Estrada vs Sandiganbayan
SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS LAW
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSEPH ESTRADA AND SANDIGANBAYAN
I. Problem
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in holding that the use of alias by respondent Estrada was not public, was allowable under banking rules, and was an exception to illegal use of alias punishable under CA 142; in limiting the coverage of the amended Information in Criminal Case 26565; and in departing from its earlier final finding on the non-applicability of Ursua v. Court of Appeals
II. Objectives
1) To determine if the use of Estrada’s alias violates CA No. 142.and violates the Bank Secrecy Law or RA 1405. 2) To be able to identify the legal effects and remedies in using of aliases. 3) To be able to determine the factors that would qualify if the use of aliases is for public or otherwise. 4) To be able to scrutinize on the Information that was presented before indictment of an individual. 5) To determine whether Ursua vs. CA case is applicable in this case.
III. Areas of Consideration
A. Major Facts
Crim. Case No. 26558. On April 4, 2001, an Information for plunder was filed with the Sandiganbayan against respondent Estrada, among other accused.
Crim. Case No. 26565, = a separate Information for illegal use of alias, docketed as was likewise filed against Estrada. The Amended Information in Crim. Case No. 26565 reads:
That on or about 04 February 2000, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then President of the Republic of the Philippines, without having been duly authorized, judicially or administratively, taking advantage of his position and committing the offense in relation to office, i.e., in order to CONCEAL THE ill-gotten wealth HE ACQUIRED during his tenure and his true identity as THE President of the Republic of the Philippines, did
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSEPH ESTRADA AND SANDIGANBAYAN
I. Problem
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in holding that the use of alias by respondent Estrada was not public, was allowable under banking rules, and was an exception to illegal use of alias punishable under CA 142; in limiting the coverage of the amended Information in Criminal Case 26565; and in departing from its earlier final finding on the non-applicability of Ursua v. Court of Appeals
II. Objectives
1) To determine if the use of Estrada’s alias violates CA No. 142.and violates the Bank Secrecy Law or RA 1405. 2) To be able to identify the legal effects and remedies in using of aliases. 3) To be able to determine the factors that would qualify if the use of aliases is for public or otherwise. 4) To be able to scrutinize on the Information that was presented before indictment of an individual. 5) To determine whether Ursua vs. CA case is applicable in this case.
III. Areas of Consideration
A. Major Facts
Crim. Case No. 26558. On April 4, 2001, an Information for plunder was filed with the Sandiganbayan against respondent Estrada, among other accused.
Crim. Case No. 26565, = a separate Information for illegal use of alias, docketed as was likewise filed against Estrada. The Amended Information in Crim. Case No. 26565 reads:
That on or about 04 February 2000, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then President of the Republic of the Philippines, without having been duly authorized, judicially or administratively, taking advantage of his position and committing the offense in relation to office, i.e., in order to CONCEAL THE ill-gotten wealth HE ACQUIRED during his tenure and his true identity as THE President of the Republic of the Philippines, did