls game. Gov. Singson
told the witness that the franchise for the said game in Ilocos Sur was given to his political
opponent and he was losing face with his supporters. Gov. Singson wanted the franchise
to go to him or if it cannot be granted, that the game of 2-balls not be allowed altogether in
Ilocos. The witness replied that he would go down to Manila and call the President to relay
Gov. Singsons message. [TSN, June 1, 2005, pp. 13-15]

Sen. Angara remembered Gov. Singson saying that the franchise was given to Eric
Singson. Gov. Singson even mentioned a list of of jueteng payoffs and that one of the
beneficiaries was the President. When Sen. Angara mentioned to FPres. Estrada Gov.
Singsons request regarding 2-balls and statements regarding jueteng, the President
denied that he was a recipient of any payoff, saying he had nothing to do with it [2-balls]
but that it was Atong Angs jurisdiction [Ibid., pp.16 and 24]

After Sen. Angara relayed the answer of the President, Gov. Singson asked the witness to
talk to Atong Ang and the witness said he will try. When the witness was able to talk to
Atong Ang and repeated Gov. Singsons request, Atong Ang replied he will study it or that
he will have to consult PAGCOR. The witness denied having told Gov. Singson "Grabe to.
Huwag kang lumabas at akong bahala kay Presidente dahil baka pati kaming
mga Cabinet members maaapektuhan nito." [Ibid., pp. 17-18, 24-25] Witness saw the list
of payoffs shown by Singson, but he did not read it. [Ibid., pp. 30, 43]

FINDINGS OF FACT

Re: Sub-paragraph (a) of the Amended Information

With respect to the alleged acts of receiving or collection of sums of money from illegal
gambling, commonly known as "jueteng", in the form of share or percentage, the Court
finds credible material portions of Gov. Chavit Singsons testimony insofar as they are
corroborated by independent and competent evidence.

The Court concedes that Gov. Chavit Singson did not have the purest of motives in
exposing the jueteng collections which he testified were done for the benefit of FPres.
Estrada. Undoubtedly and by his own admission, he resented not being given the
franchise for the Bingo Two Balls, the government sanctioned numbers game, in his home
province of Ilocos Sur. He feared the demise of his political career as the said franchise
was given to his political opponents, Eric Singson and his brother Bonito Singson, to the
embarrassment of the mayors who were affiliated to him. Gov. Chavit Singson was
disappointed to say the least that Mayor Jinggoy Estrada, JV Ejercito, the other son of
FPres. Estrada, Secretary Edgardo Angara, Secretary Alfredo Lim, friends like Luis Asistio
and Mark Jimenez, whom Gov. Chavit Singson approached to intercede to FPres. Estrada
to help him secure the franchise, were unsuccessful. Gov. Chavit Singson was also
displeased that FPres. Estrada would not use the Office of the Presidency to help him with
his trouble with the Commission on Audit which was demanding his liquidation of the Two
Hundred Million Pesos (P200,000,000.00) share of Ilocos Sur in the excise taxes collected
under RA No. 7171. The Court will not cite the alleged attempt on the life of Gov. Chavit
Singson in the evening of October 3, 2000 considering the contradictory evidence on this
matter consisting of the testimony of the enforcement officers on the incident.

The acts of collection of jueteng protection money for FPres. Estrada from various
provinces nationwide per month as well as the payments to him and to various persons
from such sums of money with his approval or acquiescence were methodically detailed in
two sets of ledgers: the first set covering the period beginning November 1998 to July
1999 (Exh. W7 to E8), and the second set for the period starting August 1999 to August
2000 (Exh. A-4 to A-4-l). The first set of ledgers were personally prepared by Gov. Chavit
Singson, aided by Emma Lim and Carmencita Itchon, while the second set of ledgers
were prepared by Yolanda Ricaforte, under the supervision of Gov. Chavit Singson and
also with the help of Lim and Itchon. Insofar as the collection of jueteng money is
concerned, Emma Lim and Carmencita Itchon, by their own admission performed similar
roles as Yolanda Ricaforte except that the latter received double the amount of the
monthly salary of Lim and Itchon by virtue of her "supervisory" status.

The accused would have this Court dismiss the ledgers as hearsay and/or mere
fabrications. However, there are circumstances which lend credibility to the said ledgers.
The first set of ledgers (Exh. W7 to E8) was faxed by Ricaforte to Singson just before Gov.
Chavit Singson made his expose while the second set of ledgers (Exh. A-4 to A-4-l) was in
the possession of Ricaforte, which she produced during the Senate Impeachment
proceedings, as testified to by Atty. David Jonathan Yap, the Senate Legal Counsel.

Yolanda Ricaforte was closely associated to FPres. Estrada, being the wife of Orestes
Ricaforte, who was appointed by FPres. Estrada as Undersecretary of Tourism. Ricaforte
opened several accounts in the different branches of Equitable PCI Bank with unusually
huge deposits and investments in multiple of millions of pesos during the period covered
by the second set of ledgers.

Per testimony of Nantes, in Scout Tobias-Timog Branch, Ricaforte opened a savings

account, a current account, seven special savings account and a PCI Emerald account. In
the Savings Account No. 0157-04227-0 alone, after the initial deposit of P17,205,000.00
on September 1, 1999, she deposited from September 7, 1999 to January 10, 2000, a
staggering total amount of P57,712,150.00. The initial deposits for each of the seven (7)
Special Savings Accounts were: P70,000,000.00 (December 2, 1999); P10,000,000.00
(February 7, 2000); P2,500,000.00 (March 29, 2000); P9,700,000.00 (April 5, 2000);
2,500,000.00 (May 29, 2000) P1,900,000.00 (May 4, 2000); and P2,000,000.00 (June 1,
2000). The deposit in the PCI Emerald Fund was P6,616,676.19 (December 6, 2000).

According to Rosario S. Bautista, in Diliman-Matalino Branch, Ricaforte opened on

November 19, 1999 a combo account: Savings Account No. 0288-02037-0 and Current
Account No. 0238-00853-0 with an initial deposit of P70,000,000.00 covered by two (2)
PCI Bank Checks payable to cash each in the amount of P35,000,000.00, drawn by
William T. Gatchalian. Additional deposits were: a check (Exh. A-7-h) issued by Gov.
Chavit Singson on November 22, 1999 for P1,000,000.00; another check dated December
9, 1999 with PNB Naga as drawee bank (Exh. A-7-j); cash deposit of P3,050,000.00 (Exh.
A-7-d) on December 2, 1999; and cash deposit of P1,000,000.00 on January 28, 2000.

In the Pedro Gil-Robinsons Branch, according to Shakira C. Yu, Ricaforte opened on

January 6, 2000, a Regular Savings Account with an initial deposit of P6,000,000.00.
Other deposits consisted of: (1) check drawn by Gov. Chavit Singson for P2,965,000.00;
(2) cash deposit of P1,540,000.00 on January 25, 2000; and check drawn by Gov. Chavit
Singson in the amount of P1,340,000.00.

In the T.M. Kalaw Branch, Pabillon testified that Ricaforte opened Regular Savings
Account No. 0193-61496-8 and Special Savings Account No. 02193-15050-3 on February
8, 2000, with the initial deposits in PNB Managers Check (Exh. A-9-A) in the amount of
P10,007,777.78 and cash of P1,400,000.00.

In the Scout Albano Branch, Alcaraz testified that Ricaforte opened on March 2, 2000
three accounts with initial deposits as follows: Savings Account No. 5733-15154-3,
P1,995,000.00; Special Savings Account No. 5733-0721-0, P2,000,000.00; and Checking
Account No. 5732-01-975-7, P5,000.00.

In Isidora Hills Branch, Gonzales testified that Ricaforte opened on March 15, 2000,
among others, Special Savings Account No. 077090498-6 with the initial deposit of
P7,000,000.00 in the form of Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. Check drawn by Gov.
Chavit Singson payable to cash.

Bank officials, such as Salvador R. Serrano, Patrick Dee Cheng, and Carolina S.
Guerrero, testified to the existence of checks paid by Chavit Singson which landed in the
accounts of persons associated with FPres. Estrada: (1) Metrobank Check No. 0000917
of Gov. Chavit Singson for P5,000,000.00 which was deposited on February 2, 1999 in
Account No. 061-0-14636-7 of Paul Gary Bogard at Security Bank; (2) Metrobank Check
No. 00138 drawn by Chavit Singson on September 29, 1999 in the amount of
P8,000,000.00 deposited in the account of Mrs. Luisa P. Ejercito; (3) Metrobank Ayala
Center Check No. 000132 drawn by Gov. Chavit Singson payable to William Gatchalian in
the amount of P46,350,000.00; (4) Metrobank Check No. 001547 issued by Gov. Chavit
Singson in the amount of P1,200,000.00 which was deposited in the Account No.
0180409000-3 of Laarni Enriquez on December 23, 1999.

The Erap Muslim Youth Foundation

The paper trail of the P200,000,000.00 deposited for the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation,
Inc. incontrovertibly established that the said sum of money came from jueteng collections
through the cashiers / managers checks purchased by Ricaforte using the deposits in the
accounts that she opened in the different branches of Equitable PCI Bank described
above, as follows: Cashiers Check for P91,000,000.00, Scout Tobias-Timog Branch, April
13, 2000 (Exh. A-6-S); Cashiers Check for P77,000,000.00, Diliman-Matalino Branch,
April 13, 2000 (Exh. A-7-ee); Cashiers Check for P11,000,000.00, Pedro Gil-Robinsons
Branch, April 13, 2000 (Exh. A-9-B); Managers Check for P3,000,000.00, Scout Albano
Branch, April 12, 2000 (Exh. A-10-K); and Cashiers Check for P7,000,000.00, Isidora Hills
Branch, April 14, 2000.

Antonio Fortuno, Bank Operations Officer of Equitable PCI Bank Pacific Star Branch,
testified that the aforementioned six (6) checks were deposited in Bearer Account No.
0279-04225-5. From the said bearer account, fourteen (14) withdrawals in Managers
Checks (Exh. K9 to X9 with submarkings) were made in various amounts. Each withdrawal
was divided into two deposits or a total of twenty eight (28) deposits of various amounts
into the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, as shown by the Account Information Slips,
Deposit Receipts, and Detailed Report for Transfers and Debit / Credit Memos (DRTM)
(Exh. K9 to X9 with submarkings).

Fortuno identified the Acknowledgement Letter (Exh. I9) dated April 25, 2000 addressed to
Atty. Serapio from Beatriz Bagsit, Division Head of Makati Area, acknowledging receipt of
the said six (6) checks for deposit on staggered basis and on different dates to the
account of Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, Inc. at Ortigas-Strata Branch.

Aida T. Basaliso corroborated the testimony of bank officer Fortuno as to the inter-branch
deposits at Equitable PCI Bank Strata Ortigas Branch in Savings Account No. 0192-
85835-6 of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, Inc. from the Pacific Star Branch of the
same bank in the amount of P200,000,000.00 on staggered basis.

The slew of bank documents, involving mind-boggling amounts of money and

authenticated by competent and credible bank officers, convinces the Court that collection
of jueteng money for FPres. Estrada indeed took place and the entries in the ledger were
not manufactured by Gov. Chavit Singson.

Payments or disbursements of the jueteng protection money to persons related to or

closely associated with FPres. Estrada belie his denial that the funds accounted for in the
ledgers belong to him. Indeed, the Court cannot see why Gov. Chavit Singson would
make such large and substantial payments in the form of checks drawn from his
Metrobank account, to personalities such as William Gatchalian, Laarni Enriquez, Loi
Estrada, or other intimate associates of FPres. Estrada unless the money belonged to
FPres. Estrada and the funds were being disbursed according to his instructions. The
evidence does not show why Gov. Chavit Singson would choose Ricaforte to take over the
supervision of the jueteng collection and let her deposit millions of pesos into Ricafortes
accounts in the different branches of the Equitable PCI Bank when Ricaforte had no prior
association nor relation to Gov. Singson and that the latter had his own trusted associates.
As admitted by the accused, it was FPres. Estrada who had a long standing and close
relationship with Ricaforte and her husband. This fact would explain Ricafortes vital
participation in the preparation of the second set of ledgers. The said ledgers were
prepared and later produced before the Senate by Ricaforte and not by Gov. Singson.

The first set of ledgers show that P72,500,000.00 of jueteng money were handed to
FPres. Estrada, alias "Asiong Salonga" from November 1998 to July 1999. Based on the
second set of ledgers, the total amount of jueteng money that FPres. Estrada received
was P112,800,000.00 from August 1999 to August 2000. For the entire duration or period
covered by the 2 sets of ledgers of the total amount of P185,300,000.00. was handed by
Gov. Chavit Singson to FPres. Estrada bi-monthly. The balance, after these amounts were
given to FPres. Estrada and the deduction of expenses, were deposited by Ricaforte in
her bank accounts. Based on the two (2) sets of ledgers the total jueteng collections for
FPres. Estrada from November 1998 to August 2000 amounted to P545,291,000.00. The
P200,000,000.00 of these sums of money found their way into the account of the Erap
Muslim Youth Foundation.

With respect to Jinggoy Estrada, according to Gov. Singson, he was the "Jing" listed as an
expense in the ledger for P1,000,000.00. It was Gov. Singsons testimony that FPres.
Estrada (after discovering that entry) forbade Gov. Chavit Singson from giving any further
share in the jueteng protection money to Jinggoy Estrada and that it will be up to FPres.
Estrada to give Jinggoy Estrada a share. For this reason, Gov. Chavit Singson and
Jinggoy Estrada hid the fact that Jinggoy Estrada was the collector for the Province of
Bulacan and that the latter was receiving P1,000,000.00. To begin with, the prosecutions
theory that Jinggoy Estrada had to keep his participation in the jueteng collection a secret
from his own father belied the allegation that Jinggoy Estradas participation in the jueteng
scheme was that of a principal or a conspirator. The grant of bail to Jinggoy Estrada was
anchored on this fact advanced by Gov. Singson in his very own testimony. Although
prosecution witness Gov. Singson, and the other witnesses who were under his employ,
testified that there were instances that they collected or received money from Jinggoy
Estrada, there was no testimony to the effect that they saw Jinggoy Estrada subtracted his
share from jueteng collections or in any other way received a share from the jueteng
collections. This Court further found it difficult to believe that Jinggoy Estrada, who was
not even a resident of Bulacan, was the collector for Bulacan. Gov. Singson associates
Jinggoy Estrada with Viceo allegedly from Bulacan. Who is Viceo? Why was Viceo not
charged if it was true that jueteng collections from Bulacan came from him before they
passed the hands of Jinggoy? There was no evidence at all that the money Jinggoy
Estrada turned over to Gov. Singson or the latters representatives was part of the jueteng
protection money collected from Bulacan or that he received funds from a certain Viceo.

The prosecution did not also rebut the bank certification presented by the defense that
Jinggoy Estrada did not have an account with the United Overseas Bank. The certification
disproved the testimony of Emma Lim that the deposit slip in the amount of P1,000,000.00
said to be part of jueteng money was turned over to her by Jinggoy Estrada in the form of
a personalized check with his photograph, from his account at the United Overseas Bank.
The gaps in the prosecutions evidence as to Jinggoy Estrada create uncertainty in the
mind of the Court as to the participation of Jinggoy Estrada in the collection and receipt of
jueteng money. This Court had already brushed aside prosecutions reliance on the
telephone calls and billing statements for such calls between Ricaforte and Jinggoy
Estrada to prove that he was a jueteng collector for Bulacan, for being highly speculative.
The Courts ruling remains firm to this day.

With respect to Serapio, neither Gov. Chavit Singsons testimony nor the ledger entries
proved that Serapio was involved in any way in the collection or disbursement of jueteng
protection money. Certainly, Serapios involvement appears to have begun and was
limited to the funds of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation. Serapio is being charged with
"laundering" or concealing a portion of the jueteng protection money in the amount of
approximately P200,000,000.00 which was deposited in the account of the Erap Muslim
Youth Foundation.

To this Courts mind, while the P200,000,000.00 was clearly illegally amassed wealth, the
evidence on record is insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Serapio was
aware that the questioned funds were in fact amassed from jueteng protection money
collections and that the fact of the unusually large amount of the deposits into the
foundations account was with criminal intent on the part of Serapio to "launder" or conceal
the illegal nature of the funds to serve the purpose of the acquisition or amassing of ill-
gotten wealth by FPres. Estrada. The only evidence presented on this point is the
uncorroborated testimony of Gov. Chavit Singson that Serapio was present during the
meeting wherein FPres. Estrada instructed the transfer of the amount of P200,000,000.00
to the foundation. The Court has reservations as to the credibility of Gov. Singsons
assertion in this regard because Gov. Singson failed to mention Serapios presence on
that occasion during his testimony at the Senate Impeachment trial. Neither can the Court
consider from the single fact alone that he arranged the staggered deposit of the said sum
of money to the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation that he had a criminal intent to conceal ill-
gotten wealth in furtherance of the accumulation of such wealth by the principal accused.
More so, this Court is not prepared to conclusively rule that the Erap Muslim Youth
Foundation is not a legitimate foundation or that it was set up purely to hide his illegally
amassed wealth. The incorporation papers and business permits of the Foundation are
authentic and regular. The personalities behind the said foundation appear to be well-
respected academicians. Fortunately or unfortunately, the public revelation of the nature of
the P200,000,000.00 as part of jueteng protection money collected for FPres. Estrada
came too soon after the organization of the Foundation. The Court is not in a position to
ascertain with moral certainty if this controversy preempted any legitimate charitable
activities it could have undertaken soon after its incorporation as it was explained by
defense witnesses or whether it was as the prosecution asserted a money laundering
entity. Premises considered, it is difficult to presume any criminal intent on the part of
Serapio to conceal or launder jueteng protection money in order to contribute to the
amassing and accumulation of ill-gotten wealth by FPres. Estrada in connection with the
transfer of the P200,000,000.00 to the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, notwithstanding
that the evidence on record demonstrate indisputably that the said sum of money form
part of ill-gotten wealth obtained though the predicate acts charged in sub-paragraph (a)
of the Amended Information.

RE: SUB-PARAGRAPH B OF THE

AMENDED INFORMATION
_____________________________

(b) by DIVERTING, RECEIVING, misappropriating,

converting OR misusing DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, for HIS OR THEIR
PERSONAL gain and benefit, public funds in the amount of ONE
HUNDRED THIRTY MILLION PESOS [P130,000,000.00], more or less,
representing a portion of the TWO HUNDRED MILLION PESOS
[P200,000,000.00]tobacco excise tax share allocated for the Province of
Ilocos Sur under R.A. No. 7171, BY HIMSELF
AND/OR in CONNIVANCE with co-accused Charlie Atong Ang, Alma
Alfaro, JOHN DOE a.k.a. Eleuterio Tan OR Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy,
and Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas, AND OTHER JOHN DOES AND JANE
DOES;

I. EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

GOVERNOR LUIS "CHAVIT" CRISOLOGO SINGSON also testified to prove the second
charge in the amended Information involving the diversion of excise taxes under Republic
Act (RA) No. 7171. [TSN dated July 29, 2002, pp. 78-80] According to Gov. Singson,
Ilocos Sur was not getting its rightful share as a beneficiary of the excise tax. He reminded
FPres. Estrada of his campaign promise that he would release all the funds to Ilocos Sur
in advance, amounting more or less to Four Million Pesos (P4,000,000.00) including
interest. FPres. Estrada promised to comply but he said that because of the huge election
expenses he hoped that Gov. Singson would help. Since, Gov. Singson was afraid not to
get the funds, he said: "Why not?" when FPres. Estrada asked: "How much?" Gov.
Singson replied "Maybe Ten Percent (10%) of what you can release." FPres. Estrada
instructed Gov. Singson to prepare his request and he will approve it. Gov. Singson
brought the request addressed to Secretary Diokno of the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM). FPres. Estrada wrote a marginal note on the request addressed to
the DBM with instruction to approve it. The original of the letter was submitted to Secretary
Diokno. Gov. Singson produced in court a Xerox copy with the original stamp mark of
receipt dated 8/7. The marginal note reads: "Aug. 3, 98. To Secretary Ben Diokno, Please
see if you can accommodate the request of Governor Singson" (Exh. Q 8 and
submarkings). [Ibid, pp. 81-96]

According to Gov. Singson, Jinggoy Estrada and Atong Ang kept on following up the
release of the money from DBM. A notice of funding check issued (Fund 103 dated August
25, 1998) (Exh. R8) was received by Gov. Singson. Gov. Singson immediately informed
Jinggoy Estrada and Atong Ang. The latter told Gov. Singson that the President needed
One Hundred Thirty Million Pesos (P130,000,000.00). Gov. Singson was surprised
because their agreement was only ten percent (10%). Atong told him there will be billions
of pesos, so they should be the first one to deliver to FPres. Estrada and thus be the
strongest and more influential (to the Former President). Gov. Singson then caused the
preparation of a Provincial Board resolution appropriating the sum of Two Hundred Million
Pesos (P200,000,000.00). The Board approved the appropriation of One Hundred
Seventy Million Pesos (P170 Million) for the flue curing barn and Thirty Million Pesos
(P30,000,000.00) for infrastructure. Atong Ang gave Gov. Singson three (3) names to
whom the money would be sent, which they did. Landbank Vigan transferred One
Hundred Thirty Million Pesos (P130,000,000.00) to Landbank Mandaluyong which
credited the accounts of the three (3) persons named by Atong Ang as follows: Account
No. 0561043-38, Alma Alfaro, August 27, 1998, P40,000,000.00; Account No. 0561-0445-
97, Delia Rojas, August 28, 1998, P50,000,000.00; and Account No. 0561-0446-00,
Eleuterio Tan, August 28, 1998, P40,000,000.00. The total amounted to P130,000,000.00.

The above data were contained in a certification of Landbank Branch Head Ma. Elizabeth
Balagot (Exh. S8). [Ibid, pp. 96-108] Gov. Singson did not personally know Delia Rajas,
Alma Alfaro or Eleuterio Tan. In a photograph (Exh. V8), Gov. Singson identified Jojo Uy as
the Eleuterio Tan who showed up at the bank to withdraw the money. Jojo Uy, according
to Gov. Singson was very close to FPres. Estrada. [Ibid, pp. 109-110]

Gov. Singson narrated that Atong Ang called him up from his mothers house and asked
Gov. Singson to go there where they will wait for the money. Gov. Singson went to the
house of Atong Angs mother at 10:00 oclock in the morning and waited there until 3:00 to
4:00 oclock in the afternoon. When the money arrived, Gov. Singson noticed that Atong
Ang left some money in the house. Atong Ang and Gov. Singson boarded Atong Angs
vehicle, and Gov. Singsons vehicle with the security and driver followed them. At the
corner near the house of FPres. Estrada at Polk St., Atong Ang asked Gov. Singson to
alight from his vehicle so that it would not be obvious to the people in the vicinity. Gov.
Singson alighted from the vehicle and saw Atong Angs car entered inside the house of
FPres. Estrada. Atong Ang was the one driving the car. After 15 to 20 minutes, Gov.
Singson followed Atong Ang to the house of FPres. Estrada. Gov. Singson then met the
First Lady, Dr. Loi Estrada who thanked Gov. Singson, saying "Chavit, thank you very
much we really needed it." Gov. Singson took the money which he and Atong Ang
brought. [Ibid, pp. 111-114] When FPres. Estrada came out, Gov. Singson asked him how
much Atong Ang gave him. FPres. Estrada answered Seventy Million Pesos
(P70,000,000.00). Gov. Singson informed him that the total amount was One Hundred
Thirty Million Pesos (P130,000,000.00). FPres Estrada got mad at Atong Ang who
explained that he gave Twenty Million Pesos (P20,000,000.00) to Dr. Loi Estrada, and
Fifteen Million Pesos (P15,000,000.00) to Jinggoy Estrada. Atong Ang found it hard to
explain the remaining Twenty Five Million Pesos (P25,000,000.00). [Ibid, pp. 114-116]

Gov. Singson frequented the house of FPres. Estrada. At one time, the latter asked him
again to make a request for the excise tax allocation which he will approve. Gov. Singson
explained that the release of the money must be continued in big amount so that they
could cover up the One Hundred Thirty Million Pesos (P130,000,000.00). FPres. Estrada
agreed but he did not give the billions promised. Hence, Gov. Singson could not cover up
the (P130,000,000.00). When told by Gov. Singson that the Commission on Audit (COA)
was "pestering" them, FPres. Estrada asked Gov. Singson to cover it up in the meanwhile.
The amount of Forty Million Pesos (P40,000,000.00) out of the One Hundred Thirty Million
Pesos (P130,000,000.00) was paid to the supplier of the flue curing barn which were
delivered by the supplier and inaugurated by FPres. Estrada as shown by the pictures
taken on that occasion (Exhs.T8 and U8). The flue curing barn was needed by the tobacco
farmers to save time and money. [Ibid, pp. 116-121]

Gov. Singson referred to the inaugural speech of FPres. Estrada where the latter stated
"walang kama-kamaganak, walang kai-kaibigan, walang kumpa-kumpadre". Gov. Singson
said after what happened that it would mean even friends should pay to FPres. Estrada.
[Ibid, pp. 122-124]

Gov. Singson demonstrated in Court, from the witness stand up to the door of the
courtroom and back in more or less twenty (20) seconds, that he, who had smaller built
than Atong Ang, could carry a box containing Twenty Million Pesos (P20,000,000.00) in
demonetized bills from the Central Bank in One Thousand Pesos (P1, 000.00)
denomination each. There were twenty bundles of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) per
bundle inside the box. The distance between the witness stand and the door of the
courtroom was thirteen (13) meters. [Ibid, pp. 124-135] The box carried by Gov. Singson
weighed more than ten (10) kilos and five bundles of cash amounting to P5,000,000.00
weighed 4.8 kilos. [Ibid, pp. 172-173]

JAMIS BATULAN SINGSON (Jamis) further testified that he, Gov. Singson, his escort
Federico Artates, and Driver Faustino Prudence, left the office of Gov. Singson on August
31, 1998 to fetch Atong Ang in his office at Pinaglabanan. They all proceeded to the house
of the mother of Atong Ang. Gov. Singson and Atong Ang went inside the house while the
rest waited outside. Later, Atong Ang, Gov. Singson and William Ang, the brother of Atong
Ang, went out. Gov. Singson instructed them to accompany William to Westmont Bank,
Shaw Boulevard. Jamis, Artates, William Ang and the driver of Atong Ang rode the
Mitsubishi Van owned by Atong Ang. William Ang went inside the bank and after 3 hours
came out with Jojo Uy and two security guards carrying two boxes each or a total of four
(4) boxes. Jojo Uy was a family friend of Atong Ang, whom Jamis often saw in the office of
Atong Ang. Jamis identified Jojo Uy in a photograph (Exh. V8). Each of the boxes were
brown in color, with a length of more than ten (10) inches, height of twelve (12) inches and
thickness of eight (8) to ten (10) inches. [TSN dated September 18, 2002, pp. 38-55]
Jamis and Artates each brought two (2) boxes inside the vehicle and went back to the
house of the mother of Atong Ang, with an armored van following them. The four boxes
were brought inside the house where Gov. Singson and Atong Ang were seated on a sofa.
After lunch, Jamis saw the men of Atong Ang loading something in the vehicle of Atong
Ang.

Gov. Singson boarded the car of Atong Ang and instructed Jamis to just follow them to
FPres. Estradas house at Polk Street in Greenhills, but they were instructed by Gov.
Singson to wait at the corner. William Ang earlier informed them that the boxes contained
money for FPres. Estrada. Jamis did not actually see the money. After an hour, Gov.
Singson asked to be fetched from FPres. Estradas house. [Ibid, pp. 59-68]

MARIA ELIZABETH GOZO BALAGOT testified that she was the Manager of Land Bank
Vigan Branch from August 3, 1998 to December 31, 2000 and had over-all supervision
and control of the accounts of said Branch.

According to witness Balagot, on August 27, 1998, Land Bank Vigan Branch received a
Facsimile of Inter-Office Debit Advice (Exh. L18 and submarkings) dated August 27, 1998
from Land Bank Malacaang Branch with instruction to credit Current Account No.
04021045-70 of the Provincial Government of Ilocos Sur the amount of Two Hundred
Million Pesos (P200,000,000.00). Land Bank Vigan Branch complied with the instruction
and correspondingly sent an Inter-Office Credit Advice (Exh. M18 and submarkings). Later
in the afternoon of August 27, 1998, authorized (Exh. N18) representatives from the Office
of the Provincial Governor of Ilocos Sur, namely, Maricar Paz and Marina Atendido,
presented Check No. 0000097650 (Exhs. O18 and P18 and submarkings) dated August 27,
1998 in the amount of One Hundred Seventy Million Pesos (P170,000,000.00) issued to
the order of Luis "Chavit" Singson accompanied by an Accountants Advice for Local
Check Disbursement (Exh. Q18 and submarkings) dated August 27, 1998.

Witness Balagot confirmed that on August 27, 1998, the Provincial Administrator of Ilocos
Sur called up Land Bank Vigan Branch requesting for encashment of the One Hundred
Seventy Million Pesos (P170,000,000.00) that had been credited to the account of the
province. She asked for three (3) days for encashment as a matter of bank policy but
since the Provincial Administrator told her the money is immediately needed, she
suggested for them to apply for a demand draft payable and encashable in Land Bank
Makati Branch. Maricar Paz advised witness Balagot that the demand drafts should be
payable to Delia Rajas, Alma Alfaro, Nuccio Saverio, and Eleuterio Tan, although she was
not given the reason why the drafts had to be issued in their names. She never received
any call from FPres. Estrada instructing her as to the said names.

On August 28, 1998, witness Balagot called up Gov. Singson to inform him that Delia
Rajas and Eleuterio Tan were trying to deposit their demand drafts in Westmont Bank and
the governor responded that it was okay with him. She made a second call to the
governor in the afternoon to inform him of the presence of Delia Rajas and Eleuterio Tan
in Land Bank Shaw Branch and they were insisting that the checks be encashed there.
Witness Balagot informed the governor that she could not accept the encashment at the
said branch, but Gov. Singson told her to do what they wanted. She testified that she
called the governor instead of Maricar Paz because she knew for a fact that the one giving
instructions to Maricar Paz was the governor himself.

Witness Balagot then advised Land Bank Shaw Branch to cancel the demand drafts and
the amounts covered will just be coursed through the individual accounts by inter-branch
transaction. Witness Balagot then prepared an Inter-Branch Transaction Advice for
Eleuterio Tan (Exh. Z18) and Delia Rajas (Exh. Y18) and credited the amount of Forty Million
Pesos (P40,000,000,00) and Fifty Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00) to their respective
accounts. The cancelled demand drafts were returned to Land Bank Vigan Branch with a
Memorandum (Exh. A19) dated August 31, 1998. The demand draft issued to Nuccio
Saverio, on the other hand, was encashed in Land Bank Makati Branch.

Witness Balagot also identified and affirmed her Sworn Affidavit (Exhibit B 19 and
submarkings) dated November 6, 2000 relative to the foregoing facts. [TSN dated January
20, 2003 and TSN dated January 22, 2003]

MARIA CARIDAD MANAHAN RODENAS was the cashier at Land Bank Shaw Branch.
She testified that she knew a person by the name of Alma Alfaro as the authorized
representative of valued clients, Mrs. Catalina Ang and Yolanda Uy, and as an account
holder of the branch. [TSN, November 4, 2002, pp. 13-16] According to witness Rodenas,
Alfaro claimed to be an employee of Power Express and that Power Express was owned
by Catalina Ang. [TSN, November 11, 2002, pp. 21-25]

Witness Rodenas testified that on August 27, 1998, she assisted Alma Alfaro open her
own savings account with the branch with an initial deposit of One Thousand Pesos
(P1,000.00) (Exh. H13). Alfaro presented her school ID (Exh. F13-2) and SSS card (Exh. F13-
1) as valid IDs and personally accomplished the signature card (Exh. G13). Alfaro indicated
her business address to be c/o Power Express and residence address as Capt. Savy
Street, Zone IV-A, Talisay, Negros Occidental. After complying with requirements, Alfaro
told witness Rodenas that Forty Million Pesos (P40,000,000.00) coming from Land Bank
Vigan Branch will soon be credited to her account. [TSN, November 4, 2002, pp. 16-27]
True enough, Forty Million Pesos (P40,000,000.00) from Land Bank Vigan Branch was
credited online to Alfaros newly created account. When Alfaro told witness Rodenas that
she wanted to withdraw the money right away, the latter told Alfaro to just come back the
following day as she will still have to prepare the money. Witness Rodenas then requested
from Land Banks Greenhills Cash Center the amount of Forty Six Million Pesos
(P46,000,000.00) to cover the amount needed by Alfaro as well as to cover other
withdrawals for the day as shown by the Fund Transfer Request (Exh. I 13).

When Alma Alfaro returned to the bank on the following day, she proceeded to withdraw
Forty Million Pesos (P40,000,000.00) (Exh. J13) in cash from her account. [TSN, November
4, 2002, pp. 27- 43] In that same afternoon, Alma Alfaro asked witness Rodenas to help
her two friends, whom she introduced as Eleuterio Tan and Delia Rajas, with their demand
drafts. Delia Rajas brought two demand drafts, Demand Draft No. 099435 in the amount
of Thirty Million Pesos (P30,000,000.00) (Exh. L13) and Demand Draft No. 09936 in the
amount of Twenty Million Pesos (P20,000,000.00) (Exh. K13). Eleuterio Tans Demand
Draft, on the other hand, was in the amount of Forty Million Pesos (P40,000,000.00) (Exh.
M13).

Witness Rodenas testified that Tan and Rajas asked that they be accommodated in Land
Bank Shaw Branch because they considered it too risky to encash their demand drafts in
the cash department in Buendia, Makati and thereafter to bring it back to Mandaluyong
since they were from Mandaluyong. [TSN, November 11, 2002, p. 136] After examining
the demand drafts presented, witness Rodenas advised Rajas and Tan that she could not
accommodate their request because Land Bank Shaw Branch was not the paying unit of
the drafts and that she did not have the amount with her at that time. Due to their
insistence, however, witness Rodenas conferred with Elizabeth Balagot and Lawrence
Lopez, the Branch Manager and Branch Accountant of Land Bank Vigan Branch, who told
her to just cancel the demand drafts and let Rajas and Tan open accounts with their
branch so that they could credit the amounts online. [TSN, November 4, 2002, pp. 44-51]

Eleuterio Tan presented two IDs (Exh. N13) and accomplished a specimen signature card
(Exh. O13) and cash deposit slip (Exh. P13) for One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00). Witness
Rodenas identified Eleuterio Tan in a picture (Exh. F9). Delia Rajas also presented two IDs
(Exh. Q13) and accomplished a specimen signature card (Exh. R13) and deposit slip (Exh.
S13) for One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00).

Witness Rodenas sent the cancelled demand drafts by facsimile to Land Bank Vigan
Branch and after sometime the Vigan Branch credited online the proceeds of the demand
drafts to the newly created accounts of Tan and Rajas. The original of the demand drafts
were later returned to the Vigan Branch. [TSN, November 11, 2002, p. 133] Tan and Rajas
then accomplished withdrawal slips (Exh. T13 & Exh. U13) to withdraw Forty Million Pesos
(P40,000,000.00) and Fifty Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00), respectively. Thereafter,
Eleuterio Tan filed three (3) applications for cashiers check (Exhs. W 13, V13 & X13) causing
Land Bank Shaw Branch to issue THREE (3) cashiers checks (Exhs. W 13-1, V13-1 & X13-1)
in his name in the amount of Thirty Million Pesos (P30,000,000.00) each. The three (3)
cashiers checks were later deposited at Westmont Bank, Mandaluyong Branch to
Savings Account No. 2011-00772-7. [TSN, November 4, 2002, pp. 52-91]

SPO2 FREDERICO APENES ARTATES was a policeman since 1988. At the time of his
testimony, he was assigned at the Vigan City Police Station but detailed to Gov. Singson
as security escort.

Witness Artates testified that on August 31, 1998, he was in the office of Gov. Singson at
the LCS Building in San Andres Bukid, Manila, together with Gov. Singson, Jamis Singson
and driver Faustino Prudencio. According to him, Gov. Singson instructed them to go to
the apartment of Atong Angs mother and while there they accompanied William Ang,
Atongs brother to Westmont Bank at Shaw Boulevard, Mandaluyong City where they got
four (4) boxes of cash from the said bank and returned back to the house of Atong Angs
mother and later on proceeded to FPres. Estradas house at Polk Street. He described
each of the boxes to be 10 inches in length, 12 inches in height 15 inches in width [TSN,
September 25, 2002, pp.90-107]. [TSN dated September 25, 2002]

ILONOR ANDRES MADRID testified that she was the Chief of License Section,
Operations Division, Land Transportation Office. Madrid presented and identified
certifications dated January 2, 2001 (Exh. I11) and December 6, 2000 (Exh. D9) pertaining
to the data in the drivers license of Victor Jose Tan Uy, and identified computer generated
photographs of Victor Jose Tan Uy (Exhs. J11 & D9-1). [TSN, October 9, 2002, pp. 127-148]

GWEN MARIE JUDY DUMOL SAMONTINA was the Assistant Vice-President and Head
of Records and Information Management Center of the Social Security System (SSS)
since January 1998. She was the official records custodian of the SSS and in-charge of
ensuring that all records received by the branches were archived.

Witness Samontina brought with her the Social Security Form E-1 (Exh. V 11-1 and sub
markings) filed by Delia Ilan Rajas. This form showed that her address was No. 48
Calbayog Street, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila and SSS number was 33-2365508-7.
Witness also brought several SSS Form R-1 and R1-A filed by the employers of Rajas
with SSS namely (1) Admate Company, Inc., (2) Energetic Security and Specialists, Inc.
(3) Jetro Construction and Development Inc., (4) Power Management and Consultancy
Inc. The forms (Exhs. W11, X11, & Y11, and sub markings) filed by Admate Company, Inc.
showed the company address to be No. 46 Calbayog Street, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila.
The first R1-A Form filed on December 8, 1994 showed Rajas as the only employee. The
R1-A Form filed on May 6, 1998 showed that Rajas as listed as one of the employees.
The forms were accomplished by the employers representative and treasurer, Yolanda A.
Uy. The forms submitted by Energetic Security and Specialists, Inc. (Exhs. Z 11 and A12, with
sub markings) showed the business address to be No. 46 Calbayog Street, Mandaluyong,
Metro Manila. The forms showed that Charlie T. Ang and Delia Rajas appeared as
employees. The forms were accomplished by Ma. Rosanie U. Ang. The Form R-1 (Exh.
B12, with sub markings) of Jetro Construction and Development, Inc. filed on October 9,
1990 showed that it had two employees. This document was accomplished by Yolanda
Ang. Its Form R1-A (Exh. C12, with sub markings) filed on March 15, 1995 showed that it
had 18 employees, including Delia Rajas. The address is still No. 46 Calbayog Street,
Mandaluyong, Metro Manila and it was prepared by Yolanda A. Uy. The forms (Exhs. D 12,
E12 & F12, with sub markings) of Power Management and Consultancy Incorporation were
received by SSS on June 8, 2000. It had an office address at 188 Captain Manzano
Street, Corner N. Domingo, San Juan, Metro Manila. Among the officers listed were
Charlie T. Ang, Nerissa S. Ang, and William T. Ang. Delia Rajas appeared as one of its
employees. [TSN, October 23, 2002, pp. 25-60]
II. EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

During his testimony, accused FORMER PRESIDENT JOSEPH EJERCITO

ESTRADA vehemently denied that he asked Gov. Singson to give him part of Ilocos Surs
share on the tobacco excise tax imposed by Republic Act No. 7171; that when he was
approached by Gov. Singson regarding the said share of his province, he told Singson to
make a formal request, and that Singson already had a prepared request (Exh. Q) to
which FPres. Estrada wrote his marginal note addressed to then Budget Secretary
Diokno, stating: "Please see if you can accommodate".

FPres. Estrada explained that he could not have alluded to his election expenses because
contributions to his 1998 Presidential Campaign were overflowing; that he rejected many
contributions which kept pouring in as it was the case with a very popular candidate like
him; that he even asked his party treasurers to distribute campaign funds to their
candidates for Mayor, Congressman and Governor, that Gov. Singson got a big share of
the campaign funds, that Gov. Singsons testimony on the percentage he allegedly asked
for was a lie as he would not take away funds intended for farmers and that in fact during
his term as President he rejected an offer of Fourteen Million Dollars (US $14,000,000) for
him to sign a sovereign guaranty; that he did not know Alma Alfaro, Eleuterio Tan or Mr.
Uy, and Delia Rajas, that being the President, he could not have conspired with Delia
Rajas whom he heard was a cook; that he met Charlie "Atong" Ang sometime in 1993 or
1994, when the latter was introduced to him by his friend, Jojo Antonio; that he was not
that close to Ang; that Atong Ang never went to his house at Polk Street, Greenhills, San
Juan to deliver money from the excise tax as testified to by Gov. Singson; that the garage
in his house could not accommodate Atong Angs vehicle since the Presidential Car was
parked there and there were security arrangements if he was at home and that Gov.
Singson was merely passing the blame to him because he would not help Gov. Singson
with his problem with the Commission on Audit. [TSN, March 22, 2006, pp. 63-113]

On March 29, 2006, FPres. Estrada testified that Atong Ang did not go to his residence at
Polk Street, Greenhills nor at Malacaang except when Atong Ang attended the wedding
of his daughter; that in the reenactment at the Bangko Sentral, it was shown that One
Thirty Million Pesos (P130,000,000.00) in bills could not fit into four (4) boxes contrary to
the testimony of Gov. Singson, and that the weight of the said sum of money was
equivalent to two and one half sacks of rice which could not be carried by one person.

FPres. Estrada disclaimed any knowledge of Prosecutions Exhibits "A 19", "X18" and "Y18"
and also Landbank check dated August 27, 1998 for Forty Million Pesos (P40,000,000.00)
and Gov. Singsons September 3, 1998 letter to Elizabeth Balagot, Landbank Manager of
Vigan Branch in Ilocos Sur. He also testified that the Notice of Funding Check Issued,
Fund 103 dated August 25, 1998 signed by DBM Secretary Benjamin Diokno addressed
to the Provincial Governor of Ilocos Sur, [Exh. R8] did not reach the Office of the President.

According to FPres. Estrada, he did not know, nor have seen, Alma Alfaro, the person
mentioned in the certification that inter-branch deposits made by the provincial
government of Ilocos Sur from August 27 to 28, 1998, particularly on August 27, 1998 to
Account No. 0561-0445-38 in the name of said Alma Alfaro in the amount of Forty Million
Pesos (P40,000,000.00). He said that he saw her for the first time only during the
Impeachment Trial. [TSN, March 29, 2006, pp.42-49] He also did not know, nor have
seen, Delia Rajas and Eleuterio Tan, the owners of the bank accounts at Land Bank Shaw
Branch who were recipients of the online credit from Land Bank Vigan Branch on August
28, 1998 in the amounts of Fifty Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00) and Forty MiIlion Pesos
(P40,000,000.00) respectively [TSN, ibid, pp.50-51]. The persons shown in the
photographs marked as prosecutions Exhibits "F", "G9", and "T8" were not known to him.
He was able to identify the photograph marked as Exhibit "U8" which was the inauguration
of the flue-curing plant in Ilocos Sur, which he later on learned was a mere show-off
("pakitang tao") because the project did not push through.

FPres. Estrada likewise denied any knowledge of prosecutions exhibits presented to

identify Victor Jose Uy (a.k.a. Eleuterio Tan) (Exhs. "N9", "N13", "T11" & "J"); Delia Rajas
(Exhs. "V", "W", "H", "H13", "Y", "Y-3", "Z11", "A12", "B12-4", "C12", "D12" & "Q13") and Alma
Alfaro (Exhs. "F12" & "F13"). [TSN, March 29, 2006, pp.59-68,79,80]

FPres. Estrada likewise disclaimed any knowledge of prosecutions exhibits regarding the
P130,000,000.00 excise tax share of Ilocos Sur [Exhs. H13, I13, J13, K13, M13, L13, O13, P13-1,
R13, S13, E13, U13, V13, V13-1, W13, W13-1, X13, X13-1, Y13, Z13, M17, N17, O17, P17, Q17, R17, S17, L18,
M18, N18, O18, P18, Q18, R18, S18, T18, B19, Z18. [TSN, March 29, 2006, pp.76-95]

FPres. Estrada also belied Gov. Singsons testimony of that he ordered Gov. Singson to
cover up his unliquidated cash advances by countering that Gov. Singson tried to cover up
his own cash advances as the Commission on Audit was already going after him and he
wanted to pass the blame to FPres. Estrada. [TSN, March 29, 2006, pp. 98-100] When he
learned about the Two Hundred Million Pesos (P200,000,000.00) excise tax share of
Ilocos Sur, he instructed then Justice Secretary Artemio G. Toquero to investigate the
matter. Secretary Toquero, in turn, referred the matter to the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI). After one week, NBI Regional Director Carlos Saunar submitted a
report through a Memorandum dated October 20, 2000 (Exh. 199) to Secretary Toquero.
Director Saunar also submitted to FPres. Estrada a December 12, 2000 letter (Exh. 201);
another document (Exh. 204) addressed to Secretary Toquero on the subject Governor
Luis Chavit Singson, et al. for malversation of public funds Twenty Million Pesos (P20,
000,000.00) and for violation of Section 3 (a) of Republic Act No. 3019; an affidavit of
Agustin D. Chan, Jr. (Exh. 202) and to which is an attached letter dated December 3,
2000 of Agustin T. Chan, Jr. (Exh. 202-D) with attached certification (Exh. 206-C)
demanding that Gov. Singson settle his outstanding cash advance in the amount of One
Hundred Million Pesos (P100,000,000.00) and Twenty Million Pesos (P20,000,000.00)
under Check Nos. 98397 and 42364 dated December 29, 1999 and March 19, 1999,
pursuant to paragraph 9.1 and 9.3.3.3 of COA Circular No. 97-002 and Section 89 of P.D.
No. 1445; an affidavit of Elizabeth Arabello dated January 12, 2001 (Exh. 205); a
document entitled "WP, item Singson cash advances" (Exh. 208), which details the
unliquidated cash advances of Gov. Singson at year end 1999 amounting to One Hundred
Thirty Five Million Five Hundred Eighty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Eighteen Pesos
and Seventeen Centavos (P135,584,818.17); and NBI Disposition Form, Subject Results
of Evaluation and Evidence in Support of COA Reports on the provincial government of
Ilocos Sur for the years 1997 and 1998 (Exh. 198), stating that the amount of Four
Hundred Thirty Five Million One Hundred Ninety Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Eight
Pesos (P435,190,298.00) was spent by Gov. Singson on the Tomato Paste Plant which
COA found to be a non-functioning and non-operational project and to have incurred the
loss of more than Twenty Million Six Hundred Fifty-five Thousand and Seventy-four Pesos
(P20, 655, 074.00) as of June 30, 1998 [TSN, March 29, pp.106-131] and that there were
ELEVEN (11) other cases of unsettled, unliquidated or dissolved cash advances of Gov.
Singson which included the One Hundred Seventy Million (P170,000,000) unliquidated
cash advances for the purchase of equipment for the Tobacco Flue Curing Plant involved
in this case. [TSN, ibid, pp.143-144]

FPres. Estrada narrated that Director Saunar informed him that the case against Gov.
Singson was clear and should be filed right away with the Office of the Ombudsman.
Director Saunar gave him a copy of the complaintaffidavit of the NBI (Exh. 200, 200-N,
200-0, 200-P, 200-Q) recommending the filing of the appropriate charges against Gov.
Singson and other Ilocos Sur provincial officials among others for the non-delivery of the
supplier NS International, Inc. of the equipment for the flue curing barn and re-drying plant
in the amount of One Hundred Seventy Million Pesos (P170,000,000.00) (Exh. 200-R).
[TSN, March 29, 2006, pp. 7-18] However, Gov. Singson was granted immunity from
criminal prosecution and Gov. Singson was able to pass on the case against FPres.
Estrada by implicating the latter as the one who ordered him and testifying against him.
[TSN, ibid, pp.19-25]

The last time FPres. Estrada talked to Gov. Singson was when he stopped over at San
Francisco USA for a speaking engagement on his way to an official visit to Washington he
was surprised that Gov. Singson who was not a member of his delegation fetched him at
the airport. After his speaking engagement, he went up to his room where Congressman
Asistio and Gov. Singson had a big problem with the COA in Ilocos Sur because the
provincial auditor did not want to cooperate with him. Gov. Singson asked FPres. Estrada
to help transfer the said auditor, which request he refused because COA is an
independent constitutional body. Gov. Singson insisted that FPres. Estrada call the COA
Chairman to interfere in his behalf. He reminded Gov. Singson that he should not look
after himself but he should protect the name of the Office of the President. Gov. Singson
then abruptly stood up and grudgingly left. FPres. Estrada came to know of the name of
the COA provincial auditor during the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing and he was
Atty. Agustin Chan who testified at the hearing and demanded that Gov. Singson liquidate
his cash advances. Later, FPres. Estrada read from the newspaper that Chan was
ambushed and killed in a town in Ilocos Sur. [TSN, ibid, pp.31-44]

ATTY. AGATON S. DACAYANAN was the State Auditor of the Commission on Audit
(COA) assigned at the Province of Ilocos Sur for the years 1995 to 1999. He examined,
audited and settled all accounts of the Province of Ilocos Sur based on the documents
submitted by, and gathered from the Provincial Accountant, Provincial Treasurer, Budget
Officer and other officials who have access to the financial transactions of the provincial
government. He submitted Annual Audit Reports at the end of every year.

Witness Dacayanan then presented and identified the Annual Audit Reports for the years
ended December 31, 1995 (Exh. 187 and submarkings); December 31, 1996 (Exh. 188
and submarkings); December 31, 1997 (Exh. 189 and submarkings); and, December 31,
1998 (Exh. 190 and submarkings). [TSN dated September 20, 2004, TSN dated
Septebmer 22, 2004 and TSN dated September 29, 2004]

BONIFACIO M. ONA was Director III of COA and the Officer-In-Charge of its Special Audit
Office. Witness Ona testified that one of his duties as OIC of the Special Audit Office was
to transmit the Report prepared by their audit teams to the different auditing units and as
such he had the chance to review as to its form the Special Audit Report for the Province
of Ilocos Sur for the period 1999 (SAO Report No. 99-31) (Exh. 191 and submarkings),
which he presented to the Court by virtue of a subpoena duces tecum, and after which he
transmitted the same to the Governor of Ilocos Sur. [TSN dated October 4, 2004]
ELVIRA JAVIER FELIX was State Auditor IV of the COA. Witness testified that she was
the Officer-in-Charge of the Provincial Auditors Office from October 5, 2001 to July 31,
2002, and she presented and identified Annual Audit Reports for the Province of Ilocos
Sur for the years ended December 31, 2001 (Exh. 192 and submarkings), and December
31, 2002 (Exh. 193 and submarkings).

Witness Felix also presented and identified copies of the Annual Audit Reports of the
Province of Ilocos Sur for the years ended December 31, 1999 (Exh. 194 and
submarkings) and December 31, 2000 (Exh. 195 and submarkings) which she secured
from the Provincial Auditors Office, and which were prepared during the term of then
Provincial Auditor Atty. Agustin Chan who was killed in an ambush on October 4, 2001.
[TSN dated October 4, 2004 and TSN dated October 6, 2004]

ELIZABETH M. SAVELLA was an Auditor of the Corporate Government Sector of the

COA. Savella testified that she was assigned previously with the Special Audit Office of
the Commission of Audit and was designated in 1999 as the Team Leader of a Special
Audit Team that conducted a special audit of the Province of Ilocos Sur for the period from
1996 to 1999. Being the Team Leader, witness Savella was the one assigned to
consolidate all the audit findings submitted by the team members to come up with the
audit report. The said audit report was SOA Report No. 99-31 (Exh. 191 and
submarkings).

Witness stated that the scope of the audit was the financial transaction and operation of
the Province of Ilocos Sur for the period 1996 to 1999. They looked, particularly, into the
utilization of R.A. 7171 funds and the utilization of the PNB loan specifically the
implementation of the Tomato Flue Curing Plant Project, stating that the audit aims to
evaluate the regularity of the implementation of the provinces projects. [TSN dated
October 6, 2004 and TSN dated October 11, 2004]

CONGRESSMAN LUIS A. ASISTIO testified that he knows Gov. Singson and met him
several times. He said that on July 24, 2000, he accompanied Gov. Singson to see FPres.
Estrada at his room at the Fairmont Hotel at San Francisco, California where Gov.
Singson requested FPres. Estrada to call the Chairman of the Commission on Audit to ask
for the relief of the Auditor assigned to his province to which FPres. Estrada declined.

Asistio clarified that in the many meetings he had with Gov. Singson during the period late
August to September 2000, they never talked about alleged receipt of monies from R.A.
7171 and he knew of these issues only during the Impeachment Trial. He thinks that these
are mere figments of Gov. Singsons imagination since they never talked of anything
except the provincial leadership.

Gov. Singson also did not mention the name of accused Mayor Jinggoy Estrada. He
added that Gov. Singson at one time went to his house when there was an ongoing rally at
Makati prior to the press conference and told him that he (Gov. Singson) does not
consider FPres. Estrada as his friend anymore.

Asistio added that he watched the Impeachment Trial against FPres. Estrada and thinks
that it is a farce because in all their conversations, Gov. Singson never mentioned about
R.A. 7171 nor talked about jueteng, except probably when he said "kunin na nilang lahat
huwag lang yung liderato".
Asistio stated that in his visits to Malacaang during the time of FPres. Estrada, at least
three times a week, he never saw Atong Ang there because Atong Ang was banned by
FPres. Estrada from entering Malacaang. [TSN dated October 11, 2004 and TSN dated
October 13, 2004]

CARLOS P. SAUNAR was Regional Director of the National Bureau of Investigation. In

October 2000, he was the Chief of the Anti-Graft Division of the NBI, assuming the
position from 1997 or 1998 up to July 2001, and as such was tasked to investigate the
public disclosures made by then Gov. Singson as per instructions of then NBI Director
Federico Opinion, who was, in turn, directed by then Justice Secretary Artemio G. Tuquero
in a Memorandum dated October 10, 2000 (Exh. 199 and submarkings).

In the conduct of their investigation, Saunar and his team of investigators secured
documents from the COA, such as, the Audit Reports of the Provincial Government of
Ilocos Sur and the Schedule of Unliquidated Cash Advances, and subpoenaed the
concerned public officials and employees of the Province of Ilocos Sur. [TSN, October 13,
2004, pp. 67-69]

After evaluating the reports and evidence, witness submitted an Evaluation Disposition
Form (Exh. 198 and submarkings) dated 16 October 2000 which made mention of 11
cases (Annex A of Disposition Form) (Exh. 198-B) of irregularities that were assigned to
different teams for investigation. [TSN, October 13, 2004, pp. 80, 84]

The result of Saunars investigation on the P170,000,000.00 alleged unliquidated cash

advances of Governor Singson and some other cash advances was contained in a
Revised Report of Investigation which became the subject of a Complaint-Affidavit (Exh.
200 and submarkings) dated 10 January 2001 signed by Carlos S. Caabay, then acting
Director, NBI, filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. Witness explained that the Revised
Report of Investigation traced the P170,000,000.00 from its source up to its liquidation.
[TSN, October 13, 2004, p. 96]

Saunar testified that they made a record check and searched, as requested by the Senate
Blue Ribbon Committee, for the whereabouts of accused Alma Alfaro, accused Eleuterio
Tan and accused Delia Rajas but failed to locate them. [TSN, October 13, 2004, pp. 107-
110] The NBI filed two (2) other cases involving cash advances of the Gov. Singson with
the Office of the Secretary of Justice, one of which is contained in a case transmittal (Exh.
201 and submarkings) dated 12 December 2000 addressed to Honorable Artemio G.
Tuquero relating to the P100,000,000.00 cash advance of Gov. Singson and supported by
a Report of Investigation dated 12 December 2000 (Exh. 201-B). The other case
transmittal (Exh. 204 and submarkings) they filed with the Department of Justice on
December 14, 2000 was in connection with the cash advance of Gov. Singson in the
amount of P20,000,000.00, and supported by another Report of Investigation dated 14
December 2000 (Exh. 204-B). In all the investigations conducted by the NBI on the cash
advances of Gov. Singson, Saunar said that they prepared an analysis, "WP-Singson
Cash Advance" (Exh. 208 and submarkings) (WP stands for working paper), and that
based on the working paper, Gov. Singson had accumulated cash advances of Three
Hundred Five Million Six Hundred Thousand Pesos (P305,600,000.00) between the
period January 1997 to January 2000. From this total, the amount of P170,015,181.83
appears to have been settled, leaving a balance of unliquidated cash advances of Gov.
Singson of P135,584,818.70 as of January 2000. [TSN, October 25, 2004, pp. 53-54]
The amount of P163,663,636.27 as appearing in the working paper, which was also the
subject matter of the complaint-affidavit filed with the Ombudsman (Exh. 200), is
supposed to be the amount that was the settlement of the cash advance of
P170,000,000.00 less 30% withholding tax supposed to be remitted to the BIR. The
P170,000,000.00 pesos came from the P200,000,000.00 representing the share of the
Province of Ilocos Sur from the excise taxes collected pursuant to R.A. 7171 that was
released by the DBM. The P170,000,000.00 was then cash advanced by Gov. Singson
from the account of the Province of Ilocos Sur in LBP Vigan Branch, wherein a certain
Marina Atendido deposited the amount of P40,000,000.00 in favor of the account of Alma
Alfaro at the LBP Shaw Boulevard Branch through an inter-branch accommodation. The
same was withdrawn in cash by Alma Alfaro. [TSN, October 25, 2004, pp. 57-63]

As to the remaining P130,000,000.00, four (4) demand drafts were applied for by Maricar
Paz, one of which was issued in favor of Luccio Saberrio in the amount of P40,000,000.00
which was withdrawn in LBP Makati, where the amount of P35,000,000.00 was deposited
to another savings account (the account number is indicated in the demand draft) in the
same LBP Makati while the P5,000,000.00 was cashed. The second demand draft
pertains to another P40,000,000.00 pesos in favor of Eleuterio Tan which was negotiated
at the LBP Shaw Boulevard Branch but was cancelled, and in lieu of this, the
corresponding amount was wire transferred from LBP Vigan to LBP Shaw Boulevard. The
two remaining demand drafts pertain to Delia Rajas, one in the amount of P20,000,000.00
and the other in the amount of P30,000,000.00, and were negotiated in LBP Shaw
Boulevard but were also cancelled, the corresponding total amount of P50,000,000.00
was then wire transferred and deposited to the account of Delia Rajas in LBP Shaw
Boulevard. [TSN, October 25, 2004,, pp. 64-70]

Saunar reiterated that they conducted an in-depth investigation of the expose made by
Gov. Singson, which includes alleged violations on the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices,
malversation of public funds and violation of R.A. 4200, pursuant to the memorandum
issued by the Secretary of Justice. However, their investigation so far has not reached the
point of illegal jueteng or illegal gambling. They did not conduct an in-depth investigation
on the activities of Mr. Atong Ang and FPres. Estrada because they have not reached that
point where the evidence would show that they have participated. [TSN, October 25,
2004, pp. 102-104]

However, they already filed a complaint-affidavit dated January 10, 2007 which referred to
the One Hundred Seventy Million Pesos (P170,000,000.00) that was cash advanced by
Gov. Singson based on the evidence they gathered so far in their investigation.

Saunar further testified that on November 2000, Director Opinion directed him to
accommodate interviews on the result of their investigation in connection with the
P170,000,000.00 alleged cash advance of Gov. Singson which was done in his office
when he was still the Chief of the NBI Anti-Graft Division, and the result of which appeared
in a VCD. [TSN, November 3, 2004, pp. 18, 26-27]

[TSN dated October 13, 2004, TSN dated October 25, 2004, TSN dated October 27, 2004
and TSN dated November 3, 2004]

BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS (BSP) OCULAR INSPECTION

On May 25, 2005, the Court conducted another ocular inspection at the Money Museum
of the BSP upon the request of the accused Estradas. The Court observed that if the
P130,000,000.00 were all in P1000.00 denominations and divided into 130 bundles with
each bundle consisting of 1000 pieces of P1000.00 peso bills amounting to P1 Million
pesos, only a maximum of 20 bundles amounting to P20 Million pesos would fit in a box
(Exh. X-Ocular Inspection), with an inner or interior dimensions of 12 inches width, 10
inches height and 15 inches length which measurement was given by prosecution
witnesses Artatez and a certain OJ Singson during their testimony. Thus, the P130 Million
pesos would fit in 6 and boxes.

If the P130,000,000.00 were in P500.00 denominations and divided into 260 bundles with
each bundle consisting of 1000 pieces of P500.00 bills amounting to P500,000.00, the
P130,000,000.00 pesos would fit in 13 boxes.

A Certification issued by the BSP that the P1,000,000.00 pesos in P1000.00 bills would
weigh about just under a kilo has already been submitted by the accused in the previous
hearing. [TSN dated May 25, 2002, pp. 10-11]

FINDINGS OF FACT

Re: Sub-paragraph (b) of the Amended Information

With respect to the predicate act of divesting, receiving or misappropriating a portion of

the tobacco excise tax share allocated for the Province of Ilocos Sur, this Court finds that
indeed an amount of P130,000,000.00 out of the P200,000,000.00 share in tobacco
excise taxes of the Province of Ilocos Sur was withdrawn from the provincial coffers and
misappropriated and misused to the damage and prejudice of the said province.

The evidence presented before this Court establish beyond doubt that Gov. Singson
initiated the process that eventually led to the allocation and release of funds by the
national government to the Province of Ilocos Sur of the amount of P200,000,000.00 from
the excise tax imposed pursuant to Republic Act No. 7171. As chief executive of the
Province of Ilocos Sur, Gov. Singson personally handed a letter to FPres. Estrada
requesting the release of Ilocos Surs share in the tobacco excise taxes [Exh. Q 8] to pin
him on his campaign promise to the people of Ilocos Sur during the 1998 Presidential
Elections. FPres. Estrada, through a marginal note on Gov. Singsons letter, endorsed the
request to then Sec. Benjamin Diokno of the Department of Budget and Management
(DBM) [Exh. Q8-1]. The DBM released the amount of P200,000,000 to the Province of
Ilocos Sur as its share in tobacco excise taxes as shown in the Notice of Funding Check
Issued, Fund 103 dated August 25, 1998 signed by DBM Sec. Benjamin Diokno and
addressed to the Provincial Governor of Ilocos Sur [Exh. R8]. Gov. Singson forthwith
caused the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Sur to enact a Resolution appropriating
the sum of P200,000,000.00, of which P170,000,000.00 was intended for flue-curing
barns and P30,000,000.00 for infrastructure. Gov. Singson caused the release of
P170,000,000.00 from the said fund as shown by the Authorization he issued to Maricar
Paz and Marina Atendido, employees of his office to officially transact with Land Bank
Vigan Branch, in behalf of the Provincial Government of Ilocos Sur dated August 27, 1998
[Exh "N18"], Check No. 0000097650 dated August 27, 1998 issued to the order of Luis
"Chavit" Singson in the amount of P170,000,000.00 [Exhs. O18 and P18], and an
Accountants Advice for Local Check Disbursement dated August 27, 1998 [Exh. Q 18]. This
amount, however, was broken down into smaller amounts and deposited/transferred to the
accounts of individuals identified with or known associates of Atong Ang, namely Alma
Alfaro, Delia Rajas and Eleuterio Tan, as shown by a certification of Land Bank Vigan
Branch Manager Ma. Elizabeth Balagot [Exh. S8], Demand Draft Application Nos. 656 and
712 in the name of Delia Rajas [Exhs. R18 and S18], Demand Draft Application No. 734 in
the name of Eleuterio Tan [Exh. T18], and Demand Draft Application No. 722 in the name of
Nuccio Saverio [Exh. U18], and the four demand drafts issued pursuant thereto [Exhs. V 18,
K13, L13 and M13]. A fifth demand draft in the name of Gov. Singson was inexplicably
cancelled albeit the amount covered by it was deposited in the account of Alma Alfaro
through an Inter-Branch Deposit Accomodation Slip [Exh. X18] as instructed by Maricar Paz
to Land Bank. The demand drafts issued to Delia Rajas and Eleuterio Tan were similarly
cancelled and the amounts of P40,000,000.00 and P50,000,000.00 covered by the
demand drafts were deposited in the accounts of Eleuterio Tan and Delia Rajas,
respectively, at Land Bank Shaw Branch. Alma Alfaros P40,000,000.00 was withdrawn by
her in cash a day after it was deposited in her account at Land Bank Shaw Branch on
August 27, 1998 [TSN, November 4, 2003, pp. 27-43]. On the other hand, Tan and Rajas
withdrew on the same day P40,000,000 and P50,000,000, respectively, from their
accounts and Tan used the proceeds to buy Three (3) cashiers check in the amount of
P30,000,000 each or a total of P90,000,000 [Exhs. W13-1, V13-1 & X13-1]. The Three (3)
cashiers check were deposited in Savings Account No. 2011-00772-7 at Westmont Bank,
Mandaluyong Branch [Ibid, pp. 52-91]. The P40,000,000.00 originally covered by the
demand draft in the name of Gov. Singson which was cancelled and subsequently
withdrawn by Alma Alfaro was not shown to have been deposited at Westmont Bank. Who
profited from this sum of money? The Court can only surmise given the dearth of even the
prosecutions evidence on what happened to the money after it was received by Alma
Alfaro. Significantly, it appears that of the P170,000,000.00 appropriated by the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Sur for flue-curing barns only the amount of
P40,000,000.0 went to the supplier of the flue-curing barn, Nuccio Saverio who encashed
his demand draft at Land Bank Makati Branch. Saverio could collect only the said amount
in view of the testimony of Gov. Singson that he delivered only one module of flue curing
barns costing P40,000,000.00.

According to Jamis Singson and Artates, they accompanied William Ang, the brother of
Atong Ang, to Westmont Bank to withdraw money but they just waited outside the bank.
They helped carry the four (4) boxes to the vehicle when William and the security guards
brought the said boxes outside the bank. Thereafter, they joined William transport the
boxes to the home of Catalina Ang, and later to the residence of FPres. Estrada at Polk
Street. Jamis and Artates were told by William Ang that the boxes contained money for
FPres. Estrada.

The prosecutions evidence that only the amount of P90,000,000.00 was deposited in
Westmont Bank created a loophole in the impression given by the testimony of Gov.
Singson that he and Atong Ang were supposed to bring the P130,000,000.00 withdrawn
from Westmontbank to the residence of FPres. Estrada. The Court can only speculate that
this could have been the reason why during the Ocular Inspection at the Bangko Sentral
ng Pilipinas (BSP) the amount of P130,000,000.00 could not fit the four (4) boxes
described by Gov. Singson and the other prosecution witnesses.

There are also gaps in the prosecutions evidence on the alleged delivery to FPres.
Estrada of the diverted funds or a portion thereof. It was not established how much cash
was allegedly stashed in the boxes that came from Westmont Bank and which were
unloaded/reloaded at the house of Catalina Ang or how much cash was in the boxes
allegedly brought to FPres. Estradas house. No one testified that he saw cash being
handed to FPres. Estrada, Sen. Loi Estrada or Jinggoy Estrada. Serious doubts are
engendered by the bare testimony of Gov. Singson, the prosecutions star witness, who,
by his own account, did not even touch the boxes of money, nor count the money inside
the boxes that arrived at the home of Catalina Ang and allegedly reloaded for delivery to
Polk Street. Gov. Singson did not also see the alleged turnover of the money by Ang to
FPres. Estrada, Dr. Loi Estrada or Mayor Jinggoy as he stayed at the corner of Polk
Street, so many meters away from the highly fenced and gated house of FPres. Estrada.
The Court finds it queer that Gov. Singson would stay only at the corner of the street
where FPres. Estradas residence is located instead of accompanying Ang to witness the
delivery of money that, according to him, was important to him and his constituents in
Ilocos Sur. Only Atong Ang could have credibly testified on the alleged delivery of money
but the prosecution did not present him as a witness, despite his plea of guilt to a lower
offense and his admission that he partook of P25,000,000.00 of the P130,000,000.00 of
the excise tax share of Ilocos Sur. This Court could not admit without corroborating
evidence Gov. Singsons bare testimony that FPres. Estrada purportedly got mad that
Atong Ang gave him only P70,000,000.00 and that Atong Ang had given P20,000,000.00
and P15,000,000.00 to Dr. Loi Estrada and Mayor Jinggoy respectively. In this Courts
view, certain details of Gov. Singsons testimony on this point are rather incredible and far-
fetched. Gov. Singson had not offered any explanation why and how Atong Ang had the
temerity or the guts to divide the money among FPres. Estrada and the members of the
First Family and decide by himself the amount of their respective shares without prior
clearance of FPres. Estrada, then the highest executive official of the land.

Furthermore, the record is bereft of evidence to confirm Gov. Singsons testimony that
FPres. Estrada was interested in the diversion of tobacco excise taxes or that there was
an agreement between Gov. Singson and FPres. Estrada that 10% of any amount
released to the Province of Ilocos Sur would be turned over by Gov. Singson to FPres.
Estrada. Gov. Singsons statements that Atong Ang and Mayor Jinggoy kept following up
the release of the money and that Atong Ang informed Gov. Singson that FPres. Estrada
wanted not just 10% but P130,000,000.00 of the P200,000,000.00 are likewise
uncorroborated. Regarding the testimony of Gov. Singson implicating Jinggoy Estrada in
the commission of the predicate act mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), the Honorable
Supreme Court early enough had clarified the import of the charge against accused
Jinggoy Estrada under the Amended Information in this manner:

xxx xxx xxx Sub-paragraph (b) alleged the predicate act of diverting,
receiving or misappropriating a portion of the tobacco excise tax share allocated
for the Province of Ilocos Sur, which Act is the offense described in item [1] in the
enumeration in Section 1 (d) of the law. This sub-paragraph does not mention
petitioner (Jinggoy Estrada) but instead names other conspirators of the Former
President. [Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, supra,
p. 553]

The recent decision in People of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan (Special Division) and
Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada (G.R. No. 158754, promulgated August 10, 2007) which upheld
this Courts Resolution granting bail to Jinggoy Estrada, has explained the essence and
import of the above-quoted ruling:

Obviously hoping to maneuver around the above ruling so as to implicate

individual respondent for predicate acts described in sub-paragraphs (b), (c) and
 (d) of the Amended Information, petitioner now argues:

It should be emphasized that in the course of the proceedings in the

instant case, respondent Jinggoy Estrada waived the benefit of the said
ruling and opted, instead, to participate, as he did participate and later
proceeded to cross examine witnesses whose testimonies were clearly
offered to prove the other constitutive acts of Plunder alleged in the
Amended Information under sub-paragraphs "b", "c", and "d".

We disagree.

At bottom, the petitioner assumes that the ruling accorded "benefits" to respondent
Jinggoy that were inexistent at the start of that case. But no such benefits were
extended, as the Court did not read into the Amended Information, as couched,
something not there in the first place. Respondent Jinggoys participation, if that
be the case, in the proceedings involving sub-paragraphs "b", "c", and "d", did not
change the legal situation set forth in the aforequoted portion of the Courts ruling
in G.R. No. 148965. For when it passed, in G.R. NO. 148965, upon the inculpatory
acts envisaged and ascribed in the Amended Information against Jinggoy, the
Court merely defined what he was indicted and can be penalized for. In legal
jargon, the Court informed him of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him, right guaranteed an accused under the Constitution. In fine, all that the Court
contextually did in G.R. No. 148965 was no more than to implement his right to be
informed of the nature of the accusation in the light of the filing of the Amended
Information as worded. If at all, the Courts holding in G.R. No. 148965 freed
individual respondent from the ill effects of a wrong interpretation that might be
given to the Amended Information.

The mere fact that FPres. Estrada endorsed Gov. Singsons request for release of funds
to the then DBM Secretary for review does not indicate any undue interest on the part of
FPres. Estrada in the grant of Gov. Singsons request. The tenor of the marginal note itself
was simply for the DBM Secretary to "see if [he] can accommodate the request of
Governor Singson." Finally, not a scintilla of evidence links FPres. Estrada to any of the
obscure personalities who withdrew the P130,000,000.00, namely, Delia Rajas, Alma
Alfaro, and Eleuterio Tan and to any of the official bank documents that made possible the
diversion and misappropriation of the aforesaid public funds.

In sum, the paper trail in relation to the P130,000,000.00 diverted tobacco excise taxes
began with Gov. Singson and ended with Atong Ang. This Court does not find the
evidence sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that FPres. Estrada or any
member of his family had instigated and/or benefited from the diversion of said funds.

RE: SUB-PARAGRAPH C OF THE

AMENDED INFORMATION
_____________________________

(c) by directing, ordering and compelling, FOR HIS PERSONAL GAIN

AND BENEFIT, the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) TO
PURCHASE, 351,878,000 SHARES OF STOCKS, MORE OR LESS, and
the Social Security System (SSS), 329,855,000 SHARES OF STOCK,
MORE OR LESS, OF THE BELLE CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF
 MORE OR LESS ONE BILLION ONE HUNDRED TWO MILLION NINE
HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SEVEN PESOS
AND FIFTY CENTAVOS [P1,102,965,607.50] AND MORE OR LESS
SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY FOUR MILLION SIX HUNDRED TWELVE
THOUSAND AND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS [P744,612,450.00],
RESPECTIVELY, OR A TOTAL OF MORE OR LESS ONE BILLION EIGHT
HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT
THOUSAND FIFTY SEVEN PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS
[P1,847,578,057.50]; AND BY COLLECTING OR RECEIVING, DIRECTLY
OR INDIRECTLY, BY HIMSELF AND/OR IN CONNIVANCE WITH JOHN
DOES AND JANE DOES, COMMISSIONS OR PERCENTAGES BY
REASON OF SAID PURCHASES OF SHARES OF STOCK IN THE
AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE MILLION SEVEN
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS [P189,700,000.00], MORE OR LESS,
FROM THE BELLE CORPORATION WHICH BECAME PART OF THE
DEPOSIT IN THE EQUITABLE-PCI BANK UNDER THE ACCOUNT
NAME "JOSE VELARDE

Under paragraph (c) of the Amended Information, accused FPres. Estrada was charged
with the crime of plunder, for having willfully, unlawfully and criminally acquired, amassed
or accumulated and acquired ill-gotten wealth in the amount of P189,700,000.00
representing commissions or percentages by reason of the purchase of shares of stock of
Belle Corporation by SSS and GSIS.

The gravamen of this specific charge is whether FPres. Estrada, unjustly enriched himself
at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic
by receiving a commission of P187 Million as consideration for the purchase by SSS and
GSIS of Belle Shares. Even if the Prosecution is able to establish that FPres. Estrada
used his official position, authority, relationship and influence and directed, ordered and
compelled Carlos A. Arellano (then President of the SSS) and Federico C. Pascual (then
President of GSIS) for SSS and GSIS to buy Belle shares with money of the GSIS and
SSS which are held in trust by the said institutions for the millions of employees of the
government and the private sector, such fact alone does not constitute an overt or criminal
act, the commission of which would warrant a conviction for plunder. Prosecution must
establish that, in consideration of the purchase by GSIS and SSS of the Belle Shares,
FPres. Estrada received the amount of P189,700,000.00 as commission.

In discharging its burden of proof that FPres. Estrada directed, ordered and compelled, for
his personal gain and benefit, the GSIS to purchase 351,878,000 shares of stock more or
less, and the SSS to purchase 329,855,000 shares of stock more or less, of the Belle
Corporation in the amount of more or less One Billion One Hundred Two Million Nine
Hundred Sixty Five Thousand Six Hundred Seven Pesos And Fifty Centavos
(P1,102,965,607.50) and more or less Seven Hundred Forty Four Million Six Hundred
Twelve Thousand And Four Hundred Fifty Pesos (P744,612,450.00), respectively, or a
total of more or less One Billion Eight Hundred Forty Seven Million Five Hundred Seventy
Eight Thousand Fifty Seven Pesos And Fifty Centavos (P1,847,578,057.50), the
prosecution presented its principal witnesses in the persons of Arellano, Pascual, Ocier
and Capulong.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

WILLY NG OCIER (Ocier) was the Vice Chairman and Director of Belle Corporation on
June 24, 1999. He testified that SSI Management, a company created by Roberto Ongpin
was the Selling stockholder of Belle shares totaling 650,000,000. [TSN January 9, 2002,
p.94] Roberto Ongpin, in his personal capacity, originally gave an option to Mark Jimenez
to purchase these 650,000,000 shares of Belle [Ibid., pp. 67- 68] because Roberto Ongpin
at that time granted (sic) to transform Belle Corporation into the foremost gaming
company in the Philippines, and he wanted somebody to help him "acquiring (sic) licenses
to do Jai-Alai and to do Super Sabong, Bingo, Casino, etc., etc." [Ibid. pp. 71 and 72] and
Mr. Roberto Ongpin whom he held in high regard, told him that Mark Jimenez was a very
close friend of FPres. Estrada. [Ibid. p. 84] The option was given as an incentive for Mark
Jimenez as a favor to Roberto Ongpin. [Ibid. p. 88] Mark Jimenez was not able to exercise
the option because Ongpin was ousted from the Board of Belle on June 15, 1999. [Ibid. p.
90]

After a meeting of the Board of Directors of Belle Corporation on July 20, 1999 (Exh. P),
when Dichaves asked Ocier about the option given by Ongpin to Mark Jimenez and if the
option can be given to him, Ocier told Dichaves that the option cannot be given anymore
because of the fact that the shares are intended to be sold in light of a recent call for
unpaid subscription. [TSN, January 7, 2002, p. 17] The Board of Director of Belle
Corporation decided to make a call for payment of unpaid subscriptions to raise money to
address the debt problem of the Corporation. [TSN, October 1, 2001, p. 79] When asked
what can be done in relation to the Belle shares, Ocier explained to Dichaves that he
needs the latters help in selling the Belle shares to cover for the 75 per cent unpaid
subscription and the two of them basically agreed to divide the work wherein Ocier would
contact his foreign brokers to sell the shares and Dichaves will contact his local
counterparts or contacts if he can sell the shares locally. [TSN, January 7, 2002, p.18]

Ocier further testified that overtime (sic) the market was not very strong, so the foreign
brokers took quite a while to make decisions about their action of buying Belle shares. [Id.]
In a subsequent meeting with Dichaves, Ocier testified that Dichaves confirmed to him
that there was a good chance that GSIS and SSS may be willing to buy the Belle shares
and when he asked when the shares can be transacted he was assured by Dichaves that
the latter had taken up the matter already with FPres. Estrada and that Dichaves told him
that the Former President had already spoken to Carlos Arellano of SSS and Ding
Pascual of GSIS about the said matter. [Ibid. p. 19]

After a few weeks, Dichaves called Ocier and told the latter that the transaction may be
pushing through but that Dichaves wanted to take up a matter of condition that was
proposed for the transaction to push through which was to the effect that Ocier will have to
give a commission for the transaction to push through. [Ibid .pp. 20-21] Ocier testified that
since the shares involved was approximately 600,000,000 to 650,000,000 and the price of
Belle at that time at about P3.00 per share, the total expected proceeds of the sale was
almost Two Billion Pesos (P2,000,000,000.00) and the commission that Jaime was asking
for amounted to Two Hundred Million Pesos (P200,000,000.00). [Ibid. p. 23]

When asked to whom the commission should be given, Ocier answered that according to
Dichaves, the condition was being imposed by FPres. Estrada. [Ibid. p. 26] When asked
for his reaction to the information conveyed by Dichaves that it was FPres. Estrada that
imposed the condition, Ocier testified that his reaction was that he felt that it was quite a
big amount of commission to be paid and that normally, in real estate and stock
transactions, commissions range between three (3) to five (5) percent only and he told
Dichaves that he finds that quite high [Ibid. p. 34], to which Dichaves answered that "that
was the condition." [Ibid. p. 36] When asked what his answer was to the answer of
Dichaves that that was the condition, Ocier answered that he was constrained to agree
because Dichaves told him that "that was the only way for the transaction to push
through." [Id.] Ocier further testified that on October 21, 1999, Belle shares totaling
447,650,000 were sold by SSI Management to GSIS and SSS through Eastern Securities
Development Corporation [Ibid. p. 39; Exh. Q; Q-1; Exh. T] while other Belle Shares were
sold through other brokers. [TSN dated January 14, 2002, p. 20]

CARLOS ALMARIO ARELLANO (Arellano) was appointed Chairman and President of

SSS on July 1, 1998 by FPres. Estrada. [TSN, November 7, 2001, p. 49] The transaction
with Belle was initiated on October 6, 1999. He got a call from FPres. Estrada and was
told: "Gusto ko kayo ni Ding Pascual ay tignan ninyo ang pagbili ng Belle Corporation sa
stock market. [Ibid. pp. 75- 77] He thought that the words "tignan ninyo" was an instruction
for him. [Ibid. p. 80] After the instruction, he asked the people in the Investment
Department of SSS to take a look and review the shares of Belle as an investment item in
the portfolio of SSS and also to find out to what extent the SSS can further increase the
SSS position in the said stock. [Ibid. p. 82]

As far as the Investment Committee was concerned, they agreed that Belle is still possible
investment for the SSS. [Ibid. p. 94] In answer to the instruction of the President he said
"Opo, opo." [Id.] He got a call from FPres. Estrada the week after and he was asked to
see the President at Malacanang. [Ibid. p. 95] At Malacaang, he saw FPres. Estrada with
Jaime Dichaves. While he was there he approached the FPres. who stood up and took
him aside and asked whether this time, he had followed FPres. instructions to buy Belle
shares. He replied: "Tinitignan pa po ng Investment committee namin." [Ibid. pp. 97, 104]
He did not immediately buy the Belle shares because he felt that it was not the proper
timing and the volume that was being considered was too much and not yet the proper
time. [Ibid. p. 102] When he answered this to the Former President, he recalled that the
reaction of the Former President was to tell him "Bilisan ninyo na, bilisan." [Ibid. p. 107]
Upon receiving these instructions, he still did not do anything for a few days after. [Ibid. p.
115] After several days, he received another call from FPres. Estrada and he repeated
"Bilisan mo, bilisan ninyo na. [Ibid. p. 124] As far as he was concerned, it was more
serious than previous orders given to him. [Id.] On October 21, the SSS implemented the
transaction. [TSN dated November 7, 2001, p. 110]

FEDERICO CALIMBAS PASCUAL (Pascual) was the President of GSIS in 1999, testified
that he had a meeting with FPres. Estrada on September 6, 1999 and in that meeting, he
was instructed by the FPres. Estrada to buy Belle Shares. It was only in October 9, 1999
when he ordered his people to buy Belle Shares because First: he was hoping that the
President was not serious in his September 6, 1999 instruction and he was hoping the
President would forget his instruction. [TSN, November 22, 2001, p. 20] Second, because
he was not very comfortable with Belle because some people are of the opinion that Belle
Shares, because the corporation is involved in jai-alai and gambling, is "speculative
flavor." [Id.]

In another telephone conversation with FPres. Estrada on October 9, 1999, he felt that the
President was more serious in his instructions in the sense that, he was away and there
was this telephone call and he felt that FPres. Estrada was already agitated. [Ibid. p. 24]
In the telephone call, he was asked by FPres. Estrada "bakit hindi ka pa bumibili ng Belle"
to which he replied "tatawag ho ako sa head office at papa-aralan ko." [Ibid. pp. 56-57]

When he returned to the Philippines on October 21, 1999, he learned that GSIS had
purchased 351,000,000 Belle Share worth P1,100,000,000.00 as shown by the
investment committee confirmation report.

On cross-examination, he testified that his purpose in executing his affidavit was to

remove from the minds of the doubting public that he benefited from the Belle Shares.
[Ibid. p. 48; Exh. O to O-4] The alleged money making that intervened or supervened in
the purchase of Belle Shares was not included in his affidavit because the purpose was to
show how GSIS purchased shares of Belle on the instruction of the Former President.
[Ibid. p. 54] The purchases of Belle Shares were made when he was abroad. FPres.
Estrada gave him the instructions to buy and he also made instructions to his people to
buy, that was the chain of events. [Ibid. pp. 68; 74] He authorized the purchase of Belle
Shares only if Belle was a qualified share. [Ibid. p. 69] If he did not make that call to the
people in GSIS about the Former Presidents instruction, there was probably no possibility
of GSIS acquiring Belle Shares during that period of time beginning October 13 to October
21. [Ibid. p. 77] Except for the instruction, there was nothing irregular, illegal or anomalous
about the transaction and he does not know whether somebody benefited from the
purchase of Belle Shares that took place between October 13 to 21. [Ibid, p. 83]

RIZALDY TADEO CAPULONG (Capulong) was the Deputy Chief Actuary and Assistant
Vice-President of the Securities Trading and Management Department of the Social
Security System (SSS). He headed the Actuary Department which was responsible in
making long term and short term projections of the revenues and expenditures of SSS. As
AVP of the Securities Trading and Management Department, Capulong was in charge of
providing research and operational support to top SSS offices with regard to equities and
investment.

Capulong testified that he made the recommendation which cost the SSS
P1,300,000,000.00 because per his research, evaluation and verification, it was a
profitable transaction. He had gone into the validity and legality of the acquisition of the
Belle Shares and he was convinced that they were all proper, legal and beyond reproach.
He signed the recommendation and submitted it for approval of the Executive
Management Committee and then for the approval of the Social Security Commission.
Capulong clarified that it was an approval for allocation not for funding. For SSS to be able
to acquire shares of their corporation, it was necessary that there was an approval for an
allocation. SSS had the amount of money but it was not reserved for Belle transactions
even with the approval of the recommendation. The money will only be identified and
allocated at the time of transaction. [TSN dated February 6, 11, 13, and 18, 2002]

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

REYNALDO PASTORFIDE PALMIERY (Palmiery) was the Senior Executive Vice-

President and the Chief Operating Officer and Member of the Board of Trustees of the
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). Palmiery was the Chairman of the
Investment Committee of the GSIS in 1998 to 2000. The Investment Committee discusses
the new proposals for investment which were elevated by the Corporate Finance Group of
the GSIS. The process is that the Finance Corporate Group first studies and evaluates
stocks which are not yet qualified and accredited to be purchased and elevates this to the
Investment Committee for discussion, and if it is approved by the Investment Committee
then it is elevated to the board for approval.

Palmiery testified that the GSIS had been trading all Belle Shares in 1993. The first
acquisition of GSIS then was about 18 million shares, or 5% of the outstanding stocks of
Belle Corporation, and that the GSIS booked an aggregate trading gain of
P145,859,195.95 on the purchase of Belle Shares alone (Exh. 236 and submarkings).

Palmiery then presented and identified a Joint Counter-Affidavit which the members of the
Investment Committee filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. He confirmed the
statement contained in the last paragraph of the joint affidavit that the Investment in Belle
Shares was made solely on the basis of the compliance with the law and GSIS internal
guidelines. Palmiery was not aware of any phone call made by FPres. Estrada to Pascual.
He further explained that the acquisition of the Belles Shares was pursuant to the directive
of General Manager Pascual. Palmiery related that he received a call from Pascual and
instructed him to review and study the prospects of Belle Corporation with the end
objective to purchase shares of stock of the said corporation up to the limit allowed under
the existing guidelines of GSIS. The evaluation was pursued and approved.

On cross-examination, Palmiery admitted that under GSIS Resolution No. 284 series of
1992, General Manager Pascual was given the sole authority to trade in stocks listed or
traded in the two (2) major stocks exchange, and under GSIS Resolution No. 273, he was
granted the continuing authority to buy Belle Shares. Resolution No. 273 was then
amended in 1998 by the GSIS providing for the continuing authority for the President and
General Manager as well as the Executive Vice President and the Senior Vice President
for Corporate Finance to purchase and sell stocks traded in the Stocks Exchange at
prevailing prices.

On re-direct examination, Palmiery testified that when General Manager Pascual called
and instructed him to purchase Belle Shares the number of shares to be purchased was
specified to be within the limits of the GSIS Guidelines which was the number of shares
equivalent to one board seat or 10% of the outstanding shares whichever is higher. [TSN
dated December 13, 2004 and TSN dated January 24, 2005]

HON. HERMOGENES DIAZ CONCEPCION (Conception) was a Retired Associate

Justice of the Supreme Court and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Government
Service Insurance System (GSIS).

Concepcion testified that he was familiar with the Belle Resources and Shares of Stocks,
and confirmed the veracity and accuracy of the statement in paragraph 10 of his Affidavit.
With respect to the acquisition that took place on October 13 to 21, 1999, witness
Concepcion explained that the President/General Manager of the GSIS has full authority
to buy and sell shares listed in the stock exchange of the amounts within the boundary set
forth by the Board of Trustees. So, the President buys and sells these securities without
the Board knowing what he did because decisions have to be made sometimes on the
spot in order to get a better margin. Paragraph 16 (2) of the Counter-Affidavit was
checked with the records of the GSIS, the Committee in charge of the investment, and the
amounts made by the GSIS on these shares, P145,859,195.94, was furnished to them.
Witness Concepcion explained that during the period from 1993 to 2000, the GSIS would
buy shares then sell them, buy shares then sell them, and by that process, the GSIS
made P145 Million as profit or actual gain. Witness also stated that paragraph 16 (9)
which refers to the purchase of 351,878,000 shares was based on the records of the
GSIS.

Concepcion also testified that then President and General Manager Federico Pascual
never told them that FPres. talked to him nor discussed to the witness the alleged
directive or pressure brought upon him by FPres. Estrada. There was no need to ask
Federico Pascual why he bought shares because there is the presumption that our
functions are regularly performed. [TSN dated December 8, 2004]

MERCEDITAS GARCIA GACULITAN (Gaculitan) was the Corporate Secretary of the

Social Security Commission (SSS). Gaculitan testified that before these investments in
Belle Resources Corporation were made prior approval of the investment by the
Commission en banc were obtained since all purchases and all investments are required
to be approved or passed upon by the Social Security Commission. [TSN dated
December 13, 2004]

Accused FORMER PRESIDENT JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA testified on his own

defense. The relevant portions of his testimony are set forth below.

The purchase of Belle Shares according to accused FPres. Estrada

In the Memorandum for FPres. Estrada, the defense stated that under this indictment, the
Prosecution incur the bounden duty to prove:

1. accused Estradas acts constitutive of directing, ordering and compelling

the GSIS and SSS to buy Belle Shares;

2. the purchase were made solely due to the said acts of compulsion by
accused Estrada;

3. the extent and parameter of Estradas acts relative to the questioned

purchases;

4. the alleged profit commission is government fund or money; and

5. damages to the government or People of the Philippines.

The Defense claims that the prosecutions evidence itself shows that (1) the transaction
complained of was perfectly valid, since accused FPres. Estrada did not direct, order or
compel SSS and GSIS to buy Belle Shares and (2) there is no proof that any commission
was paid to the accused. [Defense Memorandum, p. 192]

To bolster its claim that the purchase of Belle Shares was a perfectly valid transaction, the
Defense pointed to the following portions of Arellanos testimony:

1. That the purchase of Belle Shares was a routine transaction in the regular
course of business, for SSS had previously purchased Belle Shares at
profit;

2. What was told by FPres. Estrada to Arellano was simply to initiate the
acquisition of Belle Shares. How many shares he was ordered to buy and
 at how much price per share, was never dealt with in the phone
conversation;

3. The above notwithstanding, Arellano proceeded on his own volition with

the acquisition of the 249 Million Belle Shares.

4. The Decision to purchase was exclusively his and the policy making body
of SSS.
[Ibid. pp. 193-194, citing TSN, November 8, 2001, pp. 63, 73-74, 75-76]

The Defense argues that the reason why Arellano testified in the manner he did and
executed an affidavit implicating FPres. Estrada in the instant plunder case
notwithstanding that there was nothing irregular, illegal or anomalous in the October 21,
1999 acquisition of Belle Shares was because his testimonies and affidavit are his last
ditch effort to exculpate himself from possible plunder charges where he may be detained
without bail considering that plunder is a capital offense. [Ibid. p. 197]

Likewise, the Defense cited the testimony of Capulong who testified that he examined and
audited all the acquisition papers and the various confirmation slips and official receipts
covering the acquisition and found them to be in order. Hence he had no objection to, but
on the contrary, approved the payment of the said acquisition. Said witness also testified
that as far as he was concerned, there was nothing illegal or irregular or anomalous in the
SSS purchase of Belle Shares in October 21, 1999 and that it was a legal investment and
a valid investment that is in the list of investment of SSS. That it is not an irregular
investment and it is said that it might be somewhat not ordinary in the sense that in this
case there was a call. [Ibid. p. 198, citing TSN, November 14, 2001, p. 53]

Insofar as the acquisition by GSIS of Belle Shares, the Defense argued that the purchase
by GSIS was in accordance with investment policy and rules.

The Defense sought to establish that the Belle Shares were qualified under GSIS policy
and charter and GSIS may by itself and in accordance with its rules, purchase Belle
Shares without the need of any order or compulsion from anybody as shown by the
testimony of Pascual, the President of GSIS when he admitted that even way back in
1993, GSIS had been purchasing or dealing with Belle Shares and had already made
profits at the extent of around P145,000,000.00 since 1993 up to the present prior to his
coming in as the new General Manager of GSIS. [TSN, November 22, 2001, pp. 61 to 62]
That the purchase was in accordance with the GSIS policy was established by Pascuals
testimony that the trading department under the Corporate Finance Group investigated
and made further inquiries in connection with the shares and concluded that there would
be no violation that could have been committed by GSIS in the purchase of the shares.
[TSN, December 3, 2001, pp. 14 and 15] Pascual further testified that the price of P3.13
per share was the worth of the shares around the time it was purchased and it was
reported to him by his people that the reason why they bought so much was because
there was a history of profitability and that they already had a P1,000,000,000.00 turnover
plus and he felt that it was "a good buying afterwards." (sic) [Defense Memorandum, p.
204] Pascual also testified that he had no information if anybody benefited from the
purchase of Belle Shares that took place on October 13 to 21 and admitted that GSIS was
suffering a paper loss because of the purchase. [Ibid. p. 204-205, citing TSN, November
22, 2001, pp. 83-84]
Defense argued that assuming arguendo that there was an instruction from FPres.
Estrada for such purchase, such instruction was not too compelling or irresistible to
directly cause the execution of the purchase suggestion and that such instruction was
immaterial because the GSIS Board which approved the transaction did not receive the
alleged instruction of the Former President and that in the same vein, the GSIS decided
on the purchase independently, free from any compulsion by an outsider as the instruction
given by Pascual was to the effect that a study be conducted and if the Belle Shares are
qualified, to buy within the range of their authority. [Defense Memorandum, pp. 205-206,
citing TSN, December 3, 2001, p. 93]

As to Pascuals testimony that it was unusual for FPres. Estrada to call him for the
purchase of a (sic) particular shares, the Defense pointed out that as per admission of
Pascual, what he meant by unusual was that FPres. Estrada called him when he was out
of the country. Defense pointed out however, that as testified by FPres. Estrada, the latter
did not know that Pascual was out of the country when he called. [Ibid. p. 209] Defense
pointed out that, by Pascuals admission, the GSIS Board was not pressured into finding
that the Belle Shares were okay, above board, and that they were not pressured by
anybody into concluding the purchase. [Ibid. p. 214, citing TSN, December 3, 2001, p. 93]

FPres. Estrada testified that he appointed Arellano and Pascual and he knows that Belle
Resources is the developer of Tagaytay Highlands because sometimes, he spends his
weekend in Tagaytay Highlands. [TSN, April 26, 2006 (pm), p. 10-11] He denied that he
instructed or ordered Pascual to buy Belle Shares on September 6, 1999 during a meeting
with him. What he told Pascual was to study and make due diligence if Belle Shares will
be beneficial to the GSIS. To which Pascual answered "Yes" and that he has this
Corporate Finance Group to make the study. As to the testimony of Pascual regarding his
telephone conversation with FPres. Estrada, the latter testified that he did not know that
Pacual was abroad and he talked to him not about Belle Shares but about delayed
benefits of GSIS members. [Ibid. pp. 17, 24] He denied ordering Pascual to buy Belle
Shares. [Ibid. pp. 15-17] He claimed there was nothing irregular about his instruction to
Pascual when he only told him to make a serious study and due diligence. [Ibid. p. 22]

As regards Arellanos testimony, FPres. Estrada denied that he ever called Arellano nor
did he order him to buy Belle Shares. He remembers that Mr. Jaime Dichaves told him,
that being one of the members of the Board of Directors, the latter informed him that Belle
Resources are offering their stocks to GSIS and SSS and that Dichaves was looking for
investors, local and foreign and he told Dichaves that it will be upon the study of SSS and
GSIS who will decide whether they are buying or not. [Ibid. p. 25] As regards the
telephone conversation with Arellano, FPres. Estrada testified that they talked in Tagalog
and he said to Arellano to study the offer of Belle Resources and if it will be beneficial to
the government then why not. To which Arellano answered "Yes, sir," that he would refer
the matter to the Investment Committeee to give due diligence. [Ibid. pp. 26-27] FPres.
Estrada denied that he pressured Arellano and said that he noticed that the testimony of
Pascual and Arellano are the same as if they are of the same script. [Ibid. p. 29] FPres.
Estrada stated that Pascual or Arellano, admitted buying Belle Shares and they were the
ones who decided the amount and how much to buy and they did not inform him anymore.
[Ibid. p. 32] As regards the testimonies of Pascual and Arellano, FPres. Estrada testified
that it seems they have only one lawyer. He learned that Pascual and Arellano were called
by then DOJ Secretary Perez and it was the latter who pressured them to testify against
him and they were threatened to be charged with plunder. He also learned that Secretary
Perez gave them a lady lawyer but he does not know the relation of Perez to that lady
lawyer. [Ibid. p. 37] FPres. Estrada testified that after Arellano testified in Court, the latter
called him and apologized because according to him, he could not do anything since he
was threatened by Secretary Perez with the words that if they can send the President to
jail, what more of him? [Ibid. p. 41]

FPres. Estrada also denied knowledge of the alleged conversation and transaction
between Ocier and Dichaves. He testified that Mr. Dichaves was, at that time, one of the
members of the Board of Directors of Belle Resources and a business man. [Ibid. p. 42]
FPres. Estrada cited instances when he was offered commissions but he rejected them
such as the IMPSA and SGS deals. [Ibid. pp. 45-48] His reaction to Arellanos statement
to him that the latter was threatened was to say that he understood because the same
thing happened to him when he was offered by Secretary Nani Perez that he could go to
any country of his choice but he refused. [Ibid. pp. 49-50]

FINDINGS OF FACT

Re: Sub-paragraph (c) of the Amended Information

We find that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that FPres.
Estrada directed and instructed Arellano and Pascual for SSS and GSIS respectively to
buy Belle Shares.

As can be culled from the testimonial and documentary evidence of the Prosecution, the
following circumstances surround the purchase of the Belle Shares by GSIS and SSS.

On July 20, 1999, Ocier and Dichaves discussed the matter of the sale of the 650,000,000
shares of Belle, in the light of a recent call for payment of unpaid subscription which the
Board of Directors of Belle Corporation decided to address its debt problems. Ocier
explained to Dichaves that he needs the latters help in selling the Belle Shares to cover
for the 75 per cent unpaid subscription. They agreed to divide the task of looking for
buyers of these Belle Shares with Ocier looking for foreign buyers and Dichaves to look
for local buyers. [ TSN, January 7, 2002, p.18]

In a subsequent meeting with Dichaves, the latter confirmed to Ocier that there was a
good chance that GSIS and SSS may be willing to buy the Belle shares as Dichaves had
taken up the matter already with FPres. Estrada and that Dichaves told him that the
Former President had already spoken to Carlos Arellano of SSS and Ding Pascual of
GSIS about the said matter. [Ibid, p. 19]

After a few weeks, Dichaves called Ocier and told the latter that the transaction may be
pushing through but that a commission will have to be paid as a condition for the purchase
to push through. [Ibid. p. 21] As per Ociers testimony, Dichaves told him that it was FPres.
Estrada who imposed the condition. [Ibid. p. 26] Since the shares involved was
approximately 600,000,000 to 650,000,000 and the price of Belle at that time was about
P3.00 per share, the total expected proceeds of the sale was almost Two Billion Pesos
and the commission involved would amount to Two Hundred Million Pesos. [Ibid. p. 23]

Since the payment of the commission was the only way for the transaction to push
through, he was constrained to agree to the payment of the commission. [Ibid. p. 36]
On September 6, 1999, at a meeting with FPres. Estrada, Federico Pascual, President of
GSIS was instructed by the President to buy Belle Shares. [TSN, November 22, 2001, p.
20]

On October 6 1999, Carlos Arellano got a call from FPres. Estrada and was told: "Gusto
ko kayo ni Ding Pascual ay tignan ninyo ang pagbili ng Belle Corporation sa stock market.
[TSN, November 7, 2001, p. 77] He thought that the words "tignan ninyo" was an
instruction for him. [Ibid. p. 80] After the instruction he asked the people in the Investment
Department of SSS to take a look and review the shares of Belle as an investment item in
the portfolio of SSS and also to find out to what extent the SSS can further increase the
SSS position in the said stock. [Ibid. p. 82]

He got a call from FPres. Estrada the week after and he was asked to see the President
at Malacanang. [Ibid. p. 95] At Malacaang he saw FPres. Estrada with Jaime Dichaves.
While he was there he approached the President who stood up and took him aside and
asked whether this time, he had followed FPres. Estradas instructions to buy Belle
shares. He replied: "Tinitignan pa po ng Investment committee namin"; [Ibid. p. 97-104]
When he answered this to the President, he recalled that the reaction of the President
was to tell him "Bilisan ninyo na, bilisan." [Ibid. p. 107] Upon receiving these instructions,
he still did not do anything for a few days after. [Ibid. p. 115]

After several days, he received another call from FPres. Estrada and the latter repeated
"Bilisan mo, bilisan ninyo na." As far as he was concerned, it was more serious than
previous orders given to him. [Ibid. p. 124]

October 9, 1999 while Pascual was abroad, he talked by phone to FPres. Estrada who
asked him "bakit hindi ka pa bumibili ng Belle" to which he replied "tatawag ho ako sa
head office at papa-aralan ko." [TSN, November 22, 2001, pp. 56-57] He felt that the
President was more serious in his instructions in the sense that, he was away and there
was this telephone call and he felt that FPres. Estrada was already agitated. [Ibid. p. 24]
He ordered the purchase of the Belle Shares on the same day. The President gave him
the instructions to buy and he also made instructions to his people to buy, that was the
chain of events. [Ibid. pp. 68; 74]

For the period October 13-21, 1999, GSIS bought 351,878,000 Belle Shares and paid
P1,102,965,607.50 (Exh. N), and the Social Security System (SSS) bought 329,855,000
Belle Shares for P744,612,450.00 on October 21, 1999. [TSN, February 14, 2005, p.78]

That the purchase of Belle Shares by GSIS and SSS was the result of the instructions of
the FPres. Estrada is borne out by the following circumstances:

1. The sequence of events beginning from the time Ocier agreed to the
payment of commission, to the instructions transmitted personally and by
telephone calls from FPres. Estrada to Pascual and Arellano, to the actual
purchase of Belle Shares by GSIS and SSS.

2. The haste with which GSIS and SSS bought Belle Shares. In the case of
GSIS, from October 9, 1999 (when the "agitated instructions" were given)
to October 13, 1999 (the date when the first purchases were made) or a
period of 4 days. In the case of SSS, a few days after October 13, 1999,
( the date when the "more serious" order was given by FPres. Estrada to
 Arellano) to October 21, 1999 (the date when the purchases were made)
or a period of no more than 8 days. The instructions to buy originated from
FPres. Estrada and cascaded to Pascual and Arellano then to GSIS and
SSS respectively.

3. The obedience to FPres. Estradas instructions despite Arellanos

reluctance to do so because he believed that it was not the proper timing
and the volume that was being considered was too much and not yet the
proper time. [TSN, November 7, 2001, p. 102] And in the case of Pascual,
his reluctance to buy because he was not very comfortable with Belle
because some people are of the opinion that Belle Shares, because the
corporation is involved in jai-alai and gambling, has speculative flavor.
[TSN, November 22, 2001, Ibid. p. 20]

4. The relationship of Pascual and Arellano to FPres. Estrada, who, being the
appointees and subordinates of FPres. Estrada, cannot refuse the
instruction of their superior.

5. The manner in which the instructions were given. In the case of Arellano,
he felt that the third order was more serious than previous orders given to
him. [TSN, November 7, 2001, p. 124] And, in the case of Pascual,
because he felt that FPres. Estrada was already agitated. [TSN,
November 22, 2001, p. 24]

We find no merit to the claim of the Defense that the prosecutions evidence itself shows
that: (1) The transaction complained of was perfectly valid, since accused FPres. Estrada
did not direct, order or compel SSS and GSIS to buy Belle Shares and (2) There is no
proof that any commission was paid to the accused. [Defense Memorandum, p. 192]

The denial of FPres. Estrada that he instructed Pascual and Arellano to buy Belle Shares
cannot overcome the straightforward and direct testimony of Pascual and Arellano
attesting to the persistent instructions given by FPres. Estrada which is replete with
details. Mere denial by an accused, particularly when not properly corroborated or
substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, cannot prevail over the testimony of
credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. Denial, being in the nature of
negative and self-serving evidence, is seldom given weight in law. Positive and forthright
declarations of witnesses are often held to be worthier of credence than the self-
serving denial of the accused. [People v. Quilang, 312 SCRA, 328, 329]

Neither can We give more weight to the claim of the Defense that the purchase of Belle
Shares was a perfectly valid transaction even as it pointed to the following portions of
Arellanos testimony:

1. That the purchase of Belle Shares was a routine transaction in the regular
course of business, for SSS had previously purchased Belle Shares at
profit;

2. What was told by FPres. Estrada to Arellano was simply to initiate the
acquisition of Belle Shares. How many shares he was ordered to buy and
at how much price per share, was never dealt with in the phone
 conversation;

3. The above notwithstanding, Arellano proceeded on his own volition with

the acquisition of the 249 Million Belle Shares.

4. The Decision to purchase was exclusively his and the policy making body
of SSS. [Ibid. 193-194, citing TSN, November 8, 2001, pp. 63, 73-74, 75-
76]

for prefatory to these actions of the SSS were the instructions given by FPres. Estrada to
Arellano and the compliance with said instructions by Arellano. While it is true that the
SSS had previously granted authority for additional investment by SSS in Belle Shares
prior to and up to 1999, it was only in the 1999 purchases that there was an instruction
coming from FPres. Estrada through Arellano to purchase Belle Shares.

The evidence of the Defense show that the 1st Indorsement dated September 29, 1999 re:
proposal to increase by P450,000,000.00 the investment allocation for Belle to total
P1,300,000,000.00 was not signed by Arellano (Exh. 242), contrary to the assertion of the
Defense. [In its formal offer of Evidence on p. 45, Defense claimed that Exh. 247 was
executed by Arellano. Exh. 247 is the same as Exh. 242]

Neither was there any documentary evidence submitted showing the approval by the
Commission of the proposal increasing by 450,000,000 the investment allocation for Belle
to total P1,300,000,000.00.

Likewise, the testimony of Capulong - that he examined and audited all the acquisition
papers and the various confirmation slips and official receipts covering the acquisition and
found them to be in order and hence, he had no objection to, but on the contrary approved
the payment of the said acquisition; that as far as he was concerned, there was nothing
illegal or irregular or anomalous in the SSS purchase of Belle Shares in October 21, 1999
and that it was a legal investment and a valid investment that is in the list of investment of
SSS; that it is not an irregular investment and it is said that it might be somewhat not
ordinary in the sense that in this case there was a call [Defense Memorandum, p.198,
citing TSN, November 14, 2001, p. 53], in fact corroborates Arellanos statement that
indeed there was a call from FPres. Estrada instructing the purchase of Belle Shares.

Moreover, Capulong, in his testimony, stated that Belle Corporation Shares were no longer
qualified stocks since Belle had not declared dividends whether in cash or stock in 1997,
1998 and 1999. [TSN, February 14, 2005, p. 75]

He likewise testified that it was former President and Chairman Carlos A. Arellano who
directly gave the orders to the brokers to purchase Belle Shares in behalf of the SSS and
he (Capulong) had nothing to do directly insofar as the acquisition was concerned since
his participation is merely limited to recommend the increase of the funding for the
acquisition of the shares. [TSN, February 11, 2002, p. 11]

Capulong further testified that for the month of October, 1999, the SSS bought
389,855,000 shares with a value of P1,031,126,400.00. [Ibid. p. 38] In his subsequent
testimony, Capulong testified that on October 21, 1999, the SSS bought 249,679,000
shares at the value of P784,551,150.00 at an average price of P3.14/share. [TSN,
February 14, 2005, p. 78] After October 21, 1999, Belle Shares was on a downward trend
going down to the P1.00 level by the year 2000. By October 23, 2001, it went below
P1.00, then it went down to 70 centavos by February 15, 2001. As of February 11, 2002, it
was being traded at 40 to 50 cents. [Ibid. pp. 92-93]

Capulong further testified that out of the 249,679,000 shares which SSS bought on
October 21, 1999 for P784,551,150.00, a total of 96,366,000 shares were sold at an
average selling price of P1.7736/share resulting in a loss amounting to P127,464,710.00.
[TSN, February 18, 2002, pp. 94-95]

The Defense argues that the reason why Arellano testified in the manner he did and
executed an affidavit implicating FPres. Estrada in the instant plunder case
notwithstanding that there was nothing irregular, illegal or anomalous in the October 21,
1999 acquisition of Belle Shares was because his testimonies and affidavit are his last
ditch effort to exculpate himself from possible plunder charges where he may be detained
without bail considering that plunder is a capital offense. [Defense Memorandum, p. 197]

This argument of the Defense are mere allegations and extracted from FPres. Estradas
testimony that Arellano called him up and explained the circumstances behind Arellanos
execution of his Affidavit which are however, uncorroborated.

Neither do we find that the presence of the instruction from FPres. Estrada is negated by
the argument of the Defense that the acquisition by GSIS of Belle Shares, was in
accordance with investment policy and rules.

The Defense sought to establish that the Belle Shares were qualified under GSIS policy
and charter and GSIS may by itself and in accordance with its rules, purchase Belle
Shares without the need of any order or compulsion from anybody as shown by the
testimony of Pascual, the President of GSIS when he admitted that even way back in
1993, GSIS had been purchasing or dealing with Belle Shares and had already made
profits at the extent of around P145,000,000.00 since 1993 up to the present prior to his
coming in as the new General Manager of GSIS. [TSN, November 22, 2001, pp. 61 to 62]
That the purchase was in accordance with the GSIS policy was established by Pascuals
testimony that the trading department under the Corporate Finance Group investigated
and made further inquiries in connection with the shares and concluded that there would
be no violation that could have been committed by GSIS in the purchase of the shares.
[TSN, December 3, 2001, pp. 14 and 15] Pascual further testified that the average price of
P3.14 per share was the worth of the shares around the time it was purchased [TSN,
November 22, 2001, pp. 89-90] and it was reported to him by his people that the reason
why they bought so much was because there was a history of profitability and that they
already had a P1,000,000,000.00 turnover plus and he felt that it was "a good buying
afterwards." (sic) [TSN, November 28, 2001, p. 55]

Nowhere in the argument of the Defense does it establish the absence of the instruction of
FPres. Estrada to Pascual, other than the self-serving denial of FPres. Estrada.

Moreover, as Pascual testified, the GSIS profits in 1999 did not come from Belle Shares.
Furthermore, the fact that GSIS made profits to the extent of around P145,000,000.00
since 1993 did not mean that it made profits from the Belle Shares purchased in 1999. As
testified by Pascual, the actual profit of the GSIS in 1999 did not come from Belle Shares
but from other stocks and there was no contribution to the profit of GSIS from the Belle
Shares acquisition because up to the present they are still holding on to the Belle Shares.
[TSN, November 22, 2001, p. 81] Even the evidence of the Defense shows that as of
December 29, 2000, the value of Belle Shares had gone down to P0.69/share from the
average purchase price of P3.14/share and an allowance for probable loss of
P374,052,750.00 had been set up (Exh. 250, J-12).

FPres. Estradas testimony that he called Pascual to inquire about delayed GSIS benefits
is negated by the fact that after the call to Pascual, the latter gave instructions to buy Belle
Shares. If benefits were being delayed, why would GSIS spend billions of pesos to buy
Belle Shares instead of setting aside these monies to avoid delay in GSIS benefits?

Defense argued that assuming arguendo that there was an instruction from FPres.
Estrada for such purchase, such instruction was not too compelling or irresistible to
directly cause the execution of the purchase suggestion and that such instruction was
immaterial because the GSIS Board which approved the transaction did not receive the
alleged instruction of the President and that in the same vein, the GSIS decided on the
purchase independently, free from any compulsion by an outsider as the instruction given
by Pascual was to the effect that a study be conducted and if the Belle Shares are
qualified, to buy within the range of their authority. [Defense Memorandum, pp. 205-206]

Pascuals testimony that when he talked to FPres. Estrada and the latter asked him why
he had not bought Belle Shares in an agitated tone; that he did not mention the instruction
of FPres. Estrada to others because the instruction was specific to him; that on October 9,
1999 after his telephone conversation with FPres. Estrada, he gave the instruction to
GSIS to buy Belle Shares should be afforded stronger weight and more probative value
than the arguments of the Defense. As stated earlier, the Prosecution has established that
it was the instructions of FPres. Estrada that triggered the instructions of Pascual and
Arellano to GSIS and SSS respectively which caused these agencies, in turn to follow the
usual procedures established for the purchase of the shares which finally culminated in
the purchase of the Belle Shares by GSIS and SSS.

As to Pascuals testimony that it was unusual for FPres. Estrada to call him for the
purchase of a (sic) particular shares, the Defense pointed out that as per admission of
Pascual, what he meant by unusual was that FPres. Estrada called him when he was out
of the country. Defense pointed out however, that as testified by FPres. Estrada, the latter
did not know that Pascual was out of the country when he called. [Ibid. p. 209] Defense
pointed out that, by Pascuals admission, the GSIS Board was not pressured into finding
that the Belle Shares were okay, above board, and that they were not pressured by
anybody into concluding the purchase. [Ibid. p. 214, citing TSN, December 3, 2001, p. 93]

We fail to see how the admission of Pascual that it was unusual for FPres. Estrada to call
him to inquire about why GSIS had not purchased Belle Shares in an agitated tone and
the statement of FPres. Estrada that he did not know that Pascual was out of the country
at the time he called Pascual could lead to the conclusion that the GSIS Board was not
pressured into finding that the Belle Shares were "okay," "above board" and that they were
not pressured by anybody into concluding the purchase. The issue was not whether the
GSIS Board was pressured into finding that the Belle Shares purchase was "okay" or
"above board," but whether FPres. Estrada pressured Pascual into ordering GSIS to buy
Belle Shares.

The testimonies of defense witnesses, Justice Hermogenes D. Concepcion, Jr., the former
Chairman of GSIS, and Reynaldo Palmiery, Executive Vice-President of GSIS, did not
disprove that FPres. Estrada gave instructions to Pascual for GSIS to buy Belle Shares
since, as admitted by them, they were not aware of such instructions. Nowhere in the
testimony of Pascual did he state that he informed these people of the instructions of
FPres. Estrada because, as stated by Pascual, the instructions were specific to him so he
didnt want to involve his management anymore. [TSN, November 28, 2001, pp. 9- 10]

The P189,700,000.00 Check No. 6000159271 payable to cash, drawn on

International Exchange Bank with Eastern Securities Corporation as
drawer [Exh. R-R-4]

After the purchase by GSIS and SSS of the Belle Shares, Ocier caused the preparation of
a check by Eastern Securities Development Corporation in the amount of
P189,700,000.00 representing the profit commission to be paid from the sale. [TSN,
January 14, 2002, p. 33-36]

Ocier identified International Exchange Bank Check No. 6000159271 dated November
5, 1999, payable to cash in the amount of P189,700,000.00 with Eastern Securities
Corporation as Drawer. Ocier testified that the check was prepared so that he can hand
carry and deliver it to Dichaves as per their agreement when he agreed to pay P
200,000,000.00 commission. [TSN, January 7, 2002, p. 49] When asked who was
supposed to get the commission, Ocier answered that according to Jaime Dichaves,
President Estrada was supposed to get the commission. [Ibid. p. 55]

Ocier testified that he delivered the check to the residence of Dichaves in No. 19
Corinthian Gardens, Quezon City [TSN, January 9, 2002, p. 13] and he delivered the
check because he had a pre-arranged appointment with Dichaves wherein he was
supposed to hand the check to Dichaves. [Ibid. p. 15] Mr. Dichaves arranged the
appointment because he wanted Ocier to explain in person why the check amount is
P189,700,000.00 when the pre-agreed amount was P200,000,000.00. [Ibid. p. 18] Ocier
explained that he deducted transaction taxes and brokers commissions from the amount
of P200,000,000.00 and rounded the figure to P189,700,000 of (sic) which Dichaves
agreed. Ocier learned later on that the check he delivered to Dichaves was deposited at
Far East Bank to the account which he believes belonged to Dichaves. [Ibid. p. 60]

On cross-examination, Ocier admitted that FPres. Estrada was not present when he had
his conversation with Dichaves on the Belle shares on July 20, 1999. [TSN, January 14,
2002, pp. 20-29] Neither did he talk to FPres. Estrada after the check for P189,700,000.00
(Exh. R) was issued and cleared nor did he inquire from FPres. Estrada whether he
received or was credited in any of his account with the amount stated in the check. [Ibid.
pp. 39-40] Ocier likewise testified that he did not have the opportunity to discuss the profit
commission, nor the receipt of the profit commission nor the Velarde account with FPres.
Estrada despite the fact that he had constant meetings with FPres. Estrada. [Ibid. p. 60-
61]

When Ocier was asked if he could say that Dichaves was instructed by FPres. Estrada
regarding the profit commission, Ocier answered that he trusts his cousin Dichaves and
whatever the latter tells him he would normally believe. Ocier also testified that the totality
of what he stated in his affidavit about the instruction, or the representation made by
Dichaves was not corroborated or confirmed by FPres. Estrada or anybody else
representing him because it was just between him and Dichaves. [Ibid. pp. 39-45]

Citing Ociers testimony, Defense argues that such testimony on the subject sales and
commission are purely hearsay and does not bind FPres. Estrada. What is clear on the
record is that the commission went to Dichaves as gleaned from Ociers testimony.
[Defense Memorandum, p. 221-222]

In an attempt to establish that there was no evidence that FPres. Estrada received any
percentage or commission from the sale of Belle Shares, the Defense pointed out that
Capulongs testimony indicated that while there was a brokers commission, which was
paid to brokers like Abacus Securities Corporation. [Defense Memorandum, pp. 215-216,
citing TSN, February 11, 2002, pp. 13-16] In the case of the 389,855,000 Belle Shares
bought by SSS for P1,031,126,400.00, the payments went from SSS to the brokers, the
buying brokers. [TSN, February 11, 2002, p. 38[

The Court finds that International Exchange Bank Check No. 6000159271 dated
November 5, 1999, payable to cash in the amount of P189,700,000.00 with Eastern
Securities Corporation as Drawer (Exh. R), was paid as commission in consideration of
the purchase of Belle Shares by SSS and GSIS. While the testimony of Ocier to the effect
that Dichaves told him that it was FPres. Estrada who imposed the condition for the
payment of commission is hearsay insofar as FPres. Estrada is concerned, the said
testimony is admissible as proof that such statement was made by Dichaves to Ocier.
Testimony of what one heard a party say is not necessarily hearsay. It is admissible in
evidence, not to show that the statement was true, but that it was in fact made. If credible,
it may form part of the circumstantial evidence necessary to convict the accused. [Bon vs.
People, 419 SCRA 103]

As regards the argument that Capulongs testimony indicated that while there was a
brokers commission, this was paid to brokers such as Abacus Securities Corporation and
that the purchase price of P 1,031,126,400.00 for 389,855,000 Belle Shares went from
SSS to the buying brokers, again, we find this argument of the Defense to be unavailing.
The issue is not whether FPres. Estrada received Brokers commission or received the
payment from SSS, but whether he received the commission mentioned by Dichaves to
Ocier as consideration for the purchase of Belle Shares by GSIS and SSS.

Having found that a commission was paid in consideration of the purchase of Belle
Shares by SSS and GSIS, the next issue that this Court must determine is whether the
commission went to FPres. Estrada or Dichaves.

The paper trail for International Exchange Bank Check No. 6000159271

First: Far East Bank and Trust Co. (Cubao-Araneta Branch)

In tracking the check (Exh. R), Prosecution presented Ms. Yolanda de Leon, (De Leon),
Senior Manager of BPI (Cubao-Araneta Branch) formerly Far East Bank and Trust Co.
[BPI merged with Far East Bank sometime in 2000] De Leon testified that Dichaves was
one of the valued clients of the Bank and that Jaime Dichaves and Abby Dichavez had
joint current and savings accounts with then Far East Bank and Trust Company in 1999.
The Current Account had the No. 0007-05558-7 and the Savings Account had the No.
0107-38639-9 (C/A No. 0007-05558-7 and S/A No. 0107-38639-9). [TSN, February 4,
2002, pp. 23-24; (Exhs. BB and Z)] She identified the microfilm copy of International
Exchange Bank Check No. 6000159271 [Ibid. p. 39-41; Exh. DD] dated November 5,
1999 in the amount of P189,700,000.00 as the check that was deposited to the savings
account of Dichaves on November 5, 1999 as evidenced by the microfilm of the deposit
slip [Ibid. pp. 42-44; Exh. EE] and the bank statement of account for S/A No. 0107-38639-
9 dated November 30, 1999. [Ibid. pp. 48-49; Exh. FF, FF-1]

She testified that on November 9, 1999, the amount of P189,700,000.00 was auto-
transferred from S/A No.0107-38639-9 to C/A No.0007-05558-7 as appearing in the
Statement of Accounts for S/A No. 0107-38639-9 and C/A No. 0007-05558-7. [Id.; Exh.
FF-2; Exh. GG, GG-1] She also testified that Jaime Dichaves drew a check against C/A
No. 0007-05558-7 in the amount of P189,700,000.00 as evidenced by Far East Bank and
Trust Co. Check No. 3165579, a microfilm copy of which she identified. [Ibid. p. 52-53;
Exh. HH] She testified that at the dorsal portion of the microfilm copy of Check No.
3165579, there appears an account number 160-625015 [Ibid. p. 56; Exh. HH-4] but she
could not identify the bank that the account belongs because the bank indorsement of the
other bank was not clearly visible. She further testified that both C/A No. 0007-05558-7
and S/A No. 0107-38639-9 were closed as of February 29, 2000 and March 31, 2000
respectively. [Ibid. p. 57; Exhs. II and JJ]

On cross-examination, De Leon testified that she had no hand in the preparation of the
Statement of Accounts marked as Exhs. FF, ZZ, II and JJ. [Ibid. p. 84]

The Court finds that International Exchange Bank Check No.

6000159271 dated November 5, 1999 was deposited to Far East Bank and Trust
Co. S/A No. 0107-38639-9 of Jaime Dichaves and auto-transferred to C/A No.0007-
05558-7 of Jaime Dichaves who drew from the latter account, Far East Bank and Trust
Co. Check No. 3165579 for P189,700,000.00.

Second: EPCIB Greenhills-Ortigas Branch to EPCIB Binondo Branch S/A

0160-62501-5 with the Account Name Jose Velarde

The prosecutions evidence on the deposit of Far East Bank Araneta Check No.
3165579 which was the subject of an inter-bank deposit from EPCIB Greenhills Ortigas
Branch to EPCIB Binondo Branch Account No. 0160-62501-5 in the name of Jose Velarde
consisted in the testimony of Ms. Glyzelyn Bejec, the Teller who processed the Deposit
Receipt marked as Exhibit I5. She testified that as of November 8, 1999, she was assigned
to the EPCI Bank Greenhills Ortigas Branch as Customer Service Assistant Teller with
Teller Identification No. 8. Her basis for indicating the number "0160-62501-5" in the
Deposit Receipt was the Account Information Slip which is filled in by the depositor or the
representative of the depositor. [TSN, May 6, 2002, pp. 46-47; 61]

After she was given the Account Information Slip together with the four checks, she first
verified the face of the check as to the date, the amount in words and figures, after which
she stamped the non-negotiable endorsement at the back of each check, and also, she
wrote down the account number indicated on the Account Information Slip given to her.
She wrote down the account no. 0160-62501-5 at the dorsal portion of the check after
which she deposited the checks to the Account No. indicated in the Account Information
Slip. [Ibid. p. 65; 68]

She explained that the deposit process involved first, encoding the account number given
in the Account Information Slip, after which she swiped each check on the check reader
and encoded the amount on each check and after that a deposit receipt was generated.
After she had encoded the account number and the amounts of the four (4) checks that
she processed for deposit the account name that reflected in the computer was "Jose
Velarde." [Ibid. p. 69-70]

The checks that she processed for deposit were forwarded to their distributing for
safekeeping and microfilming the next day. When she was shown the certified copy of Far
East Bank Check No. 3165579 in the amount of P189,700,000.00 from the Philippine
Clearing House Corporation, she testified that this was the same check she processed
and she identified the dorsal portion where she wrote Account No. 160-625-015 (sic). Her
other means of identifying the check was her Teller ID no.8 which appears at the check
(Exh U4-1) and she identified the account holder of the check as Jaime C. Dichaves or
Abe (sic) C. Dichaves and she attested that the check is payable to cash. She testified
that the Bank accepts checks even if not endorsed by the depositor she accepted the
check even without endorsement because it was given to her by the Branch Manger for
deposit. [Ibid. p. 72-84]

On cross-examination she testified that she threw away the Account Information Slip
because the deposit receipt had been generated or the transaction has been validated in
the deposit receipt. [Ibid, p. 89]

To corroborate the testimony of Ms. Bejec, the prosecution presented Ms. Teresa
Barcelona, the Branch Manager of the EPCIB Greenhills-Ortigas Branch during the period
November, 1999. She identified inter-bank deposit receipt dated 8 November 1999 which
was previously marked as Exh. I5 issued by the EPCIB Greenhills-Ortigas Branch for
deposit to account number 0160-62501-5 with the account name Jose Velarde. The
transaction is an inter-bank deposit of four (4) checks to the account of Jose Velarde
maintained at the Binondo Branch. [TSN, May 15, 2002, p. 80] The total amount of the
four (4) checks is P263,292,303.65 of which one check is issued by Far East Bank and
Trust Co. Araneta Branch with Check No. 3165579 amounting to P189,700,000.00.
[Ibid. p. 81; Exh. U4-1]

The person who transacted the inter-bank deposit with the EPCIB Greenhills Ortigas
Branch was Ms. Baby Ortaliza who transacted personally with the witness and it was Ms.
Baby Ortaliza who received the third copy of the deposit receipt for the account holder.
[Ibid. p. 82] This transaction was processed by Teller Glezelyn Bejec as her Teller ID
appears in the deposit receipt. [Id.]

The Defense argued that Bejec stated that the checks were handed to her by the Branch
Manager, Teresa Barcelona and not by the person who made the deposit, and that the
depositor did not appear before her. Not one of the bank personnel or any other witness
presented by the prosecution testified that FPres. Estrada had any participation in the
opening of Current Account No.000110-525495-4 (sic) and Savings Account No. 0160-
62501-5 in the name of Jose Velarde, nor its closing. Not one of the prosecution
witnesses testified as to the source of the funds deposited in the said accounts. Nor was
there any witness who could identify any of the persons who issued the checks deposited
under the said account and under what circumstances the same were issued. In short,
there is no proof that FPres. Estrada "willfully, unlawfully and criminally amassed,
accumulated and acquired ill-gotten wealth in the amount of P 3.2 Million (sic)." Neither is
there proof that this money came from "commissions, gifts, percentages, kickbacks or any
form of pecuniary benefits given to him" as the source of said money have not been
identified or traced. There is no evidence to show that he had enriched himself at the
expense of the Filipino people. [Defense Memorandum, pp. 242-243]

At any rate, Defense argues that the documents submitted as exhibits by the prosecution
only tend to prove what checks were deposited to the said Account No.0160-62501-5 of
Equitable PCI Bank in the name of Jose Velarde. [Ibid. p. 242]

The Court finds that the Far East Bank and Trust Co. Araneta Branch Check No.
3165579 amounting to P189,700,000.00 drawn by Dichaves was deposited to EPCIB S/A
No. 0160-62501-5 account of Jose Velarde as part of the deposit to said account totaling
P263,292,303.65 (Exh. I5; U4-1; 127-L).

The link between FPres. Estrada and the Jose Velarde Account

In discharging its burden of proof to establish that the Jose Velarde Account belong to
FPres. Estrada, the prosecution relied on the following:

1. The testimony of Clarissa Ocampo that she saw Fpres. Estrada

signed "Jose Velarde" on the Debit-Credit instruction for S/A 0160-
62501-5 (Exh. E5);

2. The admission of FPres. Estrada [TSN, May 24, 2006, p. 23] that
he signed "Jose Velarde" on Exh. E5;

3. The many bank transactions of Baby Ortaliza involving the

personal accounts of FPres. Estrada and his family, the personal
account of Loi Estrada and the Jose Velarde Account;

4. The use of the Jose Velarde Current Account for the purchase of
the Boracay Mansion;

5. The funding that the Jose Velarde Account received from the
Urban Bank Special Trust Account of FPres. Estradas son, Jose
Victor Ejercito; and

6. The customary signing of FPres. Estrada as "Jose."

The signatures of FPres. Estrada as "Jose Velarde" in the Investment

Management Agreement (IMA), Signature Cards, Investment Guidelines,
Directional Letters, and Debit-Credit Authority for EPCIB CA/SA 0160-62501-
5 of Jose Velarde

Clarissa Ocampo testified that after explaining the documents being presented for his
signature, she and Atty. Curato saw FPres. Estrada signed as "Jose Velarde" on the three
(3) copies of the Investment Management Agreement (IMA) [Exh. W4 to Y4 ; TSN
November 13, 2002, pp. 70 -73], two (2) signature cards (Exh. Z4; A5) which he signed
three (3) times [TSN, November 13, 2002, pp. 78-80], one (1) copy of the Investment
Guidelines (Exh. B5; Ibid. pp. 82-84), two (2) copies of the Directional Letters (Exh. C5 to
D5; Ibid. pp. 87-89), and one (1) copy of the Debit-Credit Authority (Exh. E 5). [Ibid. pp. 92-
93] Her testimony regarding the Debit-Credit Authority in particular was as follows:

OMB. MARCELO

Q After these two exhibits marked as Exhibit C to the 5th power and D to the
5 power were signed by the former President and handed by you to Atty. Curato
th

what happened next?

A I was preparing to go and then I recalled that there was an envelope that
was given to me by the banking side which contained the funding medium and so I
looked at it, I pulled out the document inside the envelope, I read it and then I
gave it to the President for signing.

Q After giving it to the President what happened next?

A Actually, I explained to him that the letter of instruction which is a debit/credit

authority, I told him that the banking side gave it to me which authorizes the bank
to actually debit or draw 500 Million from his account so I was pointing at the
account number in the debit/credit authority so debit his account draw 500 Million
and credit the same amount to trust for funding of his loan to Wellex sir.

Q What was his reaction to your explanation?

A He was nodding his head sir.

Q After he nodded his head what happened?

A He signed the document and I saw him signed.

OMB. MARCELO

Q What was the signature affixed by the former President?

A He signed as Jose Velarde.

Q After the former President signed this document as Jose Velarde what
happened, if any?

A I got the document and then I looked at it and I passed it on to Atty. Curato."
[TSN, November 13, 2002, pp. 92-93]

On May 24, 2006, FPres. Estrada testified as follows:

Q Ms. Ocampo and Atty. Curato testified before this court that you
signed as Jose Velarde in the documents that you have just identified awhile
ago and you signed as Jose Velarde, what can you say as to that testimony?

A THAT IS TRUE. "PINIRMAHAN KO PO IYAN DAHIL PO SA PAKIUSAP NI

MR. JAIME DE CHAVES (SIC) NA OKAY NA RAW PO YONG INTERNAL
 ARRANGEMENT SA BANGKO AT PARA PALABASIN NA AKO ANG MAY ARI
NG JOSE VELARDE ACCOUNT PARA MASIGURO PO NA YONG KANILANG
PINAUTANG, IPAUUTANG SA WELLEX GROUP OF COMPANIES NI MR.
WILLIAM GATCHALIAN AY SIGURADONG BABAYARAN. AYAW PO NILA
SANANG PAUTANGIN SI MR.GATCHALIAN BAKA HINDI DAW PO
MAKABAYAD SA TAKDANG PANAHON. [TSN, May 24, 2006, p. 23; Emphasis
Supplied]

William Gatchalian is a big businessman. isang malaking negosyante at siya po ay

may ari ng Wellex group of companies at siya rin po ay isa sa tumulong sa aming
partido noong nakaraang 1998 presidential election. [Ibid, p. 25]

Q Now, you were requested by Mr. Jaime de Chaves (sic) to make it appear
that you own the Jose Velarde account and that there was an internal
arrangement between you and Mr. de Chaves (sic) I ask you now Mr. President,
when did you agree to such request and arrangement?

A Hindi lang po dahil doon sa internal arrangement. Hindi lang po dahil gusto
kong tulungan si Mr. William Gatchalian kundi higit po sa lahat ay nakita ko ang
kapakanan noong mahigit na tatlong libong (3000) empleyado na kung sakaling
hindi mapapautang si Mr. William Gatchalian, maaring magsara ang kanyang mga
kumpanya at yong mga taong, mahigit tatlong libong (3,000) empleyado kasama
na yong kanilang mga pamilya ay mawawalan ng trabaho. AT INISIP KO RING NA
WALA NAMING (SIC) GOVERNMENT FUNDS NA INVOLVE KAYA HINDI NA PO
AKO NAGDALAWANG ISIP NA PIRMAHAN KO." [Ibid. p. 26-27; Emphasis
Supplied]

In the Debit-Credit Authority signed by FPres. Estrada as Jose Velarde for EPCIB S/A No.
0160-62501-5, the following words expressly appear:

. . . my SA/CA No.0160-62501-5 maintained with your branch in the amount of

P500,000,000.00 and credit my Trust Account No. 101-78056-1 representing my
initial contribution (Exh. E5-3). [Emphasis Supplied]

Lucena "Baby" Ortaliza and the bank accounts of FPres. Estrada and the
Jose Velarde Account

To establish the close relationship and trust of FPres. Estrada and his family on Lucena
"Baby" Ortaliza, the prosecution presented REMEDIOS AXALAN AGUILA, Personnel
officer of the Office of the Vice- President (OVP).

She testified that Ortaliza was appointed VP Staff Officer II from January 2, 1996 to June
30, 1998 by FPres. Estrada. Being in the immediate staff of the Vice-President, she has
the trust and confidence of the Vice-President and she can report anywhere, anytime as
may be directed by the Vice-President. [TSN, May 22, 2002, pp. 21-24]

Likewise, the Prosecution presented Linda P. Sison, Presidential Officer VI, Chief
Personnel Data Bank, Office of the President. She testified that Ortaliza was employed in
the office of the President on July 1, 1998 and appointed Presidential Staff Officer VI by
FPres. Estrada. She was assigned to the internal house affairs office which normally
attends to the needs of the President and members of the family. She resigned effective
September 30, 2000 as "Private Secretary VI" in a letter of resignation dated October 4,
2000. [Ibid. pp. 47-48]

To establish that Baby Ortaliza transacted for the bank accounts of FPres. Estrada and his
family the Prosecution presented Salvador Serrano, Vice-President, Centralized
Operations and Control Division of Security Banking Corporation. He identified the
Investment Savings Account Agreement of FPres. Estrada [Exh. C14-C14-8] in the amount
of P10,000,000.00 with Security Bank San Juan Branch where, above the typewritten
name "Joseph E. Estrada" under the word "Conforme" appears the signature of Baby
Ortaliza and he was told by the New Accounts Clerk of the San Juan Branch that Baby
Ortaliza is the representative of FPres. Estrada. [TSN, May 8, 2002, pp. 79-81; 87-90;
128-129]

The witness also identified the purchase of T-Bills by FPres. Estrada evidenced by
Confirmation Sale No. 81046 (Exh. C14-9 to C14-16) value date April 10, 1997 where there
appears the signature of Baby Ortaliza above TS No. 96848. [TSN, May 8, 2002, p. 114]

The Prosecution also presented Ms. Pamela Moran who testified that Ms. Ortaliza was the
only one person transacting the accounts of FPres. Estrada when she was in charge of
the New Accounts Section of the Security Bank San Juan Branch. [TSN, May 15, 2002, p.
146; pp.149-152]

The Prosecution further presented Patrick Dee Cheng of Citibank who testified that in the
Hold-All-Mail Agreement signed by Ms. Luisa P. Ejercito, her designated representative
was Ms. Lucena "Baby" Ortaliza. [TSN, October 7, 2002; pp. 80-83; Exhs. B 11; C11 and
sub-markings]

The Prosecution presented Ms. Marie Rose Ancheta Claudio who was Branch Manager of
Urban Bank Greenhills Branch from 1998. [TSN, March 26, 2003, p. 92] She identified the
Letter of Authority dated November 23, 1999 addressed to Urban Bank Greenhills Branch
(Exh. I19) for issuance of three (3) Managers Checks in the amounts of P42,716,554.22,
P10,875,749.43 and P 54,161,496.52, where the words "Received By: Baby Ortaliza"
appeared. As per the witness, however, it was not Baby Ortaliza who received the check
as she herself gave the Managers Checks directly to the client, Joseph Victor G. Ejercito.
[TSN, March 26, 2003, p. 168]

Having presented evidence that Baby Ortaliza transacted for FPres. Estrada and family
with the Banks where FPres. Estrada and Family had accounts, the prosecution then
presented evidence of the transactions by Ortaliza in relation to the Jose Velarde Account
to establish that FPres. Estrada owns the Jose Velarde accounts.

Thus, the prosecution presented Teresa A. Barcelona who testified that Baby Ortaliza
transacted with her personally for the deposit of P 143,000,000.00 (Exh. M5 and
submarkings) into the Jose Velarde S/A No. 0160- 62501-5 account and it was Baby
Ortaliza who received the copy of the deposit receipt for the account holder. [TSN, May
15, 2002, pp. 76-80]

Likewise, Baby Ortaliza transacted with her personally for the deposit of the amount of
P263,292,303.65 [Exh. I5 and submarkings] to the Jose Velarde S/A 0160-62501-5
account and it was Baby Ortaliza who received the copy of the deposit receipt for the
account holder. [TSN, May 15, 2002, pp. 80-82] Baby Ortaliza also transacted with her for
the deposit of the amount of P40,000,000.00 (Exh. N5 and submarkings) to the Jose
Velarde S/A 0160-62501-5 account and it was Baby Ortaliza who received the copy of the
deposit receipt for the account holder. [TSN, May 15, 2002, pp. 83-85] Baby Ortaliza
transacted with her for the deposit of P163,500,000.00 (Exh.Q 5 and submarkings) to the
Jose Velarde S/A 0160-62501-5 account and it was Baby Ortaliza who received the copy
intended for the account holder. [TSN, May 15, 2002, pp. 89-92]

The prosecution further presented Melissa P. Pascual former bank Teller of EPCIB Virra
Mall Branch who testified that she personally processed various checks (Exhs. V 15; W15;
X15; Y15; A16, inclusive of submarkings) deposited by Ms. Ortaliza to the Jose Velarde S/A
0160-62501-5.

She was sure it was Baby Ortaliza who deposited these checks because their branch is
so small that everytime she comes to their branch, her voice is too loud so she would
catch her attention. She would see Ortaliza give the checks to her officer which the officer
would give to her for validation, for processing. [TSN, December 9, 2002, pp. 21-23; 35;
37-39]

The purchase of the "Boracay Mansion" for P142 Million from money which
came from the EPCIB C/A-0110- 25495-4 of Jose Velarde

The prosecution presented evidence to show that the purchase of the Boracay Mansion
was initiated by a check No. 0110-714951 dated October 5, 1999 issued by Jose Velarde
from his EPCIB C/A No. 0110-25495-4 in the amount of P 142,000,000.00 payable to Jose
Luis J. Yulo (hereafter Yulo) (Exh. G16) who deposited the same to his BPI C/A No. 0383-
0748-27 which was a joint account with Ma. Carmen L. Yulo. [TSN, December 9, 2002, p.
114-125; Exh. F16] Subsequently, on October 8, 1999, Yulo issued BPI Check No. 0002129
(Exh. U16; T16) from his BPI Current Account which was deposited to the account of St.
Peter Holdings Corporation which, in turn, the latter used to buy three Managers Checks,
one for P86,766,960.00 payable to Vicente AS Madrigal and/or Gerardo Madrigal as
sellers of the Boracay Property (Exh. V16; W16); another for P53,931,535.60 payable to
Mercedes A. Reyes (broker) (Exh. X16) and the third for P1,301,504.40 payable to Vicente
AS Madrigal and/or Gerardo AS Madrigal for payment of documentary stamps (Exh. Y 16).
[TSN December 16, 2002, pp. 29-51] To establish that the Boracay Property was, in
reality, owned by FPres. Estrada, Prosecution presented a tag in the carpet indicating the
name: "Pres. J. Estrada" (Exh. H19-H-2) [TSN, March 19, 2003]; a "Locator Slip" which bears
the words "Approved By; MS.LAARNI N. ENRIQUEZ," (Exh. H19) a school correspondence
for FPres. Estradas child with Laarni Enriquez, namely: Ejercito, Ma. Jerika Larize (Exh.
H19-a), and portion of the testimony of Chavit Singson where he mentioned that FPres.
Estradas new house in New Manila was called Boracay. [TSN, July 24, 2002, pp. 129-
134] However, Jose Luis Yulo, whom the prosecution portrayed as the dummy of FPres.
Estrada in the purchase of the Boracay Mansion was not charged as an accused in this
case which presented a legal issue as to the propriety of attachment covering the said
property during the pendency of this criminal case.

The funding of the Jose Velarde Account from the Urban Bank Account of
Jose Victor Ejercito

The prosecution presented Marie Rose Ancheta Claudio who testified that JV Ejercito was
the owner of Special Account No. (SPAN) 858 with Urban Bank pursuant to a Trust
Agreement executed between JV Ejercito and Urban Bank Trust Dept. [TSN, March 26,
2003, pp. 98-99] Ma. Aileen C. Tiongson testified that Urban Bank Managers Check No.
43222 (Exh. W19) for P75, 000,000.00 came from a pre-terminated placement of SPAN
858. [TSN, April 2, 2003, pp. 20-21] This Urban Bank Managers Check No. 43222 was
subsequently replaced by four (4) Managers Checks Nos. 39975, 39976, 39977 and
39978 (Exhs. B 15-2, B15-4, B15-6 and B15-8) in the respective amounts of P70,000,000,
P2,000,000.00, P2,000,000.00 and P1,000,000.00 (Exhs. B15-2-9).

Subsequently, on January 24, 2000, these four (4) checks were deposited to EPCIB S/A
No. 0160-62501-5 of Jose Velarde (Exh. B 15; Exh. 127-N).

Likewise, as mentioned earlier, three (3) Urban Bank Managers Checks for the amounts
of P10,875,749.43, P42,716,554.22 and P54,161,496.52 (Exh. I 5-17, I5-18 and O5-2),
received by JV Ejercito were deposited to EPCIB S/A No. 0160-62501-5 of Jose Velarde
(Exh. I5).

Prosecutions Evidence to show that it was customary for FPres. Estrada to

sign as "Jose"

Prosecution presented Marianito M. Dimaandal who identified various official documents

which showed the signature of FPres. Estrada as reading "Jose" instead of "Joseph"
(Exhs. X19 to R20). [TSN March 31, 2003, pp.40-47]

Based on the forgoing testimonial and documentary evidence, it is the contention of the
Prosecution that it has established that FPres. Estrada is the real and beneficial owner of
EPCIB Savings Account No. 0160-62501-5 and Current Account No. 0110-25495-4 in the
name of Jose Velarde.

The theory of the defense on the Jose Velarde Account

In attempting to prove that the Jose Velarde account was owned by Jaime Dichaves and
not by FPres. Estrada, the defense presented Romuald Dy Tang and Beatriz Bagsit as
their witnesses in addition to FPres. Estrada.

Romuald Dy Tang testified that in 1999, he was connected with EPCI Bank as its SVP and
Treasurer. The Chairman, Mr. George L. Go referred Mr. Dichaves to him because Go told
him that Dichaves wanted to open a current account under an alias instead of his name.
Mr. Dichaves also called him up and told him the same. He knows Mr. Dichaves because
the wife of Jaime Dichaves is the sister of his sister-in-law. In effect, the wife of his brother
and Jaimes wife are sisters. What he knows is Dichaves has a lot of business, substantial
business and one of his major businesses is plaster glass. [TSN, May 4, 2005, pp.11,15,
17, 18]

When he was called by Dichaves over the phone, the latter told him that Mr. Go referred
him to Dy Tang to open an alias account for him. Based on that, Dy Tang told Dichaves to
prepare a letter for records indicating his intention and Dichaves sent him a letter saying
that he is opening an account under the name Jose Velarde and everything should be
sofor safekeeping. [Ibid. p. 20] Dy Tang identified the letter dated August 25, 1999(Exh.
127 to 127 B-1). [Ibid. pp. 20-21] The letter was given to him on the day Dichaves went to
his office to get the signature cards. [Id.] He gave the signature card personally to
Dichaves and he did not see Dichaves sign the signature card because he was late for an
appointment and both of them had prepared for such appointment and so Dy Tang gave
the signature card to Dichaves and told him to return the same. [Ibid, p.22] He opened two
accounts one savings and one current. It was a combo account. The signature card was
returned after about a month or so, after a follow up with him and after he followed several
procedures. [Id.] Both he and Betty Bagsit were jointly assisting Mr. Dichaves. Ms. Bagsit
had to assist because if he will be the only one and he travels quite often, Mr. Dichaves
will not have anybody to attend to his account. At that time Betty Bagsit was based in the
Pacific Star branch in Makati and the Jose Velarde Account was a Binondo Account where
the ledgers of the Velarde Account were kept. [Ibid., pp. 26-28] He testified that all the
fixed (time) deposits of Dichaves were moved in the branch of Bagsit in Pacific Star. [Id.]

In his sworn statement with the Ombudsman on March 23, 2001 (Exh. 327-327-C), Dy
Tang stated that he received a letter from Dichaves advising them that all transaction for
the Jose Velarde account should be coursed through him. He instructed Mr. Ceferino Ang,
Vice President and Manager of Binondo Branch to cause the opening of the account. He
knows Mr. Dichaves personally because he was referred by Mr. George Go to him and
because he is the brother-in-law of Dy Tangs brother. He went to the office to pick up the
forms for the opening of the account sometime in late August 1999. Mr. Jaime Dichaves
opened the account but Dy Tang does not know if he opened it for himself or another
person. He gave the signature cards for Dichaves to fill up. The accomplished
signature cards were given to him by Mr. Go. He was not present when the
depositor affixed his specimen signature in the said signature card as it was given
to him accomplished by Mr. Go.

Beatriz L. Bagsit came into Equitable Bank as head of Pacific Star branch with rank of
AVP and when they acquired PCI Bank in 1999, she was promoted to 1st VP and the
division head who handled the Makati area. [TSN, April 13, 2005, p. 63]

She retired from the bank because of politics in the bank and the Jose Velarde case was
coming up. She was the one handling the Jose Velarde account which was being handled
also by Mr. Jaime Dichaves. [Ibid. p. 65] The Jose Velarde account started at Binondo
Branch. It was opened there and when her superiors transferred to Makati, they called her
to handle the account of Jose Velarde and she was introduced to Mr. Dichaves by their
Executive Vice-President, Romy Dy Tang for her to handle the account personally. [Ibid. p.
66]

There is no Jose Velarde who owns an account with their bank. Her basis for saying that
Jose Velarde account belongs to Mr. Jaime Dichaves is that there was a letter that was
given to her that came from Mr. Dichaves when the account was opened in Binondo.
When the account was opened in Binondo, she was not handling the management of the
same. The Jose Velarde account was never transferred to Makati. It was just the handling
that was transferred sometime in November, 1999. [Ibid, pp. 68-70]

Based on the letter (Exh. 127) it would appear that the Jose Velarde account belonged to
Jaime Dichaves because it was Mr. Jaime Dichaves who issued the letter stating that all
banking transaction of Jose Velarde should be coursed to him. The letter was shown to
her by Mr. Dy Tang in November, 1999. She does not remember the exact date when she
was told by Dy Tang to handle the account of Mr. Dichaves in the name Jose Velarde. She
was first informed about it in Dy Tangs office and after that there was a time when
Dichaves went to Dy Tangs office and that was the time she was introduced to Dichaves.
She first met Mr. Dichaves in January, 2000. After she was introduced to Dichaves, there
were times when he would call her for a transaction and there were times he went to her
office. Sometimes Dichaves will tell her that he will be sending somebody to get the MC
which he wants her to prepare and sometimes he would ask for the balance. [Ibid, pp. 72-
96] Mr. Dichaves came to her office twice or thrice only. One is when he visited Mr. Dy
Tang, the other one is when he just passed by, just to check the account of Jose Velarde
and he gave her instruction that he will be sending representative to prepare an MC for
him that was after the February 4, 2000 transaction. [TSN, April 18, 2005, p. 59]

She does not know if Dichaves has an account in her area, she thinks there is none but
she does not know with other branches. The records she had access to regarding the
Jose Velarde Account were the signature card and the copy of the letter. The name
"Dichaves" does not appear in the signature card. [TSN, April 13, 2005, p. 76-84]

She saw the debit-credit authorization on her table and she kept it and did not give it to
anybody. [Ibid. p. 116] After Clarissa Ocampo was presented at the impeachment
proceedings, Clarissa called her and she told Clarissa "Kissa, hindi sa akin galing yong
debit/credit" because Clarissa was asking her if she was at the bank working and she told
Clarissa that the bank was really bleeding and she took the opportunity to tell her "Kissa,
hindi sa akin galing yon. Saan ba galing yon?". [Ibid. p. 118] She testified that Clarissa
was just surprised and asked her "saan ba galing yon?". Where did it come from? She
answered she didnt know but it didnt come from her. Thats all she told Clarissa. After
that there was a follow-up from Atty. Curato asking her if she did not really issue the
authorization and she told him "No talaga eh. Sabi ko, hanapin natin kung saan talaga
galing." She testified that later on, it was confirmed that it came from the Trust
Department. [Ibid. p. 118-119] She testified that the Prefix Number for a Binondo Account
was 0110 but she could not remember the Prefix Number for the Pacific Star Branch. [Ibid.
p. 93] In her computation, the credits to the EPCIB Jose Velarde S/A No.0160-62501-5
totaled P2,168,523,085.00 excluding centavos and credit memos. [TSN, April 18, 2005, p.
98]

The Court finds that the FPres. Estrada is the real and beneficial owner of EPCIB combo
account C/A No. 0110-25495-4 and S/A No. 0160-62501-5 in the name of Jose Velarde.

The eyewitness account of Prosecution witness Clarissa Ocampo that she saw FPres.
Estrada signed the name Jose Velarde in the various documents presented to him and
explained to him was undisputed by FPres. Estrada and constitutes direct evidence that
FPres. Estrada signed as Jose Velarde.

Another direct evidence that FPres. Estrada is Jose Velarde is the admission of FPres.
Estrada that he signed as Jose Velarde in the documents presented to him by Clarissa
Ocampo. One of such documents was the Debit-Credit Authority (Exh. E5) which read:
"...my SA/CA No.0160-62501-5 maintained with your branch in the amount of
P500,000,000.00 and credit my Trust Account No. 101-78056-1 representing my initial
contribution." Such admission constitutes an admission that he and Jose Velarde are one
and the same person. Being a judicial admission, no proof is required and may be given in
evidence against him (Rule 129, SEC.4; Rule 130, SEC. 26). Being an admission against
interest, it is the best evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute.
The rationale for the rule is based on the presumption that no man would declare anything
against himself unless such declaration was true. Thus, it is fair to presume that the
declaration corresponds with the truth, and it is his fault if it does not. [Rufina Patis Factory
vs Alusitain, 434 SCRA 429]

The evidence of the Prosecution which showed that Baby Ortaliza - a trusted person of
FPres. Estrada and who enjoyed the confidence of FPres. Estrada and Loi Ejercito -
transacted the various personal bank accounts of FPres. Estrada and Loi Ejercito as well
as the Jose Velarde accounts, also constitutes corroborative evidence that the Jose
Velarde Accounts are owned by FPres. Estrada and not by Dichaves, since Baby Ortaliza
has been entrusted by FPres. Estrada to handle his own personal bank accounts and
there is no evidence that Dichaves and Baby Ortaliza are related in any way to each other.

The evidence of the Prosecution that the Boracay Mansion was purchased from funds
coming from the Jose Velarde accounts is yet another corroborative evidence that proved
that the Jose Velarde accounts are owned by FPres. Estrada. The documents found in the
Boracay Mansion show that the beneficial owner of the Boracay Mansion is FPres.
Estrada and is used by Laarni Enriquez whose relation to FPres. Estrada was never
denied.

Likewise, the evidence of the Prosecution which showed that three (3) Urban Bank
Managers Checks for the amounts of P10,875,749.43, P42,716,554.22 and
P54,161,496.52 (Exh. I5-17, I5-18 and O5-2), received by JV Ejercito as well as the four (4)
Urban Bank Managers Checks totaling P75,000,000.00 (Exhs. B 15-2, B15-4, B15-6 and B-15-
8) were deposited to EPCIB S/A No. 0160-62501-5 of Jose Velarde constitutes
corroborative evidence that, as between FPres. Estrada and Dichaves, it can be inferred
that JV Ejercito, being the son of FPres. Estrada, would contribute to the account of his
father but not if the account were owned by Dichaves in the absence of proof that JV
Ejercito was under obligation to deposit to the said account if the same was owned by
Dichaves.

The evidence of the Prosecution that it was customary for FPres. Estrada to sign as
"Jose" shows that FPres. Estrada would sign as "Jose" and further shows that, to the
naked eye, the signature of FPres. Estrada as "Jose" appearing in the various official
documents signed by FPres. Estrada is similar to the signature of "Jose" appearing in
"Jose Velarde."

As to the reliance of the Defense on the testimonies of Dy Tang and Bagsit to prove that
the Jose Velarde accounts belong to Jaime Dichaves, We find that such reliance is
misplaced.

Dy Tang testified that after Mr. George Go referred Dichaves to him, he told Dichaves to
prepare a letter for records indicating his intention and Dichaves sent him a letter saying
that he is opening an account under the name Jose Velarde and everything should be
sofor safekeeping. [TSN, May 4, 2005, p. 20] Dy Tang identified the letter dated August
25, 1999. [Ibid. pp. 20-21; Exh. 127 to 127 B-1]

The Letter of Dichaves dated August 25, 1999 reads as follows:

Dear Romy,

May I request that a savings account and a current account be opened with your
 Juan Luna branch for Jose Velarde c/o the undersigned.

All other banking transactions of Jose Velarde shall be coursed through the
undersigned.

Very truly yours,

(sgd)

Jaime Dichaves

The Letter of Dichaves does not prove that he is the owner of the Jose Velarde
Account. Assuming ex gratia argumenti that the Jose Velarde Account is owned by
Dichaves, why did he not deposit the International Exchange Bank Check No.
6000159271 dated November 5, 1999, payable to cash in the amount of P189,700,000.00
drawn by Eastern Securities Corporation directlyto the Jose Velarde Account? If Dichaves
owned the Jose Velarde Account, why did he take the circuitous route of depositing the
International Exchange Bank into his Far East Bank Savings Account, then auto transfer
the amount to his Current Account, then issue his personal check payable to cash for
P189,700,000.00 which was ultimately deposited to the Jose Velarde Account?

It could not be because he did not want evidence to prove that the International Exchange
Bank check was deposited to his account because he, in fact, deposited that check to his
personal account.

The only logical conclusion is that Dichaves did not want evidence to show that the
International Exchange Bank check of Eastern Securities Corporation was deposited to
the Jose Velarde Account because such deposit would confirm that FPres. Estrada, once
proven to own the Jose Velarde Account, received the P189,700,000.00 commission
arising from the purchase by SSS and GSIS of Belle Shares.

Dichaves act of covering the paper trail of the International Exchange Bank check of
Eastern Securities Corporation, albeit unsuccessfully, militates against the claim of the
Defense that Dichaves owns the Jose Velarde Account.

In his Sworn Statement dated March 23, 2001 (Exh. 327), Dy Tang stated that Jaime
Dichaves opened the account but Dy Tang does not know if he opened it for himself or
another person. He gave the signature card for Dichaves to fill up. The signature card was
returned after about a month or so, after a follow up with him and after he followed several
procedures. [TSN dated May 4, 2005, p. 22] The signature card was given to him by
George L. Go already accomplished. He was not present when the depositor affixed his
specimen signature in the said signature card as it was given to him accomplished by
George L. Go.

In the signature card, it appears that it was opened on August 26, 1999 but it was received
only on October 7, 1999. Likewise, the signature card bore the signature "Jose Velarde"
three times (Exh. G19, G19-6).

In his testimony, Dy Tang testified that he doesnt think that it would be Dichaves signing
as Jose Velarde because when Mr. Dichaves called him about his discussion with Mr. Go
to open an account, Dichaves told him that he was going to open an account under an
alias account. [TSN, May 4, 2005, p. 44] Nowhere did Dy Tang testify that Dichaves is the
owner of the Jose Velarde account.

As appears in the signature card, the signature of Jose Velarde is almost identical to the
signature of Jose Velarde appearing on the three (3) copies of the Investment
Management Agreement [Exh. W4 to Y4; TSN November 13, 2002, pp. 70-73], two (2)
signature cards (Exh. Z4 to A5) which he signed three (3) times [TSN, November 13, 2002,
pp. 78-80] one (1) copy of the Investment Guidelines [Exh. B5; Ibid. pp. 82-84]; two (2)
copies of the Directional Letters [Exh. C5 to D5; Ibid. pp. 87-89], and one (1) copy of the
debit-credit authority [Exh. E5; Ibid. pp. 92-93], which FPres. Estrada signed as Jose
Velarde as testified by Clarissa Ocampo and as admitted by him. Under Section 22, Rule
132 of the Rules of Court, the court is authorized, by itself, to make a comparison of the
disputed handwriting with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against
whom the evidence is offered or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
[Cogtong vs. Kyoritsu International Et. Al., GR No. 160729, July 27, 2007]

As regards the testimony of Beatriz Bagsit, her basis for saying that Jose Velarde
accounts belongs to Mr. Jaime Dichaves is that there was a letter that was given to her
that came from Mr. Dichaves when the accounts were opened in Binondo. When the
accounts were opened in Binondo, she was not handling the management of the same.
Based on the letter, she testified that it would appear that the Jose Velarde accounts
belonged to Jaime Dichaves because it was Mr. Jaime Dichaves who issued the letter
stating that all banking transaction of Jose Velarde should be coursed to him. [TSN, April
13, 2005, p. 68-72]

The testimony of Bagsit does not establish that it is Dichaves who owns the Jose Velarde
accounts as her opinion was based simply on the letter issued by Dichaves. As against
the inference that Dichaves owned the Jose Velarde accounts based on the letter of
Dichaves, the Prosecutions evidence showing that FPres. Estrada signed as Jose
Velarde in the various documents given to him for signature must be given more weight to
establish the fact that the Jose Velarde accounts belong to FPres. Estrada.

Moreover, there was a glaring inconsistency in the testimonies of Defense witness Dy

Tang and Bagsit when Dy Tang testified that all the fixed (time) deposits of Dichaves were
moved in the branch of Bagsit in Pacific Star, while Bagsit testified that she does not know
if Dichaves has an account in her area, she thinks there is none but she does not know
with other branches. [TSN, May 4, 2005. pp. 26-28; TSN, April 13, 2005, p. 76]

As regards the statement of Bagsit that the Debit-Credit authority did not come form her
and that later, it was found to have come from the Trust Department, We find the
testimony of Clarissa Ocampo that the Debit-Credit Authority came from Bagsit as being
more credible. First, because the debit-credit authority deals with S/A 0160-62501-5 which
is under the Banking Department and not the Trust Department; and Second, because as
testified by Bagsit, she found the Debit- Credit Authority on her table after it was signed
but she kept it and did not give it to anybody. The Court likewise notes that Bagsit was not
involved with the EPCIB Binondo Branch but she remembers the prefix for Binondo
accounts as No. 0110, yet, she could not remember the prefix for accounts with the Pacific
Star Branch of EPCIB which she headed since 1999.

In the attempt to downplay the effect of FPres. Estrada signing as Jose Velarde in the
Debit-Credit Authority, the defense argued that the said debit-credit authority was not
implemented "precisely because the signature of accused Estrada did not match with that
of the real Jose Velarde (who turned out to be Jaime Dichaves) [Defense Memorandum,
p. 251] and "probably because the bank officers got to realize that accused President
Estrada was not really the owner of the account." [Ibid., p. 263]

Besides being speculative, the arguments of the Defense are mere allegations which are
not supported by its own evidence.

The evidence of the Defense shows that prior to February 4, 2000, the account balance of
S/A 0160-62501-5 of Jose Velarde was P142,763,773.67. (Exh. 127-O) There was
therefore not enough funds in the account to transfer to the Trust Account. Thus, the
Debit-Credit Authority could not be implemented.

Subsequently, a credit memo for P506,416,666.66 was issued in favor of the said Jose
Velarde S/A 0160-62501-5 account. As per the testimony of defense witness, Beatriz
Bagsit, the amount of P 506,416,666.66 represented the principal and interest of a
preterminated placement of S/A 0160-62501-5. The placement was not in the name of
Dichaves but in the name of an account number, i.e. Account No. 0160-62501-5 and
behind that account is Jose Velarde. [TSN, April 18, 2005, p. 37] Eventually the
P500,000,000.00 was withdrawn from the savings account in exchange for an MC
payable to trust. [Ibid. pp. 30, 31]

Consequently, while the funding for the P500,000,000.00 did not come via the debit-credit
authority, nonetheless, the funding of the P500,000,000.00 came from S/A 0160-62501-5
of Jose Velarde.

Moreover, the debit-credit authority was not implemented because Bagsit kept the debit-
credit authority and did not give it to anybody. [TSN, April 13, 2005, p. 116]

Neither does the non-implementation of the Debit-Credit Authority which FPres. Estrada
signed as Jose Velarde disprove the fact that FPres. Estrada admitted that S/A 0160-
62501-5 in the name of Jose Velarde is his account when he admitted affixing his
signature on the Debit-Credit Authority as Jose Velarde.

The so-called "internal arrangements" with the bank, involved the use of S/A 0160-62501-
5 which had been in existence since August 26, 1999 as the funding source of the
P500,000,000.00 to be placed in the Trust account for lending to Gatchalian. The fact that
the P500,000,000.00 funding was not effected by a debit-credit transaction but by a
withdrawal of P500,000,000.00 from the said S/A 0160-62501-5 proves that the money
lent to Gatchalian was the personal money of FPres. Estrada through the Jose Velarde
account of which he is the owner. As explained by FPres. Estrada, "William Gatchalian is
a big businessman. Isang malaking negosyante at siya po ay may ari ng Wellex group of
companies at siya rin po ay isa sa tumulong sa aming partido noong nakaraang 1998
presidential election." [TSN, May 24, 2006, p. 23]
FPres. Estrada further testified: "Hindi lang po dahil doon sa internal arrangement. Hindi
lang po dahil gusto kong tulungan si Mr. William Gatchalian kundi higit po sa lahat ay
nakita ko ang kapakanan noong mahigit na tatlong libong (3000) empleyado na kung
sakaling hindi mapapautang si Mr. William Gatchalian, maaring magsara ang kanyang
mga kumpanya at yong mga taong, mahigit tatlong libong (3,000) empleyado kasama na
yong kanilang mga pamilya ay mawawalan ng trabaho. AT INISIP KO RING NA WALA
NAMING (SIC) GOVERNMENT FUNDS NA INVOLVE KAYA HINDI NA PO AKO
NAGDALAWANG ISIP NA PIRMAHAN KO." [Ibid. p. 26-27; Emphasis Supplied]

Moreover, as pointed out by the Prosecution, there was no need for the internal
arrangement since the loan to Gatchalian could have been extended by EPCIB directly
considering that Gatchalian had put up sufficient collateral for the loan.

From the foregoing, the ineluctable conclusion is that the so-called internal arrangement
which allegedly prompted FPres. Estrada to sign the various documents presented to him
by Clarissa Ocampo is a futile attempt to escape the consequence of his admission that
he signed as Jose Velarde which leads to the legal and indisputable conclusion that
FPres. Estrada is the owner of the Jose Velarde Accounts.

THE DAMAGE AND PREJUDICE TO THE FILIPINO PEOPLE

As stated earlier, SSS and GSIS used the funds belonging to its millions of members to
buy Belle Shares upon instruction of FPres. Estrada who benefited for his personal gain
from the P189,700,000.00 commission paid in consideration of the purchase of the Belle
shares by SSS and GSIS . The money paid by GSIS and SSS for the Belle Shares are
public funds which belong to the millions of GSIS and SSS members. The amount of
P189,700,000.00 deposited to the Jose Velarde account of FPres. Estrada are public
funds which came from the proceeds of the sale received by SSI Management through
Eastern Securities from GSIS and SSS. The Billions of Pesos that could have otherwise
been used to pay benefits to SSS and GSIS members were diverted to buying Belle
Shares to comply with FPres. Estradas instructions in order that FPres. Estrada could
receive his P187,900,000.00 commission to the damage and prejudice of the millions of
GSIS and SSS members who were deprived of the use of such funds and worse, who
now stand to suffer the loss amounting to millions of pesos since the Belle shares are
presently priced less than their acquisition cost. [From an average price of P3.14 per
share to P0.69 per share as of December 29, 2000 (Exh. 250-J-2) and between P0.40 to
P 0.50 per share as of February 11, 2002]

The Court finds that FPres. Estrada took advantage of his official position, authority,
relationship, connection and influence to unjustly enrich himself at the expense and to the
damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines: a) by
instructing, directing and ordering, for his personal gain and benefit, by way of receiving
commission, the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) through its President Mr.
Federico Pascual and the Social Security System (SSS) through its President, Mr. Carlos
Arellano, to purchase shares of stock Belle Corporation, as a consequence of which,
during the period October 13 to 21, 1999 GSIS bought 351,878,000 shares of Belle
Corporation and paid One Billion One Hundred Two Million Nine Hundred Sixty Five
Thousand Six Hundred Seven Pesos And Fifty Centavos (P1,102,965,607.50) while SSS,
on October 21, 1999, bought 249,679,000 shares at the value of P784,551,150.00 at an
average price of P3.14/share [TSN, February 14, 2005, p.78] or a combined total of at
least One Billion Eight Hundred Eight Seven Million Five Hundred Sixteen Thousand
Seven Hundred Fifty Seven Pesos And Fifty Centavos (P1,887,516,757.50); b) by
accepting and receiving, a commission in the amount of One Hundred Eighty Nine Million
Seven Hundred Thousand Pesos [P189,700,000.00] as consideration for the purchase by
GSIS and SSS of the shares of stock of Belle Corporation pursuant to his instructions
which amount was deposited in the Equitable-PCI Bank S/A 0160-62501-5 under the
account name "Jose Velarde" of which FPres. Estrada is the real and beneficial owner; c)
by depriving the millions of members of GSIS and SSS of the use of public funds in the
amount of at least One Billion Eight Hundred Eight Seven Million Five Hundred Sixteen
Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Seven Pesos And Fifty Centavos (P1,887,516,757.50) for
payment of their benefits in order that he can receive his commission of One Hundred
Eighty Nine Million Seven Hundred Thousand Pesos (P189,700,000.00) which likewise
constitute public funds for his personal benefit and enrichment thus causing damage and
prejudice to the Filipino people and the Government.

RE: SUB-PARAGRAPH D OF THE

AMENDED INFORMATION
_____________________________

(d) by unjustly enriching himself FROM COMMISSIONS, GIFTS,

SHARES, PERCENTAGES, KICKBACKS, OR ANY FORM OF
PECUNIARY BENEFITS, IN CONNIVANCE WITH JOHN DOES AND
JANE DOES, in the amount of MORE OR LESS THREE BILLION TWO
HNDRED THIRTY THREE MILLION ONE HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND
AND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE PESOS AND SEVENTEEN
CENTAVOS [P3,233,104,173.17] AND DEPOSITING THE SAME UNDER
HIS ACCOUNT NAME "JOSE VELARDE" AT THE EQUITABLE-PCI
BANK.

The prosecution presented the following witnesses to prove the enormous amounts of
deposits to the Jose Velarde Account and the person who transacted with the bank in
relation thereto.

TERESA ARRASTIA BARCELONA was the Manager of Equitable PCI Bank in

Greenhills-Ortigas Branch specifically located at the Ground Floor of the Equitable
Building along Ortigas Avenue corner Roosevelt, San Juan, Metro Manila, which was
within the vicinity of the business and commercial areas of Greenhills.

Witness Barcelona then related and identified twelve (12) Equitable PCI Bank Deposit
Receipts (Exhs. I5 and M5 to W5) dated as follows:

1. October 20, 1999;

2. November 8, 1999;

3. November 22, 1999;

4. November 24, 1999;

5. November 25, 1999;

 6. December 20, 1999;

7. December 21, 1999;

8. December 29, 1999;

9. January 4, 2000;

10. May 10, 2000;

11. June 6, 2000; and

12. July 25, 2000.

These deposit receipts allegedly show various deposits made to Account No. 0160-62501-
5 under the Account Name Jose Velarde maintained at the Equitable PCI Bank Binondo
Branch. The transactions to the said account were allegedly inter-branch deposits or
deposits made from one branch of Equitable PCI Bank for an account maintained at
another branch of the said bank. The aforementioned deposit receipts show that the
deposits to the adverted account were transacted at the Equitable PCI Bank Greenhills-
Ortigas Branch.

In the Equitable PCI Bank Deposit Receipt dated October 20, 1999, there were allegedly
nine (9) checks deposited to the Jose Velarde Account. The total amount of the checks
deposited was P143,000,000.00. The teller who processed the checks was Glyzelyn
Bejec.

In the Equitable PCI Bank Deposit Receipt dated November 8, 1999, four (4) checks were
deposited to the Jose Velarde Account in the total amount of P263,292,303.65. The
checks deposited were as follows: a Far East Bank and Trust Co. Araneta Branch Check
with Check No. 3165579 amounting to P189,700,000.00; an HSBC Head Office Check
with Check No. 0022012 amounting to P20,000,000.00; a Union Bank Head Office Check
with Check No. 034181 amounting to P10,875,749.43; and another Union Bank Head
Office Check with Check No. 034182 amounting to P42,716,554.22. These checks were
likewise processed by Glyzelyn Bejec on November 8, 1999 at 4:01 p.m.

In the Equitable PCI Bank Deposit Receipt dated November 22, 1999, three (3) checks for
the total amount of P40 Million were deposited to the Jose Velarde Account. These checks
were processed by the banks teller Joan Mok.

In the Equitable PCI Bank Deposit Receipt dated November 24, 1999, a check of
P54,161,496.52 was deposited to the Jose Velarde Account. The check was processed by
the banks teller Leonora Royo on November 24, 1999 at 9:26 a.m.

In the Equitable PCI Bank Deposit Receipt dated November 25, 1999, three (3) checks for
the total amount of P20,000,000.00 were deposited to the Jose Velarde Account. These
checks were processed by the banks teller Glyzelyn Bejec.

In the Equitable PCI Bank Deposit Receipt dated December 20, 1999, three (3) checks for
the total amount of P163,500,000.00 were deposited to the Jose Velarde Account. These
checks were processed by the banks teller Lagrimas Claveria on December 20, 1999 at
4:12 p.m.

In the Equitable PCI Bank Deposit Receipt dated December 21, 1999, a check of
P5,000,000.00 was deposited to the Jose Velarde Account. The check was processed by
the banks teller Glyzelyn Bejec.

In the Equitable PCI Bank Deposit Receipt dated December 29, 1999, two (2) checks for
the total amount of P2,500,000.00 were deposited to the Jose Velarde Account. These
checks were processed by the banks teller Glyzelyn Bejec.

In the Equitable PCI Bank Deposit Receipt dated January 4, 2000, seven (7) checks for
the total amount of P70,500,000.00 were deposited to the Jose Velarde Account. These
checks were processed by the banks teller Joan Mok on January 4, 2000 at 2:31 p.m.

In the Equitable PCI Bank Deposit Receipt dated May 10, 2000, four (4) checks for the
total amount of P23,000,000.00 were deposited to the Jose Velarde Account. These
checks were processed by the banks teller Joan Mok on May 10, 2000 at 4:30 p.m.

In the Equitable PCI Bank Deposit Receipt dated June 6, 2000, two (2) checks for the total
amount of P42,945,000.00 were deposited to the Jose Velarde Account. These checks
were processed by the banks teller Joan Mok on June 6, 2000 at 3:39 p.m.

Lastly, in the Equitable PCI Bank Deposit Receipt dated July 25, 2000, a check of
P40,000,000.00 was deposited to the Jose Velarde Account. This check was processed
by the banks teller Glyzelyn Bejec on July 25, 2000 at 11:43 a.m.

It was Baby Ortaliza who personally transacted the above-mentioned checks with
Barcelona whom she identified in a photograph (Exh. X5). Barcelona related that Baby
Ortaliza would hand over the checks to be deposited together with the account information
slip or passbook of Jose Velarde to her and that, after the validation, Barcelona would
hand over a copy of the deposit receipt to Baby Ortaliza. [TSN dated May 13, 2002 and
TSN dated May 15, 2002]

JOANNE GENEVIE RANIAGA MOK was a Customer Service Assistant Teller of

Equitable PCI Bank Greenhills-Ortigas Branch since July 1997. She received deposits
and processed withdrawals made with the bank.

Mok related and identified four (4) Equitable PCI Bank deposit receipts which pertained to
various checks deposited to the Jose Velarde Account with Account No. 0160-62501-5:
Deposit Receipt dated November 22, 1999 (Exh. N5); Deposit Receipt dated January 4,
2000 (Exh. T5); Deposit Receipt (Exhibit U5) dated May 10, 2000; and Deposit Receipt
(Exhibit V5) dated June 6, 2000. Mok testified that she personally processed the checks
deposited to the said account.

In the Deposit Receipt dated November 22, 1999, there were three (3) checks deposited
with the total amount of P40 Million. In the Deposit Receipt dated January 4, 2000, there
were seven (7) checks deposited with the total amount of P70,500,000.00. In the Deposit
Receipt dated May 10, 2000, there were four (4) checks deposited with the total amount of
P23,000,000.00. Lastly, in the Deposit Receipt dated June 6, 2000, there were two (2)
checks deposited with the total amount of P44,945,000.00

Mok further related that she prepared 3 copies of the deposit receipts and that after
processing the deposit receipts she threw away the Account Information slip. [TSN dated
May 20, 2002 and TSN dated October 28, 2002]

GLYZELYN HERMOZURA BEJEC was a Customer Service Assistant Teller of Equitable

PCI Bank Greenhills-Ortigas Branch. She processed deposit and withdrawal transactions
of the bank.

Bejec related and identified the deposit receipts of Equitable PCI Bank (Exhs. I 5, M5, P5,
R5, S5 and W5) which pertained to various checks she personally processed and credited
to the Jose Velarde Account with Account No. 0160-62501-5. In the Deposit Receipt dated
November 8, 1999, the total amount of deposit was P263,292,303.65. In the Deposit
Receipt dated October 20, 1999, there were nine (9) checks deposited in the total amount
of P163,000,000.00. In the Deposit Receipt dated November 25, 1999, there were three
(3) checks deposited in the total amount of P20,000,000.00. In the Deposit Receipt dated
December 21, 1999, the total amount of deposit was P5,000,000.00. In the Deposit
Receipt dated December 29, 1999, there were two (2) checks deposited in the total
amount of P2,500,000.00. Lastly, in the Deposit Receipt dated July 25, 2000, a check was
deposited in the amount of P40,000,000.00.

On cross examination, Bejec testified that there were Account Information Slips when the
checks were presented but she already threw away the said slips. It was the policy of the
bank to throw away the Account Information Slips when the deposit receipt had been
generated. [TSN dated May 6, 13, and 20, 2002]

LEONORA BACSAFRA ROYO was the Customer Service Assistant for new accounts of
Equitable PCI Bank Greenhills-Ortigas Branch since March of 1993. She testified that she
was the teller who processed the Deposit Receipt (Exh. O5) dated November 24, 1999
and that she prepared three (3) copies of the same since it was an inter-branch check
deposit transaction. The deposit receipt shows that an Urban Bank Head Office Branch
Managers Check No. 0000037661 dated November 23, 1999 amounting to
P54,161,496.52 was deposited to the Jose Velarde Account No. 0160-62501-5 maintained
at the Equitable PCI Bank Binondo Branch. Teresa Barcelona, the branch manager,
handed to Royo for processing the Urban Bank Managers Check as well as the
accomplished account information slip. [TSN dated October 30, 2002]

ANTONIO MARTIN SAGRITALO FORTUNO was the Bank Operations Officer of

Equitable PCI Bank, Pacific Star Branch since January 28, 2002. The witness averred that
he handled the opening of accounts; supervised the investment section; the foreign
telegraphic transfer as well as the domestic telegraphic transfer and the safekeeping of
the records of deposits; and the transactions which transpired in their branch. Witness
Fortuno brought with him to Court the documents contained in the subpoena which he
requested from the PCHC. These documents were the seventeen (17) microfilm copies of
the checks that were deposited to the Jose Velarde account from the PCHC; the nine (9)
deposit slips or deposit receipts that were deposited to the account of Jose Velarde
together with the five (5) cash deposits; and the detailed report of transfers and debit,
credit memos or the DRTM from October 19, 1999 to January 24, 2000.

Fortuno related and identified the seventeen (17) microfilm copies of checks that were
deposited to the Jose Velarde account from various banks as well as the deposit receipts
and the DRTMs.

The original of the checks were allegedly returned to the issuing bank after having been
negotiated. The first check deposited to the Jose Velarde account was a cashiers check
from PS Bank Head Office with Check No. 000031436 amounting to P20,000,000.00 and
dated October 18, 1999 (Exhs. R14; R14-1; and R14-2). Fortuno narrated that this check was
presented to the teller of the bank and then the teller validated the deposit slip which was
attached to the check. The amount of the check was consequently credited to the Jose
Velarde account with an Account No. 0160-62501-5. The witness, however, cannot tell
who purchased this cashiers check. The second check deposited to the Jose Velarde
account was also a cashiers check from PS Bank Head Office with Check No. 000031437
amounting to P20 Million and dated October 18, 1999 (Exhs. S14; S14-1; S14-2; S14-3; and
S14-4). This check allegedly passed the same procedure as the first check before the
amount of the check was credited to the Jose Velarde account. The witness further related
that the Jose Velarde account was maintained at the Binondo Juan Luna branch and that
the deposits were made in the Pacific Star.

The first deposit receipt (Exhs. T14; T14-1; T14-2; T14-3; and T14-4) was dated October 19,
1999. This deposit receipt allegedly shows that there were two (2) checks deposited to the
Jose Velarde Account for the total amount of P30,000,000.00, one for P20 Million and the
other for P10 Million. The witness specified that this deposit receipt indicated the account
name Jose Velarde; the branch name as Pacific Star branch; the account number 0160-
62501-5; the date and time of deposit which was on October 19, 1999 at 12:55 in the
afternoon; and the checks deposited which were from the Security Bank Corporation Main
Office with Check No. 000363859 for P20,000,000.00 and Check No. 000363858 for
P10,000,000.00. He added that the checks were dated October 18, 1999.

The second deposit receipt (Exhs. U14; U14-1; U14-2; U14-3; and U14-4) was also dated
October 19, 1999. This deposit receipt allegedly shows that there were two (2) checks
deposited to the Jose Velarde Account for the total amount of P30,000,000.00, one for
P20,000,000.00 and the other for P10,000,000.00. The witness specified that this deposit
receipt contained the account name Jose Velarde; the branch name as Pacific Star
branch; the account number 0160-62501-5; the date and time of deposit which was on
October 19, 1999 at 12:53 in the afternoon; and the checks deposited, the first check was
from the Security Bank Corporation Main Office with Check No. 000363857 for
P20,000,000.00, and the other check was from PSB Head Office with Check No.
0000031438 for P10,000,000.00. These checks were dated October 18, 1999.

The third deposit receipt (Exhibits V14; V14-1; V14-2; V14-3; and V14-4) was likewise dated
October 19, 1999. This deposit receipt allegedly shows that there were two (2) checks
deposited to the Jose Velarde Account for the total amount of P50,000,000.00, one for
P20,000,000.00 and the other for P30,000,000.00. Witness Fortuno identified the account
name as Jose Velarde; the branch name as Pacific Star branch; the account number
0160-62501-5; the date and time of deposit which was on October 19, 1999 at 12:49 in
the afternoon; and the checks deposited, the first check was from the Global Bank Head
Office with Check No. 0000107383 for P30,000,000.00, and the other check was also
from the Global Bank Head Office with Check No. 00017385 for P20,000,000.00. These
checks were both dated October 18, 1999.

The fourth deposit receipt (Exhibits W14; W14-1; and W14-2) was dated November 3, 1999.
This deposit receipt allegedly shows that a check deposit was made to the Jose Velarde
Account for P5,000,000.00. Witness Fortuno identified the account name as Jose Velarde;
the branch name as Pacific Star branch; the account number 0160-62501-5; the date and
time of deposit which was on November 3, 1999 at 11:03 in the morning; and the check
deposited which was from Westmont Bank in Ayala Avenue with Check No. 000187472 for
P5,000,000.00. The said check was dated October 26, 1999.

The fifth deposit receipt (Exhibits X14; X14-1; and X14-2) was also dated November 3, 1999.
This deposit receipt allegedly shows that a check deposit was made to the Jose Velarde
Account for P5,000,000.00. The particulars of this deposit receipt were the same as the
fourth deposit receipt except for the time of deposit, which was at 11:04 in the morning,
and the check deposited which was from Westmont Bank in Ayala Avenue with Check No.
000187471 for P5,000,000.00. The said check was likewise dated October 26, 1999.

The sixth deposit receipt (Exhs. Y14; Y14-1; and Y14-2) was dated December 17, 1999. This
deposit receipt allegedly shows that a check deposit was made to the Jose Velarde
Account for P50,000,000.00. The check deposited was allegedly from Equitable PCI Bank
in Divisoria - M. De Santos branch with Check No. 0783236 for P50,000,000.00.

The seventh deposit receipt (Exhs. Z14; Z14-1; Z14-2; Z14-3; and Z14-4) was dated January 11,
2000. This deposit receipt allegedly shows that there were two (2) checks deposited to the
Jose Velarde Account for the total amount of P26,325,055.65, one for P20,000,000.00 and
the other for P6,325,055.65. Witness Fortuno identified the account name as Jose
Velarde; the branch name as Pacific Star branch; the account number 0160-62501-5; the
date and time of deposit which was on January 11, 2000 at 12:39 in the afternoon; and the
checks deposited, the first check was from Equitable PCI Bank in Divisoria M. De
Santos branch with Check No. 0111-795-117 for P20 Million, and the other check was
from Bank of Commerce in Port Area with Check No. 0030474 for P6,325,055.65. The
Equitable PCI Bank check was dated January 6, 2000 while the Bank of Commerce check
was dated January 11, 2000.

The eight deposit receipt (Exh. A15) was dated January 19, 2000. This deposit receipt with
an account information slip (Exh. A15-1) allegedly shows that a cash deposit of
P25,000,000.00 was made to the Jose Velarde Account. Witness Fortuno testified that the
account name Jose Velarde as well as the account number were specified in the account
information slip.

Last for the deposit receipt (Exh. B15) was dated January 24, 2000. This deposit receipt
allegedly shows that there were four (4) checks deposited to the Jose Velarde Account for
the total amount of P75,000,000.00. The account name Jose Velarde as well as the
account number were specified in an account information slip (Exh. B 15-1) for this deposit
receipt. The four (4) checks deposited (Exhs. B15-2; B15-3; B15-4; B15-5; B15-6; B15-7; B15-8;
and B15-9) were allegedly managers checks from the head office of Urban Bank and all
dated January 18, 2000. Witness Fortuno testified that the first check with Check No.
00039976 was for P2,000,000.00; the second check with Check No. 00039975 was for
P70,000,000.00; the third check with Check No. 00039978 was for P1,000,000.00; and
the fourth check with Check No. 00039977 was for P2,000,000.00.

Fortuno continued on his direct-examination and testified as to the Detailed Report of

Transfers and Credit Memorandums (DRTM) dated October 19, 1999; DRTM dated
November 3, 1999; DRTM dated December 15, 1999; DRTM dated December 17, 1999;
DRTM dated January 11, 2000; DRTM dated January 19, 2000; and DRTM dated January
24, 2000. The witness explained that these DRTM reflects the inter-branch transactions
which were done at the Equitable PCI Bank Pacific Star branch. These DRTM allegedly
show the summary of the transactions made particularly to the Jose Velarde Account with
Account No. 0160-62501-5.

The witness testified that the DRTM dated December 15, 1999 (Exhs. C 15 and C15-1)
reflects the summary of four (4) cash deposits to the Jose Velarde Account. The first cash
deposit was for P25,900,000.00; the second cash deposit was for P37,126,467.83; the
third cash deposit was for P38,325,629.67; and the fourth cash deposit was for
P43,647,902.50. The DRTM dated October 19, 1999 (Exhs. D15 and D15-1) reflects the
summary of four (4) deposits to the Jose Velarde Account. The first deposit was for
P30,000,000.00; the second deposit was for P30,000,000.00; the third deposit was for
P40,000,000.00; and the fourth deposit was for P50,000,000.00. The total amount of
deposits for October 19, 1999 was P150,000,000.00. The DRTM dated November 3, 1999
(Exhs. E15 and E15-1) reflects the summary of two (2) check deposits to the Jose Velarde
Account. Each of these check deposits was for P5,000,000.00 for the total amount of
P10,000,000.00. The DRTM dated December 17, 1999 (Exhs. F15 and F15-1) reflects a
deposit to the Jose Verlarde Account for P50,000,000.00. The DRTM dated January 11,
2000 (Exhs. G15 and G15-1) reflects the summary of two (2) deposits to the Jose Velarde
account for the total amount of P26,325,055.65. The first deposit was for P20,000,000.00
and the second deposit was for P6,325,055.65. The DRTM dated January 19, 2000 (Exhs.
H15 and H15-1) shows a cash deposit to the Jose Velarde Account for P25,000,000.00.
Lastly, the DRTM dated January 24, 2000 (Exhs. I15 and I15-1) reflects a check deposit to
the Jose Velarde Account for P75,000,000.00.

Fortuno claimed that the head of the branch of the bank at the time the foregoing deposits
were made was Beatriz Bagsit. He added that the total amount of cash and check
deposits for the period of October 19, 1999 to January 24, 2000 aggregated to
P481,325,055.65.

On cross examination, Fortuno clarified that the Equitable PCI Bank Pacific Star branch
had no specimen signatures of Jose Velarde. He also admitted that he had no personal
knowledge on any matter relating to the Jose Verlade Account nor does he know the
persons who made the cash and check deposits. He testified that none of the names of
FPres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada appear in the deposit slips or checks he exhibited
and identified. [TSN dated November 25, 2002 and TSN dated November 27, 2002]

MICHELLETTE SOLIDUM LEGASPI was the Branch Head of Equitable PCI Bank
Greenhills-Virra Mall Branch on December 19, 1997 until July 26, 2002. The branch was
near North Greenhills Subdivision, San Juan. It was less than 100 meters away from the
Buchanan gate or perpendicular to Eisenhower Street of the subdivision. Polk Street was
one of the streets of North Greenhills where the residence of former President Estrada
was located. [TSN dated December 2, 2002, pp. 39-48]

The Virra Mall Branch was merged with the Greenhills Shopping Center Branch on July
26, 2002. All the bank records and documents of the branch were forwarded to the
warehouse of the head office.

Legaspi brought a Certification (Exhibit T15) dated November 27, 2002, accomplished and
executed by Judy L. Go, Vice-President and Branch Head, Juan Luna Binondo Center,
Equitable PCI Bank which certified that Savings Account No. 016062501-5 and Current
Account No. 011025495-4 were both under the name of Jose Velarde. [Ibid, pp. 49-56]

Legaspi then identified seven (7) Electronic Clearing Systems Reports with attached
documents which were microfilm copies of certain checks. She explained that the
Electronic Clearing systems Report was the summary of all checks received and
processed at Greenhills-Virra Mall Branch and then sent to PCHC for clearing. The
microfilm copies of the checks supported the summary of the Electronic Clearing systems
Report. The documents were handed over to Legaspi by their Legal Department.

The Electronic Clearing Systems Report showed the batch sent by the branch to PCHC
for clearing. The report bore the routing number of the branch and the identification of the
checks that were sent to the Philippine Clearing House Corporation (PCHC).

For the September 10, 1999 Report (Exhibit U15, with sub markings), ten (10) checks were
processed by the branch. The microfilm copies of the checks bore the Account No.
016062501-5 which meant that the checks were deposited to the said account. Legaspi
explained that the account number was found at the back of the checks. The back of the
microfilm checks also bore a certification from the PCHC that the item was a photocopy of
the original clearing document processed by PCHC.

The following microfilm copies were presented: Allied Bank Check No. 00080546 for
P10,000,000.00; Check No. 0080566 for P10,000,000.00; Check No. 0080548 for
P10,000,000.00; Check No. 0080542 for P10,000,000.00; Check No. 0080543 for
P10,000,000.00; Check No 0084547 for P5,000,000.00; Check No. 0080544 for
P5,000,000.00; Westmont bank Ayala Branch Check No. 000181135 for P5,000,000.00;
Metrobank Check No. 0091780568 for P5,000,000.00; Far East Bank Check No. 3165562
for P20,000,000.00 with Jaime Dichavez or Abbie Dichavez as account holder.

Attached to the report was a document entitled Detailed Report of Transfer and/or Credit
and Debit memo (U15-12) of Greenhills, Virra Mall Branch as of September 10, 1999. On
the report, an inter-branch transaction on September 10, 1999 was made for Account No
016062501-5 for P90,000,000.00. The report was secured by the banks Legal
Department pursuant to the subpoena.

For the September 30, 1999 Electronic Clearing Systems Report (Exhibit V 15, with
submarkings), two checks were deposited to Account No 016062501-1. These were
Equitable Bank Binondo Branch Check No. 0811277 for P8,300,000.00 and Allied Bank
Check No. 0080550 for P20,000,000.00. The dorsal side of the Equitable check bore the
account name Jose Velarde and Account No. 016062501-1.

Another attached document was the transaction journal log report (Exhibit V 15-4) which
showed the two deposits. Reflected on the journal log was the amount P995,371.66
indicating the last balance of the Account as of September 29, 1999. A late Deposit
Transactions Report of the Branch as of September 30, 1999 reflected that the two checks
deposited were late deposit transactions so that they were considered the following day
transactions. A Detailed Report of Transfer and/or Memo of Greenhills, Virra Mall dated
September 30, 1999 also reflected the two checks.

The third Electronic Clearing Systems Report (Exhibit W15, with sub markings) presented
was dated October 6, 1999. The details contained the following: Equitable Bank
Managers check in the amount of P300,000,000.00 deposited to Account No. 016062501-
5. The journal log reported the P300,000,000.00 deposit on October 5, 1999. A detailed
report of Transfer Memo (Exhibit W15-4) of the branch dated October 6, 1999 showed that
a P300,000,000.00 check deposit to Account No. 016062501-5.

The next Electronic Clearing Systems Report (Exhibit X15, with sub markings) was dated
November 26, 1999 and showed that three checks were processed by the branch. These
checks were: Equitable Bank Check No. 0811579 for P20,000,000.00, Check No.
0811580 for P20,000,000.00 and Check No. 0811582 for P60,000,000.00. The dorsal
portions of the checks bore the account number 01602501-5 where the checks were
deposited. The Detailed Report of Transaction Memo (Exhibit X15-5) dated November 26,
1999 also showed these three transactions. Since the checks were deposited beyond the
clearing cut-off time, the late deposit transactions report ( Exhibit X15-6) was also
presented.

The Electronic Clearing Systems Report (Exhibit Y15, with sub markings) dated November
29, 1999 showed a Westmont Bank check No. 0000187474 deposit for P25 Million which
against bore the account No. 016062501-5. A detailed Report Transfer Memo (Exhibit Y 15-
3) was presented to show this interbranch transaction. The late transaction report dated
November 29 for the P25,000,000.00 check deposit was also presented. [Ibid, pp. 51-137]

Electronic Clearing System Report (Exhibit Z15, with sub markings) dated December 1,
1999 showed a Metrobank Magdalena Center Check No. 035400 for P53,000,000.00. The
detailed report transfer (Exhibit Z15-3) reflected that the P53,000,000.00 check was
deposited to Account No. 016062501-5.

The last Electronic Clearing Systems Report (Exhibit A16, with sub markings) dated
December 2, 1999 showed that Equitable PCI Binondo Branch Check No. 0811596 for
P50,000,000.00, Check No. 0811597 for P50,000,000.00 and Allied bank Check No.
0176625 for P20,000,000.00 were processed. Attached were two transaction journals
(Exhibit A16-5) dated December 1, 1999 showing these inter-branch transactions.

Legaspi explained that they were unable to produce the deposit slips representing the
inter-branch deposits made to the account of Jose Velarde because all the documents
pertaining to the Virra Mall branch were forwarded to the warehouse. They were still in the
process of retrieving the other documents pertaining to the deposit slips. [TSN dated
December 4, 2000, pp. 11-23]

Legaspi testified that the transactions were made by Baby Ortaliza whom she identified in
a photograph (Exht X5). [Ibid, pp. 24-30]

On cross examination, Legaspi testified that she was certain that the deposit receipts
were actually accomplished and saw Baby Ortaliza several times transacting at the
branch. [Ibid, pp. 31-34]

MELISSA PORTO PASCUAL was a bank teller of Equitable PCI Bank Greenhills Virra
Mall Branch from April 1, 1999 to January of 2002. She processed cash deposits, check
deposit deposits, withdrawals and encashment during that time.

The witness then related and identified microfilm copies of checks which she claimed that
she personally processed for inter-branch deposits. These checks were: Equitable PCI
Bank Check (Exh. V15-2 and submarkings) No. 0811277 dated September 26, 1999 with
the amount of P80,300,000.00; Allied Bank Check (Exh. V15-3 and submarkings) No.
0080550 dated September 15, 1999 with the amount of P20,000,000.00; Equitable PCI
Bank Check (Exh. W15-2 and submarkings) No. 0241001331 dated September 13, 1999
with the amount of P300,000,000.00; Equitable PCI Bank Check (Exh. X 15-2 and
submarkings) No. 0811579 dated November 23, 1999 with the amount of P20,000,000.00;
Equitable PCI Bank Check (Exh. X15-3 and submarkings) No. 0811580 dated November
23, 1999 with the amount of P20,000,000.00; Equitable PCI Bank Check (Exh. X 15-4 and
submarkings) No. 0811582 dated November 23, 1999 with the amount of P60,000,000.00;
Westmont Bank Check (Exh. Y15-2 and submarkings) No. 0000187474 dated November
27, 1999 with the amount of P25,000,000.00; and Allied Bank Check (Exh. A 16-4 and
submarkings) No. 0176625 dated December 1, 1999 with the amount of P20,000,000.00.

The foregoing checks were deposited by Baby Ortaliza to the Jose Velarde Account with
Account No. 0160-62501-5 which was maintained at Equitable PCI Bank Binondo Branch.
Pascual described the physical appearance of Baby Ortaliza and identified her in a
photograph (Exh. X5).

To corroborate her claim that she personally processed the aforementioned checks,
witness Pascual further related and identified the Electronic Clearing System Report
(Exhs. U15 to Z15-3) dated November 26, 1999; the Electronic Clearing System Report
dated October 6, 1999; the Journal Report dated October 5, 1999; the Electronic Clearing
System Report dated September 30, 1999; the Electronic Clearing System Report dated
November 29, 1999; the Electronic Clearing System Report dated December 2, 1999; and
the Journal Report dated December 1, 1999. [TSN dated December 9, 2002]

LAMBERTO BAJACAN DEL FONSO (Del Fonso) was the Assistant Vice President and
Department Head of the Branch Monitoring and Administration Department of Equitable
PCI Bank since 1997.

Del Fonso identified the bank statements relative to the Jose Velarde Savings Account
No. 0160-62501-5 for the period beginning August 1, 1999 to November 30, 2000 (Exhs.
D19 to D19-13, inclusive of submarkings) and to Current Account No. 0110-25495-4 for the
period beginning August 1, 1999 to October 31, 2000 (Exhs. E19 to E19-14). As to Savings
Account No. 0160-62501-5, he testified that the account was closed on November 13,
2000 (Exh. D19-13). As to Current Account No. 0110-25495-4, witness Del Fonso identified
a transaction for October 6, 1999 (Exh. E19-2) for an automatic transfer of the amount of
P29,304,219.69 from the savings account. On the same day, there was an Inward Check
deposit amounting to P142 million. For the other months, there were either minimal
transactions or none at all.

With respect to the account holder Jose Velarde, Del Fonso testified that he had no
address indicated in the accounts as the same were simply "c/o EBC" or "care of
Equitable Banking Corporation" through its Head Office in Binondo, Manila. He clarified
that this was allowed as a special arrangement, although he did not know and neither had
he met Jose Velarde. [TSN dated January 22, 2003]

RENE COLIN DACIO GRAY was head of the Cash Department of Urban Bank sometime
on January 2000. He presented and identified a Managers Check No. 43222 dated
January 17, 2000 (Exh. W19) issued by Urban Bank Greenhills Branch which totalled
Seventy Five Million Pesos (P75,000,000.00). Gray related that the Chairman of Urban
Bank, Arsenio Bartolome, asked him to divide this check into four (4) checks - Urban Bank
Check Nos. 39975, 39976, 39977 and 39978 (Exhs. B15-2, B15-4 B15-6 B15-8) all dated
January 18, 2000. [TSN, March 31, 2003, pp. 8-31]

AURORA CHUMACERA BALDOZ (Baldoz) was the Vice-President of the Receivership

and Liquidation Group 2 of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) since
March 24, 1994. As such, she actually administered the receivership, take-over and
liquidation of banks that the Monetary Board orders for closure. She testified that she
became familiar with Urban Bank because it was her group that implemented the take-
over of the said bank on April 26, 2000.

Baldoz presented and identified documents relative to Account No. 858 (Exh. M 19) of the
Urban Bank, particularly, the Letter of Authority dated November 23, 1999 (Exh. I 19); Letter
of Authority dated January 29, 2000 (Exh. J19); Letter of Authority dated April 24, 2000
(Exh. K19); as well as Urban Bank Check No. 052093 dated April 24, 2000 in the amount of
P107,191,780.85, and a Signature Card of Savings Account No. 0116-17345-9 (Exh. L 19).
Baldoz further identified a Certification (Exh. N19) that she issued to the fact that as
receiver of Urban Bank, PDIC found no bank records showing any account under the
name of Jose Velarde, Joseph E. Estrada, Laarni Enriquez, Guia Gomez, Rowena Lopez,
Peachy Osorio, Joy Melendrez, Kevin or Kelvin Garcia, 727, 737, 747, 757, and 777. She
further certified (Exh. N192) that Accounts "A/C 858" and "T/A 858" did not appear in the
Registry of Deposits of Urban Bank and were not part of the deposit liabilities of the said
bank. [TSN dated March 24, 2003]

MARIE ROSE ANCHETA CLAUDIO (Claudio) was the Vice-President of Urban Bank and
the Manager of Urban Bank San Juan Branch. She was part of the senior management of
Urban Bank, particularly its business development committee which handled the business
aspect of the bank. As area manager, she was in-charge of supervising four (4) branches
of Urban Bank. On the other hand, as branch manager, she handled the accounts of the
Greenhills branch clients in terms of deposits, loans and other products and it was in the
course of her duties as such that she became familiar with Trust Account No. 858 or
Special Private Account No. (SPAN) 858.

Claudio testified that it was Arsenio Bartolome, then the Chairman of Urban Bank, who
asked her to open Trust Account No. 858 and to accept a deposit of Ten Million Pesos
(P10,000,000.00). The deposit was accordingly processed based on Trading Order No.
776313 (Exh. Q19) dated January 6, 1999. She came to know that the owner of the
account was Joseph Victor Ejercito when she was asked to take hold of a Trust
Agreement (Exh. R19) from the Head Office about two (2) to three (3) weeks after she
accepted the cash. Claudio further testified that the Head Office gave it to her to be given
in turn to the client for signature. She added that she personally delivered the document
along with a signature card to the office of Joseph Victor Ejercito. A few weeks after she
left the documents it in his office, she came back and picked them up and gave them back
tot her Head Office. She also testified that she was familiar with the signature of Joseph
Victor Ejercito because he was a client of the bank.

Also in connection with Trust Account No. 858, Claudio handled the acceptance of all
deposits to the said account through Trading Orders. Thus, she became familiar with
Trading Order No. 035006-A (Exh. S19) dated January 27, 1999 in the amount of Fifty
Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00). For effecting withdrawals from the said account, Claudio
explained that trading orders, managers checks and letters of authorities were required.
She added that she was familiar with some withdrawals, particularly those covered by
Trading Order No. 060851 (Exh. T19) dated September 30, 1999 in the amount of Forty
Two Million Pesos Three Hundred Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Nine Pesos and
Seventeen Centavos (P42,360,899.17) and with maturity value of Forty Million Seven
Hundred Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Four Pesos and Twenty Two Centavos
(P42,716,554.22) (Exh. T19-2), which she approved and which was covered by
Managers Check No. 0000034182 dated November 8, 1999 (Exh. I 5-18).

Claudio also identified a withdrawal from the account through Trading Order No. 804490
(Exh. U19) with deal date November 5, 1999 with a maturity value of Ten Million Eight
Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Nine Pesos and Forty Three
Centavos (P10,875,749.43) covered by Urban Bank Managers Check No. 34181 (Exh. I 5-
17) that was processed by branch accountant Aileen Tiongson and which she approved.
Lastly, Claudio identified Trading Order No. 808554 (Exh. V19) with a net maturity value of
Fifty Four Million One Hundred Sixty One Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Six Pesos and
Fifty Two Centavos covered by Urban Bank Managers Check No. 0000037661 (Exh.
O5 with submarkings). Witness Claudio verified that she gave the three (3) managers
checks for withdrawals to Joseph Victor Ejercito. [TSN dated March 26, 2003]

MA. AILEEN CANDELARIA TIONGSON (Tiongson) was the Branch Accountant of Urban
Bank San Juan Branch from December 18, 1999 to March, 2000. Among her duties was
to ensure that all transactions of the bank and all policies in the branch were properly
implemented. Her duties also included checking trading orders prepared by the account
officer for traditional and non-traditional products, facilitating the issuance of certificates of
deposits, and processing the issuance of managers checks for withdrawal transactions.
Tiongson clarified that non-traditional products included trust products or investment
placements under trust agreements.

Tiongson testified that she was familiar with Account No. 858 because she processed
some of the transactions of the client like the issuance of managers check. She added
that she was familiar with Managers Check Bearing No. 43222 (Exh. W 19) dated January
17, 2000 in the amount of P75 Million payable to cash. She added that the source of the
managers check was the pre-terminated placement of Account No. 858. With respect to
the said check, Tiongson testified that the placing of "payable to cash" in a managers
check is not a regular procedure in the bank because a managers check should be
payable to a specified person. [TSN dated April 2, 2003]

GUILLERMO ARAZA BRIONES (Briones) was the Deputy Receiver / Liquidator of the
Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) assigned to Urban Bank at the time it
was under receivership.

Briones testified that as Deputy Receiver, he took charge of all the assets and affairs of
the bank and also acted as custodian of the said records. In such capacity, he came
across Account No. 858 as he was instructed by PDIC Vice President Aurora Baldoz to
look for documents pertaining thereto. He collated the documents and consequently
prepared an inventory list (Exh. V20 V20-4). Briones identified and verified the following
entries therein: (1) entry A-2 as referring to Trading Order No. 020385 (Exh. T 19) dated
January 29, 1999; (2) entry A-21 referring to Managers Check No. 43222 dated January
17, 2000 in the amount of seventy-five million pesos (P75,000,000.00) (Exh. W19); (3)
entry B-3 referring to Trading Order No. 035006 dated January 27, 1999 (Exh.
S19); (4) entry B-25 referring to Trading Order No. 808554 dated November 22,
1999 (Exh. V19); (5) entry C-22 and C-23 referring to Trading Order No. 060851
dated September 30, 1991 (Exh. P19); (6) entry D-34 referring to Trading Order
No. 804490 dated November 5, 1999 (Exh. B 20-3); and entries E-3, E-4, and E-
5 referring to letters of authority dated November 23, 1999 (Exh. I 19), January
17, 2000 (Exh. J19), and April 24, 2000 (Exh. K19). After collating the documents,
he submitted them to Aurora Baldoz. [TSN dated April 9, 2003]

EMMANUEL ENRIQUEZ BARCENA was the Assistant Vice President for Operations of
the PCHC during the time material in these cases. He assisted the Vice President for
Operations, Arturo M. De Castro, in supervising the check processing operations of the
corporation; he made sure that the checks delivered by the banks were credited to the
clearing account with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) and correspondingly debited
to the accounts of the drawee banks; and he was also responsible for the accuracy of the
reports generated and furnished to the "clearing participants" and BSP to the delivery of
checks by the banks. The witness related that the clearing participants are the commercial
and thrift bank members of the corporation with authority from the BSP to accept demand
deposits and participate in the clearing operations. These banks send local checks to the
clearing house by batches and the clearing house receive these checks and feed the
same in a reader sorter which capture the drawee banks information. Thereafter, the
checks are "sprayed with a tracer bond" and "microfilmed" to identify the source of the
check. The checks are then tallied against the batch control ticket and the net results,
known as the "clearing summary report", are reported to the BSP to serve as basis "for
debiting or crediting the clearing account" of the bank concerned.

The witness then related and identified several checks which were sent to PCHC and
undergone the clearing process. He was particular with the signatures of Arturo De
Castro, the Vice President of PCHC, Francisco Gementiza, the Microfilm Custodian of
PCHC, and Edgar Gamboa, the Assistant of the Microfilm Custodian of PCHC. These
checks were Allied Bank Check No. 0176610 with the amount of P5 Million; Allied Bank
Check No. 0176611 with the amount of P10 Million; Westmont Bank Check No. 0187473
with the amount of P25 Million; Urban Bank Check No. 037661 dated November 23, 1999
with the amount of P54,161,496.52; Far East Bank Gift Check with the amount of
P500,000.00; Allied Bank Check No. 0176621 with the amount of P10 Million; Allied Bank
Check No. 0176620 dated December 20, 1999 with the amount of P10 Million; Allied Bank
Check No. 0176622 dated December 20, 1999 with the amount of P5 Million; Allied Bank
Check No. 0176619 dated December 20, 1999 with the amount of P5 Million; UCPB
Check No. 018706 dated December 28, 1999 with the amount of P20 Million; UCPB
Check No. 018707 dated December 28, 1999 with the amount of P20 Million; FEBTC
Check No. 0580312 dated May 8, 2000 with the amount of P3 Million; Allied Bank Check
No. 0209702 dated May 2, 2000 with the amount of P10 Million; Allied Bank Check No.
0209706 dated May 2, 2000 with the amount of P5 Million; Allied Bank Check No.
0209703 dated May 2, 2000 with the amount of P5 Million; Metrobank Check No.
0830000304 dated June 3, 2000 with the amount of P22,945,000.00; Metrobank Check
No. 3010003358 dated June 6, 2000 with the amount of P20 Million; Asian Bank Check
No. 0022012 dated November 5, 1999 with the amount of 20 Million; Urban Bank Check
No. 034181 dated November 8, 1999 with the amount of P10,875,749.43; Urban Bank
Check No. 034182 dated November 8, 1999 with the amount of P42,716,554.22; Allied
Bank Check No. 0176604 dated September 30, 1999 with the amount of P10 Million;
Allied Bank Check No. 0176601 dated September 30, 1999 with the amount of P10
Million; Allied Bank Check No. 0176602 dated September 30, 1999 with the amount of
P10 Million; Allied Bank Check No. 0176605 dated September 30, 1999 with the amount
of P10 Million; Metrobank Check No. 0660139670 dated October 18, 1999 with the
amount of P30 Million; Metrobank Check No. 0660139681 dated October 18, 1999 with
the amount of P13 Million; Metrobank Check No. 0732114979 dated October 15, 1999
with the amount of P10 Million; Global Bank Check No. 0107387 dated October 18, 1999
with the amount of P25 Million; Global Bank Check No. 0107388 dated October 18, 1999
with the amount of P25 Million; Metrobank Check No. 0385384 dated November 24, 1999
with the amount of P10 Million; Metrobank Check No. 0385385 dated November 24, 1999
with the amount of P5 Million; Allied Bank Check No. 0176615 dated November 24, 1999
with the amount of P5 Million; Equitable PCI Bank Check No. 0783278 dated December
17, 1999 with the amount of P160 Million; Equitable PCI Bank Check No. 0783284 dated
December 20, 1999 with the amount of P2 Million; Equitable PCI Bank Check No.
0783282 dated December 20, 1999 with the amount of P1.5 Million; Allied Bank Check
No. 080519 dated December 20, 1999 with the amount of P5 Million; Equitable PCI Bank
Check No. 006975 dated December 24, 1999 with the amount of P1.5 Million; Westmont
Bank Check No. 0189619 dated December 23, 1999; PS Bank Check No. 031436 dated
October 18, 1999 with the amount of P20 Million; PS Bank Check No. 031437 dated
October 18, 1999 with the amount of P20 Million; Security Bank Check No. 0363859
dated October 18, 1999 with the amount of P20 Million; Security Bank Check No.
0363858 dated October 18, 1999 with the amount of P10 Million; Security Bank Check
No. 0363857 dated October 18, 1999 with the amount of P20 Million; PS Bank Check No.
031438 dated October 18, 1999 with the amount of P10 Million; Global Bank Check No.
0107385 dated October 18, 1999 with the amount of P20 Million; Global Bank Check No.
0107383 dated October 18, 1999 with the amount of P30 Million; Westmont Bank Check
No. 0187472 dated October 26, 1999 with the amount of P5 Million; Westmont Bank
Check No. 0187471 dated October 26, 1999 with the amount of P5 Million.

Witness Barcena then related and identified in the foregoing manner Equitable PCI Bank
Check No. 0783236 dated December 17, 1999 with the amount of P50 Million; Equitable
PCI Bank Check No. 0111-795117 dated January 6, 2000 with the amount of P20 Million;
Bank of Commerce Check No. 0030474 dated January 10, 2000 with the amount of
P6,925,055.65; Urban Bank Check No. 039975 dated January 18, 2000 with the amount
of P70 Million; Urban Bank Check No. 039976 dated January 18, 2000 with the amount of
P2 Million; Urban Bank Check No. 039977 dated January 18, 2000 with the amount of P2
Million; Urban Bank Check No. 039978 dated January 18, 2000 with the amount of P1
Million; Allied Bank Check No. 0080566 dated August 31, 1999 with the amount of P10
Million; Allied Bank Check No. 0080454 dated August 31, 1999 with the amount of P10
Million; Allied Bank Check No. 0080548 dated August 31, 1999 with the amount of P10
Million; Allied Bank Check No. 0080542 dated August 31, 1999 with the amount of P10
Million; Allied Bank Check No. 0080543 dated August 31, 1999 with the amount of P10
Million; Allied Bank Check No. 0080547 dated August 31, 1999 with the amount of P5
Million; Allied Bank Check No. 0080544 dated August 31, 1999 with the amount of P5
Million; Westmont Bank Check No. 00181135 dated August 31, 1999 with the amount of
P5 Million; Metrobank Check No. 0091780568 dated September 1, 1999 with the amount
of P5 Million; and FBTC Check No. 3165582 dated September 8, 1999 with the amount of
P20 Million.

In another set of documentary evidence for the prosecution, the witness similarly related
and identified Equitable PCI Bank Check No. 0811277 dated September 26, 1999 with the
amount of P8,300,000.00; Allied Bank Check No. 0080550 dated September 15, 1999
with the amount of P20 Million; Equitable PCI Bank Check No. 001331 dated September
30, 1999 with the amount of P300 Million; Equitable PCI Bank Check No. 0811579 dated
November 23, 1999 with the amount of P20 Million; Equitable Bank Check No. 0811580
dated November 23, 1999 with the amount of P20 Million; Equitable PCI Bank Check No.
0811582 dated November 23, 1999 with the amount of P60 Million; Westmont Bank
Check No. 0187474 dated November 27, 1999 with the amount of P25 Million; Metrobank
Check No. 0385400 dated November 29, 1999 with the amount of P53 Million; Equitable
PCI Bank Check No. 0811596 dated December 15, 1999 with the amount of P50 Million;
Equitable PCI Bank Check No. 0811597 dated December 1, 1999 with the amount of P50
Million; and Allied Bank Check No. 0176625 dated December 1, 1999 with the amount of
P20 Million.

Witness Barcena continued on his direct examination and related and identified FEBTC
Check No. 3165579 dated November 8, 1999 with the amount of P189,700,000.00; BPI
Family Bank Check No. 0006623 dated July 25, 2000 with the amount of P40 Million;
Equitable PCI Bank Check No. 0742099 dated August 15, 1999 with the amount of P10
Million; Metrobank Check No. 0091780523 dated August 15, 1999 with the amount of P31
Million; Metrobank Check No. 0385379 dated August 19, 1999 with the amount of P20
Million; Metrobank Check No. 0830416015 dated July 29, 2000 with the amount of P22
Million; and Allied Bank Check No. 0080549 dated August 25, 1999 with the amount of
P20 Million.

Lastly, the witness then presented and identified a Detail List dated November 9, 1999 of
PCHC which contained a listing of incoming checks of the participating bank in Greater
Manila Area.

On cross examination, witness Barcena clarified that the checks forwarded to PCHC
pertained to checks that were not yet acted by the drawee bank as to whether the same
were honored or dishonored. [TSN dated January 13, 2003; TSN dated January 15, 2003;
and TSN dated January 20, 2003]

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

The defense presented BEATRIZ LEGASPI BAGSIT, the Vice President and Division
Head in the Makati Area of Equitable PCI Bank, and ROMUALD DY TANG, Treasurer and
Executive Vice President of Equitable PCI Bank. The gists of their testimonies were
already discussed in relation to sub-paragraph (c) above. FPres. Estrada also denied on
the witness stand that he owned the Jose Velarde account.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Re: Sub-paragraph (d) of the Amended Information

To reiterate, the crime of plunder is committed through a combination or series of overt or

criminal acts [or "predicate acts"] described in Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080 as amended.
The prosecution presented overwhelming evidence that there were numerous deposits of
astoundingly large sums of money into the Jose Velarde account. However, the
prosecution failed to prove the predicate act/s as defined under Section 1(d) of R.A. No.
7080 through which the said deposits could have been acquired or amassed, except for
the amount of P189,700,000.00, representing illegal commissions from the sales of Belle
shares and the money collected from illegal gambling. It is not per se the accumulation of
wealth which is proscribed by the Anti-Plunder Law. The acquisition of wealth of not less
than P50,000,000.00 must be linked to the commission of overt or criminal acts falling
within the ambit of the said law. All that the prosecution has succeeded in showing is that
the Jose Velarde account is the repository or receptacle of vast wealth belonging to
FPres. Estrada.

RULING OF THE COURT

ON THE CHARGE OF PLUNDER

Elements of the Offense of Plunder

Having reached the foregoing Findings of Fact after a meticulous and laborious study of
the voluminous testimonial and documentary evidence of both the prosecution and the
defense on the four (4) sub-paragraphs of the Amended Information, the Court is now
called upon to apply the Anti-Plunder Law to the facts of this case. The accused are
charged with plunder as defined and penalized under Republic Act No. 7080, as
amended, entitled "An Act Defining And Penalizing The Crime Of Plunder, As Amended"
(July 12, 1991). Particularly, Section 2 of the said law provides as follows:

Section 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties.- Any public officer who,
by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses,
accumulates or acquires ill gotten-wealth through a combination or series of overt
criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof in the aggregate amount or total
value of at least Fifty Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of
plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who
participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense
contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In
the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of
mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal
Code, shall be considered by the court. The Court shall declare any and ill-gotten
wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including the properties
and share of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in the
favor of the State. (As to the penalty, this section is amended by Republic Act No.
9346 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty in the Philippines. RA 9346
was signed into law on June 24, 2006. In view of its provisions, the penalty for the
crime of plunder is now reclusion perpetua pursuant to Section 2 (a) of RA 9346.
In addition, the convicted person shall be eligible for parole under Act. No. 4103,
otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.)

Section 1 (d) of the same statute cited in Section 2 above reads:

d) Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property, business enterprise or material

possession of any person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof, acquired
by him directly or in directly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates
and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or
similar schemes:

1) Through misappropriation, conversation, mis-use, or malversation of

 public funds or raids on the public treasury;

2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share,

percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any
person and/ or entity in connection with any government contract or project
or by reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned;

3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of asset belonging

to the National Government or any of its subdivision, agencies or
instrumentalities or government-owned or controlled corporations and
their subsidiaries;

4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of

stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including
promises of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;

5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or

other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended
to benefit particular persons or special interests; or

6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship,

connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the
expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the
Republic of the Philippines.

RA No. 7080, as amended, enunciates a rule of evidence in Section 4 thereof which is

quoted hereunder:

Section 4. Rule of Evidence. For purpose of establishing the crime of

plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act
done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to amass,
accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish
beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of
the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy.

The case of Joseph Ejercito Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148560, promulgated
November 19, 2001), which upheld this Courts Resolution dated July 9, 2001 denying
accused Former President Estradas Motion to Quash the information in this case,
enumerates the elements of the crime of plunder, as follows:

(1) That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance with
members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates,
subordinates or other persons;

(2) That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a

combination or series of the following overt or criminal acts described in Section 1
(d) of R.A. No. 7080 as amended; and

(3) That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed,
 accumulated or acquired is at least P50,000,000.00.

The terms "Combination" and "Series" were likewise defined in the above-cited case as
follows:

Thus when the Plunder Law speaks of "combination," it is referring to at

least two (2) acts falling under different categories of enumeration
provided in Sec. 1, par. (d), e.g., raids on the public treasury in Sec.1, par.
(d), subpar. (1), and fraudulent conveyance of assets belongings to the
National Government under Sec.1, par. (d), subpar. (3).

On the other hand, to constitute a "series", there must be two (2) or more
overt or criminal acts falling under the same category of enumeration
found in Sec. 1, par. (d), say, misappropriation , malversation and raids on
the public treasury, all of which fall under Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1).
Verily, had the legislature intended a technical or distinctive meaning for
"combination" and "series," it would have taken greater pains in specifically
providing for it in the law. (emphasis supplied)

The Charges in the Amended Information

in Relation to Accused

The import of the charges in the Amended Information was carefully discussed by the
Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan [G.R.
No. 148965, February 26, 2003, 377 SCRA 538, 553-556], as penned by now the
Honorable Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, in this wise:

For better focus, there is a need to examine again the allegations of the Amended
Information vis--vis the provisions of R.A. No. 7080.

The Amended Information, in its first two paragraphs, charges petitioner and his
other co-accused with the crime of plunder. The first paragraph names all the
accused, while the second paragraph describes in general how plunder was
committed and lays down most of the elements of the crime itself. Sub-
paragraphs (a) to (d) describe in detail the predicate acts that constitute the
crime and name in particular the co-conspirators of former President
Estrada in each predicate act. The predicate acts alleged in the said four
sub-paragraphs correspond to the items enumerated in Section 1 (d) of R.A.
No. 7080. Sub-paragraph (a) alleged the predicate act of receiving, on several
instances, money from illegal gambling, in consideration of toleration or protection
of illegal gambling, and expressly names petitioner as one of those who conspired
with former President Estrada in committing the offense. This predicate act
corresponds with the offense described in item [2] of the enumeration in Section 1
(d) of R.A. No. 7080. Sub-paragraph (b) alleged the predicate act of diverting,
receiving or misappropriating a portion of the tobacco excise tax share allocated
for the province of Ilocos Sur, which act is the offense described in item [1] in the
enumeration in Section 1 (d) of the law. This sub-paragraph does not mention
petitioner but instead names other conspirators of the former President. Sub-
paragraph (c) alleged two predicate acts - that of ordering the Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS) and the Social Security System (SSS) to purchase
shares of stock of Belle Corporation, and collecting or receiving commissions from
such purchase from the Belle Corporation which became part of the deposit in the
"Jose Velarde" account at the Equitable-PCI Bank. These two predicate acts fall
under items [2] and [3] in the enumeration of R.A. No. 7080, and was allegedly
committed by the former President in connivance with John Does and Jane Does.
Finally, sub-paragraph (d) alleged the predicate act that the former President
unjustly enriched himself from commissions, gifts, kickbacks, in connivance with
John Does and Jane Does, and deposited the same under his account name
"Jose Velarde" at the Equitable-PCI Bank. This act corresponds to the offense
under item [6] in the enumeration of Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080.

From the foregoing allegations of the Amended Information, it is clear that all the
accused named in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d), thru their individual acts, conspired
with former President Estrada to enable the latter to amass, accumulate or
acquire ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount of P4,097,804,173.17. As the
Amended Information is worded, however, it is not certain whether the accused in
sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) conspired with each other to enable the former
President to amass the subject ill-gotten wealth. In light of this lack of clarity,
petitioner cannot be penalized for the conspiracy entered into by the other
accused with the former President as related in the second paragraph of the
Amended Information in relation to its sub-paragraphs (b) to (d). We hold that
petitioner can be held accountable only for the predicate acts he allegedly
committed as related in sub-paragraph (a) of the Amended Information which were
allegedly done in conspiracy with the former President whose design was to
amass ill-gotten wealth amounting to more than P4 billion.

We hasten to add, however, that the respondent Ombudsman cannot be faulted

for including the predicate acts alleged in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) of the
Amended Information in one, and not in four, separate Informations. A study of the
history of R.A. No. 7080 will show that the law was crafted to avoid the mischief
and folly of filing multiple informations. The Anti-Plunder Law wasenacted in the
aftermath of the Marcos regimewhere charges of ill-gotten wealth were filed
against former President Marcos and his alleged cronies. Government prosecutors
found no appropriate law to deal with he multitude and magnitude of the acts
allegedly committed by the former President to acquire illegal wealth.They also
found out that under the then existing laws such as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, the Revised Penal Code and other special laws, the acts involved
different transactions, different time and different personalities.Every transaction
constituted a separate crime and required a separate case and the over-all
conspiracyhad to be broken down into several criminal and graft charges. The
preparation of multiple Informations was a legl nightmarebut eventually, thirty-nine
(39) separate and independent cases were filed against practically the same
accused before the Sandiganbayan. R.A. No. 7080 or the Anti Plunder Law was
enacted precisely to address this procedural problem. This is pellucid in the
Explanatory Note to Senate Bill No. 733

xxx xxx xxx

. . . In the case at bar, the different accused and their different criminal acts have a
commonalityto help the former President amass, accumulate or acquire ill-
gotten wealth. Sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) in the Amended Information alleged the
different participation of each accused in the conspiracy. The gravamen of the
 conspiracy charge, therefore, is not that each accused agreed to receive
protection money from illegal gambling, that each misappropriated a portion of the
tobacco excise tax, that each accused ordered the GSIS and SSS to purchase
shares of Belle Corporation and receive commissions from such sale, nor that
each unjustly enriched himself from commissions, gifts and kickbacks; rather, it is
that each of them, by their individual acts, agreed to participate, directly or
indirectly, in the amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth
of and/or for former President Estrada.

In the American jurisdiction, the presence of several accused in multiple

conspiracies commonly involves two structures: (1) the so-called "wheel" or
"circle" conspiracy, in which there is a single person or group (the "hub") dealing
individually with two or more other persons or groups (the "spokes"); and (2) the
"chain" conspiracy, usually involving the distribution of narcotics or other
contraband, in which there is successive communication and cooperation in much
the same way as with legitimate business operations between manufacturer and
wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and consumer.

From a reading of the Amended Information, the case at bar appears similar to a
"wheel" conspiracy. The hub is former President Estrada while the spokes are all
the accused, and the rim that encloses the spokes is the common goal in the
overall conspiracy, i.e., the amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten
wealth.

Throughout the trial before this Court, the prosecutions task was to establish, with the
required burden of proof, the commission of the crime of plunder by the principal accused
former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada in conspiracy with his co-accused "during the
period from June, 1998 to January, 2001" by " willfully, unlawfully and criminally"
amassing, accumulating and acquiring by himself directly or indirectly ill-gotten wealth in
the aggregate amount of Four Billion Ninety Seven Million Eight Hundred Four Thousand
One Hundred Seventy-Three Pesos and Seventeen Centavos ( P4,097,804,173.17), more
or less and thereby unjustly enriching himself or themselves at the expense and to the
damage of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines, through "ANY OR A
COMBINATION OR A SERIES OF OVERT CRIMINAL ACTS, OR SIMILAR SCHEMES
OR MEANS" described in paragraphs (a) to (d) in the Amended Information.

After a thorough evaluation of the established facts, we hold that the prosecution has
proven beyond reasonable doubt the elements of plunder as follows:

(a) The principal accused Joseph Ejercito Estrada, at the time of the commission
of the acts charged in the Amended Information was the President of the Republic
of the Philippines;

(b) He acted in connivance with then Governor Luis "Chavit" Singson, who was
granted immunity from suit by the Office of the Ombudsman, and with the
participation of other persons named by prosecution witnesses in the course of the
trial of this case, in amassing, accumulating and acquiring ill-gotten wealth as
follows:

(i) by a series of acts of receiving bi-monthly collections from "jueteng", a

form of illegal gambling, during the period beginning November 1998 to
 August 2000 in the aggregate amount of Five Hundred Forty Five Millionh
Two Hundred Ninety One Thousand Pesos (P545,291,000.00), Two
Hundred Million Pesos (P200,000,000.00) of which was deposited in the
Erap Muslim Youth Foundation; and

(ii) by a series consisting of two (2) acts of ordering the GSIS and the SSS
to purchase shares of stock of Belle Corporation and collecting or
receiving commission from the sales of Belle Shares in the amount of One
Hundred Eighty Nine Million Seven Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P189,700,000.00) which was deposited in the Jose Velarde account.

In Jose "Jinggoy" E. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002, 377
SCRA 538, 549) the Supreme Court ruled as follows:

Contrary to petitioners posture, the allegation is that he received or collected

money from illegal gambling "on several instances." The phrase "on several
instances" means the petitioner committed the predicate act in series. To insist
that the Amended Information charged the petitioner with the commission of only
one act or offense despite the phrase "several instances" is to indulge in a twisted,
nay, "pretzel" interpretation.

In the same case (Jose "Jinggoy" E. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, supra.), it was held:

Sub-paragraph (c) alleged two predicate actsthat of ordering the Government

Service Insurance System (GSIS) and the Social Security System (SSS) to
purchase shares of stock of Belle Corporation, and collecting or receiving
commissions from such purchase from Belle Corporation which became part of
the deposit in the "Jose Velarde" account at the Equitable PCI Bank. These two
predicate acts fall under items [2] and [3] in the enumeration of R.A. No.
7080, and was allegedly committed by the former President in connivance
with John Does and Jane Does. (emphasis supplied)

This Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, who
among the accused benefited from the misappropriation of the excise tax share of Ilocos
Sur and in what amounts, as charged sub-paragraph b. The prosecution likewise failed to
offer evidence on the alleged illegal sources of the numerous deposits in the Jose Velarde
account which belongs to FPres. Estrada, except for the commission received from the
sale of Belle shares to GSIS and SSS and the money collected from illegal gambling. The
Anti-Plunder Law requires the prosecution to prove the series or combination of overt or
criminal acts through which ill-gotten wealth deposited in the Jose Velarde account was
amassed, accumulated or acquired. The prosecution failed to discharge this burden of
proof.

However, the two different series of predicate acts outlined above (particularly, first, the
regular and methodical acquisition of ill-gotten wealth through collections from illegal
gambling and second, the receipt of unlawful commissions from the sales of Belle shares
twice), whether taken separately or independently of the other or in combination with each
other, unquestionably constitute the crime of plunder as defined by Section 2, in relation to
Section 1(d) of RA 7080 as amended.
The case of Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001) ruled:

xxx As Senate President Salonga explained, of there are 150 constitutive crimes
charged, it is not necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt all of them. If a
pattern can be shown by proving for example, 10 criminal acts, then that would be
sufficient to secure conviction.

The State is thereby enabled by this device to deal with several acts constituting
separate crimes as just one crime of plunder by allowing their prosecution by
means of a single information because there is a common purpose for committing
them, namely, that of "amassing, accumulating or acquiring wealth through such
overt or criminal acts." The pattern is the organizing principle that defines what
otherwise would be discreet criminal acts into the single crime of plunder. (369
SCRA 394, 475-476)

A pattern was established by the carefully planned system of jueteng money collection on
a regular bi-monthly basis from the dfferent provinces nationwide to enrich FPres. Estrada
with the connivance and/or participation of Gov. Singson, Yolanda Ricaforte, Emma Lim,
Carmencita Itchon, SPO2 Artates, Jamis Singson and other jueteng collectors referred to
in the Amended Information as "John Does" and "Jane Does." The Court notes that Gov.
Singson in the course of his testimony mentioned certain persons who collected jueteng
money aside from himself and his employees; namely, Anton Prieto, Bonito Singson, Bong
Pineda, Charing Magbuhos, Celso de los Angeles, Jesse Viceo, Romy Pamatmat and a
certain Sanchez of Batangas. As proven, the collections in "several instances" from illegal
gambling money went way beyond the minimum of P50,000,000.00 set by the Anti-
Plunder Law. These repeated collections of jueteng money from November 1998 to
August 2000 would fall within the purview of a "series" of illegal acts constituting plunder.
The said series of acts, on its own, would have been sufficient to convict the principal
accused, FPres. Estrada. However, this Court also finds that FPres. Estrada is criminally
liable for plunder for receiving commissions from the purchase of Belle Shares by the
GSIS and by the SSS in grave abuse of his power on two (2) separate occasions as
charged in sub-paragraph (b) of the Amended Information. Clearly, the receipt of these
commissions on two (2) occasions likewise meets the definition of a series of two (2)
similar unlawful acts employing the same scheme to accumulate ill-gotten wealth.

It is unnecessary to indulge in an exposition of whether the two series of acts falling under
sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) of the Amended Information, proven in the course of the trial
could have amounted to two (2) counts of plunder. It would be a purely academic
exercise, as the accused cannot be convicted of two offenses or two counts of plunder on
the basis of a single Information, clearly charging him of only one count of plunder,
because that would violate his constitutional rights to due process, given the severity of
the crime charged in this case.

The predicate acts alleged in sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) of the Amended Information,
which formed two (2) separate series of acts of a different nature, were linked by the fact
that they were plainly geared towards a common goal which was the accumulation of ill-
gotten wealth for FPres. Estrada and that they shared a pattern or a common method of
commission which was the abuse or misuse of the high authority or power of the
Presidency. (U.S. v. Hiverly, 437 F3d 752)

In sum, the Court finds that prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt the
commission by the principal accused former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada of the
crime of plunder but not so in the case of former Mayor Jose Jinggoy Estrada and Atty.
Edward Serapio.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in Criminal Case
No. 26558 finding the accused, Former President Joseph Ejercito
Estrada, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of PLUNDER defined in and
penalized by Republic Act No. 7080, as amended. On the other hand, for failure of the
prosecution to prove and establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Court finds the
accused Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada and Atty. Edward S. Serapio NOT GUILTY of the crime of
plunder, and accordingly, the Court hereby orders their ACQUITTAL.

The penalty imposable for the crime of plunder under Republic Act No. 7080, as amended
by Republic Act No. 7659, is Reclusion Perpetua to Death. There being no aggravating or
mitigating circumstances, however, the lesser penalty shall be applied in accordance with
Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, accused Former President Joseph
Ejercito Estrada is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and the
accessory penalties of civil interdiction during the period of sentence and perpetual
absolute disqualification.

The period within which accused Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada has been
under detention shall be credited to him in full as long as he agrees voluntarily in writing to
abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.

Moreover, in accordance with Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080, as amended by

Republic Act No. 7659, the Court hereby declares the forfeiture in favor of the government
of the following:

(1) The total amount of Five Hundred Forty Two Million Seven Hundred Ninety
One Thousand Pesos (P545,291,000.00), with interest and income earned,
inclusive of the amount of Two Hundred Million Pesos (P200,000,000.00),
deposited in the name and account of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation.

(2) The amount of One Hundred Eighty Nine Million Pesos (P189,000,000.00),
inclusive of interests and income earned, deposited in the Jose Velarde account.

(3) The real property consisting of a house and lot dubbed as "Boracay Mansion"
located at #100 11th Street, New Manila, Quezon City.

The cash bonds posted by accused Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada and Atty. Edward S. Serapio
are hereby ordered cancelled and released to the said accused or their duly authorized
representatives upon presentation of the original receipt evidencing payment thereof and
subject to the usual accounting and auditing procedures. Likewise, the hold-
departure orders issued against the said accused are hereby recalled
and declared functus oficio.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. Nos. 86883-85 January 29, 1993

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
NORBERTO MANERO, JR., EDILBERTO MANERO, ELPIDIO MANERO, SEVERINO
LINES, RUDY LINES, EFREN PLEAGO, ROGER BEDAO, RODRIGO ESPIA,
ARSENIO VILLAMOR, JR., JOHN DOE and PETER DOE, accused.

SEVERINO LINES, RUDY LINES, EFREN PLEAGO and ROGER

BENDAO, accused-appellants.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Romeo P. Jorge for accused-appellants.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

This was gruesome murder in a main thoroughfare an hour before sundown. A hapless
foreign religious minister was riddled with bullets, his head shattered into bits and pieces
amidst the revelling of his executioners as they danced and laughed around their quarry,
chanting the tune "Mutya Ka Baleleng", a popular regional folk song, kicking and scoffing
at his prostrate, miserable, spiritless figure that was gasping its last. Seemingly unsatiated
with the ignominy of their manslaughter, their leader picked up pieces of the splattered
brain and mockingly displayed them before horrified spectators. Some accounts swear
that acts of cannibalism ensued, although they were not sufficiently demonstrated.
However, for their outrageous feat, the gangleader already earned the monicker "cannibal
priest-killer" But, what is indubitable is that Fr. Tulio Favali 1 was senselessly killed for no
apparent reason than that he was one of the Italian Catholic missionaries laboring in heir
vineyard in the hinterlands of Mindanao. 2

In the aftermath of the murder, police authorities launched a massive manhunt which
resulted in the capture of the perpetrators except Arsenio Villamor, Jr., and two
unidentified persons who eluded arrest and still remain at large.

Informations for Murder, 3 Attempted Murder 4 and Arson 5 were accordingly filed against those
responsible for the frenzied orgy of violence that fateful day of 11 April 1985. As these cases
arose from the same occasion, they were all consolidated in Branch 17 of the Regional Trial
Court of Kidapawan, Cotabato. 6

After trial, the court a quo held

WHEREFORE . . . the Court finds the accused Norberto Manero, Jr. alias
Commander Bucay, Edilberto Manero alias Edil, Elpidio Manero, Severino
Lines, Rudy Lines, Rodrigo Espia alias Rudy, Efren Pleago and Roger
Bedao GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Murder, and
with the aggravating circumstances of superior strength and treachery,
hereby sentences each of them to a penalty of imprisonment of reclusion
perpetua; to pay the Pontifical Institute of Foreign Mission (PIME)
Brothers, the congregation to which Father Tulio Favali belonged, a civil
indemnity of P12,000.00; attorney's fees in the sum of P50,000.00 for each
of the eight (8) accused or a total sum of P400,000.00; court appearance
fee of P10,000.00 for every day the case was set for trial; moral damages
in the sum of P100,000.00; and to pay proportionately the costs.

Further, the Court finds the accused Norberto Manero, Jr. alias
Commander Bucay GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of
Arson and with the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, hereby
sentences him to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of not less
than four (4) years, nine (9) months, one (1) day of prision correccional, as
minimum, to six (6) years of prision correccional, as maximum, and to
indemnify the Pontifical Institute of Foreign Mission (PIME) Brothers, the
congregation to which Father Tulio Favali belonged, the sum of
P19,000.00 representing the value of the motorcycle and to pay the costs.
 Finally, the Court finds the accused Norberto Manero, Jr., alias
Commander Bucay, Edilberto Manero alias Edil, Elpidio Manero, Severino
Lines, Rudy Lines, Rodrigo Espia alias Rudy, Efren Pleago and Roger
Bedao GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Attempted
Murder and with the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
hereby sentences each of them to an indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment of not less than two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1)
day of prision correccional, and minimum, to eight (8) years and twenty
(20) days of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay the complainant
Rufino Robles the sum of P20,000.00 as attorney's fees and P2,000.00 as
court appearance fee for every day of trial and to pay proportionately the
costs.

The foregoing penalties shall be served by the said accused successively

in the order of their respective severity in accordance with the provisions of
Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. 7

From this judgment of conviction only accused Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Efren Pleago
and Roger Bedao appealed with respect to the cases for Murder and Attempted Murder.
The Manero brothers as well as Rodrigo Espia did not appeal; neither did Norberto
Manero, Jr., in the Arson case. Consequently, the decision as against them already
became final.

Culled from the records, the facts are: On 11 April 1985, around 10:00 o'clock in the
morning, the Manero brothers Norberto Jr., Edilberto and Elpidio, along with Rodrigo
Espia, Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Efren Pleago and Roger Bedao, were inside the
eatery of one Reynaldo Diocades at Km. 125, La Esperanza, Tulunan, Cotabato. They
were conferring with Arsenio Villamor, Jr., private secretary to the Municipal Mayor of
Tulunan, Cotabato, and his two (2) unidentified bodyguards. Plans to liquidate a number
of suspected communist sympathizers were discussed. Arsenio Villamor, Jr. scribbled on a
cigarette wrapper the following "NPA v. NPA, starring Fr. Peter, Domingo Gomez, Bantil,
Fred Gapate, Rene alias Tabagac and Villaning." "Fr. Peter" is Fr. Peter Geremias, an
Italian priest suspected of having links with the communist movement; "Bantil" is Rufino
Robles, a Catholic lay leader who is the complaining witness in the Attempted Murder;
Domingo Gomez is another lay leader, while the others are simply "messengers". On the
same occasion, the conspirators agreed to Edilberto Manero's proposal that should they
fail to kill Fr. Peter Geremias, another Italian priest would be killed in his stead. 8

At about 1:00 o'clock that afternoon, Elpidio Manero with two (2) unidentified companions
nailed a placard on a street-post beside the eatery of Deocades. The placard bore the
same inscriptions as those found on the cigarette wrapper except for the additional phrase
"versus Bucay, Edil and Palo." Some two (2) hours later, Elpidio also posted a wooden
placard bearing the same message on a street cross-sign close to the eatery. 9

Later, at 4:00 o'clock, the Manero brothers, together with Espia and the four (4)
appellants, all with assorted firearms, proceeded to the house of "Bantil", their first
intended victim, which was also in the vicinity of Deocades' carinderia. They were met by
"Bantil" who confronted them why his name was included in the placards. Edilberto
brushed aside the query; instead, he asked "Bantil" if he had any qualms about it, and
without any provocation, Edilberto drew his revolver and fired at the forehead of "Bantil".
"Bantil" was able to parry the gun, albeit his right finger and the lower portion of his right
ear were hit. Then they grappled for its possession until "Bantil" was extricated by his wife
from the fray. But, as he was running away, he was again fired upon by Edilberto. Only his
trousers were hit. "Bantil" however managed to seek refuge in the house of a certain
Domingo Gomez. 10 Norberto, Jr., ordered his men to surround the house and not to allow any
one to get out so that "Bantil" would die of hemorrhage. Then Edilberto went back to the
restaurant of Deocades and pistol-whipped him on the face and accused him of being a
communist coddler, while appellants and their cohorts relished the unfolding drama. 11

Moments later, while Deocades was feeding his swine, Edilberto strewed him with a burst
of gunfire from his M-14 Armalite. Deocades cowered in fear as he knelt with both hands
clenched at the back of his head. This again drew boisterous laughter and ridicule from
the dreaded desperados.

At 5:00 o'clock, Fr. Tulio Favali arrived at Km. 125 on board his motorcycle. He entered
the house of Gomez. While inside, Norberto, Jr., and his co-accused Pleago towed the
motorcycle outside to the center of the highway. Norberto, Jr., opened the gasoline tank,
spilled some fuel, lit a fire and burned the motorcycle. As the vehicle was ablaze, the
felons raved and rejoiced. 12

Upon seeing his motorcycle on fire, Fr. Favali accosted Norberto, Jr. But the latter simply
stepped backwards and executed a thumbs-down signal. At this point, Edilberto asked the
priest: "Ano ang gusto mo, padre (What is it you want, Father)? Gusto mo, Father, bukon
ko ang ulo mo (Do you want me, Father, to break your head)?" Thereafter, in a flash,
Edilberto fired at the head of the priest. As Fr. Favali dropped to the ground, his hands
clasped against his chest, Norberto, Jr., taunted Edilberto if that was the only way he
knew to kill a priest. Slighted over the remark, Edilberto jumped over the prostrate body
three (3) times, kicked it twice, and fired anew. The burst of gunfire virtually shattered the
head of Fr. Favali, causing his brain to scatter on the road. As Norberto, Jr., flaunted the
brain to the terrified onlookers, his brothers danced and sang "Mutya Ka Baleleng" to the
delight of their comrades-in-arms who now took guarded positions to isolate the victim
from possible assistance. 13

In seeking exculpation from criminal liability, appellants Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Efren
Pleago and Roger Bedao contend that the trial court erred in disregarding their
respective defenses of alibi which, if properly appreciated, would tend to establish that
there was no prior agreement to kill; that the intended victim was Fr. Peter Geremias, not
Fr. Tulio Favali; that there was only one (1) gunman, Edilberto; and, that there was
absolutely no showing that appellants cooperated in the shooting of the victim despite
their proximity at the time to Edilberto.

But the evidence on record does not agree with the arguments of accused-appellants.

On their defense of alibi, accused brothers Severino and Rudy Lines claim that they were
harvesting palay the whole day of 11 April 1985 some one kilometer away from the crime
scene. Accused Roger Bedao alleges that he was on an errand for the church to buy
lumber and nipa in M'lang, Cotabato, that morning of 11 April 1985, taking along his wife
and sick child for medical treatment and arrived in La Esperanza, Tulunan, past noontime.

Interestingly, all appellants similarly contend that it was only after they heard gunshots that
they rushed to the house of Norberto Manero, Sr., Barangay Captain of La Esperanza,
where they were joined by their fellow CHDF members and co-accused, and that it was
only then that they proceeded together to where the crime took place at Km. 125.

It is axiomatic that the accused interposing the defense of alibi must not only be at some
other place but that it must also be physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the
crime at the time of its commission. 14

Considering the failure of appellants to prove the required physical impossibility of being
present at the crime scene, as can be readily deduced from the proximity between the
places where accused-appellants were allegedly situated at the time of the commission of
the offenses and the locus criminis, 15 the defense of alibi is definitely feeble. 16 After all, it has
been the consistent ruling of this Court that no physical impossibility exists in instances where
it would take the accused only fifteen to twenty minutes by jeep or tricycle, or some one-and-a-
half hours by foot, to traverse the distance between the place where he allegedly was at the
time of commission of the offense and the scene of the crime. 17 Recently, we ruled that there
can be no physical impossibility even if the distance between two places is merely two (2)
hours by bus. 18 More important, it is well-settled that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over
the positive identification of the authors of the crime by the prosecution witnesses. 19

In the case before Us, two (2) eyewitnesses, Reynaldo Deocades and Manuel Bantolo,
testified that they were both inside the eatery at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning of 11
April 1985 when the Manero brothers, together with appellants, first discussed their plan
to kill some communist sympathizers. The witnesses also testified that they still saw the
appellants in the company of the Manero brothers at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon when
Rufino Robles was shot. Further, at 5:00 o'clock that same afternoon, appellants were
very much at the scene of the crime, along with the Manero brothers, when Fr. Favali was
brutally murdered. 20 Indeed, in the face of such positive declarations that appellants were at
the locus criminis from 10:00 o'clock in the morning up to about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon,
the alibi of appellants that they were somewhere else, which is negative in nature, cannot
prevail. 21 The presence of appellants in the eatery at Km. 125 having been positively
established, all doubts that they were not privy to the plot to liquidate alleged communist
sympathizers are therefore removed. There was direct proof to link them to the conspiracy.

There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a crime
and decide to commit it. 22It is not essential that all the accused commit together each and
every act constitutive of the offense. 23 It is enough that an accused participates in an act or
deed where there is singularity of purpose, and unity in its execution is present. 24

The findings of the court a quo unmistakably show that there was indeed a community of
design as evidenced by the concerted acts of all the accused. Thus

The other six accused, 25 all armed with high powered firearms, were
positively identified with Norberto Manero, Jr. and Edilberto Manero in the
carinderia of Reynaldo Deocades in La Esperanza, Tulunan, Cotabato at
10:00 o'clock in the morning of 11 April 1985 morning . . . they were outside of
the carinderia by the window near the table where Edilberto Manero, Norberto
Manero, Jr., Jun Villamor, Elpidio Manero and unidentified members of the
airborne from Cotabato were grouped together. Later that morning, they all
went to the cockhouse nearby to finish their plan and drink tuba. They were
seen again with Edilberto Manero and Norberto Manero, Jr., at 4:00 o'clock in
the afternoon of that day near the house of Rufino Robles (Bantil) when
Edilberto Manero shot Robles. They surrounded the house of Domingo
Gomez where Robles fled and hid, but later left when Edilberto Manero told
 them to leave as Robles would die of hemorrhage. They followed Fr. Favali to
Domingo Gomez' house, witnessed and enjoyed the burning of the motorcycle
of Fr. Favali and later stood guard with their firearms ready on the road when
Edilberto Manero shot to death Fr. Favali. Finally, they joined Norberto
Manero, Jr. and Edilberto Manero in their enjoyment and merriment on the
death of the priest. 26

From the foregoing narration of the trial court, it is clear that appellants were not merely
innocent bystanders but were in fact vital cogs in perpetrating the savage murder of Fr.
Favali and the attempted murder of Rufino Robles by the Manero brothers and their
militiamen. For sure, appellants all assumed a fighting stance to discourage if not prevent
any attempt to provide assistance to the fallen priest. They surrounded the house of
Domingo Gomez to stop Robles and the other occupants from leaving so that the
wounded Robles may die of hemorrhage. 27Undoubtedly, these were overt acts to ensure
success of the commission of the crimes and in furtherance of the aims of the conspiracy. The
appellants acted in concert in the murder of Fr. Favali and in the attempted murder of Rufino
Robles. While accused-appellants may not have delivered the fatal shots themselves, their
collective action showed a common intent to commit the criminal acts.

While it may be true that Fr. Favali was not originally the intended victim, as it was Fr.
Peter Geremias whom the group targetted for the kill, nevertheless, Fr. Favali was
deemed a good substitute in the murder as he was an Italian priest. On this, the
conspirators expressly agreed. As witness Manuel Bantolo explained 28

Q Aside from those persons listed in that paper to be killed,

were there other persons who were to be liquidated?

A There were some others.

Q Who were they?

A They said that if they could not kill those persons listed in
that paper then they will (sic) kill anyone so long as he is
(sic) an Italian and if they could not kill the persons they
like to kill they will (sic) make Reynaldo Deocades as their
sample.

That appellants and their co-accused reached a common understanding to kill another
Italian priest in the event that Fr. Peter Geremias could not be spotted was elucidated by
Bantolo thus 29

Q Who suggested that Fr. Peter be the first to be killed?

A All of them in the group.

Q What was the reaction of Norberto Manero with respect

to the plan to kill Fr. Peter?

A He laughed and even said, "amo ina" meaning "yes, we

 will kill him ahead."

xxx xxx xxx

Q What about Severino Lines? What was his reaction?

A He also laughed and so conformed and agreed to it.

Q Rudy Lines.

A He also said "yes".

Q What do you mean "yes"?

A He also agreed and he was happy and said "yes" we will

kill him.

xxx xxx xxx

Q What about Efren Pleago?

A He also agreed and even commented laughing "go

ahead".

Q Roger Bedao, what was his reaction to that suggestion

that should they fail to kill Fr. Peter, they will (sic) kill
anybody provided he is an Italian and if not, they will (sic)
make Reynaldo Deocades an example?

A He also agreed laughing.

Conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design being sufficiently shown, the
act of one is the act of all the other conspirators, and
the precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary. 30

The award of moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00 to the congregation, the
Pontifical Institute of Foreign Mission (PIME) Brothers, is not proper. There is nothing on
record which indicates that the deceased effectively severed his civil relations with his
family, or that he disinherited any member thereof, when he joined his religious
congregation. As a matter of fact, Fr. Peter Geremias of the same congregation, who was
then a parish priest of Kidapawan, testified that "the religious family belongs to the natural
family of origin." 31 Besides, as We already held, 32 a juridical person is not entitled to moral
damages because, not being a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or such
sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or moral shock. It is only
when a juridical person has a good reputation that is debased, resulting in social humiliation,
that moral damages may be awarded.

Neither can We award moral damages to the heirs of the deceased who may otherwise be
lawfully entitled thereto pursuant to par. (3), Art. 2206, of the Civil Code, 33 for the reason
that the heirs never presented any evidence showing that they suffered mental anguish; much
less did they take the witness stand. It has been held 34 that moral damages and their causal
relation to the defendant's acts should be satisfactorily proved by the claimant. It is elementary
that in order that moral damages may be awarded there must be proof of moral
suffering. 35 However, considering that the brutal slaying of Fr. Tulio Favali was attended with
abuse of superior strength, cruelty and ignominy by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting
the pain and anguish of the victim, outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse, exemplary
damages may be awarded to the lawful heirs, 36 even though not proved nor expressly pleaded
in the complaint, 37 and the amount of P100,000.00 is considered reasonable.

With respect to the civil indemnity of P12,000.00 for the death of Fr. Tulio Favali, the
amount is increased to P50,000.00 in accordance with existing jurisprudence, which
should be paid to the lawful heirs, not the PIME as the trial court ruled.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from being in accord with law and the evidence is
AFFIRMED with the modification that the civil indemnity which is increased from
P12,000.00 to P50,000.00 is awarded to the lawful heirs of the deceased plus exemplary
damages of P100,000.00; however, the award of moral damages is deleted.

Costs against accused-appellants.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-74324 November 17, 1988

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
FERNANDO PUGAY y BALCITA, & BENJAMIN SAMSON y MAGDALENA, accused-appellants.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Citizens Legal Assistance Office for accused-appellants.

MEDIALDEA, J.:

For the death of Bayani Miranda, a retardate, FERNANDO PUGAY y BALCITA and BENJAMIN
SAMSON y MAGDALENA were charged with the crime of MURDER in Criminal Case No. L-175-82
of the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Cavite, under an information which reads
as follows:

That on or about May 19, 1982 at the town plaza of the Municipality of Rosario,
Province of Cavite, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping and
assisting one another, with treachery and evident premeditation, taking advantage of
their superior strength, and with the decided purpose to kill, poured gasoline, a
combustible liquid to the body of Bayani Miranda and with the use of fire did then and
there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, burn the whole body of said Bayani Miranda
which caused his subsequent death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the
aforenamed Bayani Miranda.

That the crime was committed with the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the
aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and superior strength, and the
means employed was to weaken the defense; that the wrong done in the commission
of the crime was deliberately augmented by causing another wrong, that is the
burning of the body of Bayani Miranda.

CONTRARY TO LAW (p. 1, Records).

Upon being arraigned, both accused pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. After trial, the trial
court rendered a decision finding both accused guilty on the crime of murder but crediting in favor of
the accused Pugay the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong, the
dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, the accused Fernando Pugay y Balcita and Benjamin Samson y

Magdalena are pronounced guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals by direct
participation of the crime of murder for the death of Bayani Miranda, and appreciating
the aforestated mitigating circumstance in favor of Pugay, he is sentenced to a prison
term ranging from twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20)
years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and Samson to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua together with the accessories of the law for both of them. The
accused are solidarily held liable to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of
P13,940.00 plus moral damages of P10,000.00 and exemplary damages of
P5,000.00.

Let the preventive imprisonment of Pugay be deducted from the principal penalty.

Cost against both accused.

SO ORDERED (p. 248, Records).

Not satisfied with the decision, both accused interposed the present appeal and assigned the
following errors committed by the court a quo:

1. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN UTILIZING THE STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED-

APPELLANTS IN ITS APPRECIATION OF FACTS DESPITE ITS ADMISSION THAT
THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS WERE NOT ASSISTED BY A COUNSEL DURING
THE CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION.

2. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE SUPPRESSION BY

THE PROSECUTION OF SOME EVIDENCE IS FATAL TO ITS CASE.

3. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN LENDING CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE

TESTIMONY OF EDUARDO GABION WHO WAS ONE OF THE MANY SUSPECTS
ARRESTED BY THE POLICE (Accused-appellants' Brief, p. 48, Rollo).

The antecedent facts are as follows:

The deceased Miranda, a 25-year old retardate, and the accused Pugay were friends. Miranda used
to run errands for Pugay and at times they slept together. On the evening of May 19, 1982, a town
fiesta fair was held in the public plaza of Rosario, Cavite. There were different kinds of ride and one
was a ferris wheel.

Sometime after midnight of the same date, Eduardo Gabion was sitting in the ferris wheel and
reading a comic book with his friend Henry. Later, the accused Pugay and Samson with several
companions arrived. These persons appeared to be drunk as they were all happy and noisy. As the
group saw the deceased walking nearby, they started making fun of him. They made the deceased
dance by tickling him with a piece of wood.

Not content with what they were doing with the deceased, the accused Pugay suddenly took a can
of gasoline from under the engine of the ferns wheel and poured its contents on the body of the
former. Gabion told Pugay not to do so while the latter was already in the process of pouring the
gasoline. Then, the accused Samson set Miranda on fire making a human torch out of him.

The ferris wheel operator later arrived and doused with water the burning body of the deceased.
Some people around also poured sand on the burning body and others wrapped the same with rags
to extinguish the flame.

The body of the deceased was still aflame when police officer Rolando Silangcruz and other police
officers of the Rosario Police Force arrived at the scene of the incident. Upon inquiring as to who
were responsible for the dastardly act, the persons around spontaneously pointed to Pugay and
Samson as the authors thereof.

The deceased was later rushed to the Grace Hospital for treatment. In the meantime, the police
officers brought Gabion, the two accused and five other persons to the Rosario municipal building for
interrogation. Police officer Reynaldo Canlas took the written statements of Gabion and the two
accused, after which Gabion was released. The two accused remained in custody.

After a careful review of the records, We find the grounds relied upon by the accused-appellants for
the reversal of the decision of the court a quo to be without merit.
It bears emphasis that barely a few hours after the incident, accused-appellants gave their written
statements to the police. The accused Pugay admitted in his statement, Exhibit F, that he poured a
can of gasoline on the deceased believing that the contents thereof was water and then the accused
Samson set the deceased on fire. The accused Samson, on the other hand, alleged in his statement
that he saw Pugay pour gasoline on Miranda but did not see the person who set him on fire. Worthy
of note is the fact that both statements did not impute any participation of eyewitness Gabion in the
commission of the offense.

While testifying on their defense, the accused-appellants repudiated their written statements alleging
that they were extracted by force. They claimed that the police maltreated them into admitting
authorship of the crime. They also engaged in a concerted effort to lay the blame on Gabion for the
commission of the offense.

Thus, while it is true that the written statements of the accused-appellants were mentioned and
discussed in the decision of the court a quo, the contents thereof were not utilized as the sole basis
for the findings of facts in the decision rendered. The said court categorically stated that "even
without Exhibits 'F' and 'G', there is still Gabion's straightforward, positive and convincing testimony
which remains unaffected by the uncorroborated, self-serving and unrealiable testimonies of Pugay
and Samson" (p. 247, Records).

Accused-appellants next assert that the prosecution suppressed the testimonies of other
eyewitnesses to the incident. They claim that despite the fact that there were other persons
investigated by the police, only Gabion was presented as an eyewitness during the trial of the case.
They argue that the deliberate non- presentation of these persons raises the presumption that their
testimonies would be adverse to the prosecution.

There is no dispute that there were other persons who witnessed the commission of the crime. In
fact there appears on record (pp. 16-17, Records) the written statements of one Abelardo Reyes and
one Monico Alimorong alleging the same facts and imputing the respective acts of pouring of
gasoline and setting the deceased on fire to the accused-appellants as testified to by Gabion in open
court. They were listed as prosecution witnesses in the information filed. Considering that their
testimonies would be merely corroborative, their non-presentation does not give rise to the
presumption that evidence wilfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. This presumption does
not apply to the suppression of merely corroborative evidence (U.S. vs. Dinola, 37 Phil. 797). <re||

Besides, the matter as to whom to utilize as witness is for the prosecution to decide.
an1w>

Accused-appellants also attack the credibility of the eyewitness Gabion alleging that not only was
the latter requested by the mother of the deceased to testify for the prosecution in exchange for his
absolution from liability but also because his testimony that he was reading a comic book during an
unusual event is contrary to human behavior and experience.

Gabion testified that it was his uncle and not the mother of the deceased who asked him to testify
and state the truth about the incident. The mother of the deceased likewise testified that she never
talked to Gabion and that she saw the latter for the first time when the instant case was tried.
Besides, the accused Pugay admitted that Gabion was his friend and both Pugay and the other
accused Samson testified that they had no previous misunderstanding with Gabion. Clearly, Gabion
had no reason to testify falsely against them.

In support of their claim that the testimony of Gabion to the effect that he saw Pugay pour gasoline
on the deceased and then Samson set him on fire is incredible, the accused-appellants quote
Gabion's testimony on cross-examination that, after telling Pugay not to pour gasoline on the
deceased, he (Gabion) resumed reading comics; and that it was only when the victim's body was on
fire that he noticed a commotion.

However, explaining this testimony on re-direct examination, Gabion stated:

Q. Mr. Gabion, you told the Court on cross-examination that you were
reading comics when you saw Pugay poured gasoline unto Bayani
Miranda and lighted by Samson. How could you possibly see that
incident while you were reading comics?

A. I put down the comics which I am reading and I saw what they
were doing.

Q. According to you also before Bayani was poured with gasoline and
lighted and burned later you had a talk with Pugay, is that correct?

A. When he was pouring gasoline on Bayani Miranda I was trying to

prevent him from doing so.

Q. We want to clarify. According to you a while ago you had a talk

with Pugay and as a matter of fact, you told him not to pour gasoline.
That is what I want to know from you, if that is true?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Aside from Bayani being tickled with a stick on his ass, do you
mean to say you come to know that Pugay will pour gasoline unto
him?

A. I do not know that would be that incident.

Q. Why did you as(k) Pugay in the first place not to pour gasoline
before he did that actually?

A. Because I pity Bayani, sir.

Q. When you saw Pugay tickling Bayani with a stick on his ass you
tried according to you to ask him not to and then later you said you
asked not to pour gasoline. Did Pugay tell you he was going to pour
gasoline on Bayani?

A. I was not told, sir.

Q. Did you come to know..... how did you come to know he was going
to pour gasoline that is why you prevent him?

A. Because he was holding on a container of gasoline. I thought it

was water but it was gasoline.

Q. It is clear that while Pugay was tickling Bayani with a stick on his
ass, he later got hold of a can of gasoline, is that correct?
 A. Yes, sir.

Q. And when he pick up the can of gasoline, was that the time you
told him not to pour gasoline when he merely pick up the can of
gasoline.

A. I saw him pouring the gasoline on the body of Joe.

Q. So, it is clear when you told Pugay not to pour gasoline he was
already in the process of pouring gasoline on the body of Bayani?

A. Yes, sir (Tsn, July 30, 1983, pp. 32-33).

It is thus clear that prior to the incident in question, Gabion was reading a comic book; that Gabion
stopped reading when the group of Pugay started to make fun of the deceased; that Gabion saw
Pugay get the can of gasoline from under the engine of the ferris wheel; that it was while Pugay was
in the process of pouring the gasoline on the body of the deceased when Gabion warned him not to
do so; and that Gabion later saw Samson set the deceased on fire.

However, there is nothing in the records showing that there was previous conspiracy or unity of
criminal purpose and intention between the two accused-appellants immediately before the
commission of the crime. There was no animosity between the deceased and the accused Pugay or
Samson. Their meeting at the scene of the incident was accidental. It is also clear that the accused
Pugay and his group merely wanted to make fun of the deceased. Hence, the respective criminal
responsibility of Pugay and Samson arising from different acts directed against the deceased is
individual and not collective, and each of them is liable only for the act committed by him (U.S. vs.
Magcomot, et. al. 13, Phil. 386; U.S. vs. Abiog, et. al. 37 Phil. 1371).

The next question to be determined is the criminal responsibility of the accused Pugay. Having taken
the can from under the engine of the ferris wheel and holding it before pouring its contents on the
body of the deceased, this accused knew that the can contained gasoline. The stinging smell of this
flammable liquid could not have escaped his notice even before pouring the same. Clearly, he failed
to exercise all the diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence arising from any act
that may be committed by his companions who at the time were making fun of the deceased. We
agree with the Solicitor General that the accused is only guilty of homicide through reckless
imprudence defined in Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. In U.S. vs. Maleza, et.
al. 14 Phil. 468, 470, this Court ruled as follows:

A man must use common sense and exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his
duty to be cautious, careful, and prudent, if not from instinct, then through fear of
incurring punishment. He is responsible for such results as anyone might foresee
and for acts which no one would have performed except through culpable abandon.
Otherwise his own person, rights and property, all those of his fellow-beings, would
ever be exposed to all manner of danger and injury.

The proper penalty that the accused Pugay must suffer is an indeterminate one ranging from four (4)
months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional,
as maximum. With respect to the accused Samson, the Solicitor General in his brief contends that
"his conviction of murder, is proper considering that his act in setting the deceased on fire knowing
that gasoline had just been poured on him is characterized by treachery as the victim was left
completely helpless to defend and protect himself against such an outrage" (p. 57, Rollo). We do not
agree.
There is entire absence of proof in the record that the accused Samson had some reason to kill the
deceased before the incident. On the contrary, there is adequate evidence showing that his act was
merely a part of their fun-making that evening. For the circumstance of treachery to exist, the attack
must be deliberate and the culprit employed means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof
which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any
defense which the offended party might make.

There can be no doubt that the accused Samson knew very well that the liquid poured on the body
of the deceased was gasoline and a flammable substance for he would not have committed the act
of setting the latter on fire if it were otherwise. Giving him the benefit of doubt, it call be conceded
that as part of their fun-making he merely intended to set the deceased's clothes on fire. His act,
however, does not relieve him of criminal responsibility. Burning the clothes of the victim would
cause at the very least some kind of physical injuries on his person, a felony defined in the Revised
Penal Code. If his act resulted into a graver offense, as what took place in the instant case, he must
be held responsible therefor. Article 4 of the aforesaid code provides, inter alia, that criminal liability
shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended.

As no sufficient evidence appears in the record establishing any qualifying circumstances, the
accused Samson is only guilty of the crime of homicide defined and penalized in Article 249 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended. We are disposed to credit in his favor the ordinary mitigating
circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed as there is evidence of a
fact from which such conclusion can be drawn. The eyewitness Gabion testified that the accused
Pugay and Samson were stunned when they noticed the deceased burning (Tsn, June 1, 1983, pp.
16-17).<re||an1w>

The proper penalty that the accused Samson must suffer is an indeterminate one ranging from eight
(8) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

The lower court held the accused solidarily liable for P13,940.00, the amount spent by Miranda's
parents for his hospitalization, wake and interment. The indemnity for death is P30,000.00. Hence,
the indemnity to the heirs of the deceased Miranda is increased to P43,940.00.

Both accused shall be jointly and severally liable for the aforesaid amount plus the P10,000.00 as
moral damages and P5,000.00 as exemplary damages as found by the court a quo.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed with the modifications above-indicated. Costs against the
accused-appellants.

SO ORDERED.