Estrada vs.

Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 148560. November 19, 2001

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:

1. it suffers from the vice of vagueness

2. it dispenses with the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal

prosecutions

3. 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.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Plunder Law is unconstitutional for being vague.

2. Whether the fact that the Plunder Law requires less evidence for
proving the predicate crimes of plunder leads to its violation of the right of
the accused to due process.

3. Whether Plunder as defined in RA 7080 is a malum prohibitum, and if

so, whether it is within the power of Congress to classify it as such.

RULE:

The void-for-vagueness doctrine states that a statute which either forbids

or requires the doing of an act in terms sovague that men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application, violates the first essential of due process of law.

The over-breadth doctrine states that a governmental purpose may not

be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby
invade the area of protected freedoms.

A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which

is overbroad because of a possible “chilling effect” upon protected speech.
This rationale does NOT apply to penal statutes.

HELD:

1. NO. A statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because of the
employment of general terms or the failure to define the terms used therein.
The validity of a law is sustained, so long as that law provides some
comprehensible guide as to what would render those subject to the said law
liable to its penalties. The petitioner cannot rely on the void-for-vagueness
doctrine, since this doctrine does not apply to laws that merely consist of
imprecise language.
2. NO. The Bill of Rights guarantees the right of the accused in criminal
prosecutions to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Thus he is
entitled to an acquittal unless the State succeeds in demonstrating the guilt
of the accused withproof beyond reasonable doubt. The contention that Sec.
4 of RA 7080 does away with proof of each and every component of the
crime is a misconception. Rather than proving each and every criminal act
done, it is enough that the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt a
pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the crime as a whole.

3. NO. Plunder is a malum in se which requires proof of criminal intent. The

legislative declaration in RA No. 7659 (which has been declared as
constitutionally valid in a previous ruling) that plunder is a heinous offense
implies that it is a malum in se.

DISPOSITIVE:

Premises considered, the Court holds that RA 7080 otherwise known

as the Plunder Law, as amended by RA 7659, is CONSTITUTIONAL.
Thus, the petition to declare the law unconstitutional is DISMISSED for lack
of merit.