SESS However, the proper remedy against an interlocutory order is not the filing of successive motions for reconsideration. Litigants should not be allowed to file identical motions repeatedly, speculating on the possible change of opinion of the court or of its judges: The ponencia is careful to emphasize that Estrada’s motion is not a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s 7 January 2016 Resolution. If that is so, then there should be a more substantial basis for revisiting the bail issue than yet another review of the same evidence already ably passed upon by this Court. | In other words, the filing a new petition for bail, per se, is not objectionable. However, if the Court is disposed to allow the accused to seek bail afresh based on the allegedly new requirement for proving plunder following the Arroyo ruling, it should likewise allow the prosecution new bail hearing/s to show that it has the evidence to satisfy the alleged new requirement for proving plunder. This way, the Court will be able to pass upon the question of the propriety of bail at this time, based not only on the alleged new requirement for proving plunder, but also taking into account the additional evidence that the prosecution may present. This approach accords both due process of law to the parties and respect owing to the Court’s earlier Resolution. B. Applying the Arroyo ruling to the evidence already presented during bail hearings, I find that the evidence of Estrada’s guilt for the crime of plunder is still strong. The ponencia states that there is now doubt as to whether Estrada can still be considered as the main plunderer because he appears to be only one of the pawns of Napoles, and the evidence tends to establish that the scheme was not unique to accused Estrada. I disagree with the ponencia’s reasoning on this point. Uniqueness of the scheme used to amass ill-gotten wealth is not an element of plunder. Hence, it does not matter that the scheme was not unique to Estrada. 4 Pobre v. Court of Appeals, 501 Phil. 360-372 (2005). 5 Philippine Business Bank v. Chua, 649 Phil. 131-151 (2010). «Philippine National Bank v. Intestate Estate of De Guzman, 635 Phil. 128-136 (2010).Concededly, it appears that Napoles peddled the same scheme to several other lawmakers, and, in the process, allegedly amassed a huge amount of money herself, Still, it is clear that Napoles was not the hub, since there is no indication that the common goal of the lawmakers was to enrich her. There is also no sign that the lawmakers were aware or concemed about the outcome of each other’s transaction; it was just about their individual gain. Clearly, the prosecution’s theory is that each lawmaker was a hub who chose to use Napoles’s scheme/facilities for his own benefit. For this reason, the prosecution did not file a single Information naming several lawmakers. Instead, it filed several Informations (one for each lawmaker), where Napoles is charged as co-conspirator. Accordingly, it is proper to focus only on the Information now before the Court in analyzing the elements of plunder for this case. The Information herein charges Estrada and Labayen as the main plunderers who, in conspiracy with Napoles and de Asis, amassed ill-gotten wealth amounting to over B183 million by receiving kickbacks/commissions from Napoles, in consideration of Estrada’s endorsement (directly or through Labayen) of NGOs controlled by Napoles as implementing agencies of Estrada’s PDAF projects, which turned out to be ghost projects. In the final analysis, it was Estrada’s endorsements that set into motion the subject transactions, which, using Napoles’ scheme/facilities, resulted in gotten wealth for his benefit. Estrada, by himself and/or through early the “hub”, who communicated with the “spokes,” identified in the Information to be Napoles and de Asis. The “rim,” or the common goal that binds them was the amassing of ill- gotten wealth for the benefit of the hub. As long as the main beneficiary was Estrada/Labayen, it is immaterial whether the scheme also benefited the spokes (Napoles and de Asis). Afier all, it is expected that the co-conspirators who participate in the transaction would also seek to benefit themselves. ‘The ponencia finds that the evidence of Estrada’s guilt as main plunderer is doubtful or lacking, but it fails to specify which particular pieces of evidence it refers to or why they are deemed lacking now, when they were previously considered sufficiently strong. On the other hand, the Court’s 7 January 2016 Resolution, by unanimous vote of the previous Justices comprising the then Sth Division, clearly and painstakingly discussed the various pieces of evidence presented during the hearings. The hearings were specifically held to determine the strength or weakness of the evidence for purposes of determining whether to grant bail or not to accused Estrada. The assailed Resolution also noted that in exchange for the endorsements, Estrada received the total amount of P183,793,750.00 fromEE EEEOS’~’~=S3I Napoles, as recorded and testified by witness Benhur Luy.’ In turn, the credibility of Luy’s recording and testimony was bolstered by the testimony of Danilo Sabilano, Special Investigator IIT and digital forensic examiner of the National Bureau of Investigation’s Cybercrime Division.* The same Resolution also observed that funds from Estrada’s PDAF projects were deposited to Napoles’s NGOs and a portion thereof was then immediately withdrawn and deposited to various accounts that may be traced back to Estrada, as explained by the Anti-Money Laundering Council Secretariat financial investigator, Atty. Orlando C. Negradas, Jr? It farther took note that Estrada’s PDAF projects failed to comply with the requirements of the law and turned out to be ghost projects, as testified to by Director of the Special Audits Office of the Commission on Audit, Susan Panganiban Garcia.'° The 7 January 2016 Resolution resorted to organizing and making sense of the voluminous exhibits presented during the bail hearings by drawing several tables for a clearer picture of the pattern and magnitude of the operation. Among the tables were: a, Table showing the details of the Special Allotment of Release Orders (SAROs) processed for Estrada’s PDAF;" b. Table tracing the transfer of the proceeds of the SAROs of Estrada’s PDAF from Napoles’ NGOs to the bogus suppliers also created by her;! ¢. Table summarizing the dates and amounts of releases of Estrada’s PDAF to the implementing agencies, and on to Napoles’ NGOs; d, Tables detailing the dates and amounts of deposits, withdrawals, and fund transfers from the bank accounts of Napoles’ NGOs to Napoles and her corporations; e. Summary of Field Validation showing that the intended beneficiaries did not receive the packages supposedly funded by Estrada’s PDAF projects;"* 7 Rollo, Vol. 19, pp. 619-620. 1d. at 680-690. *1d. at 669-680, 21d. at 650-659. 11d, at 588, 21d. at 663, Pid. at 672-673 1 Id at 673-674, 730-734. 51d. at 750-761Sc f. Tables of Entries showing details of receipt of commissions from Napoles by Labayen, Ruby Tuason, Matt/Lynn Ranillo and Juan Ng;!6 and g. Table showing details of significant transfers to and from the accounts of Estrada and Juan Ng."” The said Resolution moreover reproduced some of the more salient exhibits. It reproduced the signed letters of Estrada addressed to the various heads of implementing agencies for PDAF, specifically endorsing Napoles’ NGOs and authorizing Labayen to sign and act on his behalf."* It further reproduced checks connecting Estrada to the account of Juan Ng." This voluminous evidence still stands in support of the prosecution’s position that the evidence of guilt of accused Estrada is strong. The strength of these pieces of evidence remains undiminished despite the introduction of the recent Arroyo ruling, which accused Estrada now invokes. To grant bail to acoused Estrada by a mere application of a legal doctrine without the reception or introduction of new evidence would be procedurally infirm. In view of all the foregoing, I find that, based on the evidence yielded by the bail hearings, there is strong evidence of Estrada’s guilt as main plunderer for whose benefit the amassing of wealth was undertaken by all of the accused, as described in the Information. Hence, I vote to deny Estrada’s Omnibus Motion. V. YRESPESES ssociae Justice * Rollo, Vol. 19, pp. 768,770-773,775. "1d. at 776-778, "1d. at 602-613. Id, at 180-782.