Estrada v.

Sandiganbayan

FACTS

• Former President Erap Estrada was charged by the Sandiganbayan for violation of RA
7080 or the Plunder Law.
• Erap filed a motion to quash the information and assails that it is unconstitutional, as it
suffers from a) 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 RPC.
• His main contention is that the failure to define “combination” and series” in the phrase
“a combination or series of overt or criminal acts” found in Sec. 1, par. (d), and Sec. 2,
and the word “pattern” in Sec. 4. renders the Plunder Law unconstitutional for being
impermissibly vague and overbroad and deny him the right to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him, hence violative of his fundamental right to due
process.

Elements that constitute the crime of Plunder

1. 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;
2. he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of
the following overt or criminal acts: (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 other form of
pecuniary benefit 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 office 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 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.
3. the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or
acquired is at least P50M

ISSUE

• W/N the Plunder Law or RA 7080 is unconstitutional for being vague and thus violating
the petitioner's right to due process NO
SC HELD

• the Plunder law is not unconstitutional for being vague. A statute is not rendered
uncertain and void merely because general term are used therein, or because of the
employment of terms without defining them; much less do we have t odefine every word
we use.

RATIO

• It is a well-settled principle of legal hermeneutics that words of a statute will be

interpreted in their natural, plain and ordinary acceptation and signification, unless
it is evident that the legislature intended a technical or special legal meaning to those
words. The intention of the lawmakers— who are, ordinarily, untrained philologists and
lexicographers— to use statutory phraseology in such a manner is always presumed.
• 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. In such instance, the statute is repugnant to the Constitution in 2 respects
(1) it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by
it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid; (2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in
carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.
• the doctrine does not apply as against legislations that are merely couched in imprecise
language but which nonetheless specify a standard though defectively phrased; or to
those that are apparently ambiguous yet fairly applicable to certain types of activities.
Thus, the doctrine cannot be invoked where the assailed statute is clear and free
from ambiguity.
• Every provision of the law should be construed in relation and with reference to every
other part. To be sure, it will take more than nitpicking to overturn the well-entrenched
presumption of constitutionality and validity of the Plunder Law.