Case Summary (G.R. No. 144274)
Vagueness and Overbreadth Challenge
Estrada contended that RA 7080 is void for vagueness and overbreadth, violating Due Process by failing to define key terms (“combination,” “series,” “pattern”) and by authorizing arbitrary enforcement. Facial invalidation was sought, though only plunder provisions applied to the charges.
Judicial Scope of Review
Facial challenges (strict scrutiny, overbreadth, void-for-vagueness) are doctrinally confined to First Amendment contexts in U.S. jurisprudence. Criminal statutes are upheld “as applied,” examining only those provisions actually charged against the defendant.
Statutory Elements of Plunder
RA 7080, Sec. 2 defines plunder requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt of:
- A public officer acting alone or in connivance
- Amassing ill‐gotten wealth ≥ ₱50 million
- Acquisition through a “combination or series” of overt or criminal acts enumerated in Sec. 1(d)
“Combination” and “Series” Interpreted
“Combination” = at least two different overt or criminal acts under Sec. 1(d)
“Series” = repetition of the same overt or criminal act at least twice
These meanings drawn from Senate and Bicameral Committee deliberations, not technical definitions.
“Pattern” of Overt Acts
Section 4 allows proof of a “pattern of overt or criminal acts” to establish an overall scheme or conspiracy, without requiring proof of every individual act. This procedural rule supplements, but does not supplant, proof of each element beyond reasonable doubt.
Burden of Proof and Due Process
Defendant retains presumption of innocence; prosecution must prove each element of plunder—including any acts used to show “pattern”—beyond reasonable doubt. Section 4 is procedural; it does not lower the constitutional standard of proof or deny notice of charges.
Mens Rea and Heinous Crime Classification
Plunder is inherently malum in se, requiring proof of criminal intent, as Congress itself applied Revised Penal Code mitigating and extenuating circumstances (which hinge on intent). Its designation as a “heinous crime” under RA 7659 confirms malum in se status.
Legislative Intent and Statutory Construction
Congress deliberately chose general terms (“combination,” “series,” “pattern”) to address large-scale, secretive corruption. No requirement that each act be separately charged; procedural rule (Sec. 4) ex
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 144274)
Facts
- Joseph Ejercito Estrada, former President of the Philippines, was charged before the Sandiganbayan under R.A. No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, for the crime of plunder involving alleged ill-gotten wealth of at least ₱50 million.
- The Ombudsman filed eight separate informations against Estrada: one for plunder (Crim. Case No. 26558) and seven for other graft-related offenses.
- Estrada’s co-accused included members of his family, business associates and other persons.
- On April 11, 2001, Estrada filed an Omnibus Motion to remand for preliminary investigation and reinvestigation; the Sandiganbayan found probable cause on April 25.
- He then moved to quash the plunder information on the grounds that R.A. 7080 is unconstitutional as vague, reduces the standard of proof, and abolishes mens rea; the motion was denied on July 9, 2001.
- Estrada filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 to annul the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions and to enjoin the trial on the ground that the Plunder Law is void.
Issues
- Whether R.A. 7080 is unconstitutional for vagueness and overbreadth.
- Whether Section 4 of R.A. 7080 improperly lowers the proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt standard by dispensing with proof of each criminal act.
- Whether the crime of plunder as defined is a malum prohibitum that eliminates mens rea and thus violates due process.
Relevant Statutory Provisions
- Section 1(d), R.A. 7080: Defines “ill-gotten wealth” to include assets acquired by a public officer “by any combination or series” of enumerated means or schemes.
- Section 2, R.A. 7080: Defines the crime of plunder and prescribes penalty of reclusion perpetua to death if ill-gotten wealth ≥ ₱50 million.
- Section 4, R.A. 7080: Provides that it is “sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy” without proving each act.
- Section 12, R.A. 7659: Amends Section 2 to include harsher penalties; Section 7: Separability clause.