Wednesday, September 12, 2007 Legislator sees Estrada’s conviction of lesser offense
SENATOR Miriam Defensor-Santiago said her guess is that the Sandiganbayan will find former President Joseph Estrada guilty not of the major crime of plunder, but only of the lesser crime of corrupt practices.
If convicted of a corrupt practice, Estrada will virtually walk out of court a free man; but if convicted of plunder, he has to serve at least 20 years.
Santiago said under Republic Act (RA) 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the penalty for the crime of corrupt practices is imprisonment ranging from not less than six years and one month, to not more than 15 years, with perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation of unexplained wealth.
Santiago said on the one hand, plunder requires abuse of government contracts or projects, any government asset, or undue advantage of government position.
She said on the other hand, under RA 7080 which penalizes plunder, the law imposes a penalty of reclusion perpetua, meaning imprisonment ranging from 20 years and one day to 40 years, with civil interdiction of marital authority and of disposal of property, and perpetual absolute disqualification from public office or profession.
“The Sandiganbayan will not convict him (Estrada) of plunder, because the charge mainly refers to private funds consisting of alleged jueteng kickbacks. By contrast, plunder mainly refers to malversation of public funds, or raids on the public treasury,” the senator said.
Santiago added that by contrast, the crime of corrupt practice does not necessarily involve public funds, but merely involves any act or omission by a public officer leading to the acquisition of unexplained wealth.
She said under the Penal Code, the period of Estrada’s preventive imprisonment in his Tanay estate shall be deducted from his term of imprisonment.
“If his (Estrada) sentence is not more than six years, since he has already been detained for six years, he walks,” she said.
“I arrived at this educated guess by the process of elimination. Both an outright acquittal and a plunder conviction will be disastrous for political stability and the national economy,” she said.
The senator said on the one hand, an acquittal would render the Arroyo administration illegitimate, and would allow the Sandiganbayan, an inferior court, to overrule no less than the Supreme Court (SC), which upheld the validity of Arroyo’s presidency.
She said on the other hand, a plunder conviction would enrage the masses that remain ardent Estrada fans, and if funded, they would certainly take to the streets.
“In either case, the judgment will trigger People Power assemblies and spook Southeast Asian regional security and economic projects,” she said.
Santiago, now a staunch ally of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, was an equally staunch Estrada ally until the opposition fielded another movie actor in the 2004 presidential elections.
“This social turbulence is a direct effect of the impeachment trial walkout. If the trial was allowed to continue and Estrada was found guilty, a subsequent criminal case with a verdict of guilty on the plunder charge would be more acceptable to his partisans now,” she said.
Santiago, a constitutional law expert, said the walkout violated the Constitution which first provides for a verdict in an impeachment trial, to be followed by criminal prosecution in court.
“Because we did not follow the constitutional order of procedure, now we find ourselves in a pickle. During the walkout, the inmates were running the asylum. The garrulous critics don’t know that in the real world of trial practice, a judge gives all possible leeway to the accused, so that if she finds the accused guilty, on appeal the convict cannot accuse the judge of partisanship. That is a trick of all seasoned judges,” she said.
“Liberality in the admission of the evidence was the correct attitude, but most senators were busy making themselves out to be ersatz heroes of the people. They did not act as senator judges, but as senator inquisitors, and as senator sitcom actors,” she said.
Santiago said the opening of the controversial second envelope, which was used as a pretext for a walkout, proved to be non-incriminating to Estrada.
“Most of these senator judges, who were non-lawyers, and had zero knowledge of the Rules of Court, were playing for the TV audience. That Senate trial was a blot on the Senate record, an abject pandering to the bloodlust of the mob. Next time, senators acting as judges in an impeachment trial should be required to take and pass a compulsory course on the rules of evidence,” she said.
She urged Estrada to accept, if offered, a pardon because it will not mean he was guilty. (CPB/Sunnex)
