View full case

JOSE 'JINGGOY' P. EJERCITO ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to annul the resolution of the Sandiganbayan denying their motion to suppress/exclude the inquiry report on bank transactions related to Senator Jinggoy Estrada's alleged involvement in the PDAF scam. The whistleblowers executed a sworn statement revealing the details of the pork barrel scam, and the NBI conducted an investigation and filed criminal complaints for plunder and other offenses. The Office of the Ombudsman requested the AMLC to conduct a financial investigation. The CA granted the ex parte application for bank inquiry, and the Ombudsman filed an information charging Estrada with plunder. The AMLC discovered suspicious transfers to the account of Estrada's wife and applied for another bank inquiry. The CA granted the supplemental application. The AMLC provided the Ombudsman with an inquiry report, and during Estrada's bail hearings, an AMLC investigator testified on the inquiry report. Estrada filed a motion to suppress, which was denied by the Sandiganbayan. Estrada filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. The petitioners then filed the present petition for certiorari.

ISSUES:

  1. Does Section 11 of R.A. No. 9160, as amended, violate the constitutionally mandated right to due process and right to privacy?

  2. Should the ex parte application for a bank inquiry order provided for in Section 11 of R.A. No. 9160, as amended, be applied retroactively?

  3. Whether or not the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 10167, eliminating the requirement of notice to the account holder in a bank inquiry order, violates the ex post facto clause.

  4. Whether or not the issuance of a bank inquiry order violates the constitutional prohibition against general warrants.

  5. Whether or not the petition has been rendered moot and academic by supervening events.

  6. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction to hear and resolve the present case.

  7. Whether or not the accused public official can be held liable for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).

  8. Whether or not the accused public official can be held liable for plunder under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080.

RULING:

  1. Section 11 of R.A. No. 9160, as amended, is constitutional. The amendment allowing an ex parte application for an order to inquire into bank deposits and investments does not violate the constitutionally-mandated right to due process and right to privacy. The court ruled that the AMLC, in investigating probable money laundering activities, does not exercise quasi-judicial powers but merely acts as an investigatory body similar to the functions of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Hence, the ex parte application for the bank inquiry order cannot be said to violate any person's constitutional right to procedural due process. Moreover, the right to privacy respecting bank deposits is statutory, not constitutional, so the Congress may validly carve out exceptions to the rule on the secrecy of bank deposits.

  2. The amendment to Section 11 of R.A. 9160 allowing an ex parte application for a bank inquiry does not violate the proscription against ex post facto laws. The court ruled that R.A. No. 10167, which amended Section 11 of R.A. No. 9160, does not apply retroactively to bank transactions made prior to its effectivity. It does not impose new legal burdens to already-completed transactions. The application for the bank inquiry order issued prior to the passage of R.A. No. 9160 would be constitutionally infirm and offensive to the ex post facto clause.

  3. The amendment introduced by R.A. No. 10167, eliminating the requirement of notice to the account holder in a bank inquiry order, does not violate the ex post facto clause. The AMLC is only exercising its investigative powers at this stage, and R.A. No. 10167 explicitly provides that the penal provisions shall not apply to acts done prior to the effectivity of the AMLA on October 17, 2001.

  4. The issuance of a bank inquiry order does not violate the constitutional prohibition against general warrants. Unlike a search warrant or warrant of arrest, a bank inquiry order does not involve the seizure of persons or property.

  5. The petition has been rendered moot and academic by supervening events, specifically the grant of bail to the petitioner by the Sandiganbayan. The resolutions being assailed trace their roots to the bail hearing of the petitioner, and there is no justiciable controversy remaining. Therefore, the Court dismisses the petition for being moot and academic.

  6. The Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction to hear and resolve the present case. The Court held that Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act No. 7975, specifically grants the Sandiganbayan exclusive original jurisdiction over criminal cases involving public officials, including their private individuals co-accused, in relation to their office.

  7. The accused public official can be held liable for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. The Court ruled that the elements of Section 3(e) are present in this case, as the accused allegedly acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence in the performance of her official duties. The Court noted that the presence of damage or injury is not required under this provision.

  8. The accused public official can also be held liable for plunder under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080. The Court explained that Section 2 of the said law provides that any public officer who amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts, in the aggregate amount or total value of at least fifty million pesos (₱50,000,000.00), shall be guilty of plunder.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The investigatory power of the AMLC is similar to the functions of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

  • The right to privacy respecting bank deposits is statutory, not constitutional.

  • The Congress may validly carve out exceptions to the rule on the secrecy of bank deposits.

  • A collateral attack against a presumably valid law is not permissible unless it is annulled by a direct proceeding.

  • The presumption of the validity of a law or rule stands unless annulled by a direct proceeding.

  • An ex post facto legislation applies retroactively and imposes new legal burdens to already-completed transactions.

  • Ex post facto laws are laws that make criminal an act done before the passage of the law that was innocent when done, or aggravate a crime, or change the punishment, or alter the legal rules of evidence, or assume to regulate civil rights and remedies but imposes a penalty for a previously lawful act, or deprive a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection.

  • The amendment introduced by R.A. No. 10167, eliminating the requirement of notice to the account holder in a bank inquiry order, does not violate the ex post facto clause because it only applies to acts done after its effectivity and explicitly provides that the penal provisions shall not apply to acts done prior to the effectivity of the AMLA.

  • A bank inquiry order does not violate the constitutional prohibition against general warrants because it does not involve the seizure of persons or property.

  • A case is rendered moot and academic when there is no justiciable controversy remaining and the Court can no longer grant any substantial relief.

  • The Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over criminal cases involving public officials in relation to their office as provided under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act No. 7975.

  • To be liable for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, the accused public official must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence in the performance of their official duties. The presence of damage or injury is not required under this provision.

  • Plunder under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080 is committed when a public officer amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts, in the aggregate amount or total value of at least fifty million pesos (₱50,000,000.00).