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

This decision follows the prosecution's petition, arguing that the anti-graft court "gravely erred" in reversing its August verdict, which cleared Estrada of criminal liability. The court had found that it was his chief of staff, Pauline Labayen, who received the P5 million in kickbacks from Benhur Luy.

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

The Sandiganbayan later 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, investigations later revealed that the PDAF-funded initiatives were non-existent or ghost projects and that the money allegedly went into the pockets of Estrada, Napoles, and their cohorts.

Estrada argued that Labayen's receipt of the P5 million in kickbacks from Luy, Napoles’ then-financial officer who later became a whistleblower, was "not tantamount to him receiving the same."

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

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

However, the Sandiganbayan countered that Estrada’s acquittal could no longer be challenged, as doing so would result in double jeopardy.

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

Estrada stated that the Sandiganbayan should remove the prosecution’s motion from the records, contending that any attempt to question an acquittal is “unfair, oppressive, and constitutionally prohibited.”

However, the Sandiganbayan argued that although the judgment of acquittal is final, unappealable, and executory, the prosecution should also be allowed to question it and exhaust all legal remedies available in the interest of fairness.

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