The Sandiganbayan has affirmed its earlier ruling absolving Senator Jinggoy Estrada of direct and indirect bribery in relation to the alleged misappropriation of his P183-million pork barrel funds from 2004 to 2010. 

This, after the prosecution petitioned that the anti-graft court "gravely erred" in reversing its verdict in August, finding Estrada not criminally liable for the charges because it was then his chief of staff, Pauline Labayen, who received the P5 million in kickbacks from Benhur Luy.

In January, Estrada walked free from plunder but was convicted of one count of direct bribery and two counts of indirect bribery.

The Sandiganbayan eventually overturned its ruling in August, granting full exoneration to the senator.

The case pertains to Estrada's allocation of his P183 million Priority Development Assistance Fund to dubious non-government organizations (NGOs) owned by "pork barrel queen" Janet Lim-Napoles to carry out the senator’s projects.

However, investigation later revealed that the PDAF-funded initiatives were non-existent or ghost and that the money allegedly went to the pockets of Estrada, Napoles, and cohorts.

Estrada argued that the actions of Labayen’s receiving the P5 million in kickbacks from Luy, Napoles’ then financial officer and later turned a whistleblower, was "not tantamount to him receiving the same."

Earlier, the Sandiganbayan pointed out that the prosecution failed to prove the connection between the funds received by Labayen from Napoles and the deposit placed into Estrada's account.

The prosecution, meanwhile, contended that indirect bribery and direct bribery are essentially the same, except that the latter requires the existence of an agreement between the public officer and the bribe-giver to perform or refrain from doing an act in consideration of the gift.

The Sandiganbayan, however, countered that Estrada’s acquittal could no longer be assailed because it would result in double jeopardy.

“The instant motion seeks to revisit the factual findings of Estrada's acquittal that would place the latter in double jeopardy. His acquittal cannot be assailed under the guise of a motion for reconsideration as the first jeopardy has already attached which will be discussed hereunder,” the court ruled.

Estrada said the Sandiganbayan should delete from the records the prosecution’s motion, contending that any move questioning an acquittal is “unfair, oppressive and constitutionally prohibited.”

But the Sandiganbayan argued that although the judgment of acquittal is final, unappealable, and executory, the prosecution shall also be given the opportunity question the same and to exhaust all legal remedies available in the interest of fairness.

Estrada was detained twice over plunder but was released on bail in 2017.