EN BANC PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Pettoner, - versus - JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA and THE HONORABLE SPECIAL DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. Nos. 164368-69 Present: PUNO, C.J., OUISUMBING,YNARES-SANTIAGO,CARPIO,AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA,CARPIO MORALES, TINGA,CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, |R., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, and PERALTA, JJ. Promugated: Respondents. Apr 2, 2009 x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x D E C I S I O N BRION, |.: The Peope of the Phppnes (the Peope) ed ths Petton for Revew on Certorar1|1| to seek the reversa of the Sandganbayans |ont Resouton dated |uy 12, 2004, grantng respondent |oseph E|ercto Estradas (Estrada) demurrer to evdence n Crm. Case No. 26565.2|2| THE FACTS On Apr 4, 2001, an Informaton for!"nder(docketed as Cr#$% CaseN&% '())*)wased wththe Sandganbayan aganstrespondentEstrada,among other accused. A separate Informaton for ega use of aas, docketedas Cr#$% Case N&% '()(), was kewse ed aganst Estrada. The AmendedInformaton n Crm. Case No. 26565 reads: That on or about 04 February 2000, or sometme pror or subsequent thereto, nthe Cty of Mana, Phppnes and wthn the |ursdcton of ths Honorabe Court, theabove-named accused, beng then Presdent of the Repubc of the Phppnes, wthouthavngbeenduyauthorzed, |udcayoradmnstratvey, takngadvantageof hsposton and commttng the ohense n reaton to omce, .e., n order to CONCEAL THE-gotten weath HE ACOUIRED durng hs tenure and hs true dentty as THE Presdentof the Repubc of the Phppnes, dd then and there, wfuy, unawfuy andcrmnayREPRESENTHIMSELFAS|OSEVELARDEINSEVERALTRANSACTIONSANDuse and empoy the SAID aas |ose Vearde whch IS nether hs regstered name at1|1| Under Rue 45 of the Rues of Court.2|2| People of the Philippines v. Joseph Ejercito Estrada for the crme of ega use of aas.brth nor hs baptsmaname, n sgnng documents wth Equtabe PCI Bank and/orother corporate enttes. CONTRARY TO LAW. Crm. Case Nos. 26565 and 26558 were subsequenty consodated for|onttra. St anotherInformaton, thstmeforer+"r,anddocketedasCr#$% Case N&% '(-.),was ed wth the Sandganbayan aganst Estrada.Ths was ater consodated, too, wth Crm. Cases No. 26558 and 26565. Estrada was subsequenty arrested on the bass of a warrant of arrestthat the Sandganbayan ssued. On |anuary 11, 2005, we ordered the creaton of a Speca Dvson n theSandganbayan to try, hear, and decde the charges of punder and reatedcases (ega use of aas and per|ury) aganst respondent Estrada.3|3| At the tra, the Peope presented testmona and documentary evdenceto prove the aegatons of the Informatons for punder, ega use of aas,and per|ury. The Peopese/#den0e 1&r t2e #!!e3a! a!#as 02ar3e, assummarzed by the Sandganbayan, conssted of: A.Thetestmonesof PhppneCommerca andIndustra Bank(PCIB)omcers Carssa G. Ocampo (Ocampo) and Atty. Manue Curato (Curato)3|3| A.M. No. 02-1-07-SC, entted Re: Request for the Creaton of a Speca Dvson to Try the Punder Case, SB Crm. Case No. 26558, and reated cases.whocommonydecaredthat onFebruary4, 2000, Estradaopenedanumbered trust account (Trust Account C-1!) wth PCIB and sgned as|ose Vearde n the account openng documents; both Ocampo andCuratoasotestedthatAprodcoLacquanandFernandoChuawerepresent on that occason; B.(1) The testmony of PCIB-Greenhs Branch Manager Teresa Barcean,who decared that a certan Baby Ortaza (Ortali"a) transacted severatmes wth her; that Ortaza deposted severachecks n PCIB SavngsAccount No. 0160-62502-5 under the account name |ose Vearde on thefoowng dates (as evdenced by depost recepts duy marked nevdence):a. 20 October 1999(Exh. MMMMM)b. 8 November 1999(Exh. LLLLL)c.22 November 1999(Exh. NNNNN)d. 24 November 1999(Exh. OOOOO)e.25 November 1999(Exh. PPPPP)f. 20 December 1999(Exh. OOOOO)g. 21 December 1999(Exh. RRRRR)h. 29 December 1999(Exh. SSSSS). 4 |anuary 2000 (Exh. TTTTT)|. 10 May 2000(Exh. UUUUU)k. 6 |une 2000 (Exh. VVVVV). 25 |uy 2000 (Exh. WWWWW) (2) Documents duy dented by wtnesses showng that Lucena Ortazawas empoyed n the Omce of the Vce Presdent and, ater on, n theOmce of the Presdent when Estrada occuped these postons and whendeposts weremadetothe|oseVeardeSavngs Account No. 0160-62502-5. The Peope ed ts FormaOher of Exhbts n the consodated cases,whch the Sandganbayan admtted nto evdence n a Resouton datedOctober 13, 2003.4|4|The accused separatey moved to reconsder theSandganbayan Resouton;5|5|the Peope, on the other hand, ed tsConsodatedComment/Oppostontothemotons.6|6|TheSandganbayandened the motons n ts Resouton dated November 17, 2003.7|7| After thePeoperestedna threecases, thedefensemovedtobeaowed to e a demurrer to evdence n these cases.8|8| In ts |ont Resouton4|4| #ollo, pp. 1304-1316.5|5| See Sandganbayans Resouton dated November 17, 2003, id., p. 1318.6|6| I$id% p. 1320.7|7| Promugated on November 18, 2003.8|8| #ollo, pp. 1323-1335.dated March 10, 2004,9|9| the Sandganbayan ony granted the defense eaveto e demurrers n Crm. Case Nos. 26565 (egause of aas) and 26905(per|ury). Estrada ed separate Demurrers to Evdence for Crm. Case Nos. 26565and 26905.10|10|Hs demurrer to evdence for Crm. Case No. 26565 (egause of aas) was anchored on the foowng grounds11|11|: 1. Of thethrty-ve(35) wtnesses presentedbytheprosecuton, onytwo(2)wtnesses, Ms. CarssaOcampoandAtty. Manue Curato, testedthat ononeoccason (4 February 2000), they saw movant use the name |ose Vearde; 2. The use of numbered accounts and the ke was ega and was prohbted ony nate 2001 as can be geaned from Bangko Sentra Crcuar No. 302, seres of 2001,dated 11 October 2001; 3. There s no proof of pubc and habtua use of aas as the documents ohered bythe prosecuton are bankng documents whch, by ther nature, are condenta andcannot be reveaed wthout foowng proper procedures; and 4.The use of aas s absorbed n punder. 9|9| Id.% pp. 1337-1348.10|10| Dated March 29, 2004, id.% pp. 1349-1377.11|11| See Sandganbayans Resouton dated |uy 09, 2004 (promugated on |uy 12, 2004), id., p. 84.ThePeopeopposedthedemurrersthroughaConsodatedOppostonthat presented the foowng arguments:12|12| 1.That the use of cttous names n bank transacton was not expressy prohbtedunt BSP No. 302 s of no moment consderng that as eary as Commonweath ActNo. 142, the use of aas was aready prohbted. Movant s beng prosecuted forvoaton of C.A. No. 142 and not BSP Crcuar No. 302; 2. Movants reanceonUrsuavs. Court of Appeas (256SCRA147|1996|) smspaced; 3. Assumng ar&uendothat C.A. No. 142, as amended, requres pubcaton of theaas andthehabtua usethereof, theprosecutonhas presentedmorethansumcent evdence n ths regard to convct movant for ega use of aas; and 4. Contrary to the submsson of movant, the nstant case of ega use of aas snot absorbed n punder. Estrada repedto the Consodated Opposton througha ConsodatedRepy Opposton. THE ASSAILED SANDIGANBAYANS R4LING The Sandganbayan ssued on |uy 12, 2004 the Resouton now assaedn ths petton. The saent ponts of the assaed resouton are: 12|12| Id.% pp. 1378-1408.Firstthecoverageof Estradasndctment. TheSandganbayanfoundthat the ony reevant evdence for the ndctment are those reatng to what sdescrbedntheInformatoni.e., thetestmones anddocuments ontheopenngof Trust Account C-163onFebruary4, 2000. TheSandganbayanreasonedoutthattheuseoftheds|unctve&rbetween&n&ra5&"t.6Fe5r"ar, '...and s&$et#$e r#&r &r s"5se7"ent t2eret&means thatthe act/s aegedy commtted on February 4, 2000 coud have actuay takenpace prior to or su$se'uent thereto; the use of the con|unctve was smpythe prosecutons procedura too to guard aganst any varance between thedate stated n the Informaton and that proved durng the tra n a stuaton nwhch tme was not a matera ngredent of the ohense; t does not mean andcannot bereadas arovngcommssonthat ncudes acts and/or eventssearate and d#st#n0t from those that took pace on the snge date on orabout 04 February 2000 or sometme pror or subsequent thereto. TheSandganbayanruedthat theuseof theds|unctveor preventedt fromnterpretng the Informaton any other way. SecondthePeopesfauretopresent evdencethat provedEstradascommsson of the ohense. The Sandganbayan found that the Peope faed topresent evdence that Estrada commtted the crme punshed underCommonweath Act No. 142, as amended by Repubc Act (#.A.) No. 6085 (CA1()), as nterpreted by the Supreme Court n *rsua v. Court of Appeals.1![13]It rued that there s an ega use of aas wthn the context of CA 142 ony fthe use of the aas s"5!#0and2a5#t"a!. In Estradas case, theSandganbayannoted, theappcatonof theprncpeswasnot assmpebecauseof thecompcatonsresutngfromthenatureof thetransactonnvoved the aas was used n connecton wth the openng of a numbered13|13| G.R. No. 112170, Apr 10, 1996, 256 SCRA 147.trust account made durng the ehectvty of R.A. No. 1405, as amended,14|14|and pror to the enactment of Repubc R.A. No. 9160.15|15| Estrada dd not pubcy use the aas |ose Vearde: a.Estradas use of the aas |ose Vearde n hs deangs wthDchavez and OrtazaafterFebruary 4, 2000 s not reevant n ght of theconcuson that the acts mputed to Estrada under the Informaton were theact/s commtted on February 4, 2000 ony. Addtonay, the phrase, Estradadd represent hmsef as |ose Vearde n severa transactons, standng aone,voatesEstradasrght tobenformedof thenatureandthecauseof theaccusaton, because t s very genera and vague. Ths phrase s quaed andexpaned by the succeedng phrase and use and empoy the sad aas |oseVearde whch s nether hs regstered name at brth nor hs baptsma name,n sgnng documents wth Equtabe PCI Bank and/or other corporate enttes.Thus, Estradas representatons before persons other than those mentoned nthe Informaton are mmatera; Ortaza and Dchavez do not fa wthn theEqutabe PCI Bank and/or other corporate enttes speced n theInformaton. Estradas representatons wthOrtaza andDchavez are nottherefore covered by the ndctment. b. The Sandganbayan re|ected the appcaton of the prncpe n theaw of be that mere communcaton to a thrd person s pubcty; t reasonedout that that the denton of pubcty s not mted to the way t s denedunder the aw on be; addtonay, the appcaton of the be aw denton s14|14| Otherwse known as the Secrecy of Bank Deposts Act.15|15| Otherwse known as the Ant-Money Launderng Act.onerous to the accused and s precuded by the rung n *rsua that CA No.142,as a penastatute,shoud be construed strcty aganst the State andfavoraby for the accused. It rued that the denton under the aw on be,even f t appes, consders a communcaton to a thrd person covered by theprveged communcaton rue to be non-actonabe. Estradas use of the aasn front of Ocampo and Curato s one such prveged communcaton underR.A. No. 1405, as amended. The Sandganbayan sad: Movants act of sgnng |ose Vearde n bank documents beng absouteycondenta, thewtnessngthereof bybank omcers whowerekewsesworntosecrecy by the same aw cannot be consdered as pubc as to fa wthn the ambt ofCA 142 as amended. On account of the absoute condentaty of the transacton, tcannot be sad that movant ntended to be 8n&9n by ths name n addton to hs reaname. Con+dentialit, and secrec, ne&ate pu$licit,. *rsua nstructs: Hence, the use of a cttous name or a dherent name beongngto another person n a snge nstance wthout any sgn or ndcaton thatthe user #ntends t& 5e 8n&9n by ths name n addton to hs rea namefrom that day forth does not fa wthn the prohbton n C.A. No. 142 asamended. c. TheSandganbayanfurther foundthat thententonnot tobepubcy known by the name |ose Vearde s shown by the nature of anumberedaccount aperfectyvadbankngtransactonat thetimeTrustAccount C-163 was opened. The openng, too, of a numbered trust account,the Sandganbayan further rued, dd not mpose on Estrada the obgaton todscose hs rea dentty the obgaton R.A. No. 6713 mposes s to e underoath a statement of assets and abtes.16|16|Readng CA No. 142, R.A. No.1405andR.A. No. 6713together, Estradahadtheabsouteobgatontodscosehsassetsncudngtheamount of hsbankdeposts, buthewasunder no obgaton at a to dscose the other partcuars of the bank account(such as the name he used to open t).16|16| Otherwse known as then Code of Conduct and Ethca Standards for Pubc Omcas and Empoyees.Thirdthe ehect of the enactment of R.A. No. 9160.17|17|TheSandganbayan sad that the absoute prohbton n R.A. No. 9160 aganst theuse of anonymous accounts,accounts under cttous names,and aothersmar accounts, s a egsatve acknowedgment that a gapng hoeprevousyexstednour aws that aoweddepostors tohdether truedenttes. The Sandganbayan noted that the prohbtonwas fted fromBangko Sentra ng Ppnas (B-P) Crcuar No. 251 dated |uy 7, 2000 anotherconrmaton that the openng of a numbered trust account was perfecty egawhen t was opened on February 4, 2000. The Sandganbayan rued that the provsons of CA No. 142, asnterpreted n *rsua,must necessary be harmonzed wth the provsons ofR.A. No.1405 and R.A. No. 9160 under the prncpe that every statute shoudbe construed n a way that w harmonze t wth exstng aws. A reasonabescrutny, the Sandganbayan sad, of a these aws n reaton to the presentcase, ed t to concude that the use of an aas wthn the context of a banktransacton(speccay, theopenngof anumberedaccount madebeforebank omcers) s protected by the secrecy provsons of R.A. No. 1405, and sthus outsde the coverage of CA No. 142 unt the passage nto aw of R.A. No.9160. THE PETITION The Peope ed ths petton rasng the foowng ssues:17|17| Otherwse known as the Ant-Money Launderng Act of 2001. 1. Whether the court a 'uo gravey erred and abused ts dscretonn dsmssng Crm. Case No. 26565 and n hodng that the useby respondent |oseph Estrada of hs aas |ose Vearde was notpubcdesptethepresenceof Messrs. AprodcoLaquanandFernando Chua on 4 February 2000; 2. Whether the court a 'uo gravey erred and abused ts dscretonn dsmssng Crm. Case No. 26565 and n hodng that the useby respondent |oseph Estrada of hs aas |ose Vearde wasaowabe under bankng rues, despte the cear prohbton underCommonweath Act No. 142; 3. Whether the court a 'uo gravey erred and abused ts dscretonn dsmssng Crm. Case No. 26565 and n appyng R.A. No. 1405as anexceptontotheega useof aas punshabeunderCommonweath Act No. 142; 4. Whether the aeged harmonzaton and appcaton made by thecourt a 'uo of R.A. No.1405 and Commonweath Act No. 142 wereproper; 5. Whether the court a quo gravey erred and abused ts dscretonnmtngthecoverageof theamendedInformatonnCrm.Case No. 26565 to the use of the aas |ose Vearde byrespondent |oseph Estrada on February 4, 2000; 6. Whether the court a quo gravey erred and abused ts dscretonn departng from ts earer na ndng on the non-appcabtyof*rsuav. Courtof Appealsandforcngtsappcatontothenstant case. THE CO4RTS R4LING T2e et#t#&n 2as n& $er#t% The Law on Illegal Use of Alias and the Ursua Ruling Sectons 1 and 2 of CA No. 142, as amended, read:Secton 1. Except as a pseudonym soey for terary, cnema, teevson, rado orother entertanment purposes and n athetc events where the use of pseudonym s anormay accepted practce, no person sha use any name dherent from the one wthwhch he was regstered at brth n the omce of the oca cv regstry or wth whch hewas baptzed for the rst tme, or n case of an aen, wth whch he was regstered nthebureau of mmgraton uponentry;or suchsubsttute name as mayhavebeenauthorzed by a competent court: Provded, That persons whose brths have not beenregstered n any oca cv regstry and who have not been baptzed, have one yearfrom the approva of ths act wthn whch to regster ther names n the cv regstry ofther resdence. Thenamesha comprsethepatronymc nameandoneor twosurnames. Secton 2. Any person desrng to use an aas sha appy for authorty thereforn proceedngs ke those egay provded to obtan |udca authorty for a change ofname and no person sha be aowed to secure such |udca authorty for more thanone aas. The petton for an aas shaset forth the person's baptsma and famyname and the name recorded n the cv regstry, f dherent, hs mmgrant's name, fanaen, andhspseudonym, fhehassuchnamesotherthanhsorgna orreaname, specfyng the reason or reasons for the desred aas. The |udca authorty forthe use of aas, the Chrstan name and the aen mmgrant's name sha be recordedn the proper oca cv regstry, and no person sha use any name or names otherthan hs orgna or rea name uness the same s or are duy recorded n the properoca cv regstry. How ths aw s voated has been answered by the *rsua denton ofan aas a name or names used $, a person or intended to $e used $, himpublicl and habituall usuall, in $usiness transactions in addition to hisreal name $, .hich he is re&istered at $irth or $apti"ed the +rst time orsu$stitute name authori"ed $, a competent authorit,. There must be, nthe words of *rsua, a si&n or indication that the user intends to $e /no.n$, this name (the aas) in addition to his real name from that da, forth |forthe use of aas to| fall .ithin the prohi$ition contained in C.A. 0o. 1() asamended.18|18| *rsua further reates the hstorca background and ratonae that edto the enactment of CA No. 142, as foows: The enactment of C.A. No. 142 was made prmary to curb the common practceamong the Chnese of adoptng scores of dherent names and aases whch createdtremendous confuson n the ed of trade. Such a practce amost bordered on thecrme of usng cttous names whch for obvous reasons coud not be successfuymantanedagansttheChnesewho, rghtyorwrongy, camedtheypossessedathousand and one names. C.A. No. 142 thus penazed the act of usng an aas name,18|18| -upra note 13, pp. 155-156. uness such aas was duy authorzed by proper |udca proceedngs and recorded nthe cv regster.19|19| Foowngthedoctrneofstaredecisis,20|20|wearegudedbythe*rsuarung on howthe crme punshed under CA No. 142 may becommtted. Cose adherence to ths rung, n other words, s unavodabe nthe appcaton of and the determnaton of crmna abty under CA No.142. 19|19| -upra note 12, p. 154 .20|20| Stare decisis et non 'uieta movere whch means "to adhere to precedents, and not tounsette thngs whch are estabshed. 1epartment of Transportation and Communication v. Cru",G.R.No. 178256, |uy 23, 2008, expaned the prncpe as foows:The doctrne ofstare decisissmpy means that when the Supreme Court has once ad down a prncpe of aw as appcabe toa certan state of facts, t w adhere to that prncpe, and appy t to a future cases, where factsare substantay thesame; regardess of whetherthe partes and property are thesame.Thedoctrne of stare decisis s based on the ega prncpe or rue nvoved and not upon the |udgmentwhch resuts therefrom and n ths partcuar sense stare decisis dhers from res judicata whch sbased upon the |udgment. The doctrne of stare decisis s a pocy grounded on the necessty forsecurng certanty and stabty of |udca decsons, thus:Time and again, the Court has held that it is a very desirable and necessary judicial practicethat when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it willadhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same.Stare decisis et non quieta movere.Stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled.Staredecisissimply meansthatforthe sakeofcertainty,aconclusionreachedinone caseshouldbeapplied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may bedifferent. It proceedsfromthefirstprincipleofjusticethat, absentanypowerful countervailingconsiderations, like cases ought to be decided alike. Thus, where the same questions relating to thesame event have been put forward by the parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated anddecided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the sameissue.Among the many grounds the Peope nvokes to avod the appcatonof the *rsua rung proceeds from Estradas poston n the government; atthetmeof thecommssonof theohense, hewasthePresdentof theRepubc who s requred by aw to dscose hs true name. We do not ndths argument sumcent to |ustfy a dstncton between a man on the street,on one hand, and the Presdent of the Repubc, on the other, for purposesof appyngCANo. 142. Intherst pace, theawdoesnot makeanydstncton, expressy or mpedy, that woud |ustfy a dherentatreatment.CA 0o. 1() as applied to Estrada% in fact allo.s him to use hiscinema or screen name of Joseph Estrada% .hich name he has used even.hen he .as alread, the President of the Philippines. Even the petitionerhas ac'uiesced to the use of the screen name of the accused% as sho.n $,the title of the present petition. Addtonay, any dstncton we make basedon the Peopes cam unduy pre|udces Estrada; ths s proscrbed by the*rsuadctumthat CANo. 142, asapena statute, shoudbeconstruedstrcty aganst the State and n favor of the accused.21|21|The mode ofvoatng CA No. 142 s therefore the same whoever the accused may be. The Peope aso cas our attenton to an earer Sandganbayan rung(Resouton dated February 6, 2002) denyng Estradas moton to quash theInformaton. ThsearerResoutonehectveyre|ectedtheappcatonof*rsua under the foowng tenor: The use of the term aas n the Amended Informaton n tsef serves to brngths case outsde the ambt of the rung n the case of Ursua v. Court of Appeas (256SCRA 147 |1996|), on whch the accused heavy rees n hs moton to quash. Thetermaasmeansotherwseknownas(WebsterThrdNewInternatona Dctonary,1993 ed., p. 53). The charge of usng an aas ogcay mpes that another name has21|21| -upra note 13, p. 157.been used pubcy and habtuay. Otherwse, he w not be known by such name. Inanycase, theamendednformatonadvertstosevera transactonsandsgnngofdocumentswththeEqutabePCI Bankand/or other corporateentteswheretheabove-mentoned aas was aegedy empoyed by the accused. The facts aeged n the nformaton are dstncty dherent from factsestabshedntheUrsuacasewhereanothernamewasusedbytheaccusednasnge nstance wthout any sgn or ndcaton that that |sc| he ntended to be knownfrom that day by ths name n addton to hs rea name.22|22| The Peope argues that the Sandganbayan gravey abused ts dscreton nappyng*rsuanotwthstandng ths earer+nalrung on ts non-appcabty a rung that bnds the partes n the present case. The Peopethus cams that the Sandganbayan erred to the pont of gravey abusngts dscreton when t resurrected the appcaton of*rsua%resutng n thereversa of ts earer +nal rung. We nd no mert n ths argument for two reasons.2irst, the ctedSandganbayan resouton s a mere nterocutory order a rung denyng amoton to quash23|23|thatcannot begventheattrbutes ofnatyandmmutabty that are generay accorded to |udgments or orders that naydspose of the whoe, of or partcuar matters n, a case.24|24|TheSandganbayan resouton s a mere nterocutory order because its e3ects.ould onl, $e provisional in character% and .ould still re'uire the issuin&court to underta/e su$stantial proceedin&s in order to put the controvers,22|22| #ollo, pp. 1421-1425.23|23| See: -ocrates v. -andi&an$a,an, G.R. Nos. 116259-60, 118896-97, February 20, 1996, 253 SCRA 773, 793.24|24| See: Sectons 1 and 2 of Rue 36 of the Rues of Court.to rest.25|25|It s basc remeda aw thatan nterocutory order s awaysunder thecontro of thecourt andmaybemodedor rescndeduponsumcent grounds shown at any tme before na |udgment.26|26|Pere" v.Court of Appeals%)4|27|abet acv case, nstructveyteachesthat annterocutory order carres no res adjudicata ehects. Says Pere": The Decson n CA-G.R. No. 10415 havng resoved ony an nterocutory matter,theprncpe ofresjudicatacannotbe appedn ths case.T2ere 0an 5e n& res!udicata 92ere t2e re/#&"s &rder #n 7"est#&n 9as n&t an &rder &r +"d3$entdeter$#nat#/e &1 an #ss"e &1 1a0t end#n3 5e1&re t2e 0&"rt 5"t 9as &n!, an#nter!&0"t&r, &rder 5e0a"se #t re7"#red t2e art#es t& er1&r$ 0erta#n a0ts1&r :na! ad+"d#0at#&n% In ths case, the ftng of the restranng order paved the wayfor the possesson of the shpond on the part of pettoners and/or therrepresentatvespendngtheresoutonof themanactonfor n|uncton. Inotherwords, themanssueof whether or not prvaterespondent maybeconsderedasubesseeor atransfereeof theeaseenttedtopossesstheshpondunder thecrcumstancesof thecasehadyet toberesovedwhentherestranngorderwasfted.28|28| -econd, n the earer moton to quash, the Sandganbayan soey ooked attheaegatonsof theInformatontodetermnethesumcencyof theseaegatons and dd not consder any evdence aliunde. Ths s far dherentfromthepresentdemurrertoevdencewheretheSandganbayanhadafuer vewof theprosecutons case, andwas facedwththessueofwhether the prosecutons evdence was sumcent to prove the aegatonsof theInformaton. Underthesedherngvews, theSandganbayanmayarrve at a dherent concuson on the appcaton of *rsua, the eadng case25|25| See: 5ontere, 2oods Corp. v. Eserjose G.R. No. 153126, September 11, 2003, 410 SCRA 627,634-635.26|26| See: East Asia Traders% Inc. v. #epu$lic of the Philippines% G.R. No. 152947, |uy 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 716, 723.27|27| G.R. No. 107737. October 1, 1999, 316 SCRA 43, 56-57.28|28| Bod face supped; ctaton omtted.ntheappcatonof CA142, andthechangenrungs notper sendcatveof graveabuseof dscreton. That theresnoerror of awsstrengthenedbyour consderatonof theSandganbayanrungontheappcaton of *rsua. In an exercse of cauton gven *rsuas |ursprudentabndng ehect,the Peope aso argues n ts petton that Estradas case s dherent from*rsuas for the foowng reasons: (1) respondent Estrada used and ntendedtocontnuayusetheaas|oseVeardenaddtontothename|osephEstrada; (2) Estradas use of the aas was not soated or mted to a sngetransacton; and (3) the use of the aas |ose Vearde was desgned to causeand dd cause confuson and fraud n busness transactons whch the ant-aas aw and ts reated statutes seek to prevent. The Peope aso arguesthat the evdence t presented more than satsed the requrements of CANo. 142, as amended, and *rsua, as t was aso shown or estabshed thatEstradas use of the aas was pubc. Inghtofouraboveconcusonsandbasedonthepartesexpressedpostons, we sha now examne .ithin the *rsua frame.or/the assaedSandganbayan Resouton grantng the demurrer to evdence. Theprosecuton has the burden of proof to show that the evdence t presentedwth the Sandganbayan satsed the*rsuarequrements, partcuary onthe matter of pubcty and habtuaty n the use of an aas. "hat is the co#erage of the indict$ent% The Peope argues that the Sandganbayan gravey erred and abusedts dscreton n mtng the coverage of the amended Informaton n Crm.Case No. 26565 to Estradas use of the aas |ose Vearde on February 4,2000. It posts that there was a man transacton one that took pace onFebruary 4, 2000 but there were other transactons covered by the phrasepror toor subsequent thereto; theInformatonspeccay referredtoseveral transactions.ith E'uita$le PCI Ban/ and6or other corporateentities.TothePeope, therestrctvendngthatthephraseprortoorsubsequent theretosabsorbedbythephraseonor about 04February2000 drastcay amends the succeedng man aegatons on theconsttutve crmna acts by removng the puraty of both the transactonsnvovedandthedocuments sgnedwthvarous enttes; theres theundenabe essenta reatonshp between the aegatons of the mutpctyof transactons, on one hand, and the addtona antecedent of pror to orsubsequent thereto, on the other. It argues that the Sandganbayanreduced the phrase pror to or subsequent thereto nto a useessappendage,provdngEstradawth aconvenent and totayunwarrantedescape route. ThePeopefurther argues that theaegatonof tmes theeastexactng n satsfyng the consttutona requrement that the accused hasto be nformed of the accusaton aganst hm. Secton 6 of Rue 110 of theRevsed Rues of Court provdes that an aegaton of the approxmate dateof the commsson of the ohense w sumce, whe Secton 11 of the sameRue provdes that t s not necessary to state n the compant ornformaton the precse date the ohense was commtted except when t s amatera ngredent of the crme. Ths beraty aegedy shaped the tme-tested rue that when the tme gven n the compant s not of the essenceof the ohense, the tme of the commsson of the ohense does not need tobe proven as aeged, and that the compant w be sustaned f the proofshows that the ohense was commtted at any tme wthn the perod of thestatute of mtatons and before the commencement of the acton (ctngPeople v. Bu&a,on& |299 SCRA 528, 537| that n turn cted *- v. -mith|3Ph. 20, 22|). Snce aegatons of date of the commsson of an ohense areberaynterpreted, thePeopeposts that theSandganbayangraveyabused ts dscreton n dsregardng the addtona cause pror to orsubsequent thereto; under theberatyprncpe, theaegatonsof theactsconsttutveof theohensenaydetermnethesumcencyof theaegatonsof tme. ThePeopethuscamsthat nosurprsecoudhavetaken pace that woud prevent Estrada from propery defendng hmsef;the nformaton fuy noted hm that he was beng accused of usng theaas |ose Vearde n more than |ust one nstance. We see no mert n these arguments. At ts core, the ssue s consttutona n nature the rght of Estrada tobe nformed of the nature and cause of the accusaton aganst hm. Underthe provsons of the Rues of Court mpementng ths consttutona rght, acompant or nformaton s sumcent f t states the name of the accused;the desgnaton of the ohense gven by the statute; the acts or omssonscompanedof asconsttutngtheohensenthenameof theohendedparty; theapproxmatedateof thecommssonof theohense; andthepace where the ohense was commtted.29|29|As to the cause ofaccusaton, the acts or omssons companed of as consttutng the ohenseand the quafyng and aggravatng crcumstances must be stated nordnary and concse anguage and not necessary n the anguage used nthe statute,5"t #n ter$s s";0#ent t& ena5!e a ers&n &1 0&$$&n"nderstand#n3 t& 8n&9 t2e &?, Art#0!eVIII &1 t2eC&nst#t"t#&n, #t #s2ere5,0ert#:edt2at t2e0&n0!"s#&ns#nt2ea5&/eDe0#s#&n9ererea02ed #n 0&ns"!tat#&n 5e1&re t2e 0ase 9as ass#3ned t& t2e 9r#ter &1t2e n#&n &1 t2e C&"rt% REYNATO S. PUNO Chef |ustce