THE Sandiganbayan’s Special Fifth Division has affirmed its decision, denying Senator Jinggoy Estrada’s motion to immediately dismiss the 11 graft charges filed against him in connection with alleged irregularities in the disbursement of his P231.5 million Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) from 2008 to 2010.
In a 22-page resolution, signed by Associate Justices Zaldy Trespeses and Maryann Corpus-Mañalac and Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega, the Sandiganbayan held that Estrada failed to raise arguments that would warrant the reversal of its ruling issued last March 26, 2025 denying the senator’s demurrer to evidence.
A demurrer to evidence is a motion filed by an accused after the prosecution rests its case, asserting that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a conviction.
If the demurrer to evidence is granted, the accused is acquitted.
‘After a careful perusal of the arguments raised by accused Estrada in his motion for reconsideration, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb its findings in the assailed resolution denying his demurrer to evidence,’ the anti-graft court declared.
With the denial of his demurrer to evidence, the Sandiganbayan said Estrada’s lawyers may present their evidence during the continuation of the trial on October 2, 2025.
The Sandiganbayan did not give credence to Estrada’s claim that the graft cases should be dismissed as the acts alleged in these cases were the same acts cited in the plunder case filed against him which had already been dismissed.
‘The Court must stress that even granting hypothetically that the present charges for violation of Section 3 [ e ] of R.A. 3019 are indeed the same predicate acts for which accused was charged in the plunder case, the same does not, by itself, warrant the dismissal of the present cases,’ the Sandiganbayan said.
It added that the Rules of Court or jurisprudence does not mandate the dismissal of a separate graft case on account of the charge being a predicate act in a prior case for plunder.
‘The only reason to sustain such an argument would be if the same places the accused in double jeopardy, which is not the case herein.,’ it added. But, the Sandiganbayan said the double jeopardy rule does not apply to Estrada’s graft case, noting the difference in the elements of graft and plunder.
It noted that in the plunder case, Estrada was accused of ‘unjust enrichment’ and amassing ‘ill-gotten wealth’ while the graft cases rest on the issue of ‘causing undue injury to the government’ and ‘giving unwarranted benefits and advantage to private persons.’
Furthermore, the Sandiganbayan said the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against Estrada to support a verdict of guilt in the graft cases, thus, warranting the defense presentation of evidence.
‘With the denial of his demurrer to evidence and the instant motion for reconsideration, accused Estrada is now given the chance to rebut the pieces of evidence and the prima facie case built by the prosecution against him,’ the anti-graft court stressed.
The case stemmed from the complaint filed by the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman accusing Estrada of receiving kickbacks by endorsing non-governmental organizations (NGOs) owned and controlled by pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Lim Napoles to the appropriate government agencies as partners-implementers of his PDAF-funded projects which turned out to be fictitious.
It can be recalled that last year the Sandiganbayan acquitted Estrada of plunder in the P183 million PDAF but was convicted of one count of direct bribery and two counts of indirect bribery.
He was sentenced to eight to nine years imprisonment for direct bribery and meted out a special temporary disqualification from holding public office and perpetual disqualification to vote.
He was also ordered to pay a fine of P3 million.
However, the anti-graft court eventually reversed its decision and cleared Estrada of one count of direct bribery and two counts of indirect bribery due to lack of evidence.