Estrada vs Sandiganbayan

Petition to declare RA 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder) as
amended by RA 7659 unconstitutional
FACTS:
(R) Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution finding a probable cause for the offense of Plunder
(P) Estrada filed for Motion for Reconsideration
(R) Denied the Motion for Reconsideration
(P) Moved to Quash the Information since the facts alleged did not constitute an indictable
offense because it was based on a law that is unconstitutional for its vagueness.
(R) Sandiganbayan denied Motion to Quash. Hence, this petition.
(P) Joseph Estrada is being prosecuted for RA 7080 for receiving money from illegal gambling
(jueteng)
(P) Estrada claims that RA 7080 suffers from the vice of vagueness and is unconstitutional
because of the failure of the legislature to define the terms combination, series and pattern
(P) Estrada contends that it violates the reasonable doubt that is required in criminal
prosecutions because it requires only a proof of overt acts showing conspiracy
(P) Lastly, Estrada claims that it abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes already
punishable under the Revised Penal Code
ISSUES:
1.) W/N Plunder Law is vague and therefore unconstitutional?
2.) W/N it violates the quantum of proof required for criminal cases?
3.) W/N Plunder Law is a malum prohibitum?
HELD:
1.) No. The doctrine of void for vagueness is not applicable for testing the validity of the penal
statues. The Plunder Law contains ascertainable standards and well-defined parameters, which
would enable the accused to determine the nature of his violation. Section 2 of RA 7659 is
sufficiently explicit in its description of the acts, conduct and conditions required or forbidden,
and prescribe elements of the crime. As long as the law affords some comprehensible guide or
rule that would inform those who are subject to it what conduct would render them liable to its
penalties, its validity must be sustained. Congress intended the words combination, series
and pattern to be understood in their popular meaning. Moreover, the validity of the legislation
is presumed to be in harmony with the Constitution.
A facial challenge is allowed to be made in a vague statute and to one, which is
overbroad because of possible chilling effect upon protected speech. This rationale does not
apply to penal statutes. Criminal statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting from their
very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for this reason alone, the state may well be
prevented from enacting laws against socially harmful conduct. In area of criminal law, the law
cannot take chances as in the area of free speech. The overbreadth doctrine is not applicable
for testing the validity of penal statutes
2.) No. The legislative deliberation shows that the legislature did not alter the quantum of proof
necessary in the crime of Plunder. What the prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable
doubt is only the number of acts sufficient to form a combination or series of acts which would
constitute a pattern involving at least P50,000,000.00.

3.) No. The legislative declaration in RA 7695 shows that plunder is heinous offense and implies
that it is a malum in se. When the acts punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong,
they are mala in se and it does not matter that such acts are punished in a special law,
especially since crimes that constitute plunder are mainly mala in se.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court holds that RA 7080 otherwise knows as

the Plunder Law, as amended by RA 7659, is CONSTITUTIONAL. Consequently, the
petition to declare the law unconstitutional is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
DOCTRINES:
Void for vagueness- A statute which either forbids or requires that doing of an act in terms so
vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to
its application, violates the first essential due process of law.
Overbreadth doctrine- A governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep
unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.
Chilling effect- Inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal
rights by the threat of legal sanction. The right that is most often described as being suppressed
by a chilling effect is the right to free speech.