06.
JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA VS SANDIGANBAYAN edges of its plenary powers and has passed the law with full knowledge of the facts
AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
GR 148560| NOVEMBER 19 2001|BELLOSILLO J.|INGUILLO
TOPIC: DUE PROCESS/VAGUENESS
DOCTRINE: The Void for Vagueness Doctrine provides 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. It can only be invoked against that
specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face. The rationale to justify the application of
the doctrine, however, does not apply to penal statute. Criminal statutes have general in
terrorem effect resulting from their very existence and if facial challenge is allowed for this
reason alone, the State may well be prevented from enacting laws against socially harmful
conduct. The over breadth and vagueness doctrines then have special application only to free
speech cases.
ER: The Sandiganbayan charged Joseph Estrada various offenses one of which is the violation
of the Anti-Plunder Law. Contesting the propriety of this charge, he filed a Motion to Quash
the Information and challenged the constitutionality of the Plunder Law on the ground that
the law is unconstitutional for vagueness. The SB denied Estrada’s Motion to Quash, Hence the
instant petition. Resolving the issue, the Court ruled that the purported ambiguity is more
imagined than real. Petitioner cannot feign ignorance of what Plunder Law is all about because
being one the senators who voted for its passage, petitioner must be aware that the law was
extensively deliberated by the Senate. [SEE DOCTRINE]
FACTS:
1. This case stemmed when the Office of the Ombudsman filed 8 separate Informations
before the Sandiganbayan against Joseph Ejercito Estrada. Among the charges filed is a
case on the basis of Estrada’s alleged violation of the Plunder Law.
2. Few days after the Informations were filed, Estrada filed an Omnibus Motion to remand
the cases back to the Ombudsman for Preliminary Investigations. He anchored his petition
on the lack of Prelim Investig, reconsideration of offenses and opportunity to prove lack
of probable cause. He never raised the issue as to the ambiguity and vagueness of the
Plunder Law.
3. The Sandiganbayan, issued a Resolution finding probable cause for the offense of Plunder
exists to justify the issuance of warrants for the arrest of Joseph Estrada.
4. Estrada moved to quash the Information for Plunder on the ground that the facts alleged
in therein did not constitute an indictable offense since the law on which it as based was
unconstitutional for vagueness and that the Amended Information for Plunder charged
more than 1 offense. ---The Sandiganbayan DENIED the Motion to Quash.
ISSUE:
1. WON the Plunder Law is unconstitutional for being vague- NO [Topic-related]
2. WON the Plunder Law requires less evidence for proving the predicate crimes of plunder
and therefore violated the rights of the accused to due process- NO.
3. WON Plunder is a malum phohibitum and it so WON it is within the power of the Congress
to so classify it.
RULING: NO.
1. NO. the Plunder Law is Constitutional.
 One of the basis legal concept in the validity of legislation is predicated on the basic
principle that a legislative measure is presumed to be in harmony with the
Constitution. IF there is any reasonable basis upon which the legislation may firmly
rest, the courts must assume that the legislature is ever conscious of the borders and
and for the purpose of promoting what is right. Verily, to rebut the presumption of
constitutionality, the party challenging the same must demonstrate beyond any
tinge of doubt that there is indeed an infringement of the Constitution. As put by J.
Malcolm, “To doubt is to sustain.” Here, the petitioner failed to overcome the
presumption of constitutionality of the Plunder Law.
 As written, the Plunder Law provides for ascertainable standards and well-defined
parameters which would enable the accused to determine the nature of his
violation. Section of the Law is sufficiently explicit in its description of the acts and
conditions required or forbidden, and prescribes the elements of the crime with
reasonable certainty.
 As long as the law affords come comprehensible guide that would inform those who are
subject to it what conduct would render them liable to its penalties, its validity will be
sustained. Here, it can be clearly understood that what the assailed statute punishes is
the act of a public officer in amassing ill-gotten wealth of atleast 50M through a series or
combination of act enumerated in Sec 1 (d) of the Plunder Law.
 The Court ruled that the amended complaint closely tracks the language of the law:
“Joseph Estrada, then President of the Republic of the PH, by himself or in connivance
with his co-accused…willfully and criminally amass, ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate
amount of $ 4.097 Billion, thereby unjustly enriching himself at the expense of the
Filipino people through any or a combination or series of overt or criminal acts or
similar schemes or means”
 The Court discussed that there is nothing in the foregoing that is vague and nothing that
will confuse Estrada in his defense.
 As to Estrada’s contention that the law failed to provide for the statutory definition of the
terms “combinations” and “series”, the Court ruled that 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, much less is there a need to define ever use
in the legislation.
o The Court then defined the alleged unambiguous terms using the Webster’s New
Collegiate Dictionary.
a. Combination- to combine is to bring into such close relationship as to obscure in
spatial and temporal succession
b. Series- a number of things or events of the same class coming one after another
in spatial and temporal succession.
o The Court also discussed that Congress intended the words “combination: and
“series” to be understood in their popular meanings as evidenced by the legislative
deliberations on the Bill which evidently became RA 7080 or the Plunder Law.
 Next, the Court held that Estrada’s reliance on the void-for-vagueness doctrine is
misplaced.
o Definition: A statute establishing a criminal offense must define the offense with
sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what
conduct is prohibited. It can only be invoked against that specie of legislation that is
utterly vague on its face.
 Test in determining whether a criminal statute is void for uncertainty: Whether the
language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when
measured by common understanding and practice.
  Note that the vagueness doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty for  The application of mitigating and extenuating circumstances in the RPC to persecutions
the statute to be upheld- not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude. Flexibility is under the Anti-Plunder Law indicates quite clearly that mens rea is an element of plunder
permitted as long as the metes and bounds of the statute are clearly delineated. since the degree of responsibility of the offender is determined by his criminal intent.
 The Court agreed with the observation of J. Mendoza that the allegation that the Plunder
Law is vague and overbroad do not justify a facial review of its validity. 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.
 This rationale, however, does not apply to penal statute. Criminal statutes have general
in terrorem effect resulting from their very existence and if facial challenge is allowed for
this reason alone, the State may well be prevented from enacting laws against socially
harmful conduct. The over breadth and vagueness doctrines then have special application
only to free speech cases.
 It is therefore evident that the purported ambiguity is more imagined than real. Petitioner
cannot feign ignorance of what Plunder Law is all about because being one the senators
who voted for its passage, petitioner must be aware that the law was extensively
deliberated by the Senate.

2. NO.
Estrada’s argument: Sec 4 of the Law circumvents the immutable oblig of the prosecution to
prove proof beyond reasonable doubt the crime of plunder when it requires only proof of a
pattern of overt or criminal acts showing unlawful scheme or conspiracy.
 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 criminal doubt that culpability lies,
the accused is entitled to an acquittal.
 The use of reasonable doubt standard is indispensable to command the respect and
confidence of the community in the application of criminal law. This reasonable doubt
standard has acquired such exalted stature in the realm of constitutional law as it gives life
to the Due Process Clause which protects the accused against conviction except upon proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
 Review of the legislative deliberation shows that the legislature did not in any manner
refashion the standard quantum of proof in the crime of plunder. The burden still remains
with the prosecution to prove beyond any iota of doubt every factor element necessary to
constitute the crime.
 Section 4 of the Law does not do away with the quantum of proof required. What the
prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt is only a number of acts sufficient to
form a combination or series which would constitute a pattern and involving an amount of
at least 50M.
 Notably, Sec 4 being a purely procedural measure, it does not define or establish any
substantive right in favor of the accused but only operates in furtherance of a remedy.
Indubitably, even without invoking Sec4, a conviction is to present sufficient evidence to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, even granting that Sec4 is
flawed and vitiated for the reason advanced by Estrada, it may simply be severed from the
rest without necessarily resulting in the demise of the law.
3. NO. Plunder is a Mala in se which requires proof of criminal intent.
 J. Mendoza: Since Plunder is a mala in se, the element of mens rea must be proven.