University of the Philippines College of Law

Block F2021

Topic Mala In Se
Case No. G.R. No. 148560 / 19 November 2001
Case Name ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN
Ponente BELLOSILLO, J.

RELEVANT FACTS

 04 April 2001: The Office of the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan eight separate
Informations: one for violation of Republic Act 7080 or the Act Defining and Penalizing Plunder, as
amended by RA 7659 (for an aggregate amount of more than four billion pesos); four for violations of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; one for violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees; one for Perjury as in Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code; and, one
for Illegal Use of An Alias.

 11 April 2001: Estrada filed an Omnibus Motion for the remand of the plunder case to the Ombudsman
for preliminary investigation. The grounds raised were only lack of preliminary investigation,
reconsideration/reinvestigation of offenses, and opportunity to prove lack of probable cause.

 25 April 2001: Third Division of Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution in the plunder case finding that "a
probable cause for the offense of PLUNDER exists to justify the issuance of warrants for the arrest of the
accused."

 25 June 2001: Sandiganbayan denied the motion for reconsideration.

 14 June 2001: Estrada moved to quash the Information in the plunder case on the ground that the facts
alleged therein did not constitute an indictable offense since the law on which it was based (RA 7080)
was unconstitutional for vagueness, and that the Amended Information for Plunder charged more than
one offense.

 09 July 2001: Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash.

 The provisions of RA 7080, as amended by 7659, claimed to be unconstitutional are as follows:

Section 1. x x x x (d) "Ill-gotten wealth" means any asset, property, business, enterprise or material
possession of any person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or
indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any
combination or series of the following means or similar schemes:

(1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public
treasury;

(2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other
form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or
project or by reason of the office or position of the public office concerned;

(3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National
Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, or government owned or
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
 University of the Philippines College of Law
Block F2021

(4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other
form of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in any business enterprise
or undertaking;

(5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or

implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or

(6) By taking advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly
enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and
the Republic of the Philippines.

Section 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder, Penalties. - Any public officer who, by himself or in
connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates,
subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a
combination or series of overt or criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof, in the aggregate
amount or total value of at least fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of
plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the
said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be
punished for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance
of mitigating and extenuating circumstances as provided by the Revised Penal Code shall be considered
by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes
and assets including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof
forfeited in favor of the State.

Section 4. Rule of Evidence. - For purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary
to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to
amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt
a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy.

ISSUES

 W/N the Plunder Law is unconstitutional for being vague in what it punishes and in relation to its failure
to define the terms “combination”, “series” and “pattern”.

 W/N the Plunder Law is unconstitutional for dispensing the “reasonable doubt” standard in criminal
prosecutions.

 W/N the Plunder Law is unconstitutional for abolishing the element of mens rea (criminal intent) in
crimes already punishable in the Revised Penal Code.

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue
W/N the Plunder Law is
unconstitutional for being
vague in what it punishes and
in relation to its failure to
Ratio
No.
1. The judiciary is strongly inclined to presume a legislation to be
constitutional that a court will sidestep the question constitutionality in its

define the terms
“combination”, “series” and
“pattern”.
W/N the Plunder Law is
unconstitutional for
dispensing the “reasonable
doubt” standard in criminal
prosecutions.
University of the Philippines College of Law
Block F2021
decision if another track of reasoning is possible (lis mota requirement of
judicial review). This is to avoid the violation of the separation of powers. The
task of rebutting the presumption of constitutionality weighs heavily on the
challenging party.
2. “As long as the law affords some comprehensible guide or rule that would
inform those who are subject to it what conduct would render them liable to
its penalties, its validity will be sustained.” Or simply, “the elements of the
crime are easily understood and provide adequate contrast between the
innocent and the prohibited acts.” In this case, the Plunder Law is clear that
in punishes the act of a public officer in accumulating ill-gotten wealth of at
least 50 million pesos through a series or combination of specific acts.
3. “A statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because general
terms are used therein, or because of the employment of terms without
defining them.”
Besides, the words in a statute may be interpreted using their ordinary
meaning, unless they evidently have technical or special meaning, and the
intent of the lawmaking body. In this case, “combination” means the
commission of at least two of the identified acts under Section 1(d) and
“series” means the repetition of the same act. In case only one act is
committed and it is committed only one, the act must be prosecuted for the
particular crime, and not under the Plunder Law.
Meanwhile, Section 4 sufficiently defines “pattern” (a) to consist of at least a
combination or a series (b) directed towards the accumulation of ill-gotten
wealth of at least 50 million pesos (c) in an unlawful scheme or conspiracy.
4. Finally, the doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth and void-for-
vagueness are analytical tools developed for testing statutes in cases of free
speech or protected expression. “They are inapt for testing the validity of
penal statutes.”
* “Being one of the Senators who voted for its passage, petitioner must be
aware that the law was extensively deliberated
…”
No.
1. “In a criminal prosecution for plunder, as in all other crimes, the accused
always has in his favor the presumption of innocence which is guaranteed by
the Bill of Rights, and unless the State succeeds in demonstrating by proof
beyond reasonable doubt that culpability lies, the accused is entitled to an
acquittal.”
2. The understanding that Section 4 does not require proof beyond
reasonable doubt for each of the act is incorrect. “What the prosecution
needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt is only a number of acts sufficient
 University of the Philippines College of Law
Block F2021

to form a combination or series which would constitute a pattern and

W/N the Plunder Law is
unconstitutional for
abolishing the element of
mens rea (criminal intent) in
crimes already punishable in
the Revised Penal Code
involving an amount of at least P50,000,000.00. There is no need to prove
each and every other act alleged in the Information to have been committed
by the accused in furtherance of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy to
amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth.”
No.
1. “The application of mitigating and extenuating circumstances in the
Revised Penal Code to prosecutions under the Anti-Plunder Law indicates
quite clearly that mens rea is an element of plunder since the degree of
responsibility of the offender is determined by his criminal intent.”

2. RA 7659, the 1993 act that imposed death penalty, declared plunder as
heinous crime, implying that it is a mala in se that requires proof of mens rea.
“For when the acts punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong,
they are mala in se and it does not matter that such acts are punished in a
special law, especially since in the case of plunder the predicate crimes are
mainly mala in se.”

RULING

PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court holds that RA 7080 otherwise known as the Plunder Law, as amended by RA
7659, is CONSTITUTIONAL. Consequently, the petition to declare the law unconstitutional is DISMISSED for lack
of merit.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

CONCURRING MENDOZA and PANGANIBAN, JJ.

The separate concurring opinions mainly have reasons similar to the ones in the main
decision.
DISSENTING KAPUNAN, J.

On 1st issue

1. Three purposes of the void-for-vagueness doctrine: (a) to ensure that individuals are
properly warned of the consequences of their conduct; (b) to prevent arbitrary and
discriminatory law enforcement; and (c) to provide sufficient guidance to judges.

2. The standard of certainty is higher for status with criminal sanctions. As anchored on the
right to due process, the void-for-vagueness doctrine also applies to criminal laws.

3. Even Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Garchitorena, Senator Gonzales and Father Bernas,
who are men steeped in the knowledge of the law, were in a quandary as to what constitutes
plunder. Resort to the dictionary and the deliberations of the lawmakers proved that the
Plunder Law failed to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution on clarity and definiteness.

4. A pattern can hardly be formed from two predicate acts. There are instances where the
 University of the Philippines College of Law
Block F2021

component acts of plunder, if taken separately, would only result in correctional penalties.
The disproportionate increase of penalty for a case of plunder violates substantive dues
process and constitutes a cruel and inhuman punishment prohibited by the Constitution.

5. If the legislature intended to define plunder in the manner espoused by the main decision,
describing plunder as “combination” and “series of overt or criminal acts”… “in furtherance of
the scheme or conspiracy” would be pointless and meaningless.

6. Depending on the interpretation of the prosecutor, a person who conspires in the

commission of one component crime may be prosecuted as co-principal for either the
component crime or plunder. Here is a danger of arbitrary enforcement of law.

7. There is no clear prescriptive period of the crime of plunder. What shall be the time gap
between two succeeding acts?

On 2nd issue

The law penalizes on the basis of a proven scheme of conspiracy without the necessity of
establishing beyond reasonable doubt each criminal act. This makes convicting for plunder
easier than convicting for each of the component crime.

On 3rd issue

1. Plunder is mala in se because its component acts are mala in se and because it is
pronounced as a heinous crime.

2. “Mens rea is a substantive due process requirement under the Constitution, and this is a
limitation on police power. Additionally, lack of mens rea or a clarifying scienter requirement
aggravates the vagueness of a statute.”

On Estoppel

The rule on estoppel applies to questions of fact, not of law. It should be resorted only to
prevent injustice. In this case, the fact that the petitioner voted for the passage of the Plunder
Law and that one his counsels was a co-sponsor of the law does not put the petitioner in
estoppel to question its constitutionality.

PARDO, J.

1. On the ground of the multiplicity of offenses charged in the Amended Information for
Plunder, as described in the 14 June 2001motion of the petitioner, the petition must be
granted.

2. The heinous crime law is unconstitutional, as explained by in the dissenting opinions in

People v. Echegaray, making the amendments to the Plunder Law prescribing death penalty
are unconstitutional.

On 2nd Issue
 University of the Philippines College of Law
Block F2021

Section 4 “must be interpreted as requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt of all the
elements of plunder as prescribed in the law, including the elements of the component
crimes, otherwise, the section will be unconstitutional.”

On 3rd Issue

“The plunder law penalizes acts that are mala in se, and consequently, the charges must be
the specific acts alleged to be in violation of the law, committed with malice and criminal
intent.”

YNARES-SANTIAGO and SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, JJ. also filed separate dissenting opinions.