Estrada vs Sandiganbayan

369 SCRA 394

FACTS: Petitioner Joseph Estrada assailed the constitutionality of RA 7080 or commonly known as the
plunder law on three grounds : it is vague in the terms it uses such as combination and series and
overbroad on its face, it dispenses with the reasonable doubt standard in criminal prosecutions and it
abolishes the elements of mens rea in crimes punishable under the Revised Penal code all of which
violates the fundamental rights of the accused to due process and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him.
ISSUE: Whether or not R.A. 7080 violates the due process clause through its vagueness.
HELD: No.
A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men
of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application. In such
instance, the statute is repugnant to the Constitution in two (2) respects - it violates due process for
failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid;
and, it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an
arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.
In the case at bar, Plunder law provides that any public officer who, by himself or with the aid
of his family members, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or
other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill gotten wealth of at least P50,000,000.00
through a series or combination of overt or criminal acts shall be guilty of the crime of plunder.
Hence, it cannot plausibly be contended that the law does not give a fair warning and
sufficient notice of what it seeks to penalize. Under the circumstances, petitioner's reliance on the
"void-for-vagueness" doctrine is manifestly misplaced. The doctrine has been formulated in various
ways, but is most commonly stated to the effect that a statute establishing a criminal offense must
define the offense with sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand
what conduct is prohibited by the statute. It can only be invoked against that specie of legislation that
is utterly vague on its face, i.e., that which cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by
construction. Furthermore, an act will not be held invalid merely because it might have been more
explicit in its wordings or detailed in its provisions, especially where, because of the nature of the
act, it would be impossible to provide all the details in advance as in all other statutes.