estrada vs sandiganbayan 369 scra 394.docx

7/25/2019 estrada vs sandiganbayan 369 scra 394.docx

1/122

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 148560 November 19, 2001

JOSEP EJERC!TO ESTRA"A, petitioner,vs.SAN"!GANBA#AN $T%&r' "&v&(&o)* +)' PEOPE O- TE P!!PP!NES, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

BEOS!O, J.:

JON S!"#R! MI$$, in his essa% On Liberty, unleashes the full fur% of his pen in defense of theri&hts of the individual fro' the vast po(ers of the State and the inroads of societal pressure. )uteven as he dra(s a sacrosanct line de'arcatin& the li'its on individualit% be%ond (hich the Statecannot tread * assertin& that +individual spontaneit%+ 'ust be allo(ed to flourish (ith ver% littlere&ard to social interference * he veritabl% acno(led&es that the e-ercise of ri&hts and liberties isi'bued (ith a civic obli&ation, (hich societ% is ustified in enforcin& at all cost, a&ainst those (ho(ould endeavor to (ithhold fulfill'ent. !hus he sa%s *

The sole end for which mankind is warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the libertyof action of any of their number, is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfullyexercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

Parallel to individual libert% is the natural and illi'itable ri&ht of the State to self*preservation. /iththe end of 'aintainin& the inte&rit% and cohesiveness of the bod% politic, it behooves the State tofor'ulate a s%ste' of la(s that (ould co'pel obeisance to its collective (isdo' and inflictpunish'ent for non*observance.

!he 'ove'ent fro' Mill0s individual liberalis' to uns%ste'atic collectivis' (rou&ht chan&es in thesocial order, carr%in& (ith it a ne( for'ulation of funda'ental ri&hts and duties 'ore attuned to thei'peratives of conte'porar% socio*political ideolo&ies. In the process, the (eb of ri&hts and Statei'positions beca'e tan&led and obscured, en'eshed in threads of 'ultiple shades and colors, thesein irre&ular and broen. #nta&onis', often outri&ht collision, bet(een the la( as the e-pressionof the (ill of the State, and the 1ealous atte'pts b% its 'e'bers to preserve their individualit% anddi&nit%, inevitabl% follo(ed. It is (hen individual ri&hts are pitted a&ainst State authorit% that udicial

conscience is put to its severest test.

Petitioner Joseph Eercito Estrada, the hi&hest*ranin& official to be prosecuted under R# 2343 5nct !efining and "enalizing the #rime of "lunder6,7as a'ended b% R# 289:,;(ishes to i'pressupon us that the assailed la( is so defectivel% fashioned that it crosses that thin but distinct line(hich divides the valid fro' the constitutionall% infir'. e therefore 'aes a strin&ent call for thisCourt to subect the Plunder $a( to the crucible of constitutionalit% 'ainl% because, accordin& tohi', 5a6 it suffers fro' the vice of va&ueness< 5b6 it dispenses (ith the +reasonable doubt+ standardin cri'inal prosecutions< and, 5c6 it abolishes the ele'ent of mens reain cri'es alread% punishable
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt1


2/122

under The $evised "enal #ode,all of (hich are purportedl% clear violations of the funda'entalri&hts of the accused to due process and to be infor'ed of the nature and cause of the accusationa&ainst hi'.

Specificall%, the provisions of the Plunder $a( clai'ed b% petitioner to have trans&ressed

constitutional boundaries are Secs. 7, par. 5d6, ; and = (hich are reproduced hereunder>

%ection &.- - - - 5d6 +Ill*&otten (ealth+ 'eans an% asset, propert%, business, enterprise or 'aterialpossession of an% person (ithin the purvie( of Section !(o 5;6 hereof, ac?uired b% hi' directl% orindirectl% throu&h du''ies, no'inees, a&ents, subordinates and@or business associates b% an%co'bination or series of the follo(in& 'eans or si'ilar sche'es>

576 !hrou&h 'isappropriation, conversion, 'isuse, or 'alversation of public funds or raids onthe public treasur% 5a6 Cri'. Case No. ;8994, for violation of R# 2343, as a'ended b% R#289:< 5b6 Cri'. Cases Nos. ;899: to ;898;, inclusive, for violation of Secs. A, par. 5a6, A, par. 5a6, A,par. 5e6 and A, par. 5e6, of R# A37: 5nti-0raft and #orrupt "ractices ct6, respectivel%< 5c6 Cri'.Case No. ;898A, for violation of Sec. 2, par. 5d6, of R# 827A 5The#ode of #onduct and thical%tandards for "ublic Officials and mployees6< 5d6 Cri'. Case No. ;898=, for Perur% 5#rt. 74Aof The $evised "enal #ode6< and, 5e6 Cri'. Case No. ;8989, for Ille&al "se Of #n #lias 5C# No.7=;, as a'ended b% R# 83496.

On 77 #pril ;337 petitioner f iled an Omnibus 1otionfor the re'and of the case to the O'buds'anfor preli'inar% investi&ation (ith respect to specification +d+ of the char&es in the Infor'ation in

Cri'. Case No. ;8994< and, for reconsideration@reinvesti&ation of the offenses under specifications+a,+ +b,+ and +c+ to &ive the accused an opportunit% to file counter*affidavits and other docu'entsnecessar% to prove lac of probable cause. Noticeabl%, the &rounds raised (ere onl% lac ofpreli'inar% investi&ation, reconsideration@reinvesti&ation of offenses, and opportunit% to prove lac ofprobable cause. !he purported a'bi&uit% of the char&es and the va&ueness of the la( under (hichthe% are char&ed (ere never raised in that Omnibus 1otionthus indicatin& the e-plicitness andco'prehensibilit% of the Plunder $a(.

On ;9 #pril ;337 the Sandi&anba%an, !hird Division, issued a Resolution in Cri'. Case No. ;8994findin& that +a probable cause for the offense of P$"NDER e-ists to ustif% the issuance of (arrantsfor the arrest of the accused.+ On ;9 June ;337 petitioner0s 'otion for reconsideration (as deniedb% the Sandi&anba%an.

On 7= June ;337 petitioner 'oved to ?uash the Infor'ation in Cri'. Case No. ;8994 on the &roundthat the facts alle&ed therein did not constitute an indictable offense since the la( on (hich it (asbased (as unconstitutional for va&ueness, and that the #'ended Infor'ation for Plunder char&ed'ore than one 576 offense. On ;7 June ;337 the Bovern'ent filed itsOpposition to the 1otion to2uash, and five 596 da%s later or on ;8 June ;337 petitioner sub'itted his $eply to the Opposition.On : Jul% ;337 the Sandi&anba%an denied petitioner0s 1otion to 2uash.

#s concisel% delineated b% this Court durin& the oral ar&u'ents on 74 Septe'ber ;337, the issuesfor resolution in the instant petition for certiorari are> 5a6 !he Plunder $a( is unconstitutional for bein&va&ue< 5b6 !he Plunder $a( re?uires less evidence for provin& the predicate cri'es of plunder andtherefore violates the ri&hts of the accused to due process< and, 5c6 /hether Plunder as defined inR# 2343 is a malum prohibitum, and if so, (hether it is (ithin the po(er of Con&ress to so classif% it.

Preli'inaril%, the (hole &a'ut of le&al concepts pertainin& to the validit% of le&islation is predicatedon the basic principle that a le&islative 'easure is presu'ed to be in har'on% (ith theConstitution.ACourts invariabl% train their si&hts on this funda'ental rule (henever a le&islative actis under a constitutional attac, for it is the postulate of constitutional adudication. !his stron&predilection for constitutionalit% taes its bearin&s on the idea that it is forbidden for one branch ofthe &overn'ent to encroach upon the duties and po(ers of another. !hus it has been said that thepresu'ption is based on the deference the udicial branch accords to its coordinate branch * thele&islature.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt3


4/122

If there is an% reasonable basis upon (hich the le&islation 'a% fir'l% rest, the courts 'ust assu'ethat the le&islature is ever conscious of the borders and ed&es of its plenar% po(ers, and haspassed the la( (ith full no(led&e of the facts and for the purpose of pro'otin& (hat is ri&ht andadvancin& the (elfare of the 'aorit%. ence in deter'inin& (hether the acts of the le&islature are intune (ith the funda'ental la(, courts should proceed (ith udicial restraint and act (ith caution and

forbearance. Ever% intend'ent of the la( 'ust be adud&ed b% the courts in favor of itsconstitutionalit%, invalidit% bein& a 'easure of last resort. In construin& therefore the provisions of astatute, courts 'ust first ascertain (hether an interpretation is fairl% possible to sidestep the ?uestionof constitutionalit%.

In La 3nion #redit #ooperative, nc. v. 4aranon=(e held that as lon& as there is so'e basis for thedecision of the court, the constitutionalit% of the challen&ed la( (ill not be touched and the case (illbe decided on other available &rounds. et the force of the presu'ption is not sufficient to catapult afunda'entall% deficient la( into the safe environs of constitutionalit%. Of course, (here the la(clearl% and palpabl% trans&resses the hallo(ed do'ain of the or&anic la(, it 'ust be struc do(n onsi&ht lest the positive co''ands of the funda'ental la( be undul% eroded.

eril%, the onerous tas of rebuttin& the presu'ption (ei&hs heavil% on the part% challen&in& thevalidit% of the statute. e 'ust de'onstrate be%ond an% tin&e of doubt that there is indeed aninfrin&e'ent of the constitution, for absent such a sho(in&, there can be no findin& ofunconstitutionalit%. # doubt, even if (ell*founded, (ill hardl% suffice. #s tersel% put b% JusticeMalcol', +To 'ob/ &( /o ((/+&).+9#nd petitioner has 'iserabl% failed in the instant case todischar&e his burden and overco'e the presu'ption of constitutionalit% of the Plunder $a(.

#s it is (ritten, the Plunder $a( contains ascertainable standards and (ell*defined para'eters(hich (ould enable the accused to deter'ine the nature of his violation. Section ; is sufficientl%e-plicit in its description of the acts, conduct and conditions re?uired or forbidden, and prescribes theele'ents of the cri'e (ith reasonable certaint% and particularit%. !hus *

&. That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance with members of

his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or otherpersons5

6. That he amassed, accumulated or ac'uired ill-gotten wealth through a combination orseries of the following overt or criminal acts7 (a) through misappropriation, conversion,misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury5 (b) by receiving,directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickback or any other form of

pecuniary benefits from any person and8or entity in connection with any government contractor pro9ect or by reason of the office or position of the public officer5 (c) by the illegal orfraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the :ational 0overnment or anyof its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of 0overnment owned or controlledcorporations or their subsidiaries5 (d) by obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly

any shares of stock, e'uity or any other form of interest or participation including the promiseof future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking5 (e) by establishingagricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and8orimplementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or specialinterests5 or (f) by taking advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection orinfluence to un9ustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and

pre9udice of the /ilipino people and the $epublic of the "hilippines5 and,


5/122

;. That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated orac'uired is at least "*+,+++,+++.++.

#s lon& as the la( affords so'e co'prehensible &uide or rule that (ould infor' those (ho aresubect to it (hat conduct (ould render the' liable to its penalties, its validit% (ill be sustained. It

'ust sufficientl% &uide the ud&e in its application< the counsel, in defendin& one char&ed (ith itsviolation< and 'ore i'portantl%, the accused, in identif%in& the real' of the proscribed conduct.Indeed, it can be understood (ith little difficult% that (hat the assailed statute punishes is the act of apublic officer in a'assin& or accu'ulatin& ill*&otten (ealth of at leastP93,333,333.33 throu&h aseries or co'bination of acts enu'erated in Sec. 7, par. 5d6, of the Plunder $a(.

In fact, the a'ended Infor'ation itself closel% tracs the lan&ua&e of the la(, indicatin& (ithreasonable certaint% the various ele'ents of the offense (hich petitioner is alle&ed to haveco''itted>

+!he undersi&ned O'buds'an, Prosecutor and OIC*Director, EPI), Office of the O'buds'an,hereb% accuses for'er PRES!"ENT O- TE REPUB!C O- TE P!!PP!NES, Joseph Eercito

Estrada, a..a. 0#SIONB S#$ONB#0 and a..a. 0JOSE E$#RDE,0 to&ether (ith Jose 0Jin&&o%0Estrada, Charlie 0#ton&0 #n&, Ed(ard Serapio, olanda !. Ricaforte, #l'a #lfaro, JON DOE a..a.Eleuterio !an OREleuterio Ra'os !an or Mr. "%, Jane Doe a..a. Delia Raas, and John"OESFJane Does, of the cri'e of Plunder, defined and penali1ed under R.#. No. 2343, as a'ended b%Sec. 7; of R.#. No. 289:, co''itted as follo(s>

!hat durin& the period fro' June, 7::4 to Januar% ;337, in the Philippines, and (ithin theurisdiction of this onorable Court, accused Joseph Eercito Estrada,TEN A PRES!"ENT O- TEREPUB!C O- TE P!!PP!NES, b% hi'self #ND@OR in CONN!ANCECONSP!RAC# (ith hisco*accused, O ARE MEMBERS O- !S -AM!#, REAT!ES B# A--!N!T# ORCONSANGU!N!T#, BUS!NESS ASSOC!ATES, SUBOR"!NATES AN"OR OTER PERSONS, B#TA3!NG UN"UE A"ANTAGE O- !S O--!C!A POS!T!ON, AUTOR!T#, REAT!ONS!P,CONNECT!ON, OR !N-UENCE, did then and there (illfull%, unla(full% and cri'inall% a'ass,

accu'ulate and ac?uire B# !MSE-, "!RECT# OR !N"!RECT#, ill*&otten (ealth in thea&&re&ate a'ount orTOTA AUE o -OUR B!!ON N!NET# SEEN M!!ON E!GTUN"RE" -OUR TOUSAN" ONE UN"RE" SEENT# TREE PESOS AN" SEENTEENCENTAOS5P=,3:2,43=,72A.726, 'ore or less,TEREB# UNJUST# ENR!C!NG !MSE- ORTEMSEES AT TE EPENSE AN" TO TE "AMAGE O- TE -!!P!NO PEOPE AN" TEREPUB!C O- TE P!!PP!NES, throu&h AN# OR Aco'bination OR#series ofovert ORcri'inal acts, OR S!M!AR SCEMES OR MEANS, described as follo(s>

5a6 b% receivin& ORcollectin&, directl% or indirectl%, onSEERA !NSTANCES, MONE# !NTE AGGREGATE AMOUNT O- -!E UN"RE" -ORT#-!E M!!ON PESOS$P545,000,000.00*, MORE OR ESS, -ROM !EGA GAMB!NG !N TE -ORM O-G!-T, SARE, PERCENTAGE, 3!C3BAC3 OR AN# -ORM O- PECUN!AR# BENE-!T, B#

!MSE- AN"ORin connection (ith co*accusedCAR!E 7ATONG7 ANG,


6/122

connivance (ith co*accused Charlie 0#ton&0 #n&, #l'a #lfaro,JON "OE +.:.+.EleuterioRa'os !an or Mr. "%, Jane Doe a..a. Delia Raas,AN" OTER JON "OES ; JANE"OES< 5italic supplied6.

5c6 b% directin&, orderin& and co'pellin&, -OR !S PERSONA GA!N AN" BENE-!T, the

Bovern'ent Service Insurance S%ste' 5BSIS6 TO PURCASE


7/122

so lon& as the le&islative (ill is clear, or at least, can be &athered fro' the (hole act, (hich isdistinctl% e-pressed in the Plunder $a(.

Moreover, it is a (ell*settled principle of le&al her'eneutics that (ords of a statute (ill be interpretedin their natural, plain and ordinar% acceptation and si&nification,2unless it is evident that the

le&islature intended a technical or special le&al 'eanin& to those (ords.4!he intention of thela('aers * (ho are, ordinaril%, untrained philolo&ists and le-ico&raphers * to use statutor%phraseolo&% in such a 'anner is al(a%s presu'ed. !hus, /ebster0s Ne( Colle&iate Dictionar%contains the follo(in& co''onl% accepted definition of the (ords +co'bination+ and +series>+

#ombination* the result or product of co'binin&< the act or process of co'binin&. !ocombine is tobrin& into such close relationship as to obscure individual characters.

%eries* a nu'ber of thin&s or events of the sa'e class co'in& one after another in spatial andte'poral succession.

!hat Con&ress intended the (ords +co'bination+ and +series+ to be understood in their popular

'eanin&s is pristinel% evident fro' the le&islative deliberations on the bill (hich eventuall% beca'eR# 2343 or the Plunder $a(>

DEL!E"#$%&' %( $)E !*#+E"#L *%++$$EE %& J'$*E, +ay //

$". %!$O7 am 9ust intrigued again by our definition of plunder. >e say T?$O30? #O1@:TO: O$ %$% O/ OA$T O$ #$1:L #T% % 1:TO:! : %#TO: O:?$O/. :ow when we say combination, we actually mean to say, if there are two or more means,we mean to say that number one and two or number one and something else are included, howabout a series of the same actB /or example, through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, willthese be included alsoB

$". 0$#7 4eah, because we say a series.

$". %!$O7 %eries.

$". 0$#7 4eah, we include series.

$". %!$O7 @ut we say we begin with a combination.

$". 0$#7 4es.

$". %!$O7 >hen we say combination, it seems that -

$". 0$#7 Two.

$". %!$O7 :ot only two but we seem to mean that two of the enumerated means not twice ofone enumeration.

$". 0$#7 :o, no, not twice.

$". %!$O7 :ot twiceB


8/122

$". 0$#7 4es. #ombination is not twice - but combination, two acts.

$". %!$O7 %o in other words, thatCs it. >hen we say combination, we mean, two different acts. tcannot be a repetition of the same act.

$". 0$#7 That be referred to series, yeah.

$". %!$O7 :o, no. %upposing one act is repeated, so there are two.

$". 0$#7 series.

$". %!$O7 ThatCs not series. ts a combination. @ecause when we say combination or series, weseem to say that two or more, di baB

$". 0$#7 4es, this distinguishes it really from ordinary crimes. That is why, said, that is a verygood suggestion because if it is only one act, it may fall under ordinary crime but we have here acombination or series of overt or criminal acts. %o x x x x

$". 0$#7 %eries. One after the other eh di....

%:. T:!7 %o that would fall under the term DseriesBD

$". 0$#7 %eries, oo.

$". %!$O7 :ow, if it is a combination, ano, two misappropriations....

$". 0$#7 ts not... Two misappropriations will not be combination. %eries.

$". %!$O7 %o, it is not a combinationB

$". 0$#7 4es.

$". %!$O7 >hen you say combination, two differentB

$". 0$#7 4es.

%:. T:!7 Two different.

$". %!$O7 Two different acts.

$". 0$#7 /or example, ha...

$". %!$O7 :ow a series, meaning, repetition...

!L@$TO:% O: %:T @LL :O. E;;, F


9/122

Da series of overt or,D to read, therefore7 Dor conspiracy #O11TT! by criminal acts such as.D$emove the idea of necessitating Da series.D nyway, the criminal acts are in the plural.

%:TO$ T:!7 That would mean a combination of two or more of the acts mentioned in this.

T? "$%!:T7 "robably two or more would be....

%:TO$ 1#!7 4es, because Da seriesD implies several or many5 two or more.

%:TO$ T:!7 ccepted, 1r. "resident x x x x

T? "$%!:T7 f there is only one, then he has to be prosecuted under the particular crime. @utwhen we say Dacts of plunderD there should be, at least, two or more.

%:TO$ $O13LO7 n other words, that is already covered by existing laws, 1r. "resident.

!hus (hen the Plunder $a( speas of +co'bination,+ it is referrin& to at least t(o 5;6 acts fallin&under different cate&ories of enu'eration provided in Sec. 7, par. 5d6, e.&., raids on the publictreasur% in Sec. 7, par. 5d6, subpar. 576, and fraudulent conve%ance of assets belon&in& to theNational Bovern'ent under Sec. 7, par. 5d6, subpar. 5A6.

On the other hand, to constitute a series+ there 'ust be t(o 5;6 or 'ore overt or cri'inal acts fallin&under the sa'e cate&or% of enu'eration found in Sec. 7, par. 5d6, sa%, 'isappropriation,'alversation and raids on the public treasur%, all of (hich fall under Sec. 7, par. 5d6, subpar. 576.eril%, had the le&islature intended a technical or distinctive 'eanin& for +co'bination+ and +series,+it (ould have taen &reater pains in specificall% providin& for it in the la(.

#s for +pattern,+ (e a&ree (ith the observations of the Sandi&anba%an:that this ter' is sufficientl%defined in Sec. =, in relation to Sec. 7, par. 5d6, and Sec. ; *

x x x x under %ec. & (d) of the law, a =pattern= consists of at least a combination or series of overt orcriminal acts enumerated in subsections (&) to (F) of %ec. & (d). %econdly, pursuant to %ec. 6 of thelaw, the pattern of overt or criminal acts is directed towards a common purpose or goal which is toenable the public officer to amass, accumulate or ac'uire ill-gotten wealth. nd thirdly, there musteither be an =overall unlawful scheme= or =conspiracy= to achieve said common goal. s commonlyunderstood, the term =overall unlawful scheme= indicates a =general plan of action or method= whichthe principal accused and public officer and others conniving with him follow to achieve the aforesaidcommon goal. n the alternative, if there is no such overall scheme or where the schemes ormethods used by multiple accused vary, the overt or criminal acts must form part of a conspiracy toattain a common goal.

ence, it cannot plausibl% be contended that the la( does not &ive a fair (arnin& and sufficientnotice of (hat it sees to penali1e. "nder the circu'stances, petitioner0s reliance on the +void*for*va&ueness+ doctrine is 'anifestl% 'isplaced. !he doctrine has been for'ulated in various (a%s, butis 'ost co''onl% stated to the effect that a statute establishin& a cri'inal offense 'ust define theoffense (ith sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinar% intelli&ence can understand (hat conductis prohibited b% the statute. It can onl% be invoed a&ainst that specie of le&islation that is utterl%va&ue on its face, i.e., that (hich cannot be clarified either b% a savin& clause or b% construction.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt9


10/122

# statute or act 'a% be said to be va&ue (hen it lacs co'prehensible standards that 'en ofco''on intelli&ence 'ust necessaril% &uess at its 'eanin& and differ in its application. In suchinstance, the statute is repu&nant to the Constitution in t(o 5;6 respects * it violates due process forfailure to accord persons, especiall% the parties tar&eted b% it, fair notice of (hat conduct to avoid #nd, Mr. President, the Bentle'an feels that it is contained in Section =, Ruleof Evidence, (hich, in the Bentle'an0s vie(, (ould provide for a speedier and faster process ofattendin& to this ind of casesL

SEN#!OR !##D#> es, Mr. President . . .A=

Senator !aada (as onl% sa%in& that (here the char&e is conspirac% to co''it plunder, theprosecution need not prove each and ever% cri'inal act done to further the sche'e or conspirac%, itbein& enou&h if it proves be%ond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or ci'inal acts indicative of theoverall unla(ful sche'e or conspirac%. #s far as the acts constitutin& the pattern are concerned,ho(ever, the ele'ents of the cri'e 'ust be proved and the re?uisitemens rea'ust be sho(n.

Indeed, K; provides that *

#n% person (ho participated (ith the said public officer in the co''ission of an offense contributin&

to the cri'e of plunder shall lie(ise be punished for such offense. In the i'position of penalties, thede&ree of participation and the attendance of 'iti&atin& and e-tenuatin& circu'stances, as providedb% the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered b% the court.

!he application of 'iti&atin& and e-tenuatin& circu'stances in the Revised Penal Code toprosecutions under the #nti*Plunder $a( indicates ?uite clearl% thatmens reais an ele'ent ofplunder since the de&ree of responsibilit% of the offender is deter'ined b% his cri'inal intent. It istrue that K; refers to +an% person (ho participates (ith the said public officer in the co''ission ofan offense contributin& to the cri'e of plunder.+ !here is no reason to believe, ho(ever, that it doesnot appl% as (ell to the public officer as principal in the cri'e. #s Justice ol'es said> +/e a&ree toall the &eneralities about not suppl%in& cri'inal la(s (ith (hat the% o'it, but there is no canona&ainst usin& co''on sense in construin& la(s as sa%in& (hat the% obviousl% 'ean.+A9

inall%, an% doubt as to (hether the cri'e of plunder is amalum in se'ust be dee'ed to have beenresolved in the affir'ative b% the decision of Con&ress in 7::A to include it a'on& the heinouscri'es punishable b%reclusion perpetuato death. Other heinous cri'es are punished (ith death asa strai&ht penalt% in R.#. No. 289:. Referrin& to these &roups of heinous cri'es, this Court heldin "eople v. chegaray>A8

!he evil of a cri'e 'a% tae various for's. !here are cri'es that are, b% their ver% nature,despicable, either because life (as callousl% taen or the victi' is treated lie an ani'al and utterl%
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt36


17/122

dehu'ani1ed as to co'pletel% disrupt the nor'al course of his or her &ro(th as a hu'an bein& . . . .Seen in this li&ht, the capital cri'es of idnappin& and serious ille&al detention for ranso' resultin&in the death of the victi' or the victi' is raped, tortured, or subected to dehu'ani1in& acts

I. I! IO$#!ES !E D"E PROCESS C$#"SE OR I!S #B"ENESS

II. I! IO$#!ES !E CONS!I!"!ION#$ RIB! O !E #CC"SED !O NO/ !EN#!"RE #ND C#"SE O !E #CC"S#!ION #B#INS! IM

III. I! IO$#!ES !E D"E PROCESS C$#"SE #ND !E CONS!I!"!ION#$PRES"MP!ION O INNOCENCE ) $O/ERINB !E "#N!"M O EIDENCENECESS#R OR PROINB !E COMPONEN! E$EMEN!S O P$"NDER

I. I! IS )EOND !E CONS!I!"!ION#$ PO/ER O !E $EBIS$#!"RE !O DE$IMI!!E RE#SON#)$E DO")! S!#ND#RD #ND !O #)O$IS !E E$EMEN! O MENSRE# IN M#$# IN SECRIMES ) CONER!INB !ESE !O M#$# PROI)I!#, INIO$#!ION O !E D"E PROCESS CONCEP! O CRIMIN#$ RESPONSI)I$I!.9

The provisions of law involved

Section ; of R.#. No. 2343 provides>

!efinition of the #rime of "lunder< "enalties. -#n% public officer (ho, b% hi'self or in connivance(ith 'e'bers of his fa'il%, relatives b% affinit% or consan&uinit%, business associates, subordinatesor other persons, a'asses, accu'ulates or ac?uires ill*&otten (ealth throu&h a co'bination orseries of overt or cri'inal acts as described in Section 75d6 hereof in the a&&re&ate a'ount or totalvalue of at least ift% 'illion pesos 5P93,333,333.336 shall be &uilt% of the cri'e of plunder and shallbe punished b% reclusion perpetuato death. #n% person (ho participated (ith the said public officerin the co''ission of an offense contributin& to the cri'e of plunder shall lie(ise be punished forsuch offense. In the i'position of penalties, the de&ree of participation and the attendance of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt5khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt5k


24/122

'iti&atin& and e-tenuatin& circu'stances, as provided b% the Revised Penal Code, shall beconsidered b% the court. !he court shall declare an% and all ill*&otten (ealth and their interests andother inco'es and assets includin& the properties and shares of stocs derived fro' the deposit orinvest'ent thereof forfeited in favor of the State. 5s amended by %ec. &6, $ :o. EF*G.)

Section 75d6 of the sa'e la( defines +ill*&otten (ealth+ as +an% asset, propert%, business enterpriseor 'aterial possession of an% person (ithin the purvie( of Section !(o 5;6+ hereof, ac?uired b% hi'directl% or indirectl% throu&h du''ies, no'inees, a&ents, subordinates, and@or business associatesb% an% co'bination or series of the follo(in& 'eans or si'ilar sche'es>

7. !hrou&h 'isappropriation, conversion, 'isuse or 'alversation of public funds or raids onthe public treasur%

7.6 /E!ER R.#. NO. 2343 IS "NCONS!I!"!ION#$ OR )EINB #B"E +the result or product or product ofco'binin&> a union or a&&re&ate 'ade of co'binin& one thin& (ith another.+9:

In the conte-t of R.#. No. 2343, +co'bination+ as su&&ested b% the Solicitor Beneral 'eans that atleast t(o of the enu'erated acts found in Section 75d6, i.e., one of an% of the enu'erated acts,co'bined (ith another act fallin& under an% other of the enu'erated 'eans 'a% constitute thecri'e of plunder. /ith respect to the ter' +series,+ the 'aorit% states that it has been understood aspertainin& to +t(o or 'ore overt or cri'inal acts fallin& under the sa'e cate&or%+83as &leaned fro'the deliberations on the la( in the ouse of Representatives and the Senate.

urther, the i'port of +co'bination+ or +series+ can be ascertained, the 'aorit% insists,87fro' thefollo(in& deliberations in the )ica'eral Conference Co''ittee on Ma% 2, 7::7>

REP. ISIDRO> I a' ust intri&ued a&ain b% our definition of plunder. /e sa%, !RO"B #COM)IN#!ION OR SERIES O OER! OR CRIMIN#$ #C!S #S MEN!IONED IN SEC!ION ONEEREO. No( (hen (e sa% co'bination, (e actuall% 'ean to sa%, if there are t(o or 'ore 'eans,(e 'ean to sa% that nu'ber one and t(o or nu'ber one and so'ethin& else are included, ho(about a series of the sa'e actL or e-a'ple, throu&h 'isappropriation, conversion, 'isuse, (illthese be included alsoL

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI#6> eah, because (e sa% series.

REP. ISIDRO> Series.

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI#6> eah, (e include series.

REP. ISIDRO> )ut (e sa% (e be&in (ith a co'bination.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt55khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt56khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt56khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt57khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt58khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt59khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt60khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt61khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt55khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt56khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt57khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt58khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt59khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt60khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt61k


32/122

!E C#IRM#N> 5REP. B#RCI#6> es.

REP. ISIDRO> /hen (e sa% co'bination, it see's that*

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI#6> !(o.

REP. ISIDRO> Not onl% t(o but (e see' to 'ean that t(o of the enu'erated 'eans not t(ice of oneenu'eration.

!E C#IRM#N> 5REP. B#RCI#6> No, no, not t(ice.

REP. ISIDRO> Not t(iceL

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI#6> es. Co'bination is not t(iceQbut co'bination, t(o acts.

REP. ISIDRO> So in other (ords, thats it. /hen (e sa% co'bination, (e 'ean t(o different acts. Itcan not be a repetition of the sa'e act.

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI#6> !hat be referred to series. eah.

REP. ISIDRO> No, no. Supposin& one act is repeated, so there are t(o.

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI#6> # series.

REP. ISIDRO> !hats not series. Its a co'bination. )ecause (hen (e sa% co'bination or series, (esee' to sa% that t(o or 'ore, di baL

!E C#IRM#N> 5REP. B#RCI#6> es, !his distin&uishes it, reall%, fro' the ordinar% cri'es. !hat is

(h%, I said, that is a ver% &ood su&&estion because if it is onl% one act, it 'a% fall under ordinar%cri'e but (e have here a co'bination or series of overt or cri'inal acts. So

ON. ISIDRO> I no( (hat %ou are talin& about. or e-a'ple, throu&h 'isappropriation,conversion, 'isuse or 'alversation of public funds (ho raids the public treasur%, no(, for e-a'ple,'isappropriation, if there are a series of 'isappropriationsL

- - -

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI#6> Series. One after the other eh di

!E C#IRM#N 5SEN !##D#6> So that (ould fall under ter' +series+L

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI#6> Series, oo.

REP. ISIDRO> No(, if it is co'bination, ano, t(o 'isappropriations

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI#6> Its not t(o 'isappropriations (ill not be co'bination. Series.

REP. ISIDRO> So, it is not a co'binationL


33/122

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI#6> es.

REP. ISIDRO> /hen %ou sa% +co'bination+, t(o differentL

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI#6> es.

!E C#IRM#N 5SEN. !##D#6> !(o different.

REP. ISIDRO> !(o different acts.

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI#6> or e-a'ple, ha

REP. ISIDRO> No( a series, 'eanin&, repetition8;

!he follo(in& deliberations in the Senate are pointed to b% the 'aorit%8Ato sho( that the (ords+co'bination+ and +series+ are &iven their ordinar% 'eanin&>

Senator Maceda. In line of our interpellations that so'eti'es +one+ or 'a%be even +t(o+ acts 'a%alread% result in such a bi& a'ount, on line ;9, (ould the Sponsor consider deletin& the (ords +aseries of overt or+. !o read, therefore> +or conspirac% COMMI!!ED b% cri'inal acts such as+.Re'ove the idea of necessitatin& +a series+. #n%(a%, the cri'inal acts are in the plural.

Senator !aada. !hat (ould 'ean a co'bination of t(o or 'ore of the acts 'entioned in this.

!he President. Probabl%, t(o or 'ore (ould be.

Senator Maceda. es, because a series i'plies several or 'an% t(o or 'ore.

Senator !aada. #ccepted, Mr. President.

- - -

!he President. If there is onl% one, then he has to be prosecuted under the particular cri'e. )ut(hen (e sa% acts of plunder there should be, at least, t(o or 'ore.

Senator Ro'ulo. In other (ords, that is alread% covered b% e-istin& la(s, Mr. President.8=

!o '% 'ind, resort to the dictionar% 'eanin& of the ter's +co'bination+ and +series+ as (ell asrecourse to the deliberations of the la('aers onl% serve to prove that R.#. No. 2343 failed tosatisf% the strict re?uire'ents of the Constitution on clarit% and definiteness. Note that the e%

ele'ent to the cri'e of plunder is that the public officer, b% hi'self or in conspirac% (ith others,a'asses, accu'ulates, or ac?uires +ill*&otten (ealth+ throu&h a +co'bination or series of overt orcri'inal acts+ as described in Section 75d6 of the la(. Senator Bon1ales, durin& the deliberations inthe Senate, alread% raised serious concern over the lac of a statutor% definition of (hat constitutes+co'bination+ or +series+, conse?uentl%, e-pressin& his fears that Section ; of R.#. No. 2343 'i&htbe violative of due process>

Senator Bon1ales. !o co''it the offense of plunder, as defined in this #ct and (hile constitutin& asin&le offense, it 'ust consist of a series of overt or cri'inal acts, such as briber%, e-tortion,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt62khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt63khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt63khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt64khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt62khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt63khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt64k


34/122

'alversation of public funds, s(indlin&, ille&al e-action, and &raft or corrupt practices act and lieoffenses. No(, Mr. President, I thin, this provision, b% itself (ill be va&ue. I a' afraid that it 'i&ht befaulted for bein& violative of the due process clause and the ri&ht to be infor'ed of the nature andcause of accusation of an accused. )ecause, (hat is 'eant b% +series of overt or cri'inal acts+L I'ean, (ould ;, A, = or 9 constitute a seriesL Durin& the period of a'end'ents, can (e establish a

'ini'u' of overt acts lie, for e-a'ple, robber% in bandL !he la( defines (hat is robber% in bandb% the nu'ber of participants therein. In this particular case probabl%, (e can statutoril% provide forthe definition of +series+ so that t(o, for e-a'ple, (ould that be alread% a seriesL Or, three, (hat(ould be the basis for such deter'inationL895E'phasis supplied.6

!he point raised b% Senator Bon1ales is crucial and (ell*taen. I share petitioners observation that(hen penal la(s enacted b% Con&ress 'ae reference to a ter' or concept re?uirin& a ?uantitativedefinition, these la(s are so crafted as to specificall% state the e-act nu'ber or percenta&enecessar% to constitute the ele'ents of a cri'e. !o cite a fe(>

+)and+ +/henever 'ore than three ar'ed 'alefactors shall have acted to&ether in theco''ission of an offense, it shall be dee'ed to have been co''itted b% a band.+ 5#rticle 7=G8H,

Revised Penal Code688

+Conspirac%+ +# conspirac% e-ists (hen t(o or 'ore persons co'e to an a&ree'ent concernin&the co''ission of a felon% and decide to co''it it.+ 5#rticle 4, Revised Penal Code682

+Ille&al Recruit'ent b% a S%ndicate+ +Ille&al recruit'ent is dee'ed co''itted b% a s%ndicate ifcarried out b% a &roup of three 5A6 or 'ore persons conspirin& and@or confederatin& (ith one anotherin carr%in& out an% unla(ful or ille&al transaction, enterprise or sche'e - - -.+ 5Section A4, $aborCode6

+$ar&e*scale Ille&al Recruit'ent+ +Ille&al recruit'ent is dee'ed co''itted in lar&e scale ifco''itted a&ainst three 5A6 or 'ore persons individuall% or as a &roup.+ 5Section A4, $abor Code6

+Or&ani1ed@S%ndicated Cri'e Broup+ +GMHeans a &roup of t(o or 'ore persons collaboratin&,confederatin& or 'utuall% helpin& one another for purposes of &ain in the co''ission of an% cri'e.+5#rticle 8; 57657a6, Revised Penal Code684

+S(indlin& b% a S%ndicate+ +- - - if the s(indlin& 5estafa6 is co''itted b% a s%ndicate consistin& offive or 'ore persons for'ed (ith the intention of carr%in& out the unla(ful or ille&al act, transaction,enterprise or sche'e - - - .+ 5Section 7, P.D. No. 784:68:

!he deliberations of the )ica'eral Conference Co''ittee and of the Senate cited b% the 'aorit%,consistin& 'ostl% of unfinished sentences, offer ver% little help in clarif%in& the nebulous concept ofplunder. #ll that the% indicate is that Con&ress see'in&l% intended to hold liable for plunder a person(ho> 576 co''its at least t(o counts of an% one of the acts 'entioned in Section 75d6 of R.#. No.

2343, in (hich case, such person co''its plunder b% a series of overt cri'inal acts< or 5;6 co''itsat least one count of at least t(o of the acts 'entioned in Section 75d6, in (hich case, such personco''its plunder b% a co'bination of overt cri'inal acts. Said discussions hardl% provide a (indo(as to the e-act nature of this cri'e.

# closer loo at the e-chan&e bet(een Representatives Barcia and Isidro and Senator !aada(ould i'pl% that initiall%, co'bination (as intended to 'ean +t(o or 'ore 'eans,+23i.e., +nu'berone and t(o or nu'ber one and so'ethin& else - - -,+27+t(o of the enu'erated 'eans not t(ice of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt65khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt66khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt67khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt68khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt69khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt70khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt70khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt71khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt71khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt65khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt66khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt67khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt68khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt69khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt70khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt71k


35/122

one enu'eration,+2;+t(o different acts.+2ASeries (ould refer to +a repetition of the sa'eact.+2=o(ever, the distinction (as a&ain lost as can be &leaned fro' the follo(in&>

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI#6 es. Co'bination is not t(ice but co'bination, t(o acts.

REP. ISIDRO. So in other (ords, thats it. /hen (e sa% co'bination, (e 'ean, t(o different acts. Itcan not be a repetition of the sa'e act.

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI#6. !hat be referred to series. eah.

REP. ISIDRO. No, no. Supposin& one act is repeated, so there are t(o.

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI#6. # series.

REP. ISIDRO. !hats not series. Its a co'bination. )ecause (hen (e sa% co'bination or series, (esee' to sa% that t(o or 'ore, di baL

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI#6. es. !his distin&uishes it reall% the ordinar% *** !hats (h% I said,thats a ver% &ood su&&estion, because if its onl% one act, it 'a% fall under ordinar% cri'e. )ut (ehave here a co'bination or series, of overt or cri'inal acts+ 5E'phasis supplied6.29

- - -

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI# P.6 Series. One after the other eh di

!E C#IRM#N 5SEN. !##D#6 So, that (ould fall under the ter' +series+L

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI# P6 Series, oo.

REP. ISIDRO. No(, if it is co'bination, ano, t(o 'isappropriations

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI#6 Its not t(o 'isappropriations (ill not be co'bination. Series.

REP. ISIDRO. So, it is not a co'binationL

!E C#IRM#N. 5REP. B#RCI# P.6 es.

REP. ISIDRO. /hen (e sa% +co'bination+, t(o differentL

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI# P.6 es.

!E C#IRM#N 5SEN. !##D#6 !(o different.

REP. ISIDRO. !(o different acts.

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI# P.6 or e-a'ple, ha

REP. ISIDRO. No( a series, 'eanin&, repetition
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt72khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt72khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt73khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt74khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt75khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt72khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt73khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt74khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt75k


36/122

!E C#IRM#N 5SEN. !##D#6 es.

REP. ISIDRO. /ith that

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI# P.6 !han %ou.

!E C#IRM#N 5SEN. !##D#6 So, it could be a series of an% of the acts 'entioned inpara&raphs 7, A, =, 9 of Section ; 5d6, or 7 5d6 rather, or a co'bination of an% of the acts'entioned in para&raph 7 alone, or para&raph ; alone or para&raph A or para&raph =.

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI# P.6 I thin co'bination 'a%be(hich oneL SeriesL

!E C#IRM#N 5SEN. !##D#6 Series or co'bination.

REP. ISIDRO. /hich one, co'bination or series or series or co'binationL

!E C#IRM#N 5SEN. !##D#6 Oa%. N&a%on doon sa definition, ano, Section ;, definition, doonsa portion n& Saan i%onL #s 'entioned, as described

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI# P.6 Described. I thin that is

!E C#IRM#N 5SEN. !##D#6 better than +'entioned+. es.

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI# P.6 Oa%L

REP. ISIDRO. er% &ood.

!E C#IRM#N. 5SEN. !##D#6 Oo, 'ara'i pon& sala'at.

!E C#IRM#N 5REP. B#RCI# P.6 Mara'in& sala'at po.

!he 'eetin& (as adourned at 7>AA p.'.+285E'phasis supplied.6

!he afore?uoted deliberations, especiall% the latter part thereof, (ould sho( a dearth of focus torender precise the definition of the ter's. Phrases (ere uttered but (ere left unfinished. !hee-a'ples cited (ere not ver% definite. "nfortunatel%, the deliberations (ere apparentl% adourned(ithout the Co''ittee 'e'bers the'selves bein& clear on the concept of series and co'bination.

Moreover, if +co'bination+ as used in the la( si'pl% refers to the a'assin&, accu'ulation andac?uisition of ill*&otten (ealth a'ountin& to at least P93 Million throu&h at least t(o of the 'eans

enu'erated in Section 75d6, and +series,+ to at least t(o counts of one of the 'odes under saidsection, the accused could be 'eted out the death penalt% for acts (hich, if taen separatel%, i.e.,not considered as part of the co'bination or series, (ould ordinaril% result in the i'position ofcorrectional penalties onl%. If such interpretation (ould be adopted, the Plunder la( (ould be sooppressive and arbitrar% as to violate due process and the constitutional &uarantees a&ainst cruel orinhu'an punish'ent.22!he penalt% (ould be blatantl% disproportionate to the offense. Petitionerse-a'ples illustrate this absurdit%>
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt76khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt77khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt77khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt76khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt77k


37/122

a. One act of indirect briber% 5penali1ed under #rt. ;77 of the Revised Penal Code (ith prisioncorreccional in its 'ediu' and 'a-i'u' periods6,

co'bined (ith *

one act of fraud a&ainst the public treasur% 5penali1ed under #rt. ;7A of the Revised Penal Code(ith prision correccional in its 'ediu' period to prision 'a%or in its 'ini'u' period6.

e?uals

Plunder 5punished b% reclusion perpetua to death plus forfeiture of assets under R. #. 23436

b. One act of prohibited transaction 5penali1ed under #rt. ;79 of the Revised Penal Code (ith prisioncorreccional in its 'ini'u' period or a fine ran&in& fro' P;33 to P7,333 or both6.

co'bined (ith

one act of establishin& a co''ercial 'onopol% 5penali1ed under #rt. 748 of Revised Penal Code(ith prision correccional in its 'ini'u' or a fine ran&in& fro' P;33 to P8,33, or both.

e?uals

Plunder 5punished b% reclusion perpetua to death, and forfeiture of assets under R.#. 23436.

c. One act of possession of prohibited interest b% a public officer 5penali1ed (ith prision correccionalin its 'ini'u' period or a fine of P;33 to P7,333, or both under #rt. ;78 of the Revised PenalCode6.

co'bined (ith

one act of co'bination or conspirac% in restraint of trade 5penali1ed under #rt. 748 of the RevisedPenal Code (ith prision correccional in its 'ini'u' period, or a fine of P;33 to P7,333, or both6,

e?uals

plunder 5punished b% reclusion perpetua to death, and forfeiture of assets6.24

!he ar&u'ent that hi&her penalties 'a% be i'posed (here t(o or 'ore distinct cri'inal acts areco'bined and are re&arded as special co'ple- cri'es, i.e., rape (ith ho'icide, does not ustif% thei'position of the penalt% ofreclusion perpetuato death in case plunder is co''itted. !aen sin&l%,rape is punishable b% reclusion perpetua


38/122

It 'a% also be pointed out that the definition of +ill*&otten (ealth+ in Section 75d6 has reference to theac?uisition of propert% 5b% the accused hi'self or in connivance (ith others6 +b% an% co'bination orseries+ of the +'eans+ or +si'ilar sche'es+ enu'erated therein, (hich include the follo(in&>

- - -

=. )% obtainin&, receivin& or acceptin& directl% or indirectl% an% shares of stoc, e?uit% or an% otherfor's of interest or participation includin& the pro'ise of future e'plo%'ent or an% businessenterprise or undertain&s

pattern> an arran&e'ent or order of thin&s or activit%.:;

sche'e> desi&n< proect< plot.:A

#t 'ost, (hat the use of these ter's si&nifies is that (hile 'ultiplicit% of the acts 5at least t(o or'ore6 is necessar%, this is not sufficient to constitute plunder. #s stated earlier, (ithout the ele'entof +pattern+ indicative of an +overall unla(ful sche'e,+ the acts 'erel% constitute isolated ordisconnected cri'inal offenses punishable b% the Revised Penal Code or other special la(s.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt91khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt91khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt91khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt92khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt92khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt93khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt93khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt91khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt92khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt93k


40/122

!he co''ission of t(o or 'ore of the acts fallin& under Section 75d6 is no &uarantee that the% fallinto a +pattern+ or +an% arran&e'ent or order.+ It is not the nu'ber of acts but the relationship thatthe% bear to each other or to so'e e-ternal or&ani1in& principle that renders the' +ordered+ or+arran&ed+>

# pattern is an arran&e'ent or order of thin&s, or activit%, and the 'ere fact that there are a nu'berof predicates is no &uarantee that the% fall into an arran&e'ent or order. It is not the nu'ber ofpredicates but the relationship that the% bear to each other or to so'e e-ternal or&ani1in& principlethat renders the' ordered or arran&ed.:=

In an% event, it is hardl% possible that t(o predicate acts can for' a pattern>

!he i'plication is that (hile t(o acts are necessar%, the% 'a% not be sufficient. Indeed, in co''onparlance, t(o of an%thin& (ill not &enerall% for' a pattern.:9

In ?.


41/122

to a closed period of repeated conduct, or to past conduct that b% its nature proects into the future(ith a threat of repetition.+738

In his separate concurrin& opinion, Justice Scalia reected the 'aorit%s for'ulation. !he +talis'anicphrase+ of +continuit% plus relationship+ is, as put b% Justice Scalia, about as helpful as advisin& the

courts that +life is a fountain.+ e (rites>

- - - !hus, (hen K7:87596 sa%s that a pattern +re?uires at least t(o acts of raceteerin& activit%+ it isdescribin& (hat is needful but not sufficient. 5If that (ere not the case, the concept of +pattern+ (ouldhave been unnecessar%, and the statute could si'pl% have attached liabilit% to +'ultiple acts ofraceteerin& activit%+6. )ut (hat that so'ethin& 'ore is, is be%ond 'e. #s I have su&&ested, it isalso be%ond the Court. !oda%s opinion has added nothin& to i'prove our prior &uidance, (hich hascreated a aleidoscope of Circuit positions, e-cept to clarif% that RICO 'a% in addition be violated(hen there is a +threat of continuit%.+ It see's to 'e this increases rather than re'oves theva&ueness. !here is no reason to believe that the Court of #ppeals (ill be an% 'ore unified in thefuture, than the% have in the past, re&ardin& the content of this la(.

!hat situation is bad enou&h (ith respect to an% statute, but it is intolerable (ith respect to RICO.or it is not onl% true, as Justice Marshall co''ented in %edima, %.".$.L. vs. mrex #o., =2A ".S.=2: - - -, that our interpretation of RICO has +?uite si'pl% revolutioni1eGdH private liti&ation+ and+validateGdH the federali1ation of broad areas of state co''on la( of frauds,+ - - - so that clarit% andpredictabilit% in RICOs civil applications are particularl% i'portant< but it is also true that RICO, sinceit has cri'inal applications as (ell, 'ust, even in its civil applications, possess the de&ree ofcertaint% re?uired for cri'inal la(s - - -. No constitutional challen&e to this la( has been raised inthe present case, and so that issue is not before us. !hat the hi&hest court in the land has beenunable to derive fro' this statute an%thin& 'ore than toda%s 'ea&er &uidance bodes ill for the da%(hen that challen&e is presented.732

It bears notin& that in :orthwesternthe constitutionalit% of the RICO la( (as notchallen&ed.734#fter:orthwestern,the ".S. Supre'eCourt has so far declined the opportunit% to hear

cases in (hich the void*for*va&ueness challen&e to the pattern re?uire'ent (as raised.73:

#d'ittedl%, at the district courts level, the state statutes 5referred to as $ittle RICOS6773have so farsuccessfull% survived constitutional challen&e on void*for*va&ueness &round. o(ever, it 'ust beunderscored that, )&:e R.A. No. =080, /%e(e (/+/e +)/&r+:e/eer&)F +( %+ve &)v+r&+b@rov&'e' or + re+(o)+b e+r, om@re%e)(&ve +)' )'er(/+)'+be 'e&)&/&o) o@+//er).777or instance, in one state, the pattern re?uire'ent specifies that the related predicateacts 'ust have, a'on& others, the sa'e or si'ilar purpose, result, principal, victi's or 'ethods ofco''ission and 'ust be connected (ith +or&ani1ed cri'e.77;In four others, their pattern re?uire'entprovides that t(o or 'ore predicate acts should be related to the affairs of the enterprise, are notisolated, are not closel% related to each other and connected in point of ti'e and place, and if the%are too closel% related, the% (ill be treated as a sin&le act.77AIn t(o other states, pattern

re?uire'ents provide that if the acts are not related to a co''on sche'e, plan or purpose, a pattern'a% still e-ist if the participants have the 'ental capacit% re?uired for the predicate acts and areassociated (ith the cri'inal enterprise.77=

#ll the fore&oin& state statutes re?uire that /%e @re'&+/e +/( be re+/e' +)' /%+/ /%e +/( or&/%&) + (@e&&e' /&me r+me.

Clearl%, +pattern+ has been statutoril% defined and interpreted in countless (a%s b% circuit courts inthe "nited States. !heir diver&ent conclusions have functioned effectivel% to create variant cri'inal
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt106khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt107khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt108khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt109khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt110khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt111khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt111khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt112khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt113khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt114khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt106khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt107khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt108khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt109khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt110khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt111khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt112khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt113khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt114k


42/122

offenses.779!his confusion has co'e about not(ithstandin& that al'ost all these state la(s haverespectivel% statutoril% defined +pattern+. In sharp contrast,R.A. No. =080, +( e+r&er @o&)/e' o/,+:( (% r&+ 'e&)&/&o).#s to (hat constitutes pattern (ithin the 'eanin& of R.#. No. 2343 isleft to the ad hocinterpretation of prosecutors and ud&es. Neither the te-t of R.#. No. 2343 norle&islative histor% afford an% &uidance as to (hat factors 'a% be considered in order to prove

be%ond reasonable doubt +pattern of overt or cri'inal acts indicative of the overall unla(ful sche'eor conspirac%.+

)e that as it 'a%, it is &larin&l% fallacious to ar&ue that +series+ si'pl% 'eans a +repetition+ or+pertainin& to t(o or 'ore+ and +co'bination+ is the +result or product or product of co'binin&.+/hether t(o or 'ore or at least three acts are involved, the 'aorit% (ould interpret the phrase+co'binations0 or +series+ onl% in ter's of nu'ber of acts co''itted. !he%entirel% overoo:or &F)oreSection = (hich re?uires +a pattern of overt of cri'inal acts indicative ofthe overall unla(ful sche'e or conspirac%+ to convict.

If the ele'ents of the offense are as (hat the 'aorit% has su&&ested, the cri'e of plunder couldhave been defined in the follo(in& 'anner>

/here a public official, b% hi'self or in conspirac% (ith others, a'asses or ac?uires 'one% orpropert% b% co''ittin& t(o or 'ore acts in violation of Section A of the #nti*Braft and CorruptPractices #ct 5R.#. A37:6, or #rticles ;73, ;77, ;7;, ;7A, ;7=, ;79, ;78 and ;72 of the RevisedPenal Code, he shall be &uilt% of the cri'e of plunder and shall be punished b% reclusion perpetua todeath.

!he above (ould be a strai&htfor(ard and obective definition of the cri'e of plunder. o(ever, this(ould render 'eanin&less the core phrases +a co'bination or series of+ +overt or cri'inal actsindicative of the overall unla(ful sche'e or conspirac%,+ or the phrase +an% co'bination or series ofthe follo(in& 'eans or si'ilar sche'es+ or +a pattern of overt or cri'inal acts indicative of theoverall unla(ful sche'e or conspirac%.+

)ut that obviousl% is not the definition of the cri'e of plunder under R.#. 2343. !here is so'ethin&'ore. # careful readin& of the la( (ould unavoidabl% co'pel a conclusion that there should be aconnectin& lin a'on& the +'eans or sche'es+ co'prisin& a +series or co'bination+ for the purposeof ac?uirin& or a'assin& +ill*&otten (ealth.+ !he bond or lin is an +overall unla(ful sche'e orconspirac% 'entioned in Section =. !he la( conte'plates a co'bination or series of cri'inal acts inplunder done b% the accused +in furtherance of the sche'e or conspirac% to a'ass, accu'ulate orac?uire ill*&otten (ealth.+ !/ 'oe( )o/ @o(/+/e +/( omm&//e' r+)'om, (e@+r+/e or&)'e@e)'e)/ or (@or+'&+. Other(ise stated, if the le&islature intended to define plunder as theac?uisition of ill*&otten (ealth in the 'anner espoused b% the 'aorit%, the use in R.#. 2343 of such(ords and phrases as +co'bination+ and +series of overt or cri'inal acts+ --- +in furtherance of thesche'e or conspirac%+ is absolutel% pointless and 'eanin&less.

$.. :o. E+H+ makes it possible for a personconspiring with the accused in committingone of the acts constituting the chargeof plunder to be convicted for the same crime.

Section ; of R.#. No. 2343 states that +GaHn% person (ho participated (ith the said public officer inthe co''ission of an offense contributin& to the cri'e of plunder shall lie(ise be punished for suchoffense. In the i'position of penalties, the de&ree of participation and the attendance of 'iti&atin&and e-tenuatin& circu'stances, as provided b% the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered b% the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt115khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt115khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt115k


43/122

court.+ )oth parties share the vie( that the la( as it is (orded 'aes it possible for a person (hoparticipates in the co''ission of onl% one of the co'ponent cri'es constitutin& plunder to be liableas co*conspirator for plunder, not 'erel% the co'ponent cri'e in (hich he participated.778/hilepetitioner concedes that it is eas% to ascertain the penalt% for an acco'plice or accessor% under R.#.No. 2343, such is not the case (ith respect to a co*principal of the accused.772In other (ords, a

person (ho conspires (ith the accused in the co''ission of onl% one of the co'ponent cri'es 'a%be prosecuted as co*principal for the co'ponent cri'e, or as co*principal for the cri'e of plunder,dependin& on the interpretation of the prosecutor. !he)e//ere' '&(re/&o)effectivel% besto(edon la( enforcers b% the afore?uoted clause in deter'inin& the liabilit% of the participants in theco''ission of one or 'ore of the co'ponent cri'es of a char&e for plunder)'e)&+b @o(e( /%e'+)Fer o +rb&/r+r e)oreme)/ o /%e +.774

$.. :o. E+H+ does not clearly statethe prescriptive period of the crime of plunder.

Section 8 of R.#. No. 2343 provides that the cri'e punishable under said #ct shall prescribe int(ent% 5;36 %ears. Considerin& that the la( (as desi&ned to cover a +co'bination or series of overt

or cri'inal acts,+ or +a pattern of overt or cri'inal acts,+ fro' (hat ti'e shall the period ofprescription be reconedL ro' the first, second, third or last act of the series or patternL /hat shallbe the ti'e &ap bet(een t(o succeedin& actsL If the last act of a series or co'bination (asco''itted t(ent% or 'ore %ears after the ne-t precedin& one, (ould not the cri'e have prescribed,thereb% resultin& in the total e-tinction of cri'inal liabilit% under #rticle 4:5b6 of the Revised PenalCodeL In antithesis, the RICO la( affords 'ore clarit% and definiteness in describin& +pattern ofraceteerin& activit%+ as +at least t(o acts of raceteerin& activit%, one of (hich occurred (ithin ten%ears 5e-cludin& an% period of i'prison'ent6 after the co''ission of a prior act of raceteerin&activit%.+77:77: 77: !he ".S. state statutes si'ilarl% provide specific t i'e fra'es (ithin (hichraceteerin& acts are co''itted.

!he Solicitor Beneral enoins the Court to rectif% the deficiencies in the la( b% udicial construction.o(ever, it certainl% (ould not be feasible for the Court to interpret each and ever% a'bi&uous

provision &/%o/ +&)F &)/o /%e /r+@ o '&&+ eF&(+/&o). # statute should be construed toavoid constitutional ?uestion onl% (hen an alternative interpretation is possible fro' itslan&ua&e.7;3)orro(in& fro' the opinion of the court7;7in:orthwestern,7;;the la( +'a% be a poorl%drafted statute< but rer&/&)F &/ &( + ob or Co)Fre((,if it so inclined, and )o/ or /%&( Cor/.+ )ut(here the la( as the one in ?uestion is void on its face for its patent a'bi&uit% in that it lacsco'prehensible standards that 'en of co''on intelli&ence 'ust necessaril% &uess at its 'eanin&and differ as to its application, the Court cannot breathe life to it throu&h the &uise of construction.

$.. :o. E+H+ effectively eliminates mens reaor criminal intent as an element of the crime of plunder.

Section = provides that for the purpose of establishin& the cri'e of plunder, +it shall not be necessar%

to prove each and ever% cri'inal act done b% the accused in furtherance of the sche'e orconspirac% to a'ass, accu'ulate or ac?uire ill*&otten (ealth, it bein& sufficient to establish be%ondreasonable a pattern of overt or cri'inal acts indicative of the overall unla(ful sche'e orconspirac%.+

!he 'aorit% (ould interpret this section to 'ean that the prosecution has the burden of +sho(in& aco'bination or series resultin& in the cri'e of plunder.+ #nd, once the 'ini'u' re?uire'ents for aco'bination or a series of acts are 'et, there is no necessit% for the prosecution to prove each and
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt116khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt117khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt118khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt119khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt120khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt121khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt122khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt116khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt117khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt118khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt119khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt120khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt121khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt122k


44/122

ever% other act done b% the accused in furtherance of the sche'e or conspirac% to a'ass,accu'ulate, or ac?uire ill*&otten (ealth.7;A

)% its lan&ua&e, Section = eli'inates proof of each and ever% co'ponent cri'inal act of plunder b%the accused and li'its itself to establishin& ust the pattern of overt or cri'inal acts indicative of

unla(ful sche'e or conspirac%. !he la(, in effect, penali1es the accused on the basis of a provensche'e or conspirac% to co''it plunder (ithout the necessit% of establishin& be%ond reasonabledoubt each and ever% cri'inal act done b% the accused in the cri'e of plunder. !o ?uote r. )ernasa&ain> +o( can %ou have a series of cri'inal acts if the ele'ents that are supposed to constitutethe series are not proved to be cri'inalL+7;=

Moreover, b% doin& a(a% (ith proof be%ond reasonable doubt of each and ever% cri'inal act doneb% the accused in the furtherance of the sche'e or conspirac% to ac?uire ill*&otten (ealth, it bein&sufficient ust to prove a pattern of overt or cri'inal acts indicative of the overall unla(ful sche'e orconspirac%, the Plunder $a( effectivel% eli'inated the mens reaor cri'inal intent as an ele'ent ofthe cri'e. )ecause of this, it is easier to convict for plunder and sentence the accused to death thanto convict hi' for each of the co'ponent cri'es other(ise punishable under the Revised Penal

Code and other la(s (hich are bailable offenses. !he resultant absurdit% stries at the ver% heart ifthe constitutional &uarantees of due process and e?ual protection.

"lunder is a malum in se.

!he acts enu'erated in Section 75d6 are 'ostl% defined and penali1ed b% the Revised Penal Code,e.&. 'alversation, estafa, briber% and other cri'es co''itted b% public officers. #s such, the% are b%nature mala in secri'es. Since intent is an essential ele'ent of these cri'es, then, (ith 'orereason that cri'inal intent be established in plunder (hich, under R.#. No. 289:, is one of theheinous cri'es7;9as pronounced in one of its (hereas clauses.7;8

!he fact that the acts enu'erated in Section 75d6 of R.#. 2343 (ere 'ade cri'inal b% special la(does not necessaril% 'ae the sa'e mala prohibita(here cri'inal intent is not essential, althou&hthe ter' refers &enerall% to acts 'ade cri'inal b% special la(s. or there is a 'ared differencebet(een the t(o. #ccordin& to a (ell*no(n author on cri'inal la(>

!here is a distinction bet(een cri'es (hich are mala in se, or (ron&ful fro' their nature, such astheft, rape, ho'icide, etc., and those that aremala prohibita, or (ron& 'erel% because prohibited b%statute, such as ille&al possession of firear's.

Cri'es mala in seare those so serious in their effects on societ% as to call for al'ost unani'ousconde'nation of its 'e'bers< (hile cri'es mala prohibitaare violations of 'ere rules ofconvenience desi&ned to secure a 'ore orderl% re&ulation of the affairs of societ%. 5)ouviers $a(Dictionar%, Ra(les Ard Revision6

576 In acts mala in se, the intent &overns< but in those 'ala prohibit the onl% in?uir% is, has the la(been violatedL 5People vs. ibler, 738 N.., A;7, cited in the case of ".S. vs. Bo Chico, 7= Phil. 7A;6

Cri'inal intent is not necessar% (here the acts are prohibited for reasons of public polic%, as inille&al possession of firear's. 5People vs. Conosa, C.#., =9 O.B. A:9A6

5;6 !he ter' mala in serefers &enerall% to felonies defined and penali1ed b% the Revised PenalCode. /hen the acts are inherentl% i''oral, the% are mala in se, even if punished b% special la(s.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt123khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt124khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt125khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt125khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt126khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt123khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt124khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt125khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt126k


45/122

On the other hand, there are cri'es in the Revised Penal Code (hich (ere ori&inall% defined andpenali1ed b% special la(s. #'on& the' are possession and use of opiu', 'alversation, bri&anda&e,and libel.7;2

!he co'ponent acts constitutin& plunder, a heinous cri'e, bein& inherentl% (ron&ful and i''oral,

are patentl%mala in se, even if punished b% a special la( and accordin&l%, cri'inal intent 'ust clearl%be established to&ether (ith the other ele'ents of the cri'e< other(ise, no cri'e is co''itted. )%eli'inatin& mens rea, R.#. 2343 does not re?uire the prosecution to prove be%ond reasonable doubtthe co'ponent acts constitutin& plunder and i'poses a lesser burden of proof on the prosecution,thus pavin& the (a% for the i'position of the penalt% ofreclusion perpetuato death on the accused,in plain violation of the due process and e?ual protection clauses of the Constitution. Evidentl%, theauthorit% of the le&islature to o'it the ele'ent ofscienterin the proof of a cri'e refers to re&ulator%'easures in the e-ercise of police po(er, (here the e'phasis of the la( is to secure a 'ore orderl%re&ulations of the offense of societ%, rather than the punish'ent of the cri'es. So that inmala

prohibitaprosecutions, the ele'ent of cri'inal intent is a re?uire'ent for conviction and 'ust beprovided in the special la( penali1in& (hat are traditionall% mala in secri'es. #s correctl% pointedout b% petitioner,7;4citin& ".S. Supre'e Court decisions, the S'ith #ct (as ruled to re?uire +intent+ toadvocate7;:and held to re?uire no(led&e of ille&al advocac%.7A3#nd in another case,7A7andordinance 'ain& ille&al the possession of obscene boos (as declared unconstitutional for lacof scienterre?uire'ent.

1ens reais a (b(/+)/&ve 'e @roe(( reH&reme)/under the Constitution, and this is a li'itationon police po(er. #dditionall%, lac of mens reaor a clarif%in& scienterre?uire'ent a&&ravates theva&ueness of a statute.

In 1orisette v. 3.%.7A;the ".S. Supre'e Court underscored the stultif%in& effect of eli'inatin&mensrea, thus>

!he Bovern'ent ass us b% a feat of construction radicall% to chan&e the (ei&hts and balances inthe scales of ustice. !he purpose and obvious effect of doin& a(a% (ith the re?uire'ent of a &uilt%

intent is to ease the prosecutions part% to conviction, to strip the defendant of such benefit as hederived at co''on la( fro' innocence of evil purpose, and to circu'scribe the freedo' heretoforeallo(ed uries. Such a 'anifest i'pair'ent of the i''unities of the individual should not bee-tended to co''on la( cri'es on udicial initiative.

In the sa'e breath, Justice loren1 Re&alado e-preses serious doubts as to the authorit% of thele&islature to co'ple- mala in secri'es (ith mala prohibita, sa%in&>

- - - althou&h there has been a tendenc% to penali1e cri'es under special la(s (ith penalties+borro(ed+ fro' the Code, there is still the ?uestion of le&islative authorit% to consolidate cri'espunished under different statutes. /orse, (here one is punished under the Code and the other b%the special la(, both of these contin&encies had not been conte'plated (hen the concept of adelito

comple9o(as en&rafted into the Code.7AA

"etitioner is not estopped from 'uestioningthe constitutionality of $.. :o. E+H+.

!he case at bar has been subect to controvers% principall% due to the personalities involved herein.!he fact that one of petitioners counsels7A=(as a co*sponsor of the Plunder $a(7A9and petitionerhi'self voted for its passa&e (hen he (as still a Senator (ould not in an% put hi' in estoppel to?uestion its constitutionalit%. !he rule on estoppel applies to ?uestions of fact, not of la(.7A8Moreover,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt127khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt128khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt129khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt129khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt130khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt131khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt132khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt132khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt132khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt133khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt134khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt135khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt136khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt127khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt128khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt129khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt130khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt131khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt132khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt133khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt134khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt135khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt136k


46/122

estoppel should be resorted to onl% as a 'eans of preventin& inustice.7A2!o hold that petitioner isestopped fro' ?uestionin& the validit% of R.#. No. 2343 because he had earlier voted for its passa&e(ould result in inustice not onl% to hi', but to all others (ho 'a% be held liable under this statute.In "eople vs. Aera,7A4citin& the ".S. case ofttorney 0eneral v. "erkins, the Court held>

- - - !he idea see's to be that the people are estopped fro' ?uestionin& the validit% of a la(enacted b% their representatives< that to an accusation b% the people of Michi&an of usurpation upontheir &overn'ent, a statute enacted b% the people of Michi&an is an ade?uate statute relied on inustification is unconstitutional, it is a statute onl% in for', and lacs the force of la(, and is of no'ore savin& effect to ustif% action under it it had never been enacted. the constitution is thesupre'e la(, and to its behests the courts, the le&islature, and the people 'ust bo(. - - -7A:

!he Court should not sanction the use of an e?uitable re'ed% to defeat the ends of ustice b%per'ittin& a person to be deprived of his life and libert% under an invalid la(.

"ndoubtedl%, the reason behind the enact'ent of R.#. 2343 is co''endable. It (as a response tothe felt need at the ti'e that e-istin& la(s (ere inade?uate to penali1e the nature and 'a&nitude of

corruption that characteri1ed a +previous re&i'e.+7=3

o(ever, (here the la(, such as R.#. 2343, isso indefinite that the line bet(een innocent and conde'ned conduct beco'es a 'atter of&uess(or, the indefiniteness runs afoul of due process concepts (hich re?uire that persons be&iven full notice of (hat to avoid, and that the discretion of la( enforce'ent officials, (ith theattendant dan&ers of arbitrar% and discri'inator% enforce'ent, be li'ited b% e-plicit le&islativestandards.7=7It obfuscates the 'ind to ponder that such an a'bi&uous la( as R.#. No. 2343 (ouldput on the balance the life and libert% of the accused a&ainst (ho' all the resources of the State arearra%ed. It could be used as a tool a&ainst political ene'ies and a (eapon of hate and reven&e b%(hoever (ields the levers of po(er.

I sub'it that the char&e a&ainst petitioner in the #'ended Infor'ation in Cri'inal Case No. ;8994does not constitute +plunder+ under R.#. No. 2343, as a'ended b% R.#. No. 289:. If at all, the actschar&ed 'a% constitute offenses punishable under the #nti*Braft and Corrupt Practices #ct 5R.#. No.

A37:6 or the Revised Penal Code. ence, the infor'ation char&in& petitioner (ith plunder 'ust be?uashed. Such ?uashal, ho(ever, should be (ithout preudice to the filin& of ne( infor'ations foracts under R.#. No. A37:, of the Revised Penal Code and other la(s. Double eopard% (ould notbar the filin& of the sa'e because the dis'issal of the case is 'ade (ith the e-press consent of thepetitioner*accused.7=;

In vie( of the fore&oin&, I vote toGRANTthe petition.

-oo/)o/e(

7Joa?uin B. )ernas, S.J., Preud&in& the Supre'e Court, in his colu'n +Soundin&)oard+, Today,Septe'ber ;8, ;337, p. 8.

;#n #ct to I'pose the Death Penalt% on Certain einous Cri'es, a'endin& for that purposethe Revised Penal Code and Other Special Penal $a(s, na'el%> Dan&erous Dru&s #ct,Cri'e of Plunder, and #nti*Carnappin& #ct 57::A6.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt137khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt138khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt139khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt140khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt141khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt142khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#rnt1khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#rnt2khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt137khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt138khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt139khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt140khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt141khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt142khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#rnt1khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#rnt2k


47/122

A42 O.B. A4, pp. 9=44*9=:3 57::76.

=#nne- +C+ of Petition.

9#'ended Petition, p. 4.

8Section 75d6.

2Me'orandu' for Petitioner, p.77.

4#'ended Petition., pp. 7A*72< Me'orandu' for Petitioner, pp. 78*;=.

#ccordin& to petitioners>

a. /hile #'erican federal courts in the irst Circuit in the ".S. have defined +(er&e(o +/( or /r+)(+/&o)(+ for purposes of Rule 45b6 of the ederal Rules of Cri'inalProcedure to refer onl% to +o&)/ r&m&)+ e)/er@r&(e+ G".S. v. !urette 57:43, C# 7Mass. 8A; ;d 4:86H under a ommo) (%emeG".S. v. J. !irocchi F Sons,Inc. 57:83 DC RI6 742 . Supp. 224H, the courts in theSeo)' C&r&/insist that+(er&e(of acts and transactions+ should 'ean that there should be +o))e/&o)be/ee) /%e oe)(e(+ G3.%. v. #harney57:8;, SD )6 ;77 . Supp. :3=H or +'&re/re+/&o)(%&@ be/ee) o)/(+ G".S. v. ai' 57:8A SD N6, ;74 . Supp. :;;H or+(b(/+)/&+ &'e)/&/ o +/( +)' @+r/&&@+)/(+ G".S. v. Olin Corp. 57:2:, /D N6,=89 S. Supp. 77;3H.

b. Still on the ".S. ederal courts, the courts in theT%&r' C&r&/define +series ofacts+ follo(in& the +'&re/ re+/&o)(%&@ be/ee) +/(+ standard of the SecondCircuit< for e-a'ple, ".S. v. Stafford 57:2=, ED Pa.6, A4; . Supp. 7=376 usin&++/+ re+/&o)(%&@ be/ee) +/(+< ".S. v. Sla(i 57:29, DC Del.6 =34 . Supp.

7:3, usin& +o))e/&o) be/ee) %+rFe(+< ".S. v. Cohen 57:24, ED Pa.6 === .Supp. 7A7=, usin& +'&re/ re+/&o)(%&@ be/ee) oe)(e(+< and ".S. v. Serubo57:24, ED Pa.6 =83 . Supp. 84:6, usin& +'&re/ re+/&o)(%&@ be/ee) oe)(e(+,but the federal courts in the -or/% C&r&/follo( the +co''on sche'e+ standard,as in Raes v. ".S. 578: ;d 2A36.

c. !he S&L/% C&r&/courts define +series+ to 'ean +ommo) (%eme+ 5e.&. ".S. v.Russo 5=43 ;d 7;;46 and so do the courts in the Seve)/% C&r&/5e.&. ".S. v.Scott, 57:8:, C# 2 Ill.6 5=7A ;d :A;6, andE&F%/% C&r&/ Cor/(5e.&. a&&ard v.".S. 57:88, C# 4 Mo.6 A8: ;d :846, but the courts in the-&/% C&r&/follo( the+o(e o))e/&o) be/ee) +/(+ standard, 5e.&. ".S. v. $aca 57:2= C# 9 !e-6 9:A;d 8796 or +(b(/+)/&+ &'e)/&/ o +/( +)' @+r/&&@+)/(+ 5e.&. ".S. v. $evine57:22 C# 9 la.6 9=8 ;d 894< ".S. v. Marionneau- 57:29 C# 9 $a.6 97= ;d 7;==6to&ether (ith federal courts in the N&)/% C&r&/5e.&. ".S. v. ord 57:43 C# : Cal..68A; ;d 7A9=6 and those in the"&(/r&/ o Comb&+ C&r&/5".S. v. Jacson 57:22698; ;d 24:< ".S. v. )ach'an, 57:94 DC Dist. Col.6 78= . Suppl. 4:46. G#'endedPetition, pp. 7=*78< Me'orandu' for Petitioner, pp. ;3*;;.H

:#'ended Petition, pp. 74*7:< Me'orandu' for Petitioner, pp. A=*=9.

73d., at 7A*7=< d., at 7:.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#rnt3khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#rnt4khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#rnt5khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#rnt6khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#rnt7khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#rnt8khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#rnt9khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#rnt10khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#rnt3khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#rnt4khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#rnt5khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#rnt6khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#rnt7khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#rnt8khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#rnt9khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#rnt10k


48/122

77d., at 78*72< d., at ;A.

7;d., at ;9*A=.

7Ad., at ;2*A7

- - - /hat then is the standard of due process (hich 'ust e-ist both as a proceduraland a substantive re?uisite to free the challen&ed ordinance, or an% &overn'entalaction for that 'atter, fro' the i'putation of le&al infir'it% sufficient to spell itsdoo'L It is responsiveness to the supre'ac% of reason, obedience to the dictates ofustice. Ne&ativel% put, arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided. !o satisf%the due process re?uire'ent, official action, to paraphrase Cardo1o, 'ust not outrunthe bounds of reason and result in sheer oppression. Due process is thus hostile toan% official action 'arred b% lac of reasonableness. Correctl% it has been identified
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#rnt11khttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/j

estrada vs sandiganbayan 369 scra 394.docx

Documents