JOSEPH ESTRADA

Charges filed

A few months after the January 2001 popular uprising that ousted Estrada, the Philippine Ombudsman filed two charges at the Sandiganbayan on April 4, 2001; one for plunder and the other for perjury. The plunder case consisted of four separate charges: acceptance of 545 million pesos from proceeds of jueteng, an illegal gambling game; misappropriation of 130 million pesos in excise taxes from tobacco; receiving a 189.7-million-peso commission from the sale of the shares of Belle Corporation, a real-estate firm; and owning some 3.2 billion pesos in a bank account under the name Jose Velarde. The minor charge of perjury is for Estrada underreporting his assets in his 1999 statement of assets and liabilities and for the illegal use of an alias, namely for the Jose Velarde bank account.

Estrada's son, Jinggoy Estrada, an incumbent senator, and Edward Serapio, his personal lawyer were his co-accused. Also charged were Charlie Ang, Yolanda Ricaforte, Alma Alfaro, Eleuterio Tan, Delia Rajas, and Jaime Dichaves, who was later added.

[edit]Arraignment and plea

.....

[edit]Prosecution's case

The Philippine government's prosecution team was led by Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio and other government lawyers. Their case against Joseph Estrada was based on the following:

[edit]Defense's case

Former President Joseph Estrada's defense panel, led by Atty. Estelito Mendoza, and composed of former Supreme Court justices and other celebrated Philippine lawyers based their defense on the following points:

President Estrada recalls the Arroyos plotting with the civil society and the military in January 2000, to take over a year later; The House of Representatives impeaching him without debate and voting; The Senate blue-ribbon committee not hearing him out; The Impeachment Court not citing for contempt the losers in a democratic debate and voting; and the Supreme Court conniving with the elite to swear in then-Vice-President Gloria Arroyo at noon of January 20, 2001, -(Manila Times, September 30, 2007)

1. The whole process is against the constitution. a) the legal possibility of removing a sitting president is by impeachment. Paguia, one of Estradas lawyers argues ,Former President Estrada was not convicted and removed by the Senate acting as an Impeachment Court, . Therefore it is unconstitutional to subject him to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.“ -(Manila Times, September 14, 2007)

b) the Supreme Court relied on a biblical, not constitutional passage, with President Estrada still in the Palace

c) the same Court created a special division for President Estrada (not done in the case of the Marcoses and the cronies and the military).

d)Actually, the plot to oust President Estrada was planned by the then-Vice president Arroyo who met with some political and religious leaders calling for a what she called "Transition Government" under her rule.

2. The Sandiganbayan did not find him guilty of stealing a single centavo of public money. (Manila Times, September 30, 2007)

Lead counsel Estelito Mendoza insisted there is no evidence Estrada received bribe money from jueteng lords. There was also no evidence he received commission money or checks from the Belle transactions. The one who admitted to receiving bribe money from gambling lords was former governor Chavit Singson of Ilocos Sur. But he was not charged as a co-conspirator. He ran for senator in May 2007 but lost.

3. Fabrication of evidence: Manrique, a former action officer of the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) , narrated in his affidavit how he, sometime in the last week of October 2001, was contacted by a lawyer(State Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio) who represented himself as a member of the prosecution team in the Estrada cases.

Manrique said the lawyer convinced him to file another perjury case against the deposed president since the original case filed by the Ombudsman was deemed to be weak and insufficient in evidence. The lawyer added Manrique’s complaint against Estrada had to be antedated to make it appear that even before the Ombudsman had filed his own case,

4. Saguisag, one of Estrada‘s lawyers said the defense will base its legal argument on the prosecution’s failure to indicate in the information that Estrada had received jueteng money “by reason of his public office,” “There was no allegation that it was received by reason of his public office. That’s one of the elements of plunder,” (inquirer, September 2007)

5. The Sandigan special graft court has an image problem. It is not perceived as being impartial or independent or even fair. Reynato Puno has one of the worst trust ratings for a public figure. (Manila Times September 12, 2007)