Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PLUNDER
Issues:
1. Whether or not Plunder Law is unconstitutional for being vague
2. Whether or not Sec 4 of Plunder Law circumvents the obligation of
prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the acts constituting crime
of plunder.
3. Whether or not Plunder as defined as malum prohibitum under RA 7080
Held:
1. No
2. No
3. No
Ruling:
1. The void for vagueness doctrine has been formulated in various ways, but
is most commonly stated to the effect that a statute establishing a
criminal offense must define the offense with sufficient definiteness that
persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is
prohibited by the statute.
A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible
standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ in its application.
The test in determining whether a criminal statute is void for uncertainty
is whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the
proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and
practice.
A facial challenge is allowed to be made to vague statute and to one which
is overbroad because of possible “chilling effect” upon protected speech.
The possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go
unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of
other may be deterred and perceived grievances left to fester because of
possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes. But in criminal law,
the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech.
2. In a criminal prosecution for plunder, as in all other crimes, the accused
always has in his favor the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the
Bill of Rights, and unless the State succeeds in demonstrating by proof
VII. PLUNDER