Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Joseph Ejercito Estrada v.

Sandiganbayan (2001)
Ponente: Bellosillo, J.
Former president Joseph Ejercito Estrada was charged with:

Plunder (RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659) under sec. 2 in


relation to Sec. 1 (d) (1) (2)

violation of RA 3019 (Anti-graft and corrupt practices act)

violation of RA 6713 (The code of conduct and ethical standards


for public officials and employees)

Perjury (Art. 183, RPC)

Illegal Use of an Alias (CA No. 142, as amended by RA 6085)


In his motion to quash the information against him, Estrada alleged that RA
7080 as amended by RA 7659 is unconstitutional for (a) vagueness, (b)
dispensing with the reasonable doubt standard in criminal prosecutions,
requiring less evidence for proving the predicate crimes of plunder, and (c)
abolishing the element of mens rea as a crime already punishable under the
RPC. He said that it thus deprives him of due process and the right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
1. Is RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659 vague?
Estrada: The law does not define combination, series and pattern.
SC: A statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because general
terms used therein are not defined. There is no constitutional or statutory
command requiring the legislature to define each and every word in an
enactment. It is not vague as long as the legislative will is clear.
The principle is to use the words of a statute in their natural, plain and
ordinary signification.
From the Websters New Collegiate Dictionary:
Combination the result or product of combining. To bring into such close
relationship as to obscure individual characters
Series a number of things or events of the same class coming one after
another in spatial an temporal succession
From the legislative deliberations on the bill:
Combination at least 2 acts falling under different categories of enumeration
provided in Sec. 1, par (d)
Series -2 or more overt or criminal acts falling under the same category
enumeration found in Sec. 1, par. (d)
Ha the legislature intended a techinical or distinctive meaning for
combination and series, it would have taken greater pains in specifically
providing for it in the law.
According to the Sandiganbayan to which the Court agrees to:
Pattern consists of at least a combination or series of overt or criminal acts
enumerated in subsection (1) to (6) of Sec. 1 (d). It is directd towards a
common purpose or goal and there must be an overall unlawful scheme or
conspiracy to achieve said common goal. If there is no such overall scheme
or where the schemes or methods used by multiple accused vary, the overt
or criminal acts must form part of a conspiracy to attain a common goal.
When is a statute vague?
It is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its
application.
When a statute is vague, it is repugnant to the Constitution in 2
aspects:
1. It violates due process.
2. It leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions
and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.
Test for determining whether a criminal statue is void for uncertainty:
Whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the
proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice

Void for vagueness doctrine:


A statue which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so
vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential element of
due process of law.
Overbreadth doctrine:
A governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep
unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.
A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and t one which
is verbroad because of possible chilling effect upon unprotected speech.
Rationale: The possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected
speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that the protected
speech of others may be deterred and perceived grievances left to fester
because of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes.
The rationale does not apply to penal statues. In the area of criminal law, the
law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech. The strict scrutiny,
overbreadth and vagueness doctrines have special application only to free
speech cases. Vagueness challenges in the First Amendment context, like
overbreadth challenges typically produce facial invalidation, while statutes
found vague as a matter of due process typically are invalidated only as
applied to a particular defendant.
2. Does the Plunder law dispense with reasonable doubt?
No. The burden still remains with the prosecution to prove beyond
reasonbale ground every element of the crime. What the prosecution needs
to prove is the series or combination of acts which constitute a pattern and
involving an amount of at least P50,000.
3. Is plunder malum in se?
Yes. It requires the proof of criminal intent, to be proven by the prosecution.
The application of mitigating and extenuating circumstances in the RPC to
the Anti-Plunder Law indicates that mens rea is an element of plunder. The
declaration in RA 7659 that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is a
malum in se.
Fallo: RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659 is CONSTITUTIONAL. Petition
DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Mendoza, J. concurs: (in addition to those discussed in the majority opinion)
The case against Estrada is under sec. 2, in relation to sec. 1 (d) (1) (2) but
what he wants is an on its face attack on the whole law. However, the other
provisions in the Anti-Plunder law are irrelevant to the case.
Estrada: The statute should be subjected to strict scrutiny.
There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of
constitutionality when legislation on its face to be within a specific prohibition
of the Constitution... -US v. Carolene Products Co.
The American Court did not say that such legislation is not to be presumed,
much less that it is presumptively invalid, but only that a narrower scope will
be given for the presumption of constitutionality in respect of such statutes.
What the footnote in Carolene Products posits is a double standard of
judicial review. Strict scrutiny is used in laws dealing with the regulation of
speech, gender or race, and facial challenges are allowed for this purpose.
Rule of strict construction a rule of legal hermeneutics to determine the
intent of the legislature
Strict scrutiny a standard of judicial review for determining the quality and
amount of governmental interest brought to justify the regulation of
fundamental freedoms. The focus is on the presence of compelling, rather
than substantial, governmental interest and on the absence of less restrictive
means for achieving that interest

Deferential review laws are upheld if they rationally further a legitimate


governmental interest, without courts seriously inquiring into the
substantiality of such interest and examining the alternative means by which
the objectives could be achieved
Intermediate review the substantiality of the governmental interest is
seriously looked into and the availability of less restrictive alternatives
considered

As applied to Estrada, the Anti-Plunder Law presents only problems of


statutory construction, not vagueness or overbreadth.
The penalty for plunder is not grossly disproportionate to the penalties
imposed for the predicate crimes. When special complex crimes are created
out of existing crimes, the penalty for the new crime is heavier.
(same with the majority opinion on other points)

Criminal laws cannot survive the test of strict scrutiny if it is used on them.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen