TWO PLUNDER CASES: A COMPARISON
Deana P. Perez *It is the second time for Philippine Senator Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada to be accused of plunder.
This paper will discuss the cases but no comment or opinion on the merits of the second case ismade as the case is presently being tried.
I.

THE CRIME OF PLUNDER

Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080 defines and penalizes the crime of plunder as follows:
Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family,
relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or otherpersons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination orseries of overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d)190 hereof in the aggregate
amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guiltyof 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.
As laid down in Joseph Ejercito Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148560, November 19,2001), the elements of plunder are:
1. That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance with membersof his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or otherpersons;
2. That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination orseries 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 ofDepartment of Justice, Philippines.

- 107 -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 othercombinations 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;
3. That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated oracquired is at least P50 million.
II. THE FIRST PLUNDER CASE
In the first plunder case, former president Joseph Estrada was charged with acquiring almost
P4 billion ill-gotten wealth from protection money in illegal gambling operations, stock
manipulation and kickbacks from tobacco excise taxes. Joseph Estrada's son Jinggoy, who wasthen the mayor of San Juan district in Metro Manila, and others were charged as conspirators. Inits decision promulgated on September 12, 2007, the Sandiganbayan (antigraft court) convicted
former president Joseph Estrada and acquitted the younger Estrada. In acquitting Jinggoy, theCourt stated that:
With respect to Jinggoy Estrada, there was no evidence that the money he turned over toGov. Singson or the latter's 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, disproving the testimony ofEmma Lim that the deposit slip in the amount said to be part of jueteng money was
turned over to her by Jinggoy Estrada from his account at the United Overseas Bank.
The gaps in the prosecution evidence as to Jinggoy Estrada create uncertainty in themind of the Court as to the participation of Jinggoy Estrada in the collection and receiptof jueteng money.
Then Governor Luis "Chavit" Singson of the province of Ilocos Sur and their close family
friend was the principal witness in the plunder charge against the Estradas. He testified that hedelivered millions of pesos from jueteng operations to the former president and he maintained aledger for the transactions. Jinggoy was the collector of P3 million protection money every monthfrom the nearby province of Bulacan, through Jessie Viceo, the jueteng operator in Bulacan.
Jinggoy retained P1 million and gave the rest to Singson, who, in turn, remitted money to Estrada.
However, Joseph stopped Jinggoy from keeping a portion of the proceeds so his codename
appeared in Singson's ledger only once but he continued receiving protection money, albeit- 108 -secretly. Four witnesses testified that upon instructions of Singson, they collected juetengproceeds from Jinggoy on several occasions. One of them testified that Jinggoy, in one instance,
issued her a personalized/customized United Overseas Bank check.
The Court took notice of the gaps in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It did not
believe that Jinggoy Estrada, who is not even from Bulacan, was the collector for Bulacan.
None of the witnesses saw Jinggoy Estrada receive jueteng collections from Viceo or that hesubtracted his share of the collections he received. In the lengthy and detailed ledger, Jinggoy's
codename appeared but once despite the supposed numerous instances when he received
protection money from illegal gambling. Moreover, the testimony of the bank official who statedthat the bank had not issued any customized check to Jinggoy Estrada and that he had no accountwith the bank was given weight and consideration as his testimony was not rebutted.
III. THE SECOND PLUNDER CASE
Jinggoy Estrada became a senator in 2004. The second plunder case, now pending trial
before the Sandiganbayan, charges him with the anomalous utilization of his Priority
Development Assistance Funds.
A. The Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and the PDAF Scam
The Priority Development Assistance Fund is a lump-sum appropriation in the annual
General Appropriations Act allotted to each member of Congress to fund the priority
development programmes and projects of the government, mostly on the local level. Because ofthe alleged misuse by several members of Congress of their PDAF, it is estimated that thePhilippine government was defrauded of P10 billion. The PDAF scam, or pork barrel scam, is a
big political scandal that has provoked public outrage. On November 19, 2013, the Supreme
Court declared the PDAF unconstitutional.
Businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles was tagged as the mastermind of the PDAF scam by
Benhur K. Luy, her second cousin and former personal assistant. After she detained him andagents of the National Bureau of Investigation of the Department of Justice rescued him, Luy
reported Napoles' involvement in the scam. Based on testimonial and documentary evidence
gathered, the widespread misuse of PDAF allotted to a legislator was committed through acomplex scheme with the participation of the legislator, his/her subordinates, the Department ofBudget and Management, implementing agencies of the government, and the dummy nongovernmental organizations of Napoles. The projects supposed to have been funded by alegislator's PDAF turned out to be inexistent or "ghost” projects and the funds intended for theimplementation of the PDAF-funded project are diverted to Napoles and her cohorts, including
the legislator.
B. The Charges
On September 16, 2013, the NBI and Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima filed a complaintwith the Ombudsman charging Senator Estrada with plunder for acquiring/receiving on variousoccasions, in conspiracy with his co-respondents, commissions, kickbacks, or rebates, in the total
amount of at least Php183,793,750.00 from the “projects” financed by his PDAF from 2004 to2012. The Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman, on the other hand, charged Senator- 109 -

Estrada and other respondents with violating SECTION 3(E) of RA 3019, as amended, for giving
unwarranted benefits to private respondent Napoles and certain NGOs in the implementation of
his PDAF-funded projects, thus, causing undue injury to the government in the amount of morethan Php278,000,000.00. After preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman indicted Sen. Estrada
for plunder and several counts of graft, along with other individuals.
C. Evidence for the Prosecution
In their testimonies, Benhur Luy and other trusted employees of Janet Napoles (thewhistleblowers) outlined the modus operandi of the PDAF scam. They stated that Sen. Estrada
repeatedly received sums of money from Janet Napoles for endorsing her fake NGOs toimplement the projects to be funded by his PDAF. Luy related that Sen. Estrada personallytransacted with Napoles and in his ledger, he recorded that Sen. Estrada received over P183
million in kickbacks from his PDAF.
Ruby Tuason was former President Joseph Estrada's social secretary and a close friend ofSen. Estrada. She was initially a respondent in the complaint but she turned witness for theprosecution. Tuason states that she personally knows Napoles and she acted as the go-between
for Napoles and Sen. Estrada with respect to his PDAF-related arrangements. The amounts forhis kickback, usually 50% of the diverted funds, were handed to her by either Luy or Napoles
herself. She personally picked up and delivered the money in his office or his home. She also
received commission of 5% of the amount.
Aside from Luy and company, Tuason and other witnesses, there are also documentary
evidence against Sen. Estrada, namely: (a) the business ledgers prepared by witness Luy, showing
the amounts received by Senator Estrada, through Tuason and Labayen, as his “commission”
from the so-called PDAF scam; (b) the 2007-2009 COA Report, documenting the results of thespecial audit undertaken on PDAF disbursements that there were serious irregularities relating to
the implementation of PDAF-funded projects, including those sponsored by Estrada; and (c) thereports on the independent field verification conducted in 2013 by the investigators of the Field
Investigation Office of the Ombudsman which secured sworn statements of local officials andpurported beneficiaries of the inexistent projects.
D. Estrada's Defence
In his defence, Sen Estrada decries political harassment and claims that he has no knowledge
or participation in the anomalous transfer of his PDAF allocation; that neither he nor his chief ofstaff and co-respondent Labayen received any funds from Napoles, her staff or persons associatedwith NGOs affiliated with or controlled by her; that his association with Napoles did notnecessarily mean that he connived with her to divert PDAF disbursements. He denies that he isconnected with other respondents and that he authorized them to act on his behalf respecting his
PDAF allocations; that the signatures appearing in the PDAF documents are not his, as witness
Luy admitted falsifying signatures on some PDAF documents. He claims that as a legislator, hehad no hand in the implementation of the projects funded by the PDAF; that his choice of NGO
to implement his PDAF projects was only recommendatory and he himself merely relied onrecommendations in choosing the NGO.

- 110 -