Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bellosillo J.
Facts:
Petitioner calls for the Court to subject RA 7080(An Act defining and Penalizing the Crime of
Plunder) to the crucible of constitutionality for reasons that the act:
is vague
dispenses with the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal prosecutions
abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code
Issue:
Does the Plunder law require less evidence proving the predicate crimes of plunder thus
violates the rights of the accused to due process (specifically Section 4 proposing that "it
shall not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused to
establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of over or criminal acts inidcative of the
overall lawful scheme or conspiracy)?
Ruling:
Petitioner has miserably failed to show that the Plunder Law is unconstitutional due to its
vagueness.
- "...the doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth, and vagueness are analytical tools
developed for testing "on their faces" statutes in free speech cases or, as they are
called in American law, First Amendment cases. Criminal statutes on the other hand
cannot be a party to such a rule.
- "One to whom application of a statute is constitutional will not be heard to attack the
statute on the ground that impliedly it might also be taken as applying to other
persons or other situations in which its application might be unconstitutional"
Petitioner's stand that the statute(specifically Sec.4) evades the mandatory element of the
prosecution in criminal law to prove beyond reasonable doubt the acts constituting plunder is
turned down by the court.
SEC. 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.
- What needs proof is only the "number of acts sufficient to form a combination or
series which should constitute a patter and involving an amount of at least P50,
000,000". Proof to each and every other act is not needed.
- Also there is a separability clause in the act holding that if any provision in the act is
held invalid, the remaining provisions of the act shall not be affected. "All the
provisions thereof should be accordingly be treated independently of each other,
especially if by doing so, the objects of the statute can be best achieved."
- "...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 punishment for plunder, which is by reclusion perpetua to death, may be deemed
as a resolution to any doubts whether the crime of plunder is mala in se.
- Acts that are inherently immoral or inherently wrong are mala in se , and does not
matter that such acts are punished by special laws.
Court declares that RA 7659 as constitutionally valid. Petition denied for lack of merit.
Facial Challenge