EN BANC PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Pettoner, - versus - JOSEPH
EJERCITO ESTRADA and THE HONORABLE SPECIAL DIVISION OF THE
SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. Nos. 164368-69 Present: PUNO, C.J.,
OUISUMBING,YNARES-SANTIAGO,CARPIO,AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA,CARPIO
MORALES, TINGA,CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, |R., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BRION, and PERALTA, JJ. Promugated: Respondents. Apr 2,
2009
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N BRION, |.: The Peope of the Phppnes (the Peope) ed
ths Petton for Revew on Certorar1|1| to seek the reversa of the
Sandganbayans |ont Resouton dated |uy 12, 2004, grantng respondent
|oseph E|ercto Estradas (Estrada) demurrer to evdence n Crm. Case
No. 26565.2|2| THE FACTS On Apr 4, 2001, an Informaton
for!"nder(docketed as Cr#$% CaseN&% '())*)wased wththe
Sandganbayan aganstrespondentEstrada,among other accused. A
separate Informaton for ega use of aas, docketedas Cr#$% Case
N&% '()(), was kewse ed aganst Estrada. The AmendedInformaton n
Crm. Case No. 26565 reads: That on or about 04 February 2000, or
sometme pror or subsequent thereto, nthe Cty of Mana, Phppnes and
wthn the |ursdcton of ths Honorabe Court, theabove-named accused,
beng then Presdent of the Repubc of the Phppnes,
wthouthavngbeenduyauthorzed, |udcayoradmnstratvey, takngadvantageof
hsposton and commttng the ohense n reaton to omce, .e., n order to
CONCEAL THE-gotten weath HE ACOUIRED durng hs tenure and hs true
dentty as THE Presdentof the Repubc of the Phppnes, dd then and
there, wfuy, unawfuy
andcrmnayREPRESENTHIMSELFAS|OSEVELARDEINSEVERALTRANSACTIONSANDuse
and empoy the SAID aas |ose Vearde whch IS nether hs regstered name
at1|1| Under Rue 45 of the Rues of Court.2|2| People of the
Philippines v. Joseph Ejercito Estrada for the crme of ega use of
aas.brth nor hs baptsmaname, n sgnng documents wth Equtabe PCI Bank
and/orother corporate enttes. CONTRARY TO LAW. Crm. Case Nos. 26565
and 26558 were subsequenty consodated for|onttra. St
anotherInformaton, thstmeforer+"r,anddocketedasCr#$% Case N&%
'(-.),was ed wth the Sandganbayan aganst Estrada.Ths was ater
consodated, too, wth Crm. Cases No. 26558 and 26565. Estrada was
subsequenty arrested on the bass of a warrant of arrestthat the
Sandganbayan ssued. On |anuary 11, 2005, we ordered the creaton of
a Speca Dvson n theSandganbayan to try, hear, and decde the charges
of punder and reatedcases (ega use of aas and per|ury) aganst
respondent Estrada.3|3| At the tra, the Peope presented testmona
and documentary evdenceto prove the aegatons of the Informatons for
punder, ega use of aas,and per|ury. The Peopese/#den0e 1&r t2e
#!!e3a! a!#as 02ar3e, assummarzed by the Sandganbayan, conssted of:
A.Thetestmonesof PhppneCommerca andIndustra Bank(PCIB)omcers Carssa
G. Ocampo (Ocampo) and Atty. Manue Curato (Curato)3|3| A.M. No.
02-1-07-SC, entted Re: Request for the Creaton of a Speca Dvson to
Try the Punder Case, SB Crm. Case No. 26558, and reated
cases.whocommonydecaredthat onFebruary4, 2000,
Estradaopenedanumbered trust account (Trust Account C-1!) wth PCIB
and sgned as|ose Vearde n the account openng documents; both Ocampo
andCuratoasotestedthatAprodcoLacquanandFernandoChuawerepresent on
that occason; B.(1) The testmony of PCIB-Greenhs Branch Manager
Teresa Barcean,who decared that a certan Baby Ortaza (Ortali"a)
transacted severatmes wth her; that Ortaza deposted severachecks n
PCIB SavngsAccount No. 0160-62502-5 under the account name |ose
Vearde on thefoowng dates (as evdenced by depost recepts duy marked
nevdence):a. 20 October 1999(Exh. MMMMM)b. 8 November 1999(Exh.
LLLLL)c.22 November 1999(Exh. NNNNN)d. 24 November 1999(Exh.
OOOOO)e.25 November 1999(Exh. PPPPP)f. 20 December 1999(Exh.
OOOOO)g. 21 December 1999(Exh. RRRRR)h. 29 December 1999(Exh.
SSSSS). 4 |anuary 2000 (Exh. TTTTT)|. 10 May 2000(Exh. UUUUU)k. 6
|une 2000 (Exh. VVVVV). 25 |uy 2000 (Exh. WWWWW) (2) Documents duy
dented by wtnesses showng that Lucena Ortazawas empoyed n the Omce
of the Vce Presdent and, ater on, n theOmce of the Presdent when
Estrada occuped these postons and whendeposts
weremadetothe|oseVeardeSavngs Account No. 0160-62502-5. The Peope
ed ts FormaOher of Exhbts n the consodated cases,whch the
Sandganbayan admtted nto evdence n a Resouton datedOctober 13,
2003.4|4|The accused separatey moved to reconsder theSandganbayan
Resouton;5|5|the Peope, on the other hand, ed
tsConsodatedComment/Oppostontothemotons.6|6|TheSandganbayandened
the motons n ts Resouton dated November 17, 2003.7|7| After
thePeoperestedna threecases, thedefensemovedtobeaowed to e a
demurrer to evdence n these cases.8|8| In ts |ont Resouton4|4|
#ollo, pp. 1304-1316.5|5| See Sandganbayans Resouton dated November
17, 2003, id., p. 1318.6|6| I$id% p. 1320.7|7| Promugated on
November 18, 2003.8|8| #ollo, pp. 1323-1335.dated March 10,
2004,9|9| the Sandganbayan ony granted the defense eaveto e
demurrers n Crm. Case Nos. 26565 (egause of aas) and
26905(per|ury). Estrada ed separate Demurrers to Evdence for Crm.
Case Nos. 26565and 26905.10|10|Hs demurrer to evdence for Crm. Case
No. 26565 (egause of aas) was anchored on the foowng grounds11|11|:
1. Of thethrty-ve(35) wtnesses presentedbytheprosecuton,
onytwo(2)wtnesses, Ms. CarssaOcampoandAtty. Manue Curato,
testedthat ononeoccason (4 February 2000), they saw movant use the
name |ose Vearde; 2. The use of numbered accounts and the ke was
ega and was prohbted ony nate 2001 as can be geaned from Bangko
Sentra Crcuar No. 302, seres of 2001,dated 11 October 2001; 3.
There s no proof of pubc and habtua use of aas as the documents
ohered bythe prosecuton are bankng documents whch, by ther nature,
are condenta andcannot be reveaed wthout foowng proper procedures;
and 4.The use of aas s absorbed n punder. 9|9| Id.% pp.
1337-1348.10|10| Dated March 29, 2004, id.% pp. 1349-1377.11|11|
See Sandganbayans Resouton dated |uy 09, 2004 (promugated on |uy
12, 2004), id., p.
84.ThePeopeopposedthedemurrersthroughaConsodatedOppostonthat
presented the foowng arguments:12|12| 1.That the use of cttous
names n bank transacton was not expressy prohbtedunt BSP No. 302 s
of no moment consderng that as eary as Commonweath ActNo. 142, the
use of aas was aready prohbted. Movant s beng prosecuted forvoaton
of C.A. No. 142 and not BSP Crcuar No. 302; 2. Movants
reanceonUrsuavs. Court of Appeas (256SCRA147|1996|) smspaced; 3.
Assumng ar&uendothat C.A. No. 142, as amended, requres pubcaton
of theaas andthehabtua usethereof, theprosecutonhas
presentedmorethansumcent evdence n ths regard to convct movant for
ega use of aas; and 4. Contrary to the submsson of movant, the
nstant case of ega use of aas snot absorbed n punder. Estrada
repedto the Consodated Opposton througha ConsodatedRepy Opposton.
THE ASSAILED SANDIGANBAYANS R4LING The Sandganbayan ssued on |uy
12, 2004 the Resouton now assaedn ths petton. The saent ponts of
the assaed resouton are: 12|12| Id.% pp.
1378-1408.Firstthecoverageof Estradasndctment.
TheSandganbayanfoundthat the ony reevant evdence for the ndctment
are those reatng to what sdescrbedntheInformatoni.e., thetestmones
anddocuments ontheopenngof Trust Account C-163onFebruary4, 2000.
TheSandganbayanreasonedoutthattheuseoftheds|unctve&rbetween&n&ra5&"t.6Fe5r"ar,
'...and s&$et#$e r#&r &r s"5se7"ent t2eret&means
thatthe act/s aegedy commtted on February 4, 2000 coud have actuay
takenpace prior to or su$se'uent thereto; the use of the con|unctve
was smpythe prosecutons procedura too to guard aganst any varance
between thedate stated n the Informaton and that proved durng the
tra n a stuaton nwhch tme was not a matera ngredent of the ohense;
t does not mean andcannot bereadas arovngcommssonthat ncudes acts
and/or eventssearate and d#st#n0t from those that took pace on the
snge date on orabout 04 February 2000 or sometme pror or subsequent
thereto. TheSandganbayanruedthat theuseof theds|unctveor preventedt
fromnterpretng the Informaton any other way.
SecondthePeopesfauretopresent evdencethat provedEstradascommsson of
the ohense. The Sandganbayan found that the Peope faed topresent
evdence that Estrada commtted the crme punshed underCommonweath Act
No. 142, as amended by Repubc Act (#.A.) No. 6085 (CA1()), as
nterpreted by the Supreme Court n *rsua v. Court of
Appeals.1![13]It rued that there s an ega use of aas wthn the
context of CA 142 ony fthe use of the aas s"5!#0and2a5#t"a!. In
Estradas case, theSandganbayannoted, theappcatonof theprncpeswasnot
assmpebecauseof thecompcatonsresutngfromthenatureof
thetransactonnvoved the aas was used n connecton wth the openng of
a numbered13|13| G.R. No. 112170, Apr 10, 1996, 256 SCRA 147.trust
account made durng the ehectvty of R.A. No. 1405, as
amended,14|14|and pror to the enactment of Repubc R.A. No.
9160.15|15| Estrada dd not pubcy use the aas |ose Vearde:
a.Estradas use of the aas |ose Vearde n hs deangs wthDchavez and
OrtazaafterFebruary 4, 2000 s not reevant n ght of theconcuson that
the acts mputed to Estrada under the Informaton were theact/s
commtted on February 4, 2000 ony. Addtonay, the phrase, Estradadd
represent hmsef as |ose Vearde n severa transactons, standng
aone,voatesEstradasrght tobenformedof thenatureandthecauseof
theaccusaton, because t s very genera and vague. Ths phrase s quaed
andexpaned by the succeedng phrase and use and empoy the sad aas
|oseVearde whch s nether hs regstered name at brth nor hs baptsma
name,n sgnng documents wth Equtabe PCI Bank and/or other corporate
enttes.Thus, Estradas representatons before persons other than
those mentoned nthe Informaton are mmatera; Ortaza and Dchavez do
not fa wthn theEqutabe PCI Bank and/or other corporate enttes
speced n theInformaton. Estradas representatons wthOrtaza
andDchavez are nottherefore covered by the ndctment. b. The
Sandganbayan re|ected the appcaton of the prncpe n theaw of be that
mere communcaton to a thrd person s pubcty; t reasonedout that that
the denton of pubcty s not mted to the way t s denedunder the aw on
be; addtonay, the appcaton of the be aw denton s14|14| Otherwse
known as the Secrecy of Bank Deposts Act.15|15| Otherwse known as
the Ant-Money Launderng Act.onerous to the accused and s precuded
by the rung n *rsua that CA No.142,as a penastatute,shoud be
construed strcty aganst the State andfavoraby for the accused. It
rued that the denton under the aw on be,even f t appes, consders a
communcaton to a thrd person covered by theprveged communcaton rue
to be non-actonabe. Estradas use of the aasn front of Ocampo and
Curato s one such prveged communcaton underR.A. No. 1405, as
amended. The Sandganbayan sad: Movants act of sgnng |ose Vearde n
bank documents beng absouteycondenta, thewtnessngthereof bybank
omcers whowerekewsesworntosecrecy by the same aw cannot be
consdered as pubc as to fa wthn the ambt ofCA 142 as amended. On
account of the absoute condentaty of the transacton, tcannot be sad
that movant ntended to be 8n&9n by ths name n addton to hs
reaname. Con+dentialit, and secrec, ne&ate pu$licit,. *rsua
nstructs: Hence, the use of a cttous name or a dherent name
beongngto another person n a snge nstance wthout any sgn or ndcaton
thatthe user #ntends t& 5e 8n&9n by ths name n addton to hs
rea namefrom that day forth does not fa wthn the prohbton n C.A.
No. 142 asamended. c. TheSandganbayanfurther foundthat
thententonnot tobepubcy known by the name |ose Vearde s shown by
the nature of anumberedaccount aperfectyvadbankngtransactonat
thetimeTrustAccount C-163 was opened. The openng, too, of a
numbered trust account,the Sandganbayan further rued, dd not mpose
on Estrada the obgaton todscose hs rea dentty the obgaton R.A. No.
6713 mposes s to e underoath a statement of assets and
abtes.16|16|Readng CA No. 142, R.A. No.1405andR.A. No.
6713together,
Estradahadtheabsouteobgatontodscosehsassetsncudngtheamount of
hsbankdeposts, buthewasunder no obgaton at a to dscose the other
partcuars of the bank account(such as the name he used to open
t).16|16| Otherwse known as then Code of Conduct and Ethca
Standards for Pubc Omcas and Empoyees.Thirdthe ehect of the
enactment of R.A. No. 9160.17|17|TheSandganbayan sad that the
absoute prohbton n R.A. No. 9160 aganst theuse of anonymous
accounts,accounts under cttous names,and aothersmar accounts, s a
egsatve acknowedgment that a gapng hoeprevousyexstednour aws that
aoweddepostors tohdether truedenttes. The Sandganbayan noted that
the prohbtonwas fted fromBangko Sentra ng Ppnas (B-P) Crcuar No.
251 dated |uy 7, 2000 anotherconrmaton that the openng of a
numbered trust account was perfecty egawhen t was opened on
February 4, 2000. The Sandganbayan rued that the provsons of CA No.
142, asnterpreted n *rsua,must necessary be harmonzed wth the
provsons ofR.A. No.1405 and R.A. No. 9160 under the prncpe that
every statute shoudbe construed n a way that w harmonze t wth
exstng aws. A reasonabescrutny, the Sandganbayan sad, of a these
aws n reaton to the presentcase, ed t to concude that the use of an
aas wthn the context of a banktransacton(speccay, theopenngof
anumberedaccount madebeforebank omcers) s protected by the secrecy
provsons of R.A. No. 1405, and sthus outsde the coverage of CA No.
142 unt the passage nto aw of R.A. No.9160. THE PETITION The Peope
ed ths petton rasng the foowng ssues:17|17| Otherwse known as the
Ant-Money Launderng Act of 2001. 1. Whether the court a 'uo gravey
erred and abused ts dscretonn dsmssng Crm. Case No. 26565 and n
hodng that the useby respondent |oseph Estrada of hs aas |ose
Vearde was notpubcdesptethepresenceof Messrs.
AprodcoLaquanandFernando Chua on 4 February 2000; 2. Whether the
court a 'uo gravey erred and abused ts dscretonn dsmssng Crm. Case
No. 26565 and n hodng that the useby respondent |oseph Estrada of
hs aas |ose Vearde wasaowabe under bankng rues, despte the cear
prohbton underCommonweath Act No. 142; 3. Whether the court a 'uo
gravey erred and abused ts dscretonn dsmssng Crm. Case No. 26565
and n appyng R.A. No. 1405as anexceptontotheega useof aas
punshabeunderCommonweath Act No. 142; 4. Whether the aeged
harmonzaton and appcaton made by thecourt a 'uo of R.A. No.1405 and
Commonweath Act No. 142 wereproper; 5. Whether the court a quo
gravey erred and abused ts dscretonnmtngthecoverageof
theamendedInformatonnCrm.Case No. 26565 to the use of the aas |ose
Vearde byrespondent |oseph Estrada on February 4, 2000; 6. Whether
the court a quo gravey erred and abused ts dscretonn departng from
ts earer na ndng on the non-appcabtyof*rsuav. Courtof
Appealsandforcngtsappcatontothenstant case. THE CO4RTS R4LING T2e
et#t#&n 2as n& $er#t% The Law on Illegal Use of Alias and
the Ursua Ruling Sectons 1 and 2 of CA No. 142, as amended,
read:Secton 1. Except as a pseudonym soey for terary, cnema,
teevson, rado orother entertanment purposes and n athetc events
where the use of pseudonym s anormay accepted practce, no person
sha use any name dherent from the one wthwhch he was regstered at
brth n the omce of the oca cv regstry or wth whch hewas baptzed for
the rst tme, or n case of an aen, wth whch he was regstered
nthebureau of mmgraton uponentry;or suchsubsttute name as
mayhavebeenauthorzed by a competent court: Provded, That persons
whose brths have not beenregstered n any oca cv regstry and who
have not been baptzed, have one yearfrom the approva of ths act
wthn whch to regster ther names n the cv regstry ofther resdence.
Thenamesha comprsethepatronymc nameandoneor twosurnames. Secton 2.
Any person desrng to use an aas sha appy for authorty thereforn
proceedngs ke those egay provded to obtan |udca authorty for a
change ofname and no person sha be aowed to secure such |udca
authorty for more thanone aas. The petton for an aas shaset forth
the person's baptsma and famyname and the name recorded n the cv
regstry, f dherent, hs mmgrant's name, fanaen, andhspseudonym,
fhehassuchnamesotherthanhsorgna orreaname, specfyng the reason or
reasons for the desred aas. The |udca authorty forthe use of aas,
the Chrstan name and the aen mmgrant's name sha be recordedn the
proper oca cv regstry, and no person sha use any name or names
otherthan hs orgna or rea name uness the same s or are duy recorded
n the properoca cv regstry. How ths aw s voated has been answered
by the *rsua denton ofan aas a name or names used $, a person or
intended to $e used $, himpublicl and habituall usuall, in $usiness
transactions in addition to hisreal name $, .hich he is
re&istered at $irth or $apti"ed the +rst time orsu$stitute name
authori"ed $, a competent authorit,. There must be, nthe words of
*rsua, a si&n or indication that the user intends to $e /no.n$,
this name (the aas) in addition to his real name from that da,
forth |forthe use of aas to| fall .ithin the prohi$ition contained
in C.A. 0o. 1() asamended.18|18| *rsua further reates the hstorca
background and ratonae that edto the enactment of CA No. 142, as
foows: The enactment of C.A. No. 142 was made prmary to curb the
common practceamong the Chnese of adoptng scores of dherent names
and aases whch createdtremendous confuson n the ed of trade. Such a
practce amost bordered on thecrme of usng cttous names whch for
obvous reasons coud not be successfuymantanedagansttheChnesewho,
rghtyorwrongy, camedtheypossessedathousand and one names. C.A. No.
142 thus penazed the act of usng an aas name,18|18| -upra note 13,
pp. 155-156. uness such aas was duy authorzed by proper |udca
proceedngs and recorded nthe cv regster.19|19|
Foowngthedoctrneofstaredecisis,20|20|wearegudedbythe*rsuarung on
howthe crme punshed under CA No. 142 may becommtted. Cose adherence
to ths rung, n other words, s unavodabe nthe appcaton of and the
determnaton of crmna abty under CA No.142. 19|19| -upra note 12, p.
154 .20|20| Stare decisis et non 'uieta movere whch means "to
adhere to precedents, and not tounsette thngs whch are estabshed.
1epartment of Transportation and Communication v. Cru",G.R.No.
178256, |uy 23, 2008, expaned the prncpe as foows:The doctrne
ofstare decisissmpy means that when the Supreme Court has once ad
down a prncpe of aw as appcabe toa certan state of facts, t w
adhere to that prncpe, and appy t to a future cases, where factsare
substantay thesame; regardess of whetherthe partes and property are
thesame.Thedoctrne of stare decisis s based on the ega prncpe or
rue nvoved and not upon the |udgmentwhch resuts therefrom and n ths
partcuar sense stare decisis dhers from res judicata whch sbased
upon the |udgment. The doctrne of stare decisis s a pocy grounded
on the necessty forsecurng certanty and stabty of |udca decsons,
thus:Time and again, the Court has held that it is a very desirable
and necessary judicial practicethat when a court has laid down a
principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it
willadhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in
which the facts are substantially the same.Stare decisis et non
quieta movere.Stand by the decisions and disturb not what is
settled.Staredecisissimply meansthatforthe
sakeofcertainty,aconclusionreachedinone caseshouldbeapplied to
those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even
though the parties may bedifferent. It
proceedsfromthefirstprincipleofjusticethat, absentanypowerful
countervailingconsiderations, like cases ought to be decided alike.
Thus, where the same questions relating to thesame event have been
put forward by the parties similarly situated as in a previous case
litigated anddecided by a competent court, the rule of stare
decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the sameissue.Among
the many grounds the Peope nvokes to avod the appcatonof the *rsua
rung proceeds from Estradas poston n the government; atthetmeof
thecommssonof theohense, hewasthePresdentof theRepubc who s requred
by aw to dscose hs true name. We do not ndths argument sumcent to
|ustfy a dstncton between a man on the street,on one hand, and the
Presdent of the Repubc, on the other, for purposesof appyngCANo.
142. Intherst pace, theawdoesnot makeanydstncton, expressy or
mpedy, that woud |ustfy a dherentatreatment.CA 0o. 1() as applied
to Estrada% in fact allo.s him to use hiscinema or screen name of
Joseph Estrada% .hich name he has used even.hen he .as alread, the
President of the Philippines. Even the petitionerhas ac'uiesced to
the use of the screen name of the accused% as sho.n $,the title of
the present petition. Addtonay, any dstncton we make basedon the
Peopes cam unduy pre|udces Estrada; ths s proscrbed by
the*rsuadctumthat CANo. 142, asapena statute,
shoudbeconstruedstrcty aganst the State and n favor of the
accused.21|21|The mode ofvoatng CA No. 142 s therefore the same
whoever the accused may be. The Peope aso cas our attenton to an
earer Sandganbayan rung(Resouton dated February 6, 2002) denyng
Estradas moton to quash theInformaton.
ThsearerResoutonehectveyre|ectedtheappcatonof*rsua under the foowng
tenor: The use of the term aas n the Amended Informaton n tsef
serves to brngths case outsde the ambt of the rung n the case of
Ursua v. Court of Appeas (256SCRA 147 |1996|), on whch the accused
heavy rees n hs moton to quash.
Thetermaasmeansotherwseknownas(WebsterThrdNewInternatona
Dctonary,1993 ed., p. 53). The charge of usng an aas ogcay mpes
that another name has21|21| -upra note 13, p. 157.been used pubcy
and habtuay. Otherwse, he w not be known by such name. Inanycase,
theamendednformatonadvertstosevera
transactonsandsgnngofdocumentswththeEqutabePCI Bankand/or other
corporateentteswheretheabove-mentoned aas was aegedy empoyed by the
accused. The facts aeged n the nformaton are dstncty dherent from
factsestabshedntheUrsuacasewhereanothernamewasusedbytheaccusednasnge
nstance wthout any sgn or ndcaton that that |sc| he ntended to be
knownfrom that day by ths name n addton to hs rea name.22|22| The
Peope argues that the Sandganbayan gravey abused ts dscreton
nappyng*rsuanotwthstandng ths earer+nalrung on ts non-appcabty a
rung that bnds the partes n the present case. The Peopethus cams
that the Sandganbayan erred to the pont of gravey abusngts dscreton
when t resurrected the appcaton of*rsua%resutng n thereversa of ts
earer +nal rung. We nd no mert n ths argument for two
reasons.2irst, the ctedSandganbayan resouton s a mere nterocutory
order a rung denyng amoton to quash23|23|thatcannot
begventheattrbutes ofnatyandmmutabty that are generay accorded to
|udgments or orders that naydspose of the whoe, of or partcuar
matters n, a case.24|24|TheSandganbayan resouton s a mere
nterocutory order because its e3ects.ould onl, $e provisional in
character% and .ould still re'uire the issuin&court to
underta/e su$stantial proceedin&s in order to put the
controvers,22|22| #ollo, pp. 1421-1425.23|23| See: -ocrates v.
-andi&an$a,an, G.R. Nos. 116259-60, 118896-97, February 20,
1996, 253 SCRA 773, 793.24|24| See: Sectons 1 and 2 of Rue 36 of
the Rues of Court.to rest.25|25|It s basc remeda aw thatan
nterocutory order s awaysunder thecontro of thecourt
andmaybemodedor rescndeduponsumcent grounds shown at any tme before
na |udgment.26|26|Pere" v.Court of Appeals%)4|27|abet acv case,
nstructveyteachesthat annterocutory order carres no res adjudicata
ehects. Says Pere": The Decson n CA-G.R. No. 10415 havng resoved
ony an nterocutory matter,theprncpe ofresjudicatacannotbe appedn
ths case.T2ere 0an 5e n& res!udicata 92ere t2e re/#&"s
&rder #n 7"est#&n 9as n&t an &rder &r
+"d3$entdeter$#nat#/e &1 an #ss"e &1 1a0t end#n3 5e1&re
t2e 0&"rt 5"t 9as &n!, an#nter!&0"t&r, &rder
5e0a"se #t re7"#red t2e art#es t& er1&r$ 0erta#n
a0ts1&r :na! ad+"d#0at#&n% In ths case, the ftng of the
restranng order paved the wayfor the possesson of the shpond on the
part of pettoners and/or therrepresentatvespendngtheresoutonof
themanactonfor n|uncton. Inotherwords, themanssueof whether or not
prvaterespondent maybeconsderedasubesseeor atransfereeof
theeaseenttedtopossesstheshpondunder thecrcumstancesof
thecasehadyet toberesovedwhentherestranngorderwasfted.28|28|
-econd, n the earer moton to quash, the Sandganbayan soey ooked
attheaegatonsof theInformatontodetermnethesumcencyof theseaegatons
and dd not consder any evdence aliunde. Ths s far
dherentfromthepresentdemurrertoevdencewheretheSandganbayanhadafuer
vewof theprosecutons case, andwas facedwththessueofwhether the
prosecutons evdence was sumcent to prove the aegatonsof
theInformaton. Underthesedherngvews, theSandganbayanmayarrve at a
dherent concuson on the appcaton of *rsua, the eadng case25|25|
See: 5ontere, 2oods Corp. v. Eserjose G.R. No. 153126, September
11, 2003, 410 SCRA 627,634-635.26|26| See: East Asia Traders% Inc.
v. #epu$lic of the Philippines% G.R. No. 152947, |uy 7, 2004, 433
SCRA 716, 723.27|27| G.R. No. 107737. October 1, 1999, 316 SCRA 43,
56-57.28|28| Bod face supped; ctaton omtted.ntheappcatonof CA142,
andthechangenrungs notper sendcatveof graveabuseof dscreton. That
theresnoerror of awsstrengthenedbyour consderatonof
theSandganbayanrungontheappcaton of *rsua. In an exercse of cauton
gven *rsuas |ursprudentabndng ehect,the Peope aso argues n ts
petton that Estradas case s dherent from*rsuas for the foowng
reasons: (1) respondent Estrada used and
ntendedtocontnuayusetheaas|oseVeardenaddtontothename|osephEstrada;
(2) Estradas use of the aas was not soated or mted to a
sngetransacton; and (3) the use of the aas |ose Vearde was desgned
to causeand dd cause confuson and fraud n busness transactons whch
the ant-aas aw and ts reated statutes seek to prevent. The Peope
aso arguesthat the evdence t presented more than satsed the
requrements of CANo. 142, as amended, and *rsua, as t was aso shown
or estabshed thatEstradas use of the aas was pubc.
Inghtofouraboveconcusonsandbasedonthepartesexpressedpostons, we sha
now examne .ithin the *rsua frame.or/the assaedSandganbayan
Resouton grantng the demurrer to evdence. Theprosecuton has the
burden of proof to show that the evdence t presentedwth the
Sandganbayan satsed the*rsuarequrements, partcuary onthe matter of
pubcty and habtuaty n the use of an aas. "hat is the co#erage of
the indict$ent% The Peope argues that the Sandganbayan gravey erred
and abusedts dscreton n mtng the coverage of the amended Informaton
n Crm.Case No. 26565 to Estradas use of the aas |ose Vearde on
February 4,2000. It posts that there was a man transacton one that
took pace onFebruary 4, 2000 but there were other transactons
covered by the phrasepror toor subsequent thereto;
theInformatonspeccay referredtoseveral transactions.ith E'uita$le
PCI Ban/ and6or other corporateentities.TothePeope,
therestrctvendngthatthephraseprortoorsubsequent
theretosabsorbedbythephraseonor about 04February2000 drastcay
amends the succeedng man aegatons on theconsttutve crmna acts by
removng the puraty of both the transactonsnvovedandthedocuments
sgnedwthvarous enttes; theres theundenabe essenta reatonshp between
the aegatons of the mutpctyof transactons, on one hand, and the
addtona antecedent of pror to orsubsequent thereto, on the other.
It argues that the Sandganbayanreduced the phrase pror to or
subsequent thereto nto a useessappendage,provdngEstradawth
aconvenent and totayunwarrantedescape route. ThePeopefurther argues
that theaegatonof tmes theeastexactng n satsfyng the consttutona
requrement that the accused hasto be nformed of the accusaton
aganst hm. Secton 6 of Rue 110 of theRevsed Rues of Court provdes
that an aegaton of the approxmate dateof the commsson of the ohense
w sumce, whe Secton 11 of the sameRue provdes that t s not
necessary to state n the compant ornformaton the precse date the
ohense was commtted except when t s amatera ngredent of the crme.
Ths beraty aegedy shaped the tme-tested rue that when the tme gven
n the compant s not of the essenceof the ohense, the tme of the
commsson of the ohense does not need tobe proven as aeged, and that
the compant w be sustaned f the proofshows that the ohense was
commtted at any tme wthn the perod of thestatute of mtatons and
before the commencement of the acton (ctngPeople v.
Bu&a,on& |299 SCRA 528, 537| that n turn cted *- v.
-mith|3Ph. 20, 22|). Snce aegatons of date of the commsson of an
ohense areberaynterpreted, thePeopeposts that
theSandganbayangraveyabused ts dscreton n dsregardng the addtona
cause pror to orsubsequent thereto; under theberatyprncpe,
theaegatonsof theactsconsttutveof theohensenaydetermnethesumcencyof
theaegatonsof tme. ThePeopethuscamsthat nosurprsecoudhavetaken pace
that woud prevent Estrada from propery defendng hmsef;the nformaton
fuy noted hm that he was beng accused of usng theaas |ose Vearde n
more than |ust one nstance. We see no mert n these arguments. At ts
core, the ssue s consttutona n nature the rght of Estrada tobe
nformed of the nature and cause of the accusaton aganst hm.
Underthe provsons of the Rues of Court mpementng ths consttutona
rght, acompant or nformaton s sumcent f t states the name of the
accused;the desgnaton of the ohense gven by the statute; the acts
or omssonscompanedof asconsttutngtheohensenthenameof
theohendedparty; theapproxmatedateof thecommssonof theohense;
andthepace where the ohense was commtted.29|29|As to the cause
ofaccusaton, the acts or omssons companed of as consttutng the
ohenseand the quafyng and aggravatng crcumstances must be stated
nordnary and concse anguage and not necessary n the anguage used
nthe statute,5"t #n ter$s s";0#ent t& ena5!e a ers&n &1
0&$$&n"nderstand#n3 t& 8n&9 t2e &?, Art#0!eVIII
&1 t2eC&nst#t"t#&n, #t #s2ere5,0ert#:edt2at
t2e0&n0!"s#&ns#nt2ea5&/eDe0#s#&n9ererea02ed #n
0&ns"!tat#&n 5e1&re t2e 0ase 9as ass#3ned t& t2e
9r#ter &1t2e n#&n &1 t2e C&"rt% REYNATO S. PUNO
Chef |ustce