MANILA – The Supreme Court (SC) en banc has dismissed multiple petitions filed by Senator Jose “Jinggoy” P. Ejercito Estrada related to his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) cases, ruling that graft and plunder are distinct crimes that can be prosecuted separately.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the Court resolved G.R. Nos. 228374-84, 236268, 249296, 249919, and 254892 and 254906-15. The petitions stemmed from the Ombudsman’s earlier finding of probable cause to indict Estrada and Janet Lim Napoles, among others, before the Sandiganbayan for plunder and multiple graft charges involving the alleged misuse of Estrada’s PDAF.

The Court dismissed Estrada’s petitions for certiorari in G.R. Nos. 236268, 249919, and 254892 — all involving plunder — for being moot and academic, noting that the Sandiganbayan had already acquitted him of plunder in a decision dated January 19, 2024.

It likewise dismissed his petitions in G.R. Nos. 228374-84, which involved graft charges, rejecting Estrada’s argument that his graft cases under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) were “deemed absorbed” by the plunder charges under Republic Act No. 7080 (Anti-Plunder Law).

The Court ruled that the component act of “giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference” under the Anti-Graft Law cannot be absorbed by the predicate acts of plunder, as the two laws punish distinct offenses.

Under R.A. 3019, the unwarranted benefit is given to a private individual, while under R.A. 7080, the public officer himself directly benefits by accumulating ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of acts. The only exception, the Court clarified, is when the same public officer is both the giver and recipient of the unwarranted benefit — a situation not applicable in Estrada’s case.

“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,” the Court said.

The decision affirms that violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act may be prosecuted separately from plunder.

The Ombudsman earlier alleged that Estrada amassed at least ₱183.79 million in kickbacks from Napoles and funneled about ₱255.11 million in PDAF funds to questionable foundations.

A copy of the full decision will be uploaded to the Supreme Court website once available.