ESTRADA v.

SANDIGANBAYAN (ONLINE DIGEST)

FACTS:
Former President Estrada and co-accused were charged for Plunder under RA 7080
(An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder), as amended by RA 7659.
On the information, it was alleged that Estrada have received billions of pesos through
any or a combination or a series of overt or criminal acts, or similar schemes or means
thereby unjustly enriching himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage of
the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
Estrada questions the constitutionality of the Plunder Law since for him -it suffers from
the vice of vagueness
it dispenses with the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal prosecutions and it
abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes already punishable under The Revised
Penal Code.
Office of the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan 8 separate
Informations against petitioner.
Estrada filed an Omnibus Motion on the grounds of lack of preliminary investigation,
reconsideration/reinvestigation of offenses and opportunity to prove lack of probable
cause but was denied.
Later on, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution in Crim. Case No. 26558 finding that
a probable cause for the offense of plunder exists to justify the issuance of warrants for
the arrest of the accused.
Estrada moved to quash the Information in Criminal Case No. 26558 on the ground that
the facts alleged therein did NOT constitute an indictable offense since the law on which
it was based was unconstitutional for vagueness and that the Amended Information for
Plunder charged more than one offense. Same was denied.
ISSUE:
Whether Plunder requires proof of criminal intent?
HELD:
YES. Plunder in MALA IN SE.
The component acts constituting plunder, a heinous crime, being inherently wrongful
and immoral, are patently mala in se, even if punished by a special law and accordingly,
criminal intent must clearly be established together with the other elements of the crime;
otherwise, no crime is committed. By eliminating mens rea, R.A. 7080 does not require
the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the component acts constituting
plunder and imposes a lesser burden of proof on the prosecution, thus paving the way
for the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death on the accused, in plain
violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. Evidently,
the authority of the legislature to omit the element of scienter in the proof of a crime
refers to regulatory measures in the exercise of police power, where the emphasis of
the law is to secure a more orderly regulations of the offense of society, rather than the
punishment of the crimes. So that in mala prohibita prosecutions, the element of
criminal intent is a requirement for conviction and must be provided in the special law
penalizing what are traditionally mala in se crimes.