Supreme Court clears way for Sandiganbayan trial of Jinggoy Estrada graft cases

The Sandiganbayan has been given the go-signal by the Supreme Court (SC) to proceed with the trial of the 11 counts of graft filed against Senator Jinggoy Estrada due to alleged irregularities in the disbursement of his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) from 2008 to 2010.

In its resolution promulgated during the Court’s en banc session on 28 October 2025, the high bench dismissed Estrada’s contention that his graft charges under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 are “deemed absorbed” by his plunder charges under Republic Act No. 7080 (Anti-Plunder Law).

“The decision effectively affirms that violations of Republic Act No. 3019 may be prosecuted separately from plunder,” the SC declared.

To recall, the P183-million plunder case was dismissed by the Sandiganbayan in a ruling issued on 19 January 2024, but Estrada was found guilty of one count of direct bribery and two counts of indirect bribery. The senator was sentenced to eight to nine years imprisonment for direct bribery, meted a special temporary disqualification from holding public office, and a perpetual disqualification from voting. He was also ordered to pay a fine of P3 million.

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.

The high bench declared that the component act of “giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference” under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 cannot be absorbed by the predicate criminal acts under Section 1(d)(2) and (6) of R.A. No. 7080, emphasizing that the two offenses punish distinct wrongs.

It pointed out that under R.A. 3019, the benefit or advantage is given to a private individual separate from the public officer, while under R.A. 7080, it is the public officer who directly benefits by receiving kickbacks or unjustly enriching himself through a combination or series of overt acts.

“The only exception to this rule is when the Information alleging a violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 names the same public officer, acting in a private capacity, as the beneficiary of the unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference,” the SC explained.

It further clarified that the absorption principle—where one offense merges into another—does not apply between graft and plunder, except in rare cases where the same public officer is both the giver and recipient of the unwarranted benefit.

Estrada, in his defense, maintained 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.