Raphael Descartes M.

Roldan University of San Agustin

JD 1-C College of Law

Case Name Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (3rd Division) and People of the
Philippines
Topic Plunder
Case No.| Date G.R. No. 148560 | November 19, 2001
Ponente Bellosillo, J.
Doctrine The void for vagueness doctrine challenges the statutes where particular
words used in the statute elicits duplicity of meaning, or could not be
understood by the general public.
Facts Petitioner, Joseph Ejercito Estrada, was the highest-ranking official of
the Philippines who was accused of plundering a total amount of four
billion ninety-seven million eight hundred four thousand one hundred
seventy-three and seventeen centavos (Php 4,0907,804,173.17).

The Office of the Ombudsman filed eight (8) separate information on

April 4, 2001 docketed as:

a. Criminal Case No. 26558, for violation of RA 7080, as amended

by RA 7659;
b. Criminal Cases Nos. 26559 to 26562, inclusive, for violation of:
 Section 3, par. (a)
 Section 3, par. (a)
 Section 3, par. (e)
 Section 3, par. (e)
of RA 3019 or the Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;
c. Criminal Case No. 26563, for violation of Section 7, par. (d) of
RA 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees;
d. Criminal Case No. 26564, for perjury (Art. 183 of the Revised
Penal Code); and
e. Criminal Case No. 26565, for Illegal Use of an Alias (CA No.
142, as amended by RA 6085.

The petitioner filed an omnibus motion to remand the case to the

Ombudsman on April 11, 2001, claiming on the grounds that the
petitioner needs the opportunity to file counter-affidavits and other
documents to prove the lack of probable cause against the petitioner.
Moreover, the petitioner claims that the accusations against him lack
preliminary investigation, reconsideration/reinvestigation of offenses
and the opportunity to prove the lack of probable cause.

Special Penal Laws| 1

Raphael Descartes M. Roldan University of San Agustin
JD 1-C College of Law

The Third Division of the Sandiganbayan on April 25, 2001 issued a

Resolution in Criminal case No. 26558 stipulating that a probable cause
for the offense of plunder exists. The Sandiganbayan on the same day
denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

The petitioner on June 14, 2001 moved to quash the information in

Criminal Case No. 26558 claiming the information does not contain and
indictable offense since the said offense, where it is based, is
unconstitutional for being vague, and of which the information alleged
for plunder contained more than one (1) offense.

An opposition to the motion to quash was filed on June 21, 2001, to

which the petitioner submitted his reply to the opposition, nevertheless,
the Sandiganbayan on July 9, 2001 denied the petitioner’s motion to
quash.
Issue (s)  Whether the lack of statutory definition of RA 7080, as amended
by RA 7659 should render it void for vagueness;
 Whether RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659 circumvents the
obligation of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt
the offenses allegedly committed by the accused; and
 Whether RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659 as a special law
penalizing plunder abolishes the element of mens rea that
violates the accused’s right to due process to be informed of the
nature and cause of the of the accusations against him.
Ruling(s) The court ruled that RA 7080 as amended by RA 7659 is constitutional.

Petitioner contends that RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659 is

unconstitutional, since the law does not clearly give statutory definition
of the terms “combination” and “series” found in Section 1, par. (d), and
Section 2. It also does not give statutory definition of the word “pattern”
in Section 4. With this vagueness, the petitioner then claims that the law
fails to inform him of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

The court does not agree with the petitioner. The legislature is not
required to define each word that they legislate to pass into law. The rule
of statutory construction stands, that words are not to be given any
interpretation aside from how they are understood. There is nothing
vague with how the law used the words “combination,” “series,” and
“pattern.” The void for vagueness could is not tenable, since the words

Special Penal Laws| 2

Raphael Descartes M. Roldan University of San Agustin
JD 1-C College of Law
used by the legislature in describing the nature of the offense does not
require further interpretation, since it is taken to be understood in its
common and ordinary definition.

Secondly, the petitioner claims that RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659

circumvents the obligation of the prosecution to prove the offense of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The court disagrees with the petitioner. The court held that the
prosecution does not need to prove all the offenses committed by the
accused, rather, proving the elements of the offenses of which
constitutes a pattern is already enough to prove the accused of his crime.
Section 4 of the said law pertains to the Rule of Evidence to which
unequivocally stipulates that it is no longer necessary to prove each
offense of the accused, since it would already be sufficient to prove the
elements of the crime committed.

Lastly, the petitioner claims that the law does away the element of mens
rea.

The court does not agree. The court held that plunder is committed
through predicate crimes to which is punished by the RTC. Since these
predicate crimes requires proof of intent, it therefore follows that that
plunder, as a crime constituting a “combination” or “series” of these
predicate crimes, is mala in se. The predicate crimes are inherently
immoral or inherently wrong. Therefore, the court held that it does not
matter whether that such acts are punished in by a special law, since the
predicate acts are in itself mala in se.

Special Penal Laws| 3