ESTRADA vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN Criminally Amass, Accumulate And Acquire BY HIMSELF

Nov. 19, 2001 | Bellosillo DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, Ill-Gotten Wealth In The Aggregate
Amount Or TOTAL VALUE Of FOUR BILLION NINETY SEVEN
MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND ONE
Topic: Plunder - Elements
HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE AND SEVENTEEN CENTAVOS
Doctrine: (P4,097,804,173.17), More Or Less, THEREBY UNJUSTLY
Elements of Plunder (Section 2 is sufficiently explicit in its description of the acts, ENRICHING HIMSELF OR THEMSELVES AT THE EXPENSE
conduct and conditions required or forbidden, and prescribes the elements of the crime AND TO THE DAMAGE OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE AND THE
with reasonable certainty and particularity.) REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES Through ANY OR A Combination
OR A Series Of Overt OR Criminal Acts, OR SIMILAR SCHEMES
OR MEANS.
1. That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance with
members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, RESPECTIVELY OR A TOTAL OF MORE OR LESS ONE
subordinates or other persons; BILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN MILLION FIVE
HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT THOUSAND FIFTY SEVEN
PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS (P1,847,578,057.50); AND BY
2. That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination
COLLECTING OR RECEIVING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,
or series of the following overt or criminal acts: (a) through misappropriation, BY HIMSELF AND/OR IN CONNIVANCE WITH JOHN DOES
conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury; (b) JANE DOES, COMMISSIONS OR PERCENTAGES BY
by receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickback or REASON OF SAID PURCHASES OF SHARES OF STOCK IN
any other form of pecuniary benefits from any person and/or entity in connection with THE AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE MILLION
any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P189,700,000.00)
officer; (c) by the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to MORE OR LESS, FROM THE BELLE CORPORATION WHICH
the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of BECAME PART OF THE DEPOSIT IN THE EQUITABLE BANK
UNDER THE ACCOUNT NAME 'JOSE VELARDE'
Government owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries; (d) by obtaining,
receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form
3. Crim. Case No. 26563, for violation of Sec. 7, par. (d), of RA 6713 (The
of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in any business
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
enterprise or undertaking; (e) by establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial
monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders Employees)

intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or (f) by taking advantage of 4. Crim. Case No. 26564, for Perjury (Art. 183 of The Revised Penal Code)
official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself 5. Crim. Case No. 26565, for Illegal Use Of An Alias (CA No. 142, as
or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people amended by RA 6085)
and the Republic of the Philippines; and,
 On April 25, 2001, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution in Criminal Case
3. That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, No. 26558, finding probable cause that petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada,
accumulated or acquired is at least ₱50,000,000.00. then the President of the Philippines has committed the offense of plunder,
and that he should be prosecuted under RA 7080 (An Act Defining and
Penalizing the Crime of Plunder).
FACTS:
 On 4 April 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan  Estrada argued that:
eight (8) separate Informations, docketed as: o RA 7080 was unconstitutional, on the grounds that
1. Crim. Case No. 26558, for violation of RA 7080, as amended by RA  1.) it was vague;
 2.) it dispenses with the “reasonable doubt” standard
7659
 in criminal prosecutions; and
2. Crim. Cases Nos. 26559 to 26562, inclusive, for violation of Secs. 3, par.  3.) it abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes
(a), 3, par. (a), 3, par. (e) and 3, par. (e), of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and already punishable under The Revised Penal Code,
Corrupt Practices Act), respectively: thus violating the fundamental rights of the accused.
" THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, o The said law allegedly suffers from vagueness on the terms it uses,
By Himself AND/OR In CONNIVANCE/CONSPIRACY With His
particularly: ‘combination’, ‘series’, and ‘unwarranted’. Based on this,
Co-Accused, WHO ARE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY,
RELATIVES BY AFFINITY OR CONSANGUINITY, BUSINESS the petitioner used the facial challenge to question the validity of RA
ASSOCIATES, SUBORDINATES AND/OR OTHER PERSONS, 7080.
BY TAKING UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF HIS OFFICIAL o Petitioner argues that the Anti-Plunder Law "eliminates proof of
POSITION, AUTHORITY, RELATIONSHIP, CONNECTION, OR each and every component criminal act of plunder by the
INFLUENCE, Did Then And There Willfully, Unlawfully And
 accused and limits itself to establishing just the pattern of over
or criminal acts indicative of unlawful scheme or conspiracy."
o In addition, it was argued that the Amended Information for Plunder
charged more than 1 offense.
 The Motion to Quash was denied on 9 July 2001.
SECTIONS ASSAILED AS VAGUE and UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
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;
(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 (underscoring supplied).
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 (underscoring supplied).
Issue 

1. WoN the Plunder Law is unconstitutional for being vague - NO.
2. WoN the Plunder Law requires less evidence for proving the predicate crimes
of plunder and therefore violates the rights of the accused to due 
 process

 - NO.
3. WoN Plunder as defined in RA 7080 is a malum prohibitum. - No, it is mala in
se.
HELD:
1. NO – The Plunder Law is not unconstitutional.
 The void-for-vagueness doctrine states that a statute 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 of due process of law.
 However, a statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely
because general terms are used, or because of the employment of
terms without defining them. 

 There is no positive constitutional or statutory command requiring the
legislature to define each and every word in an enactment. 

 It is a well-settled principle of legal hermeneutics that words of a

 statute will be interpreted in their natural, plain and ordinary
acceptation and signification unless it is evident that the legislature
intended a technical or special legal meaning to those words.
o Congress cannot be restricted in expression of its will and
the inability to define the words employed in a statute will
not necessarily result in the vagueness or ambiguity of the
law so long as the legislative will is clear, or at least, can be
gathered from the whole act, which is distinctly expressed
in the Plunder Law.
ITC: A statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because of the employment
of general terms or the failure to define the terms used therein. The validity of a law is
sustained, so long as that law provides some comprehensible guide as to what would
render those subject to the said law liable to its penalties. The petitioner cannot rely on
the void-for-vagueness doctrine, since this doctrine does not apply to laws that merely
consist of imprecise language.
 Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:
o Combination — the result or product of combining; the act or process
of combining. To combine is to bring into such close relationship as
to obscure individual characters.
o Series — a number of things or events of the same class coming one
after another in spatial and temporal succession.
o "Pattern" - a 'pattern' consists of at least a combination or series of
overt or criminal acts enumerated in subsections (1) to (6) of Sec. 1
(d) (from Sandiganbayan's observations that the term is defined in
Sec. 4 in rel. to Sec. 1 par. (d) and Sec. 2 under Sec. 1 (d) of the law)
 pursuant to Sec. 2 of the law, the pattern of overt or criminal
acts is directed towards a common purpose or goal which
is to enable the public officer to amass, accumulate or
acquire ill-gotten wealth.
o 'Overall Unlawful Scheme' or 'Conspiracy' to achieve said common
goal - commonly understood to indicate a 'general plan of action or
method' which the principal accused and public officer and others
conniving with him, follow to achieve the aforesaid common goal. In
the alternative, 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.
o If the legislature intended a technical or distinctive meaning for
"combination" and "series," it would have taken greater pains in
specifically providing for it in the law.
o The doctrine cannot be invoked where the assailed statute is
clear and free from ambiguity, as in this case. The test in
determining whether a criminal statute is void for uncertainty is
whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as
to the proscribed conduct when measured by common
understanding and practice.
 The "vagueness" doctrine merely requires a reasonable
degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld — not
absolute precision or mathematical exactitude.
o 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. It must
sufficiently guide the judge in its application; the counsel, in
defending one charged with its violation; and more importantly, the
accused, in identifying the realm of the proscribed conduct. Indeed,
it can be understood with little difficulty that what the assailed statute
punishes is the act of a public officer in amassing or accumulating ill-
gotten wealth of at least ₱50,000,000.00 through a series or
combination of acts enumerated in Sec. 1, par. (d), of the Plunder
Law.
o constitute a pattern and involving an amount of at least P50,000,000.00.
Elements of Plunder (Section 2 is sufficiently explicit in its description of the acts,
conduct and conditions required or forbidden, and prescribes the elements of the crime
with reasonable certainty and particularity.)
1. That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance with
members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates,
subordinates or other persons;
2. That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination
or series of the following overt or criminal acts: (a) through misappropriation,
conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury; (b)
by receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickback or
any other form of pecuniary benefits 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
officer; (c) by the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to
the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of
Government owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries; (d) 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; (e) 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 (f) 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; and,
3. That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed,
accumulated or acquired is at least ₱50,000,000.0
2. Petitioners: Void-for-vagueness doctrine states that (especially Section 4) “a
statute 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 of due process of law.”


ITC: NO – The Plunder Law uses the “reasonable doubt” standard as with any criminal
case. 

 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.
 The Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except
upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute
the crime with which he is charged.
 What the prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt is only a
number of acts sufficient to form a combination or series which would
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.
o The contention that Sec. 4 of RA 7080 does away with proof of
each and every component of the crime is a misconception.
Rather than proving each and every criminal act done, it is
enough that the prosecution proves beyond reasonable
doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the
crime as a whole.
protected expression is deemed to justify allowing attacks on overly broad
statutes with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate
that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with narrow
specificity.'
ITC: Facial challenge cannot apply to penal statutes. If a facial challenge is allowed for
this reason alone, the State may well be prevented from enacting laws against socially
harmful conduct. In the area of criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the area
of free speech.

3. NO - The Supreme Court held that plunder is malum in se which requires proof
of criminal intent. DISPOSITIVE:
 The predicate crimes in the case of plunder involve acts which are WHEREFORE, I vote to DISMISS the Petition and to uphold the constitutionality of RA
inherently immoral or inherently wrong, and are committed “willfully, 7080.
unlawfully and criminally” by the offender, alleging his guilty
knowledge. 

 The legislative declaration in RA 7659 that plunder is a heinous
offense implies that it is a malum in se. 

 A construction should be rejected if it gives to the language used in
a statute a meaning that does not accomplish the purpose for which
the statute was enacted and that tends to defeat the ends that are
sought to be attained by its enactment.
 Viewed broadly, "plunder involves not just plain thievery but
economic depredation which affects not just private parties or
personal interests but the nation as a whole." Invariably, plunder
partakes of the nature of "a crime against national interest
which must be stopped, and if possible, stopped permanently."

ITC: In mala in se crimes, the element of mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for
plunder. It is noteworthy that the amended information alleges that the crime of plunder
was committed "willfully, unlawfully and criminally." It thus alleges guilty knowledge on
the part of petitioner.
 The Government terribly lacks money to provide basic services to people.
Thus, any theft of government funds translates to an actual threat to the very
existence of government, and in turn, the very survival of the people it governs
over.
 Viewed in this context, no less heinous are the effect and repercussions of
crimes like qualified bribery, destructive arson resulting in death, and drug
offenses involving government official, employees or officers, that their
perpetrators must not be allowed to cause further destruction and damage to
society. Indeed, it would be absurd to treat prosecutions for plunder as though
they are mere prosecutions for violations of the Bouncing Check Law (B.P.
Blg. 22) or of an ordinance against jaywalking, without regard to the inherent
wrongness of the acts.

4. A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which

is overbroad because of possible "chilling effect" upon protected speech. The
theory is that "[w]hen statutes regulate or proscribe speech and no readily
apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes
in a single prosecution, the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally