REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080: AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER.

[As Amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law)]

Page

What is Plunder?
According to Section 2 of RA 7080, PLUNDER is committed when a public officer
who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates
or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts as
described in Section 1 (d) of RA 7080 in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty
million pesos (P50,000,000.00). In addition, any person who participated with the said
public officer in the commission of plunder shall likewise be punished.
The criminal acts described in Section 1 (d) are as follows:
1. Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids
on the public treasury;
2. By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or
any/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the
office or position of the public officer concerned;
3. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National
government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned
or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
4. By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or
any other form of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in
any business enterprise or undertaking;
5. By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations
and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or
special interests; or,
6. By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or
influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and
prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
What are the Elements of Plunder?
1. 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 other persons;

Public officer means any person holding any public office in the Government of the Republic
of the Philippines by virtue of an appointment, election, or contract.
It may be done personally (single offender) or in connivance or with conspiracy with
others.

Prepared by: Ellen Glae A. Daquipil

Page

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080: AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER.
[As Amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law)]

Conspiracy is shown by the agreement of the offenders to participate, directly or indirectly,

in the amassing, accumulation, and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth, of and/or for former
President Estrada. (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 148965)

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

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

combination or series of the following overt or criminal acts:

through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or

raids on the public treasury;

by receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickback

or any other form of pecuniary benefits from any person and/or entity in connection
with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the
public officer;

by the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the

National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of
Government owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries;

by obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity

or any other form of interest or participation including the promise of future
employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;

by establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other

combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit
particular persons or special interests; or

Prepared by: Ellen Glae A. Daquipil

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080: AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER.
[As Amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law)]
by taking advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or

Page

influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the

damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines; and

What is meant by combination?

It is referring to at least two [2] acts falling under different categories of enumeration
provided under Section 1(d).

What is meant by series?

In series, there must be two or more overt or criminal acts falling under the same category
of enumeration found in Section 1[d].

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

Is there plunder if only one act is proven, say raid in the public treasury where the illgotten wealth exceeds P50million?
None. To be held liable for plunder, ill-gotten wealth must be amassed, accumulated or
acquired through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts. If there is only one
criminal act proved, then it will fall under any other legal qualification under the Revised
Penal Code or other special penal laws.

Is it Unconstitutional?
No. The Supreme Court already ruled in Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (2001) that RA 7080 is
not contrary to the Constitution.

Prepared by: Ellen Glae A. Daquipil

Is the crime of plunder a malum in se?

Page

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080: AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER.
[As Amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law)]

Yes. It is malum in se as it is inherently immoral or inherently wrong. As such, proof of

criminal intent or mens rea is required.

Who can be penalized?

Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense
contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In the
imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and
extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by
the court.

What is the applicable penalty upon conviction?

The applicable penalty for the crime of Plunder, under R.A. 7080 (as amended by R.A.
7659), is reclusion perpetua to death. The death penalty, however, was already abolished,
which means that the applicable penalty is reclusion perpetua, without prejudice to other
accessory penalties that may be imposed by the court.

Which court has original jurisdiction over violations of this Act?

The Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction if plunder is committed by public officials and
employees occupying the positions with SG 27 or higher, under RA No. 6758 in relation to
their office. Otherwise, it will be with regular courts.

What is the specific rule of evidence provided under this law?

Prepared by: Ellen Glae A. Daquipil

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080: AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER.
[As Amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law)]

For purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each
Page

and every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to
amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond
reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful
scheme or conspiracy.

Pattern:
(i) Pattern arises where the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
predicate acts or at least a combination or series of overt or criminal acts
enumerated in subsections (1) to (6) of Section 1 (d).
(ii) the pattern of overt or criminal acts is directed towards a common purpose or goal
that is to enable the public officer to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth.
(iii) there must either be an 'overall unlawful scheme' or 'conspiracy' to achieve said
common goal. As commonly understood, the term 'overall unlawful scheme'
indicates a 'general plan of action or method' which the principal accused and public
officer and others conniving with him, follow to achieve the aforesaid common goal.
In the alternative, if there is no such overall scheme or where the schemes or
methods used by multiple accused vary, the overt or criminal acts must form part of
a conspiracy to attain a common goal.

What are the effects of the institution of a criminal action for plunder?

Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information
under this law in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending
in court, shall be suspended from office.

In case of conviction by final judgment, the accused shall lose all retirement or
gratuity benefits under any law.

if the accused is acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries

and other benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the
meantime, administrative proceedings have been filed against him.

Prepared by: Ellen Glae A. Daquipil

Page

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080: AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER.
[As Amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law)]

Cases:

1. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 220598, July 19, 2016
Facts:
On July 10, 2012, the Ombudsman charged in the Sandiganbayan former President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA); Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO)
Budget and Accounts Officer Benigno Aguas; PCSO General Manager and Vice
Chairman Rosario C. Uriarte; PCSO Chairman of the Board of Directors Sergio 0.
Valencia; Members of the PCSO Board of Directors, namely: Manuel L. Morato, Jose
R. Taruc V, Raymundo T. Roquero, and Ma. Fatima A.S. Valdes; Commission on Audit
(COA) Chairman Reynaldo A. Villar; and COA Head of Intelligence/Confidential Fund
Fraud Audit Unit Nilda B. Plaras with plunder. The case was docketed as Criminal
Case No. SB-12-CRM-O 174 and assigned to the First Division of the Sandiganbayan.
(a) diverting in several instances, funds from the operating budget of PCSO to its
Confidential/Intelligence Fund that could be accessed and withdrawn at any time
with minimal restrictions, and converting, misusing, and/or illegally conveying or
transferring the proceeds drawn from said fund in the aforementioned sum, also in
several instances, to themselves, in the guise of fictitious expenditures, for their
personal gain and benefit;
(b) raiding the public treasury by withdrawing and receiving, in several instances,
the above-mentioned amount from the Confidential/Intelligence Fund from PCSO's
accounts, and or unlawfully transferring or conveying the same into their possession
and control through irregularly issued disbursement vouchers and fictitious
expenditures; and
( c) taking advantage of their respective official positions, authority, relationships,
connections or influence, in several instances, to unjustly enrich themselves in the
aforementioned sum, at the expense of, and the damage and prejudice of the
Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
Considering that the Sandiganbayan denied the demurrers to evidence of GMA and
Aguas, they have come to the Court on certiorari to assail and set aside said denial,
claiming that the denial was with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not the State sufficiently established the existence of conspiracy
among GMA, Aguas, and Uriarte;
2. Whether or not the State sufficiently established all the elements of the crime of
plunder:

Prepared by: Ellen Glae A. Daquipil

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080: AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER.
[As Amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law)]

Page

a. Was there evidence of amassing, accumulating or acquiring ill-gotten wealth in

the total amount of not less than P50,000,000.00?
Held:
1. The Prosecution did not properly allege and prove the existence of conspiracy
among GMA, Aguas and Uriarte. In terms of proving its existence, conspiracy takes
two forms. The first is the express form, which requires proof of an actual
agreement among all the co-conspirators to commit the crime. However,
conspiracies are not always shown to have been expressly agreed upon. Thus, we
have the second form, the implied conspiracy. An implied conspiracy exists when
two or more persons are shown to have aimed by their acts towards the
accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their
combined acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and
cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association and a concurrence of
sentiment.27 Implied conspiracy is proved through the mode and manner of the
commission of the offense, or from the acts of the accused before, during and after
the commission of the crime indubitably pointing to a joint purpose, a concert of
action and a community of interest. But to be considered a part of the conspiracy,
each of the accused must be shown to have performed at least an overt act in
pursuance or in furtherance of the conspiracy, for without being shown to do so
none of them will be liable as a co-conspirator, and each may only be held
responsible for the results of his own acts.
It is in this regard that the Sandigabayan gravely abused its discretion amounting to
lack or excess of its jurisdiction. To start with, its conclusion that GMA had been the
mastermind of plunder was plainly conjectural and outrightly unfounded considering
that the information did not aver at all that she had been the mastermind; hence,
the Sandigabayan thereby acted capriciously and arbitrarily. In the second place,
the treatment by the Sandiganbayan of her handwritten unqualified "OK" as an
overt act of plunder was absolutely unwarranted considering that such act was a
common legal and valid practice of signifying approval of a fund release by the
President.
The Prosecution seems to be relying on the doctrine of command responsibility to
impute the actions of subordinate officers to GMA as the superior officer. The
reliance is misplaced, for incriminating GMA under those terms was legally
unacceptable and incomprehensible. The application of the doctrine of command
responsibility is limited, and cannot be true for all litigations.
2. No proof of amassing, or accumulating, or acquiring ill-gotten wealth of at least
150 Million was adduced against GMA and Aguas. The corpus delicti of plunder is
the amassment, accumulation or acquisition of ill-gotten wealth valued at not less
than P50,000,000.00. The failure to establish the corpus delicti should lead to the
dismissal of the criminal prosecution. As regards the element that the public officer
must have amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth worth at least
P50,000,000.00, the Prosecution adduced no evidence showing that either GMA or
Aguas or even Uriarte, for that matter, had amassed, accumulated or acquired
illgotten wealth of any amount. There was also no evidence, testimonial or
otherwise, presented by the Prosecution showing even the remotest possibility that
the CIFs of the PCSO had been diverted to either GMA or Aguas, or Uriarte.

Prepared by: Ellen Glae A. Daquipil

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080: AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER.
[As Amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law)]

Page

The Court inevitably concludes that the Sandiganbayan completely ignored the
failure of the information to sufficiently charge conspiracy to commit plunder
against the petitioners; and ignored the lack of evidence establishing the corpus
delicti of amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth in the total
amount of at least PS0,000,000.00 through any or all of the predicate crimes. The
Sandiganbayan thereby acted capriciously, thus gravely abusing its discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

2. JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division) and PEOPLE

OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 148560 November 19,2001
Facts:
Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada, the highest-ranking official to be
prosecuted under RA 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder), 1
as amended by RA 7659, 2 wishes to impress upon us that the assailed law is so
defectively fashioned that it crosses that thin but distinct line which divides the
valid from the constitutionally infirm. He therefore makes a stringent call for this
Court to subject the Plunder Law to the crucible of constitutionality mainly because,
according to him, (a) it suffers from the vice of vagueness; (b) it dispenses with the
"reasonable doubt" standard in criminal prosecutions; and, (c) it abolishes the
element of mens rea in crimes already punishable under The Revised Penal Code, all
of which are purportedly clear violations of the fundamental rights of the accused to
due process and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him.
That during the period from June, 1998 to January 2001, in the Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Joseph Ejercito Estrada,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, by himself AND/OR in
CONNIVANCE/CONSPIRACY with his co-accused, WHO ARE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY,
RELATIVES
BY
AFFINITY
OR
CONSANGUINITY,
BUSINESS
ASSOCIATES,
SUBORDINATES AND/OR OTHER PERSONS, BY TAKING UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF HIS
OFFICIAL POSITION, AUTHORITY, RELATIONSHIP, CONNECTION, OR INFLUENCE, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate and acquire BY
HIMSELF DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or
TOTAL VALUE of FOUR BILLION NINETY SEVEN MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FOUR
THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE AND SEVENTEEN CENTAVOS
(P4,097,804,173.17), more or less, THEREBY UNJUSTLY ENRICHING HIMSELF OR
THEMSELVES AT THE EXPENSE AND TO THE DAMAGE OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE AND
THE REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES through ANY OR A combination OR A series of overt
OR criminal acts, OR SIMILAR SCHEMES OR MEANS.
RESPECTIVELY OR A TOTAL OF MORE OR LESS ONE BILLION EIGHT HUNDRED
FORTY SEVEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT THOUSAND FIFTY SEVEN
PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS (P1,847,578,057.50); AND BY COLLECTING OR
RECEIVING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY HIMSELF AND/OR IN CONNIVANCE WITH
JOHN DOES JANE DOES, COMMISSIONS OR PERCENTAGES BY REASON OF SAID

Prepared by: Ellen Glae A. Daquipil

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080: AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER.
[As Amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law)]

Page

PURCHASES OF SHARES OF STOCK IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE

MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P189,700,000.00) MORE OR LESS,
FROM THE BELLE CORPORATION WHICH BECAME PART OF THE DEPOSIT IN THE
EQUITABLE BANK UNDER THE ACCOUNT NAME 'JOSE VELARDE'
Issue:
1. W/N the Plunder Law is constitutional
2. W/N the Plunder Law dispenses with the "reasonable doubt" standard
in criminal prosecutions
3. W/N the Plunder Law is a malum prohibitum
Held:
1. Petition is dismissed. Plunder Law is constitutional. The petitioners miserably failed in
the instant case to discharge his burden and overcome the presumption of
constitutionality of the Plunder Law. It contains ascertainable standards and well-defined
parameters which would enable the accused to determine the nature of his violation.

2. No. The use of the "reasonable doubt" standard is indispensable to command the
respect and confidence of the community in the application of criminal law.

What the prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt is only a number of acts
sufficient to form a combination or series which would constitute a pattern and involving
an amount of at least P50,000,000.00. There is no need to prove each and every other act
alleged in the Information to have been committed by the accused in furtherance of the
overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth.

3. No. Plunder is a malum in se which requires proof of criminal intent (mens rea).
Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense
contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense.
The legislative declaration in R.A. No. 7659 that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it
is a malum in se. For 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 in the case of plunder the predicate crimes are mainly mala in se

Prepared by: Ellen Glae A. Daquipil

Page

10

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080: AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER.
[As Amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law)]

3. Fleurdeliz B. Organo vs Sandiganbayan and Jail Warden of Manila

G.R. No. 136916. December 14, 1999

Facts:
That on or about 05 November 1996, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in
Quezon City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused
Dominga S. Manalili, Teofisto A. Sapitula, Joel DP. Marcelo, Lilia B. Organo, being then
public officers and taking advantage of their official positions as employees of the Bureau
of Internal Revenue, Region 7, Quezon City, and Gil R. Erencio, Reynaldo S. Enriquez and
Luis S. Se, Jr., conspiring, confabulating and confederating with one another, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally amass and acquire funds belonging to the National
Government by opening an unauthorized bank account with the Landbank of the
Philippines, West Triangle Branch, Diliman, Quezon City, for and in behalf of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue and deposit therein money belonging to the government of the
Philippines, consisting of revenue tax payments then withdraw therefrom the sum of
Pesos: One Hundred Ninety Three Million Five Hundred Sixty Five Thousand Seventy Nine
& 64/100 (P193,565,079.64) Philippine Currency, between November, 1996 to February,
1997, without proper authority, through checks made payable to themselves and/or the
sole proprietorship firms of the above-named private persons, thereby succeeding in
misappropriating, converting, misusing and/or malversing said public funds tantamount to
a raid on the public treasury, to their own personal gains, advantages and benefits, to the
damage and prejudice of the government in the aforestated amount.

CONTRARY TO LAW.
The Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 24100, was raffled to the First Division of
the Sandiganbayan.

Prepared by: Ellen Glae A. Daquipil

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080: AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER.
[As Amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law)]

11

On August 20, 1997, Lilia B. Organo filed a Motion to Quash Information for lack of
Page

jurisdiction and to defer the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

Thereafter, with the creation of [the] 4th and 5th Divisions of the Sandiganbayan, the case
was unloaded to the respondent court, 4th Division.

The petitioner assailed the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to try and hear the case filed
against her.

Issue: WON Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction of the above case, considering that the
accused is below salary grade 27?

Held: In cases where none of the principal accused are occupying positions corresponding
to salary grade 27 or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and
PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper
regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial
court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129.

It is true that a violation of RA 7080 penalizing plunder is not mentioned in Section 4 (a) of
RA 8249. However, the crime falls squarely under Section 4 (b), which we again quote
below:
b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed
by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) of this section in relation
to their office.

Prepared by: Ellen Glae A. Daquipil

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080: AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER.
[As Amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law)]

12

Plunder is clearly a crime committed by public officials in relation to their office. Hence,
Page

there is no doubt that this crime is covered by Section 4 (b). Clearly, RA 7080 was impliedly
repealed by RA 8249, such that prosecutions for plunder are cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan only when the accused is a public official with Salary Grade 27 or higher.

Prepared by: Ellen Glae A. Daquipil