estrada vs. sandigan bayan

7/26/2019 Estrada vs. Sandigan Bayan

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/estrada-vs-sandigan-bayan 1/4



or indirectly, by imsel" and;or in connivance $it +on oes and +ane oes, commissions

or percentages by reason o" said p#rcases $ic became part o" te deposit in te

e<#itable!pci ban. #nder te acco#nt name E+ose elardeF

by #n-#stly enricing imsel" "rom commissions, gi"ts, sares, percentages,

.ic.bac.s, or any "orm o" pec#niary bene"its, in connivance $it +on oes and +ane oes,(&,2&&,10=,16&%16 and depositing te same #nder is acco#nt name E+ose elardeF at te

<#itable!(ci an.

strada <#estions te constit#tionality o" te (l#nder La$ since "or im:

1. it s#""ers "rom te vice o" vag#eness

2. it dispenses $it te Greasonable do#btG standard in criminal prosec#tions

3. it abolises te element o" mens rea in crimes already p#nisable #nder *e 'evised (enal Code

· April =, 2001: O""ice o" te Omb#dsman "iled be"ore te Sandiganbayan 7 separate @n"ormations,

doc.eted as:

1. Crim% Case No% 2D??7, "or violation o" 'A 6070, as amended by 'A 6D?9

2. Crim% Cases Nos% 2D??9 to 2D?D2, incl#sive, "or violation o" Secs% &, par% 8a, &, par% 8a, &, par% 8e

and &, par% 8e, o" 'A &019 8Anti!Bra"t and Corr#pt (ractices Act, respectively

3. Crim% Case No% 2D?D&, "or violation o" Sec% 6, par% 8d, o" 'A D61& 8*e Code o" Cond#ct and

tical Standards "or (#blic O""icials and mployees

4. Crim% Case No% 2D?D=, "or (er-#ry 8Art% 17& o" *e 'evised (enal Code

5. Crim% Case No% 2D?D?, "or @llegal 4se O" An Alias 8CA No% 1=2, as amended by 'A D07?

· April 11, 2001: strada "iled an Omnib#s 3otion on te gro#nds o" lac. o" preliminary investigation,

reconsideration;reinvestigation o" o""enses and opport#nity to prove lac. o" probable ca#se% ! enied

· April 2?, 2001: Sandiganbayan iss#ed a 'esol#tion in Crim% Case No% 2D??7 "inding tat a probable

ca#se "or te o""ense o" pl#nder e>ists to -#sti"y te iss#ance o" $arrants "or te arrest o" te

acc#sed

· +#ne 1=, 2001: strada moved to <#as te @n"ormation in Crim% Case No% 2D??7 on te gro#nd tat

te "acts alleged terein did NO* constit#te an indictable o""ense since te la$ on $ic it $as

based $as #nconstit#tional "or vag#eness and tat te Amended @n"ormation "or (l#nder carged

more tan 1 o""ense – enied

· strada "iled a petition "or certiorari are:

1. *e (l#nder La$ is #nconstit#tional "or being vag#e

2. *e (l#nder La$ re<#ires less evidence "or proving te predicate crimes o" pl#nder and tere"ore

violates te rigts o" te acc#sed to d#e process3. Heter (l#nder as de"ined in 'A 6070 is a mal#m proibit#m, and i" so, $eter it is $itin te

po$er o" Congress to so classi"y it

@SS4S:

1. H;N te (l#nder La$ is constit#tional 8consti1



2. H;N te (l#nder La$ dispenses $it te Greasonable do#btG standard in criminal prosec#tions 8crim

pro

3. H;N te (l#nder La$ is a mal#m proibit#m 8crim la$ 1

L: (etition is dismissed% (l#nder La$ is constit#tional%1.

S

· 3iserably "ailed in te instant case to discarge is b#rden and overcome te pres#mption o"

constit#tionality o" te (l#nder La$

· (l#nder La$ contains ascertainable standards and $ell!de"ined parameters $ic $o#ld enable te

acc#sed to determine te nat#re o" is violation%

· Combination! at least t$o 82 acts "alling #nder di""erent categories o" en#meration

· series ! m#st be t$o 82 or more overt or criminal acts "alling #nder te same category o"

en#meration

· pattern ! at least a combination or series o" overt or criminal acts en#merated in s#bsections 81 to

8D o" Sec% 1 8d

· oid!)or!ag#eness octrine ! a stat#te $ic eiter "orbids or re<#ires te doing o" an act in terms

so vag#e tat men o" common intelligence m#st necessarily g#ess at its meaning and di""er as to its

application, violates te "irst essential o" d#e process o" la$

o *e test in determining $eter a criminal stat#te is void "or #ncertainty is $eter te lang#age

conveys a s#""iciently de"inite $arning as to te proscribed cond#ct $en meas#red by common

#nderstanding and practice

o can only be invo.ed against tat specie o" legislation tat is #tterly vag#e on its "ace, i%e%, tat $ic

cannot be clari"ied eiter by a saving cla#se or by constr#ction

o a stat#te or act may be said to be vag#e $en it lac.s compreensible standards tat men o"

common intelligence m#st necessarily g#ess at its meaning and di""er in its application%

o te stat#te is rep#gnant to te Constit#tion in 2 respects:

a. it violates d#e process "or "ail#re to accord persons, especially te parties targeted by it, "air notice o"

$at cond#ct to avoid

b. it leaves la$ en"orcers #nbridled discretion in carrying o#t its provisions and becomes an arbitrary

"le>ing o" te Bovernment m#scle

o As "or te vag#eness doctrine, it is said tat a litigant may callenge a stat#te on its "ace only i" it is

vag#e in all its possible applications

· Overbreadt octrine ! a governmental p#rpose may NO* be acieved by means $ic s$eep#nnecessarily broadly and tereby invade te area o" protected "reedoms

o overbreadt claims, i" entertained at all, ave been c#rtailed $en invo.ed against ordinary criminal

la$s tat are so#gt to be applied to protected cond#ct

· A "acial callenge is allo$ed to be made to a vag#e stat#te and to one $ic is overbroad beca#se

o" possible Gcilling e""ectG #pon protected speec%



· Criminal stat#tes ave general in terrorem e""ect res#lting "rom teir very e>istence, and, i" "acial

callenge is allo$ed "or tis reason alone, te State may $ell be prevented "rom enacting la$s

against socially arm"#l cond#ct% @n te area o" criminal la$, te la$ cannot ta.e cances as in te

area o" "ree speec%

·

*e overbreadt and vag#eness doctrines ten ave special application only to "ree speec cases%·

2. NO%

· *e #se o" te Greasonable do#btG standard is indispensable to command te respect and

con"idence o" te comm#nity in te application o" criminal la$%

o as ac<#ired s#c e>alted stat#re in te realm o" constit#tional la$ as it gives li"e to te #e (rocess

Cla#se $ic protects te acc#sed against conviction e>cept #pon proo" beyond reasonable do#bt

o" every "act necessary to constit#te te crime $it $ic e is carged

· Hat te prosec#tion needs to prove beyond reasonable do#bt is only a n#mber o" acts s#""icient to

"orm a combination or series $ic $o#ld constit#te a pattern and involving an amo#nt o" at least

(?0,000,000%00% *ere is no need to prove eac and every oter act alleged in te @n"ormation to

ave been committed by te acc#sed in "#rterance o" te overall #nla$"#l sceme or conspiracy to

amass, acc#m#late or ac<#ire ill!gotten $ealt

o (attern is merely a by!prod#ct o" te proo" o" te predicate acts% *is concl#sion is consistent $it

reason and common sense% *ere $o#ld be no oter e>planation "or a combination or series o"

overt or criminal acts to stas (?0,000,000%00 or more, tan Ga sceme or conspiracy to amass,

acc#m#late or ac<#ire ill gotten $ealt%G

3. NO

· pl#nder is a mal#m in se $ic re<#ires proo" o" criminal intent 8mens rea

o Any person $o participated $it te said p#blic o""icer in te commission o" an o""ense contrib#ting

to te crime o" pl#nder sall li.e$ise be p#nised "or s#c o""ense%

o @n te imposition o" penalties, te degree o" participation and te attendance o" mitigating and

e>ten#ating circ#mstances, as provided by te 'evised (enal Code, sall be considered by te

co#rt%

§ indicates <#ite clearly tat mens rea is an element o" pl#nder since te degree o" responsibility o" te

o""ender is determined by is criminal intent

o *e legislative declaration in '%A% No% 6D?9 tat pl#nder is a eino#s o""ense implies tat it is a

mal#m in se% )or $en te acts p#nised are inerently immoral or inerently $rong, tey are mala

in se and it does not matter tat s#c acts are p#nised in a special la$, especially since in te caseo" pl#nder te predicate crimes are mainly mala in se

estrada vs. sandigan bayan

Documents