ESTRADA VS.

SANDIGANBAYAN 369 SCRA 394 (2001) *definition of terms: Mens rea- a guilty state of mind Mala prohibita- things prohibited by the law which are therefore unlawful Malum in se- an act which is unnaturally evil Omnibus motion- a motion that makes multiple requests FACTS: Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada petitioned to declare RA#7080 (An act defining and penealizing the crime of plunder) as amended by RA#7659 unconstitutional on the grounds that: 1. It suffers from vagueness. 2. It circumvents the obligation of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the acts constituting plunder. 3. In enacting the statue in question, congress eliminated the element of mens rea. all of which according to him is a violation of his right to due process and to be informed of the natures and cause of accusation against him. Plunder law: is acquiring ill gotten wealth of at least 50million and is punishable by reclusion perpetua and the persons assets will be forfeited in favor of the state. It can be done by a combination or series of schemes such as; misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds, bribery, illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets, monopoly and by taking undue advantage of official position. April 4, 2001: office of ombudsman filed 8 separate information against Estrada. April 11, 2001: Petitioner filed omnibus motion for the remand of the case of the ombudsman for preliminary investigation and for opportunity to prove lack of cause. April 25, 2001: Sandiganbayan issued resolution finding that probable cause for plunder was seen and justifies warrant of as arrest of petitioner. June 14, 2001: Petitioner moved to quash information against him but it was denied on July 9, 2001. Issues: 1. Whether anti plunder law ra#7080 as amended by ra#7659 is unconstitutional. 2. Whether mens rea was present in the petitioners acts. Held: 1. RA#7080 (An act defining and penalizing the crime of plunder) as amended by RA#7659 is valid and is therefore constitutional. a. Vagueness- 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 penalties, its validity will be sustained. In the plunder law as evidenced by section 1 and 2, the elements of the crime are easily understood. Estrada complained that the terms combination, series, and pattern was vague. There is no constitutional or statutory command requiring the legislature to define each and every word in an enactment. Also, these words are very basic and can be easily understood. Void for vagueness doctrine which states that a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence as to what its meaning is violates the first essential due process of law is NOT applicable here.

Overbreadth doctrine states that a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessaryily broad and thereby invade the area of protected freedom also CANNOT BE applicable here. Overbreadth doctrine and void for vagueness doctrine only applies to free speech cases and not to penal statutes for they should be interpreted in simplest terms. b. beyond reasonable doubt- Not everything in an alleged information against a person needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. What is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt is the ELEMENT of the offense. 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. c. Mens rea- (will be answered in number 2) 2. Yes, mens rea was present. Plunder is a malum in se as it is included among the heinous crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Being malum in se, it requires proof of criminal intent. In the information, it was alleged that the crime of plunder was done willfully, unlawfully, and criminally thus proving the guilty knowledge on the part of the petitioner thus the mens rea. Law indicates quite clearly that mens rea is an element of plunder since the degree of responsibility of the offended is determined by his criminal intent.