Title: #94 JINGGOY ESTRADA v.
SANDIGANBAYAN with as great a certainty as is required in cases where such object is
Details: G.R. No. 148965 | Feb. 26, 2002 | J. Puno
Topic:
Doctrine:
Facts:
1. As an offshoot of the impeachment proceedings against Joseph
Ejercito Estrada, then President of the Republic of the Philippines, five
criminal complaints against the former President and members of his
family, his associates, friends and conspirators were filed with the
respondent Office of the Ombudsman.
2. The respondent Ombudsman issued a resolution finding probable
cause warranting the filing with the Sandiganbayan of several criminal
Informations against the former President and the other respondents
therein. One of the Informations was for the crime of plunder under
Republic Act No. 7080 and among the respondents was herein
petitioner Jose Jinggoy Estrada, then mayor of San Juan, Metro Manila.
3. Estrada filed a Motion to Quash or Suspend the Amended Information
on the ground that the Anti-Plunder Law, R.A. No. 7080, is
unconstitutional and that it charged more than one
offense. Respondent Ombudsman opposed the motion.
4. Estrada filed a Very Urgent Omnibus Motion alleging that: (1) no
probable cause exists to put him on trial and hold him liable for plunder,
it appearing that he was only allegedly involved in illegal gambling and
not in a series or combination of overt or criminal acts as required in
R.A. No. 7080; and (2) he is entitled to bail as a matter of right. Petitioner
prayed that he be excluded from the Amended Information and be
discharged from custody.
5. Sandiganbayan denied MTQ
Issue:
WON the charge should be dismissed on the ground that the allegation of
conspiracy is too general? – NO
Held:
 A study of the American case law on how conspiracy should be
alleged will reveal that it is not necessary for the indictment to include
particularities of time, place, circumstances or causes, in stating the
manner and means of effecting the object of the conspiracy.
 Such specificity of detail falls within the scope of a bill of particulars. An
indictment for conspiracy is sufficient where it alleges: (1) the
agreement; (2) the offense-object toward which the agreement was
directed; and (3) the overt acts performed in furtherance of the
agreement.
 To allege that the defendants conspired is, at least, to state that they
agreed to do the matters which are set forth as the substance of their
conspiracy. To allege a conspiracy is to allege an agreement. The gist
of the crime of conspiracy is unlawful agreement, and where
conspiracy is charged, it is not necessary to set out the criminal object
charged as a substantive offense.
 There is hardly a substantial difference on how Philippine courts and
American courts deal with cases challenging Informations alleging
conspiracy on the ground that they lack particularities of time, place,
circumstances or causes.
 In our jurisdiction, conspiracy can be alleged in the Information as a
mode of committing a crime or it may be alleged as constitutive of the
crime itself. When conspiracy is alleged as a crime in itself, the
sufficiency of the allegations in the Information charging the offense is
governed by Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
 The complaint or information to be sufficient must state the name of
the accused, designate the offense given by statute, state the acts or
omissions constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the
approximate date of the commission of the offense and the place
where the offense was committed.
 To reiterate, when conspiracy is charged as a crime, the act of
conspiring and all the elements of said crime must be set forth in the
complaint or information.
o For example, the crime of conspiracy to commit treason is
committed when, in time of war, two or more persons come to
an agreement to levy war against the Government or to
adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort, and
decide to commit it. The elements of this crime are: (1) that the
offender owes allegiance to the Government of the
Philippines; (2) that there is a war in which the Philippines is
involved; (3) that the offender and other person or persons
come to an agreement to: (a) levy war against the
government, or (b) adhere to the enemies, to give them aid
and comfort; and (4) that the offender and other person or
persons decide to carry out the agreement. These elements
must be alleged in the information.
 The requirements on sufficiency of allegations are different when
conspiracy is not charged as a crime in itself but only as the mode of
committing the crime as in the case at bar.
 There is less necessity of reciting its particularities in the
Information because conspiracy is not the gravamen of the offense
charged. The conspiracy is significant only because it changes the
criminal liability of all the accused in the conspiracy and makes them
answerable as co-principals regardless of the degree of their
participation in the crime.
 It is enough to allege conspiracy as a mode in the commission of an
offense in either of the following manner: (1) by use of the word
conspire, or its derivatives or synonyms, such as confederate, connive,
collude, etc; or (2) by allegations of basic facts constituting the
conspiracy in a manner that a person of common understanding
would know what is intended, and with such precision as would enable
 the accused to competently enter a plea to a subsequent indictment
based on the same facts.
 The allegation of conspiracy in the information must not be confused
with the adequacy of evidence that may be required to prove it.
 A conspiracy is proved by evidence of actual cooperation; of acts
indicative of an agreement, a common purpose or design, a
concerted action or concurrence of sentiments to commit the felony
and actually pursue it. A statement of this evidence is not necessary in
the information.
 Therefore, the averments in the information are sufficient to indict
Estrada.