Anti-Plunder Act (RA 7080) as amended by RA 7659, Approved: July 12, 1991

Reason for the enactment of the law:

Republic Act 7080 or the Anti-Plunder Law was enacted in the aftermath of the Marcos
dictatorship, when then-president Ferdinand Marcos, his wife Imelda, and their cronies
allegedly amassed ill-gotten wealth.

After the 1986 People Power Revolution, the government found that existing laws like
the Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act "were clearly inadequate to cope with the
magnitude of the corruption and thievery committed during the Marcos years," said
former Senator Jovito Salonga.

In response to this, anti-plunder bills were filed by Salonga in the Senate, and by then
representative Lorna Yap in the House of Representatives during the 9th Congress.

The bills were consolidated into Republic Act 7080, signed by President Corazon
Aquino in 1991.

Section 1. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Act, the term —

a) Public Officer means any person holding any public office in the Government of the
Republic of the Philippines by virtue of an appointment, election or contract.

b) Government includes the National Government, and any of its subdivisions, agencies
or instrumentalities, including government owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries.

c) Person includes any natural or juridical person, unless the context indicates
otherwise.

What is Plunder?

Section 2. (as amended by Section 12 of RA 7659):

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 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.

Elements of Plunder:

1. That the offender is a public officer

1
2. who acts by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity
or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons

3. That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed,
accumulated or acquired is at least P50,000,000.00

4. That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination or

series of the following overt or criminal acts enumerated under Section 1(d).

Penalties

Section 2. (as amended by Section 12 of RA 7659):

The public officer 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.

What are the means or schemes to acquire ill-gotten wealth?

Section 1 (d) Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property, business enterprise or
material possession of any persons within the purview of Section 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
officer concerned;

3. By 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

2
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 undue 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.

Jurisdiction


Section 3. All prosecutions under this Act shall be within the original jurisdiction of the

Sandiganbayan, unless otherwise provided by law.


What is the rule of evidence under this law?

Section 4. 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 over-all unlawful scheme or conspiracy.

Section 5.

Suspension and Loss of Benefits

 Pending in court – suspended from office;

 Convicted by final judgment – lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any
law;
 Acquitted – reinstatement and salaries and other benefits he failed to receive
during suspension,
UNLESS, administrative proceedings have been filed against him.

Serapio vs. Sandiganbayan GR No. 148468, January 28, 2003

When may a person be held accountable under this law?

A person may thus be held accountable under the law by conniving with the principal
co-accused or by participating in the commission of "an offense" contributing to the
crime of plunder.

How is the term “in connivance” to be construed?

The term "in connivance" would suggest an agreement or consent to commit an

unlawful act or deed with or by another, to connive being to cooperate secretly or privily
with another.
3
"The amended Information alleged "connivance" and would assume that petitioner and
his co-accused had a common design in perpetrating the violations complained of
constitutive of "plunder." (Justice Vitug’s Separate Opinion)

Is plunder malum in se or malum prohibitum?

Plunder is a malum in se, requiring criminal intent. Precisely because the constitutive
crimes are mala in se, the element of mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for
plunder. It is noteworthy that the amended information alleges that the crime was
committed "wilfully, unlawfully and criminally." It thus allege guilty knowledge on the part
of petitioner, Joseph Ejercito Estrada. (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560,
November 19, 2001)

What are the elements of mens rea to be proven in a prosecution for plunder?

For someone to have the mens rea to engage in the commission of the serious crime of
plunder:

 He must "willfully, unlawfully and criminally" amassed ill-gotten wealth; or

 He must "willfully, unlawfully or criminally" joined with the rest of the accused to
amass ill-gotten wealth (Serapio vs. Sandiganbayan GR No. 148468, January
28, 2003; Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., dissenting opinion)

Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, GR no. 148560, November 19, 2001

Congress intended the words "combination" and "series" to be understood in their

popular meanings is pristinely evident from the legislative deliberations on the bill which
eventually became RA 7080 or the Plunder Law.

How should “combination” be understood?

When the Plunder Law speaks of "combination," it is referring to at least two (2) acts
falling under different categories of enumeration provided in Sec. 1, par. (d), e.g., raids
on the public treasury in Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1), and fraudulent conveyance of
assets belonging to the National Government under Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (3).

How should “series” be understood?

On the other hand, to constitute a "series" there must be two (2) or more overt or
criminal acts falling under the same category of enumeration found in Sec. 1, par. (d)

How should “pattern” be understood?

As for "pattern," we agree with the observations of the Sandiganbayan that this term is
sufficiently defined in Sec. 4, in relation to Sec. 1, par. (d), and Sec. 2 of the Plunder
Law.

4
What is the prescriptive period for prosecution for plunder?


Section 6. Prescription of Crimes - The crime punishable under this Act shall prescribe
in twenty (20) years.

Will the right of the state to recover unlawfully acquired properties prescribe?

Section 6. No, the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public
officers from them or from their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by
prescription, laches, or estoppel.

Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, GR Numbers 148468, January 28, 2003

Facts: The case is a consolidation of 3 petitions filed by Edward Serapio which assailed
resolutions of the 3rd Division of the Sandiganbayan in denying his petition for bail,
motion for reinvestigation and motion to quash, and a petition for habeas corpus in
relation to a plunder case against him.

Petitioner was a member of the Board of Trustees and legal counsel of the Erap Muslim
Youth Foundation. He received a Php200 million donation from Chavit Singson. He
received the donation and turned it over to the treasurer of the foundation and it was
deposited to the account with the Equitable PCI Bank.

In 2000, Singson publicly accused Estrada and his cohorts of engaging in several illegal
activities triggering the filing with the Ombudsman several criminal complaints against
Estrada. Petitioner was among the persons included in the criminal charges.
Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan several informations against Estrada and
other persons and no bail was recommended for the provisional released of the
accused. Ombudsman found probable cause for plunder and petitioner filed an MR. It
was denied because the information was already filed with the Sandiganbayan.

Sandiganbayan issued a resolution finding probable cause to justify the issuance of

warrants of arrests for the accused, including petitioner. Petitioner was detained at
Camp Crame for the said charge. Arraignment was set and petitioner filed a petition for
Bail. Several other bail meetings did not push through.

Even before the Sandiganbayan can resolve the issues, petitioner filed with the
Supreme Court a petition for habeas corpus and certiorari praying that the issued
resolutions of the Sandiganbayan be declared void because he was denied due
process.

ISSUE: Whether the Sandiganbayan denied the petitioner of his right to due process of
the law?

HELD: No. The right to preliminary investigation is not a constitutional right, but it is a
right conferred by a statute. Petitioner was given opportunity to answer the charges
against him during the preliminary investigation. Jurisprudence dictates that court do not
5
interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman in its conduct of preliminary
investigations. It was enunciated in Raro v. Sandiganbayan that in the performance of
the task to determine probable cause, the Ombudsman discretion is paramount. The
lack of preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the information filed
before the court.

Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001

FACTS: Petitioner assails the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7080 or the Plunder Law for:
(a) it suffers from the vice of vagueness;
(b) it dispenses with the "reasonable doubt"
standard in criminal prosecutions; and, (c) it abolishes the element of mens rea in
crimes already punishable under The Revised Penal Code. The law is malum
prohibitum when it should be mala in se.

ISSUE (a): Petitioner argue that the failure of the law to provide for the statutory
definition of the terms "combination" and "series" in the key phrase "a combination or
series of overt or criminal acts" found in Sec. 1, par. (d), and Sec. 2, and the word
"pattern" in Sec. 4. These omissions, according to petitioner, render the Plunder Law
unconstitutional for being impermissibly vague and overbroad and deny him the right to
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, hence, violative of
his fundamental right to due process.

HELD (a): The rationalization seems to us to be pure sophistry. 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.

Thus, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary contains the following commonly accepted
definition of the words "combination" and "series:"

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.

Series - a number of things or events of the same class coming one after another in
spatial and temporal succession.

ISSUE (b): Petitioner advances the highly stretched theory that Sec. 4 of the Plunder
Law circumvents the immutable obligation of the prosecution to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the predicate acts constituting the crime of plunder when it requires
only proof of a pattern of overt or criminal acts showing unlawful scheme or conspiracy
under Section 4

HELD (b): The thesis that Sec. 4 does away with proof of each and every component of
the crime suffers from a dismal misconception of the import of that provision. What the
prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt is only a number of acts sufficient
6
to form a combination or series which would constitute a pattern and involving an
amount of at least P75,000,000.00. 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. To illustrate, supposing that the accused is charged in an Information for
plunder with having committed fifty (50) raids on the public treasury. The prosecution
need not prove all these fifty (50) raids, it being sufficient to prove by pattern at least two
(2) of the raids beyond reasonable doubt provided only that they amounted to at least
P75,000,000.00.

ISSUE (C): Petitioner claims that the statute eliminates the requirement of mens rea.
Petitioner cites the following remarks of Senator Tañada made during the deliberation
on S.B. No. 733:

“SENATOR TAÑADA . . . And the evidence that will be required to convict him would
not be evidence for each and every individual criminal act but only evidence sufficient to
establish the conspiracy or scheme to commit this crime of plunder.”

HELD (C): Senator Tañada was only saying that where the charge is conspiracy to
commit plunder, the prosecution need not prove each and every criminal act done to
further the scheme or conspiracy, it being enough if it proves beyond reasonable doubt
a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or
conspiracy. As far as the acts constituting the pattern are concerned, however, the
elements of the crime must be proved and the requisite mens rea must be shown.

Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002

FACTS: In November 2000, as an offshoot of the impeachment proceedings against the

former President of the Philippines Joseph Ejercito Estrada, five criminal complaints
against the former President and members of his family, his associates, friends and
conspirators were filed with the respondent Office of the Ombudsman.

On April 4, 2001, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause
warranting the filing with the Sandiganbayan of several criminal charges against the
former President and the other respondents therein. One of the charges was for the
plunder under Republic Act No. 7080 and among the respondents was the former’s
president’s son the petitioner in this case Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada, then mayor of San
Juan, Metro Manila.

The charge was amended and filed on April 18, 2001. Docketed as Criminal Case No.
26558, the case was assigned to the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan. The
arraignment of the accused was set on July 10, 2001. No bail for petitioner's provisional
liberty was fixed. On April 24, 2001, petitioner filed a "Motion to Quash or Suspend" the
Amended Information on the ground that the Anti-Plunder Law, Republic Act No. 7080,
is unconstitutional and that it charged more than one offense. Respondent Ombudsman
opposed the motion.
7
On April 25, 2001, the respondent court issued a warrant of arrest for petitioner and his
co-accused. On its basis, petitioner and his co-accused were placed in custody of the
law. On April 30, 2001, petitioner filed a "Very Urgent Omnibus Motion" alleging that: (1)
no probable cause exists to put him on trial and hold him liable for plunder, it appearing
that he was only allegedly involved in illegal gambling and not in a "series or
combination of overt or criminal acts" as required in R.A. No. 7080; and (2) he is entitled
to bail as a matter of right.

On July 9, 2001, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying petitioner's "Motion to

Quash and Suspend" and "Very Urgent Omnibus Motion." Petitioner's alternative prayer
to post bail was set for hearing after arraignment of all the accused.

The Amended Information is divided into three parts: (1) the first paragraph charges
former President Joseph E. Estrada with the crime of plunder together with petitioner
Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada, Charlie "Atong" Ang, Edward Serapio, Yolanda Ricaforte and
others; (2) the second paragraph spells out in general terms how the accused conspired
in committing the crime of plunder; and (3) the four sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) describe in
detail the predicate acts constitutive of the crime of plunder pursuant to items (1) to (6)
of R.A. No. 7080, and state the names of the accused who committed each act.

Pertinent to the case at bar is the predicate act alleged in subparagraph (a) of the
Amended Information which is of "receiving or collecting, directly or indirectly, on
several instances, money in the aggregate amount of P545,000,000.00 for illegal
gambling in the form of gift, share, percentage, kickback or any form of pecuniary
benefit…" In this subparagraph (a), petitioner, in conspiracy with former President
Estrada, is charged with the act of receiving or collecting money from illegal gambling
amounting to P545 million

ISSUES: (a) Whether the Anti-Plunder Law, Republic Act No. 7080, is unconstitutional;
(b) whether petitioner Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada may be tried for plunder, it appearing that
he was only allegedly involved in one act or offense that is illegal gambling and not in a
"series or combination of overt or criminal acts" as required in R.A. No. 7080; and (c)
whether the petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right.

RULING: Regarding the first issue, the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7080 has
already been settled in the case of Joseph Estrada v. Sandiganbayan.

With respect to the second issue, while it is clear that all the accused named in sub-
paragraphs (a) to (d) thru their individual acts conspired with the former President
Estrada to enable the latter to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth in the
aggregate amount of P4,097,804,173.17, as the Amended Information is worded,
however, it is not certain whether the accused persons named in sub-paragraphs (a) to
(d) conspired with each other to enable the former President to amass the subject ill-
gotten wealth.

8
In view of the lack of clarity in the Information, the Court held petitioner Jose “Jinggoy”
Estrada cannot be penalized for the conspiracy entered into by the other accused with
the former President as related in the second paragraph of the Amended Information in
relation to its sub-paragraphs (b) to (d). Instead, the petitioner can be held accountable
only for the predicate acts that he allegedly committed as related in sub-paragraph (a)
of the Amended Information which were allegedly done in conspiracy with the former
President whose design was to amass ill-gotten wealth amounting to more than P4
billion.

However, if the allegation should be proven, the penalty of petitioner cannot be unclear.
It. will be no different from that of the former President for in conspiracy, the act of one
is the act of the other. The imposable penalty is provided in Section 2 of Republic Act
No. 7080, viz.:

"Section 2. Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with the 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) (now
P75,000,000.00 under RA 7080, as amended) 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 added that it cannot fault the Ombudsman for including the predicate
offenses alleged in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) of the Amended information in one and not
four separate Informations. The court explained the history of the Anti-Plunder Law,
thus:

“A study of the history of R.A. No. 7080 will show that the law was crafted to avoid the
mischief and folly of filing multiple informations. The Anti-Plunder Law was enacted in
the aftermath of the Marcos regime where charges of ill-gotten wealth were filed against
former President Marcos and his alleged cronies. Government prosecutors found no
appropriate law to deal with the multitude and magnitude of the acts allegedly
committed' by the former President to acquire illegal wealth. They also found that under
the then existing laws such as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Revised
Penal Code and other special laws, the acts involved different transactions, different
time and different personalities. Every transaction constituted a separate crime and
required a separate case and the over-all conspiracy had to be broken down into
several criminal and graft charges. The preparation of multiple Informations was a legal
nightmare but eventually, thirty-nine (39) separate and independent cases were filed
against practically the same accused before the Sandiganbayan. R.A. No. 7080 or the
Anti-Plunder Law was enacted precisely to address this procedural problem. This is
pellucid in the Explanatory Note to Senate Bill No. 733, viz.:
9
"Plunder, a term chosen from other equally apt terminologies like kleptocracy and
economic treason, punishes the use of high office for personal enrichment, committed
thru a series of acts done not in the public eye but in stealth and secrecy over a period
of time, that may involve so many persons, here and abroad, and which touch so many
states and territorial units. The acts and/or omissions sought to be penalized do not
involve simple cases of malversation of public funds, bribery, extortion, theft and graft
but constitute plunder of an entire nation resulting in material damage to the national
economy. The above-described crime does not yet exist in Philippine statute books.
Thus, the need to come up with a legislation as a safeguard against the possible
recurrence of the depravities of the previous regime and as a deterrent to those with
similar inclination to succumb to the corrupting influence of power.” “

Anent the third issue, on December 21, 2001, the Sandiganbayan submitted its
Resolution (dated December 20, 2001) denying petitioner's motion for bail for "lack of
factual basis." Basing its finding on the earlier testimony of Dr. Anastacio, the
Sandiganbayan found that petitioner "failed to submit sufficient evidence to convince the
court that the medical condition of the accused requires that he be confined at home
and for that purpose that he be allowed to post bail."

The Court clarified that the crime of plunder is punished with the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death. Under the Revised Rules of Court, offenses punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment are non-bailable when the evidence of guilt is
strong, to wit:

"Sec. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life

imprisonment, not bailable. – No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when
evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution."

Section 7, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is based on Section 13,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution which reads:

"Sec. 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction be bailable by
sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right
to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required."

Thus, the constitutional mandate makes the grant or denial of bail in capital offenses
hinge on the issue of whether or not the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong. The
trial court is required to conduct bail hearings wherein both the prosecution and the
defense will be afforded sufficient opportunity to present their respective evidence. The
burden of proof lies with the prosecution to show that the evidence of guilt is strong.

The hearings on which respondent court based its Resolution of December 20, 2001
10
involved the reception of medical evidence only and which evidence was given five
months earlier in September 2001. The records do not show that evidence on
petitioner's guilt was presented before the lower court. Thus, the Sandiganbayan was
ordered to conduct hearings to ascertain whether evidence of petitioner's guilt is strong
to determine whether to grant bail to the latter.

11