EN BANC

[G.R. No. 148560. November 19, 2001]

JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTR!, petitioner, vs. SN!IGN"#N $T%&r' !&v&(&o)* +)'
PEOP,E O- THE PHI,IPPINES,respondents.
! E C I S I O N
"E,,OSI,,O, J..
JOHN STUART MILL, in his essay On Liberty, unleashes the full fury of his pen in efense of the ri!hts of
the ini"iual fro# the "ast po$ers of the State an the inroas of so%ietal pressure& But e"en as he ra$s a
sa%rosan%t line e#ar%atin! the li#its on ini"iuality 'eyon $hi%h the State %annot trea ( assertin! that
)ini"iual spontaneity) #ust 'e allo$e to flourish $ith "ery little re!ar to so%ial interferen%e ( he "erita'ly
a%*no$le!es that the e+er%ise of ri!hts an li'erties is i#'ue $ith a %i"i% o'li!ation, $hi%h so%iety is
,ustifie in enfor%in! at all %ost, a!ainst those $ho $oul enea"or to $ithhol fulfill#ent& Thus he says (
The sole end for which mankind is warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the
liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can
be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent
harm to others.
-arallel to ini"iual li'erty is the natural an illi#ita'le ri!ht of the State to self(preser"ation& .ith the
en of #aintainin! the inte!rity an %ohesi"eness of the 'oy politi%, it 'ehoo"es the State to for#ulate a
syste# of la$s that $oul %o#pel o'eisan%e to its %olle%ti"e $iso# an infli%t punish#ent for non(
o'ser"an%e&
The #o"e#ent fro# Mill/s ini"iual li'eralis# to unsyste#ati% %olle%ti"is# $rou!ht %han!es in the so%ial
orer, %arryin! $ith it a ne$ for#ulation of funa#ental ri!hts an uties #ore attune to the i#perati"es of
%onte#porary so%io(politi%al ieolo!ies& In the pro%ess, the $e' of ri!hts an State i#positions 'e%a#e tan!le
an o's%ure, en#eshe in threas of #ultiple shaes an %olors, the s*ein irre!ular an 'ro*en& Anta!onis#,
often outri!ht %ollision, 'et$een the la$ as the e+pression of the $ill of the State, an the 0ealous atte#pts 'y
its #e#'ers to preser"e their ini"iuality an i!nity, ine"ita'ly follo$e& It is $hen ini"iual ri!hts are
pitte a!ainst State authority that ,ui%ial %ons%ien%e is put to its se"erest test&
-etitioner Joseph E,er%ito Estraa, the hi!hest(ran*in! offi%ial to 'e prose%ute uner RA 1232 4n ct
!efining and "enalizing the #rime of "lunder5,
678
as a#ene 'y RA 19:;,
6<8
$ishes to i#press upon us that the
assaile la$ is so efe%ti"ely fashione that it %rosses that thin 'ut istin%t line $hi%h i"ies the "ali fro# the
%onstitutionally infir#& He therefore #a*es a strin!ent %all for this Court to su',e%t the -luner La$ to the
%ru%i'le of %onstitutionality #ainly 'e%ause, a%%orin! to hi#, 4a5 it suffers fro# the "i%e of "a!ueness= 4'5 it
ispenses $ith the )reasona'le ou't) stanar in %ri#inal prose%utions= an, 4%5 it a'olishes the ele#ent
of mens rea in %ri#es alreay punisha'le uner The $evised "enal #ode, all of $hi%h are purportely %lear
"iolations of the funa#ental ri!hts of the a%%use to ue pro%ess an to 'e infor#e of the nature an %ause of
the a%%usation a!ainst hi#&
Spe%ifi%ally, the pro"isions of the -luner La$ %lai#e 'y petitioner to ha"e trans!resse %onstitutional
'ounaries are Se%s& 7, par& 45, < an > $hi%h are reprou%e hereuner?
%ection &. x x x x 'd( )*ll-gotten wealth) means any asset, property, business, enterprise or material
possession of any person within the purview of %ection Two '+( hereof, ac,uired by him directly or
indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and-or business associates by any
combination or series of the following means or similar schemes.
'&( Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the
public treasury/
'+( 0y 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 pro1ect or by reason of the office or position of the public office concerned/
'2( 0y the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the 3ational
4overnment or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, or government owned or
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries/
'5( 0y obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, e,uity or any
other form of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in any business
enterprise or undertaking/
'6( 0y 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
'7( 0y taking advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to
un1ustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and pre1udice of the
8ilipino people and the $epublic of the "hilippines.
%ection +. @efinition of the Cri#e of -luner, -enalties& ( ny 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 ac,uires ill-gotten wealth through
a combination or series of overt or criminal acts as described in %ection & 'd( hereof, in the
aggregate amount or total value of at least fifty million pesos '"69,999,999.99( shall be guilty of
the crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. ny 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. *n the imposition of penalties, the degree of
participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances as provided by
the $evised "enal #ode shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-
gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares
of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the %tate 'underscoring
supplied(.
%ection 5. Rule of E"ien%e& ( 8or purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be
necessary to prove each 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 'underscoring supplied(.
On > April <227 the Offi%e of the O#'us#an file 'efore the Sani!an'ayan ei!ht 435 separate
Infor#ations, o%*ete as? 4a5 Cri#& Case No& <9::3, for "iolation of RA 1232, as a#ene 'y RA 19:;= 4'5
Cri#& Cases Nos& <9::; to <9:9<, in%lusi"e, for "iolation of Se%s& A, par& 4a5, A, par& 4a5, A, par& 4e5 an A, par&
4e5, of RA A27; 4nti-4raft and #orrupt "ractices ct5, respe%ti"ely= 4%5 Cri#& Case No& <9:9A, for "iolation
of Se%& 1, par& 45, of RA 917A 4The #ode of #onduct and :thical %tandards for "ublic Officials and
:mployees5= 45 Cri#& Case No& <9:9>, for -er,ury 4Art& 73A of The $evised "enal #ode5= an, 4e5 Cri#& Case
No& <9:9:, for Ille!al Use Of An Alias 4CA No& 7><, as a#ene 'y RA 923:5&
On 77 April <227 petitioner file an Omnibus ;otion for the re#an of the %ase to the O#'us#an for
preli#inary in"esti!ation $ith respe%t to spe%ifi%ation )) of the %har!es in the Infor#ation in Cri#& Case No&
<9::3= an, for re%onsierationBrein"esti!ation of the offenses uner spe%ifi%ations )a,) )',) an )%) to !i"e
the a%%use an opportunity to file %ounter(affia"its an other o%u#ents ne%essary to pro"e la%* of pro'a'le
%ause& Noti%ea'ly, the !rouns raise $ere only la%* of preli#inary in"esti!ation,
re%onsierationBrein"esti!ation of offenses, an opportunity to pro"e la%* of pro'a'le %ause& The purporte
a#'i!uity of the %har!es an the "a!ueness of the la$ uner $hi%h they are %har!e $ere ne"er raise in
that Omnibus ;otion thus ini%atin! the e+pli%itness an %o#prehensi'ility of the -luner La$&
On <: April <227 the Sani!an'ayan, Thir @i"ision, issue a Resolution in Cri#& Case No& <9::3 finin!
that )a pro'a'le %ause for the offense of -LUN@ER e+ists to ,ustify the issuan%e of $arrants for the arrest of the
a%%use&) On <: June <227 petitioner/s #otion for re%onsieration $as enie 'y the Sani!an'ayan&
On 7> June <227 petitioner #o"e to Cuash the Infor#ation in Cri#& Case No& <9::3 on the !roun that
the fa%ts alle!e therein i not %onstitute an ini%ta'le offense sin%e the la$ on $hi%h it $as 'ase $as
un%onstitutional for "a!ueness, an that the A#ene Infor#ation for -luner %har!e #ore than one 475
offense& On <7 June <227 the Do"ern#ent file its Opposition to the ;otion to <uash, an fi"e 4:5 ays later
or on <9 June <227 petitioner su'#itte his $eply to the Opposition& On ; July <227 the Sani!an'ayan enie
petitioner/s ;otion to <uash&
As %on%isely elineate 'y this Court urin! the oral ar!u#ents on 73 Septe#'er <227, the issues for
resolution in the instant petition for %ertiorari are? 4a5 The -luner La$ is un%onstitutional for 'ein! "a!ue= 4'5
The -luner La$ reCuires less e"ien%e for pro"in! the prei%ate %ri#es of pluner an therefore "iolates the
ri!hts of the a%%use to ue pro%ess= an, 4%5 .hether -luner as efine in RA 1232 is a malum prohibitum,
an if so, $hether it is $ithin the po$er of Con!ress to so %lassify it&
-reli#inarily, the $hole !a#ut of le!al %on%epts pertainin! to the "aliity of le!islation is prei%ate on the
'asi% prin%iple that a le!islati"e #easure is presu#e to 'e in har#ony $ith the Constitution&
6A8
Courts
in"aria'ly train their si!hts on this funa#ental rule $hene"er a le!islati"e a%t is uner a %onstitutional atta%*,
for it is the postulate of %onstitutional a,ui%ation& This stron! preile%tion for %onstitutionality ta*es its
'earin!s on the iea that it is for'ien for one 'ran%h of the !o"ern#ent to en%roa%h upon the uties an
po$ers of another& Thus it has 'een sai that the presu#ption is 'ase on the eferen%e the ,ui%ial 'ran%h
a%%ors to its %oorinate 'ran%h ( the le!islature&
If there is any reasona'le 'asis upon $hi%h the le!islation #ay fir#ly rest, the %ourts #ust assu#e that the
le!islature is e"er %ons%ious of the 'orers an e!es of its plenary po$ers, an has passe the la$ $ith full
*no$le!e of the fa%ts an for the purpose of pro#otin! $hat is ri!ht an a"an%in! the $elfare of the
#a,ority& Hen%e in eter#inin! $hether the a%ts of the le!islature are in tune $ith the funa#ental la$, %ourts
shoul pro%ee $ith ,ui%ial restraint an a%t $ith %aution an for'earan%e& E"ery inten#ent of the la$ #ust
'e a,u!e 'y the %ourts in fa"or of its %onstitutionality, in"aliity 'ein! a #easure of last resort& In
%onstruin! therefore the pro"isions of a statute, %ourts #ust first as%ertain $hether an interpretation is fairly
possi'le to siestep the Cuestion of %onstitutionality&
In La =nion #redit #ooperative, *nc. v. >aranon
6>8
$e hel that as
lon! as there is so#e 'asis for the e%ision of the %ourt, the %onstitutionality of the %hallen!e la$
$ill not 'e tou%he an the %ase $ill 'e e%ie on other a"aila'le !rouns& Eet the for%e of the presu#ption is
not suffi%ient to %atapult a funa#entally efi%ient la$ into the safe en"irons of %onstitutionality& Of %ourse,
$here the la$ %learly an palpa'ly trans!resses the hallo$e o#ain of the or!ani% la$, it #ust 'e stru%* o$n
on si!ht lest the positi"e %o##ans of the funa#ental la$ 'e unuly eroe&
Ferily, the onerous tas* of re'uttin! the presu#ption $ei!hs hea"ily on the party %hallen!in! the "aliity of
the statute& He #ust e#onstrate 'eyon any tin!e of ou't that there is inee an infrin!e#ent of the
%onstitution, for a'sent su%h a sho$in!, there %an 'e no finin! of un%onstitutionality& A ou't, e"en if
$ell(foune, $ill harly suffi%e& As tersely put 'y Justi%e Mal%ol#, )To 'o/b0 &( 0o (/(0+&).)
6:8
An
petitioner has #isera'ly faile in the instant %ase to is%har!e his 'uren an o"er%o#e the presu#ption of
%onstitutionality of the -luner La$&
As it is $ritten, the -luner La$ %ontains as%ertaina'le stanars an $ell(efine para#eters $hi%h
$oul ena'le the a%%use to eter#ine the nature of his "iolation& Se%tion < is
suffi%iently e+pli%it in its es%ription of the a%ts, %onu%t an %onitions reCuire or for'ien, an
pres%ri'es the ele#ents of the %ri#e $ith reasona'le %ertainty an parti%ularity& Thus (
&. 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/
+. That he amassed, accumulated or ac,uired ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of
the following overt or criminal acts. 'a( through misappropriation,
conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury/ 'b( 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 pro1ect or by reason of the office or position of the public officer/ 'c( by the illegal or
fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the 3ational 4overnment or any of its
subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of 4overnment owned or controlled corporations or
their subsidiaries/ 'd( by obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of
stock, e,uity or any other form of interest or participation including the promise of future
employment in any business enterprise or undertaking/ 'e( 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 'f( by taking advantage of official
position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to un1ustly enrich himself or themselves at
the expense and to the damage and pre1udice of the 8ilipino people and the $epublic of the
"hilippines/ and,
2. That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or
ac,uired is at least "69,999,999.99.
As lon! as the la$ affors so#e %o#prehensi'le !uie or rule that $oul infor# those $ho are su',e%t to it
$hat %onu%t $oul rener the# lia'le to its penalties, its "aliity $ill 'e sustaine& It #ust suffi%iently !uie
the ,u!e in its appli%ation= the %ounsel, in efenin! one %har!e $ith its "iolation= an #ore i#portantly, the
a%%use, in ientifyin! the real# of the pros%ri'e %onu%t& Inee, it %an 'e unerstoo $ith little iffi%ulty
that $hat the assaile statute punishes is the a%t of a pu'li% offi%er in a#assin! or a%%u#ulatin! ill(!otten $ealth
of at least -:2,222,222&22 throu!h a series or %o#'ination of a%ts enu#erate in Se%& 7, par& 45, of the -luner
La$&
In fa%t, the a#ene Infor#ation itself %losely tra%*s the lan!ua!e of the la$, ini%atin! $ith reasona'le
%ertainty the "arious ele#ents of the offense $hi%h petitioner is alle!e to ha"e %o##itte?
)The unersi!ne O#'us#an, -rose%utor an OIC(@ire%tor, E-IB, Offi%e of the O#'us#an,
here'y a%%uses for#er PRESI!ENT O- THE REP1",IC O- THE PHI,IPPINES, Joseph
E,er%ito Estraa, a&*&a& /ASIOND SALONDA/ an a&*&a& /JOSE FELAR@E,/ to!ether $ith Jose
/Jin!!oy/ Estraa, Charlie /Aton!/ An!, E$ar Serapio, Eolana T& Ri%aforte, Al#a Alfaro, JOHN
@OE a&*&a& Eleuterio Tan OR Eleuterio Ra#os Tan or Mr& Uy, Jane @oe a&*&a& @elia Ra,as, an
John !OES G Jane @oes, of the %ri#e of -luner, efine an penali0e uner R&A& No& 1232, as
a#ene 'y Se%& 7< of R&A& No& 19:;, %o##itte as follo$s?
That urin! the perio fro# June, 7;;3 to January <227, in the -hilippines, an $ithin the
,urisi%tion of this Honora'le Court, a%%use Joseph E,er%ito Estraa, THEN PRESI!ENT O-
THE REP1",IC O- THE PHI,IPPINES, 'y
hi#self AN@BOR in CONNI2NCE3CONSPIRC# $ith his %o(a%%use, 4HO RE
5E5"ERS O- HIS -5I,#, RE,TI2ES "# --INIT# OR CONSNG1INIT#,
"1SINESS SSOCITES, S1"OR!INTES N!3OR OTHER PERSONS, "# T6ING
1N!1E !2NTGE O- HIS O--ICI, POSITION, 1THORIT#, RE,TIONSHIP,
CONNECTION, OR IN-,1ENCE, i then an there $illfully, unla$fully an %ri#inally
a#ass, a%%u#ulate an a%Cuire "# HI5SE,-, !IRECT,# OR IN!IRECT,#, ill(!otten
$ealth in the a!!re!ate a#ount or TOT, 2,1E o7 -O1R "I,,ION NINET# SE2EN
5I,,ION EIGHT H1N!RE! -O1R THO1SN! ONE H1N!RE! SE2ENT# THREE
PESOS N! SE2ENTEEN CENT2OS 4->,2;1,32>,71A&715, #ore or less, THERE"#
1NJ1ST,# ENRICHING HI5SE,- OR THE5SE,2ES T THE E8PENSE N! TO THE
!5GE O- THE -I,IPINO PEOP,E N! THE REP1",IC O- THE PHI,IPPINES,
throu!h N# OR %o#'ination OR Aseries of o"ert OR %ri#inal a%ts, OR SI5I,R
SCHE5ES OR 5ENS, es%ri'e as follo$s?
4a5 'y re%ei"in! OR %olle%tin!, ire%tly or inire%tly, on SE2ER, INSTNCES, 5ONE# IN
THE GGREGTE 5O1NT O- -I2E H1N!RE! -ORT#9-I2E 5I,,ION PESOS
$ P 545,000,000.00*, 5ORE OR ,ESS, -RO5 I,,EG, G5",ING IN THE -OR5 O-
GI-T, SHRE, PERCENTGE, 6IC6"C6 OR N# -OR5 O- PEC1NIR# "ENE-IT,
"# HI5SE,- N!3OR in %onne%tion $ith %o(a%%use CHR,IE :TONG: NG, ?ose
@?inggoy@ :strada, Eolana T& Ri%aforte, E$ar Serapio, N! JOHN !OES N! JNE !OES,
in %onsieration O- TO,ERTION OR PROTECTION O- I,,EG, G5",ING=
4'5 'y !I2ERTING, RECEI2ING, #isappropriatin!, %on"ertin! OR #isusin! !IRECT,# OR
IN!IRECT,#, for HIS OR THEIR PERSON, !ain an 'enefit, pu'li% funs in the a#ount of
ONE HUN@RE@ THIRTE MILLION -ESOS 4-7A2,222,222&225, #ore or less, representin! a
portion of the T4O H1N!RE! 5I,,ION PESOS $ P 200,000,000.00* to'a%%o e+%ise ta+ share
allo%ate for the pro"in%e of Ilo%os Sur uner R&A& No& 1717, b; %&m(e<7 +)'3or in %onni"an%e
$ith %o(a%%use Charlie /Aton!/ An!, Al#a Alfaro, JOHN !OE +.=.+. Eleuterio Ra#os Tan or Mr&
Uy, Jane @oe a&*&a& @elia Ra,as, N! OTHER JOHN !OES > JNE !OES= 4itali% supplie5&
4%5 'y ire%tin!, orerin! an %o#pellin!, -OR HIS PERSON, GIN N! "ENE-IT, the
Do"ern#ent Ser"i%e Insuran%e Syste# 4DSIS5 TO P1RCHSE ?51,8@8,000 SHRES O-
STOC6S, 5ORE OR ,ESS, an the So%ial Se%urity Syste# 4SSS5, A<;,3::,222 SHRES O-
STOC6, 5ORE OR ,ESS, O- THE "E,,E CORPORTION IN THE 5O1NT O-
5ORE OR ,ESS ONE "I,,ION ONE H1N!RE! T4O 5I,,ION NINE H1N!RE!
SI8T# -I2E THO1SN! SI8 H1N!RE! SE2EN PESOS N! -I-T# CENT2OS
$ P 1,102,965,60@.50* N! 5ORE OR ,ESS SE2EN H1N!RE! -ORT# -O1R 5I,,ION
SI8 H1N!RE! T4E,2E THO1SN! N! -O1R H1N!RE! -I-T# PESOS
$ P @44,612,450.00*, RESPECTI2E,#, OR TOT, O- 5ORE OR ,ESS ONE "I,,ION
EIGHT H1N!RE! -ORT# SE2EN 5I,,ION -I2E H1N!RE! SE2ENT# EIGHT
THO1SN! -I-T# SE2EN PESOS N! -I-T# CENT2OS
$ P 1,84@,5@8,05@.50*A N! "# CO,,ECTING OR RECEI2ING, !IRECT,# OR
IN!IRECT,#, "# HI5SE,- N!3OR IN CONNI2NCE 4ITH JOHN !OES N! JNE
!OES, CO55ISSIONS OR PERCENTGES "# RESON O- SI! P1RCHSES O-
SHRES O- STOC6 IN THE 5O1NT O- ONE H1N!RE! EIGHT# NINE 5I,,ION
SE2EN H1N!RE! THO1SN! PESOS $ P 189,@00,000.00* 5ORE OR ,ESS, -RO5 THE
"E,,E CORPORTION 4HICH "EC5E PRT O- THE !EPOSIT IN THE
EB1IT",E9PCI "N6 1N!ER THE CCO1NT N5E :JOSE 2E,R!E=/
45 'y un,ustly enri%hin! hi#self -RO5 CO55ISSIONS, GI-TS, SHRES,
PERCENTGES, 6IC6"C6S, OR N# -OR5 O- PEC1NIR# "ENE-ITS, IN
CONNI2NCE 4ITH JOHN !OES N! JNE !OES, in the a#ount of 5ORE OR
,ESS THREE BILLION T.O HUN@RE@ THIRTE THREE MILLION ONE HUN@RE@ HOUR
THOUSAN@ ONE HUN@RE@ SEFENTE THREE -ESOS AN@ SEFENTEEN CENTAFOS
4-A,<AA,72>,71A&715 N! !EPOSITING THE S5E 1N!ER HIS CCO1NT
N5E :JOSE 2E,R!E: T THE EB1IT",E9PCI "N6&)
.e is%ern nothin! in the fore!oin! that is "a!ue or a#'i!uous ( as there is o'"iously none ( that $ill
%onfuse petitioner in his efense& Althou!h su',e%t to proof, these fa%tual assertions %learly sho$ that the
ele#ents of the %ri#e are easily unerstoo an pro"ie aeCuate %ontrast 'et$een the inno%ent an the
prohi'ite a%ts& Upon su%h uneCui"o%al assertions, petitioner is %o#pletely infor#e of the a%%usations a!ainst
hi# as to ena'le hi# to prepare for an intelli!ent efense&
-etitioner, ho$e"er, 'e$ails the failure of the la$ to pro"ie for the statutory efinition of the
ter#s )%o#'ination) an )series) in the *ey phrase )a %o#'ination or series of o"ert or %ri#inal a%ts) foun
in Se%& 7, par& 45, an Se%& <, an the $or )pattern) in Se%& >& These o#issions, a%%orin! to petitioner,
rener the -luner La$ un%onstitutional for 'ein! i#per#issi'ly "a!ue an o"er'roa an eny hi# the ri!ht to
'e infor#e of the nature an %ause of the a%%usation a!ainst hi#, hen%e, "iolati"e of his funa#ental ri!ht to
ue pro%ess&
The rationali0ation see#s to us to 'e pure sophistry& A statute is not renere un%ertain an "oi #erely
'e%ause !eneral ter#s are use therein, or 'e%ause of the e#ploy#ent of ter#s $ithout efinin! the#=
698
#u%h
less o $e ha"e to efine e"ery $or $e use& Besies, there is no positi"e %onstitutional or statutory %o##an
reCuirin! the le!islature to efine ea%h an e"ery $or in an ena%t#ent& Con!ress is not restri%te in the for#
of e+pression of its $ill, an its ina'ility to so efine the $ors e#ploye in a statute $ill not ne%essarily result
in the "a!ueness or a#'i!uity of the la$ so lon! as the le!islati"e $ill is %lear, or at least, %an 'e !athere fro#
the $hole a%t, $hi%h is istin%tly e+presse in the -luner La$&
Moreo"er, it is a $ell(settle prin%iple of le!al her#eneuti%s that $ors of a statute $ill 'e interprete in
their natural, plain an orinary a%%eptation an si!nifi%ation,
618
unless it is e"ient that the le!islature intene a
te%hni%al or spe%ial le!al #eanin! to those $ors&
638
The intention of the la$#a*ers ( $ho are, orinarily,
untraine philolo!ists an le+i%o!raphers ( to use statutory phraseolo!y in su%h a #anner is al$ays
presu#e& Thus, .e'ster/s Ne$ Colle!iate @i%tionary %ontains the follo$in! %o##only a%%epte efinition of
the $ors )%o#'ination) an )series?)
#ombination ( the result or prou%t of %o#'inin!= the a%t or pro%ess of %o#'inin!& To combine is
to 'rin! into su%h %lose relationship as to o's%ure ini"iual %hara%ters&
%eries ( a nu#'er of thin!s or e"ents of the sa#e %lass %o#in! one after another in spatial an
te#poral su%%ession&
That Con!ress intene the $ors )%o#'ination) an )series) to 'e unerstoo in their popular #eanin!s
is pristinely e"ient fro# the le!islati"e eli'erations on the 'ill $hi%h e"entually 'e%a#e RA 1232 or the
-luner La$?
DELIE!"#I$%& $' #(E I)"*E!"L )$**I##EE $% J+&#I)E, , *ay -..-
$:". *%*!$O. * am 1ust intrigued again by our definition of plunder. Ae say TB$O=4B
#O;0*3T*O3 O$ %:$*:% O8 OC:$T O$ #$*;*3L #T% % ;:3T*O3:! *3 %:#T*O3
O3: B:$:O8. 3ow when we say combination, we actually mean to say, if there are two or more
means, we mean to say that number one and two or number one and something else are included,
how about a series of the same actD 8or example, through misappropriation, conversion, misuse,
will these be included alsoD
$:". 4$#*. >eah, because we say a series.
$:". *%*!$O. %eries.
$:". 4$#*. >eah, we include series.
$:". *%*!$O. 0ut we say we begin with a combination.
$:". 4$#*. >es.
$:". *%*!$O. Ahen we say combination, it seems that -
$:". 4$#*. Two.
$:". *%*!$O. 3ot only two but we seem to mean that two of the enumerated means not twice of one enumeration.
$:". 4$#*. 3o, no, not twice.
$:". *%*!$O. 3ot twiceD
$:". 4$#*. >es. #ombination is not twice - but combination, two acts.
$:". *%*!$O. %o in other words, thatEs it. Ahen we say combination, we mean, two different acts. *t cannot be a
repetition of the same act.
$:". 4$#*. That be referred to series, yeah.
$:". *%*!$O. 3o, no. %upposing one act is repeated, so there are two.
$:". 4$#*. series.
$:". *%*!$O. ThatEs not series. *ts a combination. 0ecause when we say combination or series, we seem to say that
two or more, di baD
$:". 4$#*. >es, this distinguishes it really from ordinary crimes. That is why, * said, that is a very good suggestion
because if it is only one act, it may fall under ordinary crime but we have here a combination or series of overt or
criminal acts. %o x x x x
$:". 4$#*. %eries. One after the other eh di....
%:3. T3!. %o that would fall under the term FseriesDG
$:". 4$#*. %eries, oo.
$:". *%*!$O. 3ow, if it is a combination, ano, two misappropriations....
$:". 4$#*. *ts not... Two misappropriations will not be combination. %eries.
$:". *%*!$O. %o, it is not a combinationD
$:". 4$#*. >es.
$:". *%*!$O. Ahen you say combination, two differentD
$:". 4$#*. >es.
%:3. T3!. Two different.
$:". *%*!$O. Two different acts.
$:". 4$#*. 8or example, ha...
$:". *%*!$O. 3ow a series, meaning, repetition...
!:L*0:$T*O3% O3 %:3T: 0*LL 3O. H22, 7 ?une &IJI
%:3TO$ ;#:!. *n line with our interpellations that sometimes FoneG or maybe even FtwoG acts may already
result in such a big amount, on line +6, would the %ponsor consider deleting the words Fa series of overt or,G
to read, therefore. For conspiracy #O;;*TT:! by criminal acts such as.G $emove the idea of necessitating Fa
series.G nyway, the criminal acts are in the plural.
%:3TO$ T3!. That would mean a combination of two or more of the acts mentioned in this.
TB: "$:%*!:3T. "robably two or more would be....
%:3TO$ ;#:!. >es, because Fa seriesG implies several or many/ two or more.
%:3TO$ T3!. ccepted, ;r. "resident x x x x
TB: "$:%*!:3T. *f there is only one, then he has to be prosecuted under the particular crime. 0ut when we say
Facts of plunderG there should be, at least, two or more.
%:3TO$ $O;=LO. *n other words, that is already covered by existing laws, ;r. "resident.
Thus $hen the -luner La$ spea*s of )%o#'ination,) it is referrin! to at least t$o 4<5 a%ts fallin! uner
ifferent %ate!ories of enu#eration pro"ie in Se%& 7, par& 45, e&!&, rais on the pu'li% treasury in Se%& 7, par&
45, su'par& 475, an frauulent %on"eyan%e of assets 'elon!in! to the National Do"ern#ent uner Se%& 7, par&
45, su'par& 4A5&
On the other han, to %onstitute a series) there #ust 'e t$o 4<5 or #ore o"ert or %ri#inal a%ts fallin! uner
the sa#e %ate!ory of enu#eration foun in Se%& 7, par& 45, say, #isappropriation, #al"ersation
an rais on the pu'li% treasury, all of $hi%h fall uner Se%& 7, par& 45, su'par& 475& Ferily, ha the
le!islature intene a te%hni%al or istin%ti"e #eanin! for )%o#'ination) an )series,) it $oul ha"e ta*en
!reater pains in spe%ifi%ally pro"iin! for it in the la$&
As for )pattern,) $e a!ree $ith the o'ser"ations of the Sani!an'ayan
6;8
that this ter# is suffi%iently
efine in Se%& >, in relation to Se%& 7, par& 45, an Se%& < (
x x x x under %ec. & 'd( of the law, a @pattern@ consists of at least a combination or series of overt
or criminal acts enumerated in subsections '&( to '7( of %ec. & 'd(. %econdly, pursuant to %ec. + of
the law, the pattern of overt or criminal acts is directed towards a common purpose or goal which
is to enable the public officer to amass, accumulate or ac,uire ill-gotten wealth. nd thirdly, there
must either be an @overall unlawful scheme@ or @conspiracy@ to achieve said common goal. s
commonly understood, the term @overall unlawful scheme@ indicates a @general plan of action or
method@ which the principal accused and public officer and others conniving with him follow to
achieve the aforesaid common goal. *n the alternative, if there is no such overall scheme or where
the schemes or methods used by multiple accused vary, the overt or criminal acts must form part of
a conspiracy to attain a common goal.
Hen%e, it %annot plausi'ly 'e %ontene that the la$ oes not !i"e a fair $arnin! an suffi%ient noti%e of
$hat it see*s to penali0e& Uner the %ir%u#stan%es, petitioner/s relian%e on the )"oi(for("a!ueness) o%trine is
#anifestly #ispla%e& The o%trine has 'een for#ulate in "arious $ays, 'ut is #ost %o##only state to the
effe%t that a statute esta'lishin! a %ri#inal offense #ust efine the offense $ith suffi%ient efiniteness that
persons of orinary intelli!en%e %an unerstan $hat %onu%t is prohi'ite 'y the statute& It %an only 'e
in"o*e a!ainst that spe%ie of le!islation that is utterly "a!ue on its fa%e, i&e&, that $hi%h %annot 'e %larifie
either 'y a sa"in! %lause or 'y %onstru%tion&
A statute or a%t #ay 'e sai to 'e "a!ue $hen it la%*s %o#prehensi'le stanars that #en of %o##on
intelli!en%e #ust ne%essarily !uess at its #eanin! an iffer in its appli%ation& In su%h instan%e, the statute is
repu!nant to the Constitution in t$o 4<5 respe%ts ( it "iolates ue pro%ess for failure to a%%or persons,
espe%ially the parties tar!ete 'y it, fair noti%e of $hat %onu%t to a"oi= an, it lea"es la$ enfor%ers un'rile
is%retion in %arryin! out its pro"isions an 'e%o#es an ar'itrary fle+in! of the Do"ern#ent #us%le&
6728
But the
o%trine oes not apply as a!ainst le!islations that are #erely %ou%he in i#pre%ise lan!ua!e 'ut $hi%h
nonetheless spe%ify a stanar thou!h efe%ti"ely phrase= or to those that are apparently a#'i!uous yet
fairly appli%a'le to %ertain types of a%ti"ities& The first #ay 'e )sa"e) 'y proper %onstru%tion, $hile no
%hallen!e #ay 'e #ounte as a!ainst the se%on $hene"er ire%te a!ainst su%h a%ti"ities&
6778
.ith #ore reason,
the o%trine %annot 'e in"o*e $here the assaile statute is %lear an free fro# a#'i!uity, as in this %ase&
The test in eter#inin! $hether a %ri#inal statute is "oi for un%ertainty is $hether the lan!ua!e %on"eys a
suffi%iently efinite $arnin! as to the pros%ri'e %onu%t $hen #easure 'y %o##on unerstanin! an
pra%ti%e&
67<8
It #ust 'e stresse, ho$e"er, that the )"a!ueness) o%trine #erely reCuires a reasona'le e!ree of
%ertainty for the statute to 'e uphel ( not a'solute pre%ision or #athe#ati%al e+a%titue, as petitioner see#s to
su!!est& Hle+i'ility, rather than #eti%ulous spe%ifi%ity, is per#issi'le as lon! as the #etes an 'ouns of the
statute are %learly elineate& An a%t $ill not 'e hel in"ali #erely 'e%ause it #i!ht ha"e 'een #ore e+pli%it
in its $orin!s or etaile in its pro"isions, espe%ially $here, 'e%ause of the nature of the a%t, it $oul 'e
i#possi'le to pro"ie all the etails in a"an%e as in all other statutes&
Moreo"er, $e a!ree $ith, hen%e $e aopt, the o'ser"ations of Mr& Justi%e Fi%ente F& Meno0a urin! the
eli'erations of the Court that the alle!ations that the -luner La$ is "a!ue an o"er'roa o not ,ustify a fa%ial
re"ie$ of its "aliity (
The "oi(for("a!ueness o%trine states that )a statute $hi%h either for'is or reCuires the oin! of
an a%t in ter#s so "a!ue that #en of %o##on intelli!en%e #ust ne%essarily !uess at its #eanin!
an iffer as to its appli%ation, "iolates the first essential of ue pro%ess of la$&)
67A8
The o"er'reath
o%trine, on the other han, e%rees that )a !o"ern#ental purpose #ay not 'e a%hie"e 'y #eans $hi%h s$eep
unne%essarily 'roaly an there'y in"ae the area of prote%te freeo#s&)
67>8
A fa%ial %hallen!e is allo$e to 'e #ae to a "a!ue statute an to one $hi%h is o"er'roa 'e%ause
of possi'le )%hillin! effe%t) upon prote%te spee%h& The theory is that )6$8hen statutes re!ulate or
pros%ri'e spee%h an no reaily apparent %onstru%tion su!!ests itself as a "ehi%le for reha'ilitatin!
the statutes in a sin!le prose%ution, the trans%enent "alue to all so%iety of %onstitutionally
prote%te e+pression is ee#e to ,ustify allo$in! atta%*s on o"erly 'roa statutes $ith no
reCuire#ent that the person #a*in! the atta%* e#onstrate that his o$n %onu%t %oul not 'e
re!ulate 'y a statute ra$n $ith narro$ spe%ifi%ity&)
67:8
The possi'le har# to so%iety in per#ittin!
so#e unprote%te spee%h to !o unpunishe is out$ei!he 'y the possi'ility that the prote%te
spee%h of others #ay 'e eterre an per%ei"e !rie"an%es left to fester 'e%ause of possi'le
inhi'itory effe%ts of o"erly 'roa statutes&
This rationale oes not apply to penal statutes& Cri#inal statutes ha"e !eneral in terrorem effe%t
resultin! fro# their "ery e+isten%e, an, if fa%ial %hallen!e is allo$e for this reason alone, the
State #ay $ell 'e pre"ente fro# ena%tin! la$s a!ainst so%ially har#ful %onu%t& In the area of
%ri#inal la$, the la$ %annot ta*e %han%es as in the area of free spee%h&
The o"er'reath an "a!ueness o%trines then ha"e spe%ial appli%ation only to free spee%h
%ases& They are inapt for testin! the "aliity of penal statutes& As the U&S& Supre#e Court put it, in
an opinion 'y Chief Justi%e RehnCuist, )$e ha"e not re%o!ni0e an /o"er'reath/ o%trine outsie
the li#ite %onte+t of the Hirst A#en#ent&)
6798
In 0roadrick v. Oklahoma,
6718
the Court rule that
)%lai#s of fa%ial o"er'reath ha"e 'een entertaine in %ases in"ol"in! statutes $hi%h, 'y their
ter#s, see* to re!ulate only spo*en $ors) an, a!ain, that )o"er'reath %lai#s, if entertaine at
all, ha"e 'een %urtaile $hen in"o*e a!ainst orinary %ri#inal la$s that are sou!ht to 'e applie
to prote%te %onu%t&) Hor this reason, it has 'een hel that )a fa%ial %hallen!e to a le!islati"e a%t is
the #ost iffi%ult %hallen!e to #ount su%%essfully, sin%e the %hallen!er #ust esta'lish that no set of
%ir%u#stan%es e+ists uner $hi%h the A%t $oul 'e "ali&)
6738
As for the "a!ueness o%trine, it is
sai that a liti!ant #ay %hallen!e a statute on its fa%e only if it is "a!ue in all its possi'le
appli%ations& )A plaintiff $ho en!a!es in so#e %onu%t that is %learly pros%ri'e %annot %o#plain
of the "a!ueness of the la$ as applie to the %onu%t of others&)
67;8
In su#, the o%trines of stri%t s%rutiny, o"er'reath, an "a!ueness are analyti%al tools e"elope
for testin! )on their fa%es) statutes in free spee%h %ases or, as they are %alle in A#eri%an la$, Hirst
A#en#ent %ases& They %annot 'e #ae to o ser"i%e $hen $hat is in"ol"e is a %ri#inal
statute& .ith respe%t to su%h statute, the esta'lishe rule is that )one to $ho# appli%ation of a
statute is %onstitutional $ill not 'e hear to atta%* the statute on the !roun that i#pliely it #i!ht
also 'e ta*en as applyin! to other persons or other situations in $hi%h its appli%ation #i!ht 'e
un%onstitutional&)
6<28
As has 'een pointe out, )"a!ueness %hallen!es in the Hirst A#en#ent
%onte+t, li*e o"er'reath %hallen!es typi%ally prou%e fa%ial in"aliation, $hile statutes foun
"a!ue as a #atter of ue pro%ess typi%ally are in"aliate 6only8 /as applie/ to a parti%ular
efenant&)
6<78
ConseCuently, there is no 'asis for petitioner/s %lai# that this Court re"ie$ the Anti(
-luner La$ on its fa%e an in its entirety&
Inee, )on its fa%e) in"aliation of statutes results in stri*in! the# o$n entirely on the !roun
that they #i!ht 'e applie to parties not 'efore the Court $hose a%ti"ities are %onstitutionally
prote%te&
6<<8
It %onstitutes a eparture fro# the %ase an %ontro"ersy reCuire#ent of the
Constitution an per#its e%isions to 'e #ae $ithout %on%rete fa%tual settin!s an in sterile
a'stra%t %onte+ts&
6<A8
But, as the U&S& Supre#e Court pointe out in >ounger v. Barris
6<>8
6T8he tas* of analy0in! a propose statute, pinpointin! its efi%ien%ies, an reCuirin! %orre%tion of
these efi%ien%ies 'efore the statute is put into effe%t, is rarely if e"er an appropriate tas* for the
,ui%iary& The %o#'ination of the relati"e re#oteness of the %ontro"ersy, the i#pa%t on the
le!islati"e pro%ess of the relief sou!ht, an a'o"e all the spe%ulati"e an a#orphous nature of the
reCuire line('y(line analysis of etaile statutes, & & & orinarily results in a *in of %ase that is
$holly unsatisfa%tory for e%iin! %onstitutional Cuestions, $hi%he"er $ay they #i!ht 'e e%ie&
Hor these reasons, )on its fa%e) in"aliation of statutes has 'een es%ri'e as )#anifestly stron!
#ei%ine,) to 'e e#ploye )sparin!ly an only as a last resort,)
6<:8
an is !enerally isfa"ore&
6<98
In
eter#inin! the %onstitutionality of a statute, therefore, its pro"isions $hi%h are alle!e to ha"e
'een "iolate in a %ase #ust 'e e+a#ine in the li!ht of the %onu%t $ith $hi%h the efenant is
%har!e&
6<18
In li!ht of the fore!oin! isCuisition, it is e"ient that the purporte a#'i!uity of the -luner La$, so
tena%iously %lai#e an ar!ue at len!th 'y petitioner, is #ore i#a!ine than real& A#'i!uity, $here none
e+ists, %annot 'e %reate 'y isse%tin! parts an $ors in the statute to furnish support to %riti%s $ho %a"il at the
$ant of s%ientifi% pre%ision in the la$& E"ery pro"ision of the la$ shoul 'e %onstrue in relation an $ith
referen%e to e"ery other part& To 'e sure, it $ill ta*e #ore than nitpi%*in! to o"erturn the $ell(entren%he
presu#ption of %onstitutionality an "aliity of the -luner La$& A fortiori, petitioner %annot fei!n i!noran%e
of $hat the -luner La$ is all a'out& Bein! one of the Senators $ho "ote for its passa!e, petitioner #ust 'e
a$are that the la$ $as e+tensi"ely eli'erate upon 'y the Senate an its appropriate %o##ittees 'y reason of
$hi%h he e"en re!istere his affir#ati"e "ote $ith full *no$le!e of its le!al i#pli%ations an soun
%onstitutional an%hora!e&
The parallel %ase of 4allego v. %andiganbayan
6<38
#ust 'e #entione if only to illustrate an e#phasi0e the
point that %ourts are loathe to e%lare a statute "oi for un%ertainty unless the la$ itself is so i#perfe%t an
efi%ient in its etails, an is sus%epti'le of no reasona'le %onstru%tion that $ill support an !i"e it effe%t& In
that %ase, petitioners 4allego an goncillo %hallen!e the %onstitutionality of Se%& A, par& 4e5, of The nti-4raft
and #orrupt "ractices ct for 'ein! "a!ue& -etitioners posite, a#on! others, that the ter# )un$arrante) is
hi!hly i#pre%ise an elasti% $ith no %o##on la$ #eanin! or settle efinition 'y prior ,ui%ial or
a#inistrati"e pre%eents= that, for its "a!ueness, Se%& A, par& 4e5, "iolates ue pro%ess in that it oes not !i"e
fair $arnin! or suffi%ient noti%e of $hat it see*s to penali0e& -etitioners further ar!ue that the Infor#ation
%har!e the# $ith three 4A5 istin%t offenses, to $it? 4a5 !i"in! of )un$arrante) 'enefits throu!h #anifest
partiality= 4'5 !i"in! of )un$arrante) 'enefits throu!h e"ient 'a faith= an, 4%5 !i"in! of
)un$arrante) 'enefits throu!h !ross ine+%usa'le ne!li!en%e $hile in the is%har!e of their offi%ial fun%tion
an that their ri!ht to 'e infor#e of the nature an %ause of the a%%usation a!ainst the# $as "iolate 'e%ause
they $ere left to !uess $hi%h of the three 4A5 offenses, if not all, they $ere 'ein! %har!e an prose%ute&
In is#issin! the petition, this Court hel that Se%& A, par& 4e5, of The nti-4raft and #orrupt "ractices
ct oes not suffer fro# the %onstitutional efe%t of "a!ueness& The phrases )#anifest partiality,) )e"ient 'a
faith,) an )!ross an ine+%usa'le ne!li!en%e) #erely es%ri'e the ifferent #oes 'y $hi%h the offense
penali0e in Se%& A, par& 4e5, of the statute #ay 'e %o##itte, an the use of all these phrases in the sa#e
Infor#ation oes not #ean that the ini%t#ent %har!es three 4A5 istin%t offenses&
The $or /un$arrante/ is not un%ertain& It see#s la%*in! aeCuate or offi%ial support= un,ustifie=
unauthori0e 4.e'ster, Thir International @i%tionary, p& <:7>5= or $ithout ,ustifi%ation or aeCuate
reason 4-hilaelphia Ne$spapers, In%& "& US @ept& of Justi%e, C&@& -a&, >2: H& Supp& 3, 7<, %ite in
.ors an -hrases, -er#anent Eition, Fol& >A(A 7;13, Cu#ulati"e Annual -o%*et -art, p& 7;5&
The assaile pro"isions of the Anti(Draft an Corrupt -ra%ti%es A%t %onsier a %orrupt pra%ti%e an
#a*e unla$ful the a%t of the pu'li% offi%er in?
+ + + or !i"in! any pri"ate party any un$arrante 'enefits, a"anta!e or preferen%e in the
is%har!e of his offi%ial, a#inistrati"e or ,ui%ial fun%tions throu!h #anifest partiality, e"ient 'a
faith or !ross ine+%usa'le ne!li!en%e, + + + 4Se%tion A 6e8, Rep& A%t A27;, as a#ene5&
It is not at all iffi%ult to %o#prehen that $hat the aforeCuote penal pro"isions penali0e is the a%t
of a pu'li% offi%er, in the is%har!e of his offi%ial, a#inistrati"e or ,ui%ial fun%tions, in !i"in! any
pri"ate party 'enefits, a"anta!e or preferen%e $hi%h is un,ustifie, unauthori0e or $ithout
,ustifi%ation or aeCuate reason, throu!h #anifest partiality, e"ient 'a faith or !ross ine+%usa'le
ne!li!en%e&
In other $ors, this Court foun that there $as nothin! "a!ue or a#'i!uous in the use of the
ter# )un$arrante) in Se%& A, par& 4e5, of The nti-4raft and #orrupt "ractices ct, $hi%h $as unerstoo in
its pri#ary an !eneral a%%eptation& ConseCuently, in that %ase, petitioners/ o',e%tion thereto $as hel
inaeCuate to e%lare the se%tion un%onstitutional&
On the se%on issue, petitioner a"an%es the hi!hly stret%he theory that Se%& > of the -luner La$
%ir%u#"ents the i##uta'le o'li!ation of the prose%ution to pro"e 'eyon reasona'le ou't the prei%ate a%ts
%onstitutin! the %ri#e of pluner $hen it reCuires only proof of a pattern of o"ert or %ri#inal a%ts sho$in!
unla$ful s%he#e or %onspira%y (
%:#. 5. Rule of E"ien%e. - 8or purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be
necessary to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme
or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or ac,uire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish
beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful
scheme or conspiracy.
The runnin! fault in this reasonin! is o'"ious e"en to the si#plisti% #in& In a %ri#inal prose%ution for
pluner, as in all other %ri#es, the a%%use al$ays has in his fa"or the presu#ption of inno%en%e $hi%h is
!uarantee 'y the Bill of Ri!hts, an unless the State su%%ees in e#onstratin! 'y proof 'eyon reasona'le
ou't that %ulpa'ility lies, the a%%use is entitle to an a%Cuittal&
6<;8
The use of the )reasona'le ou't) stanar
is inispensa'le to %o##an the respe%t an %onfien%e of the %o##unity in the appli%ation of %ri#inal la$& It
is %riti%al that the #oral for%e of %ri#inal la$ 'e not ilute 'y a stanar of proof that lea"es people in ou't
$hether inno%ent #en are 'ein! %one#ne& It is also i#portant in our free so%iety that e"ery ini"iual !oin!
a'out his orinary affairs has %onfien%e that his !o"ern#ent %annot a,u!e hi# !uilty of a %ri#inal offense
$ithout %on"in%in! a proper fa%tfiner of his !uilt $ith ut#ost %ertainty& This )reasona'le ou't) stanar
has a%Cuire su%h e+alte stature in the real# of %onstitutional la$ as it !i"es life to the !ue "rocess
#lause $hi%h prote%ts the a%%use a!ainst %on"i%tion e+%ept upon proof 'eyon reasona'le ou't of e"ery fa%t
ne%essary to %onstitute the %ri#e $ith $hi%h he is %har!e&
6A28
The follo$in! e+%han!es 'et$een Rep& Roolfo
Al'ano an Rep& -a'lo Dar%ia on this s%ore urin! the eli'erations in the floor of the House of Representati"es
are elu%iatin! (
@ELIBERATIONS OH THE HOUSE OH RE-RESENTATIFES ON RA 1232, ; O%to'er 7;;2
;$. L03O. 3ow, ;r. %peaker, it is also elementary in our criminal law that what is alleged in the information
must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. *f we will prove only one act and find him guilty of the other acts
enumerated in the information, does that not work against the right of the accused especially so if the amount
committed, say, by falsification is less than "&99 million, but the totality of the crime committed is "&99 million
since there is malversation, bribery, falsification of public document, coercion, theftD
;$. 4$#*. ;r. %peaker, not everything alleged in the information needs to be proved beyond reasonable
doubt. Ahat is re,uired to be proved beyond reasonable doubt is every element of the crime charged. 8or
example, ;r. %peaker, there is an enumeration of the things taken by the robber in the information K three pairs
of pants, pieces of 1ewelry. These need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but these will not prevent the
conviction of a crime for which he was charged 1ust because, say, instead of 2 pairs of diamond earrings the
prosecution proved two. 3ow, what is re,uired to be proved beyond reasonable doubt is the element of the
offense.
;$. L03O. * am aware of that, ;r. %peaker, but considering that in the crime of plunder the totality of the amount
is very important, * feel that such a series of overt criminal acts has to be taken singly. 8or instance, in the act of
bribery, he was able to accumulate only "69,999 and in the crime of extortion, he was only able to accumulate "&
million. 3ow, when we add the totality of the other acts as re,uired under this bill through the interpretation on
the rule of evidence, it is 1ust one single act, so how can we now convict himD
;$. 4$#*. Aith due respect, ;r. %peaker, for purposes of proving an essential element of the crime, there is a
need to prove that element beyond reasonable doubt. 8or example, one essential element of the crime is that the
amount involved is "&99 million. 3ow, in a series of defalcations and other acts of corruption in the enumeration
the total amount would be "&&9 or "&+9 million, but there are certain acts that could not be proved, so, we will
sum up the amounts involved in those transactions which were proved. 3ow, if the amount involved in these
transactions, proved beyond reasonable doubt, is "&99 million, then there is a crime of plunder 4uners%orin!
supplie5&
It is thus plain fro# the fore!oin! that the le!islature i not in any #anner refashion the stanar Cuantu#
of proof in the %ri#e of pluner& The 'uren still re#ains $ith the prose%ution to pro"e 'eyon any iota of
ou't e"ery fa%t or ele#ent ne%essary to %onstitute the %ri#e&
The thesis that Se%& > oes a$ay $ith proof of ea%h an e"ery %o#ponent of the %ri#e suffers fro# a
is#al #is%on%eption of the i#port of that pro"ision& .hat the prose%ution nees to pro"e 'eyon reasona'le
ou't is only a nu#'er of a%ts suffi%ient to for# a %o#'ination or series $hi%h $oul %onstitute a pattern an
in"ol"in! an a#ount of at least -:2,222,222&22& There is no nee to pro"e ea%h an e"ery other a%t alle!e in
the Infor#ation to ha"e 'een %o##itte 'y the a%%use in furtheran%e of the o"erall unla$ful s%he#e or
%onspira%y to a#ass, a%%u#ulate or a%Cuire ill(!otten $ealth& To illustrate, supposin! that the a%%use is
%har!e in an Infor#ation for pluner $ith ha"in! %o##itte fifty 4:25 rais on the pu'li%
treasury& The prose%ution nee not pro"e all these fifty 4:25 rais, it 'ein! suffi%ient to pro"e 'y pattern
at least t$o 4<5 of the rais 'eyon reasona'le ou't pro"ie only that they a#ounte to at
least -:2,222,222&22&
6A78
A reain! of Se%& < in %on,un%tion $ith Se%& >, 'rin!s us to the lo!i%al %on%lusion that )pattern of o"ert or
%ri#inal a%ts ini%ati"e of the o"erall unla$ful s%he#e or %onspira%y) inheres in the "ery a%ts of a%%u#ulatin!,
a%Cuirin! or a#assin! hien $ealth& State other$ise, su%h pattern arises $here the prose%ution is a'le to
pro"e 'eyon reasona'le ou't the prei%ate a%ts as efine in Se%& 7, par& 45& -attern is #erely a 'y(prou%t
of the proof of the prei%ate a%ts& This %on%lusion is %onsistent $ith reason an %o##on sense& There $oul
'e no other e+planation for a %o#'ination or series of
o"ert or %ri#inal a%ts to stash -:2,222,222&22 or #ore, than )a s%he#e or %onspira%y to a#ass, a%%u#ulate or
a%Cuire ill !otten $ealth&) The prose%ution is therefore not reCuire to #a*e a eli'erate an %ons%ious effort to
pro"e pattern as it ne%essarily follo$s $ith the esta'lish#ent of a series or %o#'ination of the prei%ate a%ts&
Relati"e to petitioner/s %ontentions on the purporte efe%t of Se%& > is his su'#ission that )pattern) is )a
"ery i#portant ele#ent of the %ri#e of pluner=) an that Se%& > is )t$o pron!e, 4as5 it %ontains a rule of
e"ien%e an a su'stanti"e ele#ent of the %ri#e,) su%h that $ithout it the a%%use %annot 'e %on"i%te of
pluner (
?=%T*#: 0:LLO%*LLO. *n other words, cannot an accused be convicted under the "lunder Law without applying
%ection 5 on the $ule of :vidence if there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of the commission of the acts
complained ofD
TT>. 40*3. *n that case he can be convicted of individual crimes enumerated in the $evised "enal #ode, but not
plunder.
?=%T*#: 0:LLO%*LLO. *n other words, if all the elements of the crime are proved beyond reasonable doubt without
applying %ection 5, can you not have a conviction under the "lunder LawD
TT>. 40*3. 3ot a conviction for plunder, your Bonor.
?=%T*#: 0:LLO%*LLO. #an you not disregard the application of %ec. 5 in convicting an accused charged for
violation of the "lunder LawD
TT>. 40*3. Aell, your Bonor, in the first place %ection 5 lays down a substantive element of the law x x x x
?=%T*#: 0:LLO%*LLO. Ahat * said is - do we have to avail of %ection 5 when there is proof beyond reasonable
doubt on the acts charged constituting plunderD
TT>. 40*3. >es, your Bonor, because %ection 5 is two pronged, it contains a rule of evidence and it contains a
substantive element of the crime of plunder. %o, there is no way by which we can avoid %ection 5.
?=%T*#: 0:LLO%*LLO. 0ut there is proof beyond reasonable doubt insofar as the predicate crimes charged are
concerned that you do not have to go that far by applying %ection 5D
TT>. 40*3. >our Bonor, our thinking is that %ection 5 contains a very important element of the crime of plunder
and that cannot be avoided by the prosecution.
6A<8
.e o not su's%ri'e to petitioner/s stan& -ri#arily, all the essential ele#ents of pluner %an 'e %ulle an
unerstoo fro# its efinition in Se%& <, in relation to Se%& 7, par& 45, an )pattern) is not one of
the#& Moreo"er, the epi!raph an openin! %lause of Se%& > is %lear an uneCui"o%al?
%:#. 5. Rule of E"ien%e . - 8or purposes of establishing the crime of plunder x x x x
It purports to o no #ore than pres%ri'e a rule of pro%eure for the prose%ution of a %ri#inal %ase for
pluner& Bein! a purely pro%eural #easure, Se%& > oes not efine or esta'lish any su'stanti"e ri!ht in fa"or of
the a%%use 'ut only operates in furtheran%e of a re#ey& It is only a #eans to an en, an ai to su'stanti"e
la$& Inu'ita'ly, e"en $ithout in"o*in! Se%& >, a %on"i%tion for pluner #ay 'e ha, for $hat is %ru%ial for the
prose%ution is to present suffi%ient e"ien%e to en!ener that #oral %ertitue e+a%te 'y the funa#ental la$ to
pro"e the !uilt of the a%%use 'eyon reasona'le ou't& Thus, e"en !rantin! for the sa*e of ar!u#ent that Se%&
> is fla$e an "itiate for the reasons a"an%e 'y petitioner, it #ay si#ply 'e se"ere fro# the rest of the
pro"isions $ithout ne%essarily resultin! in the e#ise of the la$= after all, the e+istin! rules on e"ien%e %an
supplant Se%& > #ore than enou!h& Besies, Se%& 1 of RA 1232 pro"ies for a separa'ility %lause (
Se%& 1& Separa'ility of -ro"isions& ( If any pro"isions of this A%t or the appli%ation thereof to any
person or %ir%u#stan%e is hel in"ali, the re#ainin! pro"isions of this A%t an the
appli%ation of su%h pro"isions to other persons or %ir%u#stan%es shall not 'e affe%te there'y&
I#pli%it in the fore!oin! se%tion is that to a"oi the $hole a%t fro# 'ein! e%lare in"ali as a result of the
nullity of so#e of its pro"isions, assu#in! that to 'e the %ase althou!h it is not really so, all the pro"isions
thereof shoul a%%orin!ly 'e treate inepenently of ea%h other, espe%ially if 'y oin! so, the o',e%ti"es of
the statute %an 'est 'e a%hie"e&
As re!ars the thir issue, a!ain $e a!ree $ith Justi%e Meno0a that pluner is a malum in se $hi%h
reCuires proof of %ri#inal intent& Thus, he says, in his Con%urrin! Opinion (
+ + + -re%isely 'e%ause the %onstituti"e %ri#es are mala in se the ele#ent of mens rea #ust 'e
pro"en in a prose%ution for pluner& It is note$orthy that the a#ene infor#ation alle!es that the
%ri#e of pluner $as %o##itte )$illfully, unla$fully an %ri#inally&) It thus alle!es !uilty
*no$le!e on the part of petitioner&
In support of his %ontention that the statute eli#inates the reCuire#ent of mens rea an that is the
reason he %lai#s the statute is "oi, petitioner %ites the follo$in! re#ar*s of Senator TaIaa #ae
urin! the eli'eration on S&B& No& 1AA?
SENATOR TAJA@A & & & An the e"ien%e that $ill 'e reCuire to %on"i%t hi# $oul not 'e
e"ien%e for ea%h an e"ery ini"iual %ri#inal a%t 'ut only e"ien%e suffi%ient to esta'lish the
%onspira%y or s%he#e to %o##it this %ri#e of pluner&
6AA8
Ho$e"er, Senator TaIaa $as is%ussin! K> as sho$n 'y the su%%eein! portion of the trans%ript
Cuote 'y petitioner?
SENATOR ROMULO? An, Mr& -resient, the Dentle#an feels that it is %ontaine in Se%tion >,
Rule of E"ien%e, $hi%h, in the Dentle#an/s "ie$, $oul pro"ie for a speeier an faster pro%ess
of attenin! to this *in of %asesL
SENATOR TAJA@A? Ees, Mr& -resient & & &
6A>8
Senator TaIaa $as only sayin! that $here the %har!e is %onspira%y to %o##it pluner, the
prose%ution nee not pro"e ea%h an e"ery %ri#inal a%t one to further the s%he#e or %onspira%y, it
'ein! enou!h if it pro"es 'eyon reasona'le ou't a pattern of o"ert or %i#inal a%ts ini%ati"e of
the o"erall unla$ful s%he#e or %onspira%y& As far as the a%ts %onstitutin! the pattern are %on%erne,
ho$e"er, the ele#ents of the %ri#e #ust 'e pro"e an the reCuisite mens rea #ust 'e sho$n&
Inee, K< pro"ies that (
Any person $ho parti%ipate $ith the sai pu'li% offi%er in the %o##ission of an offense
%ontri'utin! to the %ri#e of pluner shall li*e$ise 'e punishe for su%h offense& In the i#position
of penalties, the e!ree of parti%ipation an the attenan%e of #iti!atin! an e+tenuatin!
%ir%u#stan%es, as pro"ie 'y the Re"ise -enal Coe, shall 'e %onsiere 'y the %ourt&
The appli%ation of #iti!atin! an e+tenuatin! %ir%u#stan%es in the Re"ise -enal Coe to
prose%utions uner the Anti(-luner La$ ini%ates Cuite %learly that mens rea is an ele#ent of
pluner sin%e the e!ree of responsi'ility of the offener is eter#ine 'y his %ri#inal intent& It is
true that K< refers to )any person $ho parti%ipates $ith the sai pu'li% offi%er in the %o##ission of
an offense %ontri'utin! to the %ri#e of pluner&) There is no reason to 'elie"e, ho$e"er, that it
oes not apply as $ell to the pu'li% offi%er as prin%ipal in the %ri#e& As Justi%e Hol#es sai? ).e
a!ree to all the !eneralities a'out not supplyin! %ri#inal la$s $ith $hat they o#it, 'ut there is no
%anon a!ainst usin! %o##on sense in %onstruin! la$s as sayin! $hat they o'"iously #ean&)
6A:8
Hinally, any ou't as to $hether the %ri#e of pluner is a malum in se #ust 'e ee#e to ha"e 'een
resol"e in the affir#ati"e 'y the e%ision of Con!ress in 7;;A to in%lue it a#on! the heinous
%ri#es punisha'le 'y reclusion perpetua to eath& Other heinous %ri#es are punishe $ith eath as
a strai!ht penalty in R&A& No& 19:;& Referrin! to these !roups of heinous %ri#es, this Court hel
in "eople v. :chegaray?
6A98
The e"il of a %ri#e #ay ta*e "arious for#s& There are %ri#es that are, 'y their "ery nature,
espi%a'le, either 'e%ause life $as %allously ta*en or the "i%ti# is treate li*e an ani#al an utterly
ehu#ani0e as to %o#pletely isrupt the nor#al %ourse of his or her !ro$th as a hu#an
'ein! & & & & Seen in this li!ht, the %apital %ri#es of *inappin! an serious ille!al etention for
ranso# resultin! in the eath of the "i%ti# or the "i%ti# is rape, torture, or su',e%te to
ehu#ani0in! a%ts= estru%ti"e arson resultin! in eath= an ru! offenses in"ol"in! #inors or
resultin! in the eath of the "i%ti# in the %ase of other %ri#es= as $ell as #urer, rape,
parri%ie, infanti%ie, *inappin! an serious ille!al etention, $here the "i%ti# is
etaine for #ore than three ays or serious physi%al in,uries $ere infli%te on the "i%ti# or threats
to *ill hi# $ere #ae or the "i%ti# is a #inor, ro''ery $ith ho#i%ie, rape or intentional
#utilation, estru%ti"e arson, an %arnappin! $here the o$ner, ri"er or o%%upant of the %arnappe
"ehi%le is *ille or rape, $hi%h are penali0e 'y re%lusion perpetua to eath, are %learly heinous 'y
their "ery nature&
There are %ri#es, ho$e"er, in $hi%h the a'o#ination lies in the si!nifi%an%e an i#pli%ations of the
su',e%t %ri#inal a%ts in the s%he#e of the lar!er so%io(politi%al an e%ono#i% %onte+t in $hi%h the
state fins itself to 'e stru!!lin! to e"elop an pro"ie for its poor an unerpri"ile!e
#asses& Reelin! fro# e%aes of %orrupt tyranni%al rule that 'an*rupte the !o"ern#ent an
i#po"erishe the population, the -hilippine Do"ern#ent #ust #uster the politi%al $ill to is#antle
the %ulture of %orruption, ishonesty, !ree an syni%ate %ri#inality that so eeply entren%he
itself in the stru%tures of so%iety an the psy%he of the popula%e& 6.ith the !o"ern#ent8 terri'ly
la%*in! the #oney to pro"ie e"en the #ost 'asi% ser"i%es to its people, any for# of
#isappropriation or #isappli%ation of !o"ern#ent funs translates to an a%tual threat to the "ery
e+isten%e of !o"ern#ent, an in turn, the "ery sur"i"al of the people it !o"erns o"er& Fie$e in
this %onte+t, no less heinous are the effe%ts an reper%ussions of %ri#es li*e Cualifie 'ri'ery,
estru%ti"e arson resultin! in eath, an ru! offenses in"ol"in! !o"ern#ent offi%ials, e#ployees
or offi%ers, that their perpetrators #ust not 'e allo$e to %ause further estru%tion an a#a!e to
so%iety&
The le!islati"e e%laration in R&A& No& 19:; that pluner is a heinous offense i#plies that it is
a malum in se& Hor $hen the a%ts punishe are inherently i##oral or inherently $ron!, they
are mala in se
6A18
an it oes not #atter that su%h a%ts are punishe in a spe%ial la$, espe%ially sin%e
in the %ase of pluner the prei%ate %ri#es are #ainly mala in se& Inee, it $oul 'e a'sur to
treat prose%utions for pluner as thou!h they are #ere prose%utions for "iolations of the Boun%in!
Che%* La$ 4B&-& Bl!& <<5 or of an orinan%e a!ainst ,ay$al*in!, $ithout re!ar to the inherent
$ron!ness of the a%ts&
To %lin%h, petitioner li*e$ise assails the "aliity of RA 19:;, the a#enatory la$ of RA 1232, on
%onstitutional !rouns& Suffi%e it to say ho$e"er that it is no$ too late in the ay for hi# to
resurre%t this lon! ea issue, the sa#e ha"in! 'een eternally %onsi!ne 'y "eople v. :chegaray
6A38
to the
ar%hi"es of ,urispruential history& The e%laration of this Court therein that RA 19:; is %onstitutionally "ali
stans as a e%laration of the State, an 'e%o#es, 'y ne%essary effe%t, assi#ilate in the Constitution no$ as an
inte!ral part of it&
Our nation has 'een ra%*e 'y s%anals of %orruption an o's%ene profli!a%y of offi%ials in hi!h pla%es
$hi%h ha"e sha*en its "ery founation& The anato#y of !raft an %orruption has 'e%o#e #ore ela'orate in
the %orriors of ti#e as uns%rupulous people relentlessly %ontri"e #ore an #ore in!enious $ays to 'il* the
%offers of the !o"ern#ent& @rasti% an rai%al #easures are i#perati"e to fi!ht the in%reasin!ly sophisti%ate,
e+traorinarily #ethoi%al an e%ono#i%ally %atastrophi% lootin! of the national treasury& Su%h is the
-luner La$, espe%ially esi!ne to isentan!le those !hastly tissues of !ran(s%ale %orruption $hi%h, if left
un%he%*e, $ill sprea li*e a #ali!nant tu#or an ulti#ately %onsu#e the #oral an institutional fi'er of our
nation& The -luner La$, inee, is a li"in! testa#ent to the $ill of the le!islature to ulti#ately erai%ate this
s%our!e an thus se%ure so%iety a!ainst the a"ari%e an other "enalities in pu'li% offi%e&
These are ti#es that try #en/s souls& In the %he%*ere history of this nation, fe$ issues of national
i#portan%e %an eCual the a#ount of interest an passion !enerate 'y petitioner/s i!no#inious fall fro# the
hi!hest offi%e, an his e"entual prose%ution an trial uner a "ir!inal statute& This %ontinuin!
sa!a has ri"en a $e!e of issension a#on! our people that #ay lin!er for a lon! ti#e& Only 'y
responin! to the %larion %all for patriotis#, to rise a'o"e fa%tionalis# an pre,ui%es, shall $e e#er!e
triu#phant in the #ist of fer#ent&
PRE5ISES CONSI!ERE!, this Court hols that RA 1232 other$ise *no$n as the -luner La$, as
a#ene 'y RA 19:;, is CONSTITUTIONAL& ConseCuently, the petition to e%lare the la$ un%onstitutional
is @ISMISSE@ for la%* of #erit&
SO OR!ERE!.
0uena, and !e Leon, ?r., ??., %on%ur&
!avide, ?r. #.?., ;elo, <uisumbing, ??., 1oin concurring opinion of ?. ;endoza.
"uno, Citug, ??., concurred and 1oins ?. ;endoza@s concurring opinion.
Lapunan, "ardo, %andoval-4utierrez, >nares-%antiago, ??., see dissenting opinion.
;endoza, ?., please see concurring opinion.
"anganiban ?., please see separate concurring opinion.
#arpio, ?., no part. Aas one of the complainants before Ombudsman.
678
Appro"e 7< July 7;;7 an too* effe%t 3 O%to'er 7;;7&
6<8
Appro"e 7A @e%e#'er 7;;A an too* effe%t A7 @e%e#'er 7;;A&
6A8
Li# "& -a%Cuin!, et al&, D&R& No& 77:2>>, <1 January 7;;:, <>2 SCRA 9>>&
6>8
D&R& No& 31227, > @e%e#'er 7;3;, 71; SCRA 3<3&
6:8
Eu Con! En! "& Trinia, >1 -hil& A3:, >7> 47;<:5&
698
3< C&J&S& 93, p& 77A= -eople "& Rin!, 12 -&< <37, <9 Cal& App& < Supp& 193&
618
Mustan! Lu#'er, In%& "& Court of Appeals, D&R& No& 72>;33, 73 June 7;;9, <:1 SCRA >A2, >>3&
638
-L@T "& Eastern Tele%o##uni%ations -hil&, In%&, D&R& No& ;>A11>, <1 Au!ust 7;;<, <7A SCRA 79, <9&
6;8
Resolution of ; July <227&
6728
See -eople "& Na0ario, No& L(>>7>A, A7 Au!ust 7;33, 79: SCRA 739, 7;:(7;9&
6778
*bid&
67<8
State v& Hill, 73; Man >2A, A9; -< A9:, ;7 ALR< 1:2&
67A8
Connally v& Deneral Constr& Co&, <9; U&S& A3:, A;7, 12 L& E& A<3 47;<95 %ite in Er#ita(Malate Hotel an Motel Operators
Ass/n& v& City Mayor, <2 SCRA 3>;, 391 47;915&
67>8
NAAC- v. Ala'a#a, A11 U&S& <33, A21, 7<, < L& E A<:, AA3 47;:35= Shelton v. Tu%*er A9> U&S& >1;, : L& E& < <A7 47;925&
67:8
Dooin! v& .ilson, >2: U&S& :73, :<7, A7 L& E& < >23, >7A 47;1<5 4internal Cuotation #ar*s o#itte5&
6798
Unite States v. Salerno, >37 U&S& 1A;, 1>: ;: L& E < 9;1, 121 47;315= see also -eople v. @e la -iera, D&R& No& 7<7111, <>
January <227&
6718
>7A U&S& 927, 97<(97A, A1 L& E < 3A2, 3>2(3>7 47;1A5&
6738
Unite States v. Salerno, supra&
67;8
Filla!e of Hoff#an Estates v. Hlipsie, Hoff#an Estates, In%&, >:: U&S& >3;, >;>(;:, 17 L& E& < A9<, A9; 47;3<5&
6<28
Unite States v& Raines, A9< U&S& 71, <7, > L& E& < :<>, :<; 47;925& The parai!#ati% %ase is Ea0oo G Mississippi Falley RR& v&
Ja%*son Fine!ar Co&, <<9 U&S& <71, :1 L& E& 7;A 47;7<5&
6<78
D& Dunther G M& Sulli"an, Constitutional La$ 7<;; 4<2275&
6<<8
*d& at 7A<3& See also Ri%har H& Hallon, Jr&, As Applie an Ha%ial Challen!es, 77A Har"& L& Re"& 7A<7 4<2225 ar!uin! that, in an
i#portant sense, as applie %hallen!es are the 'asi% 'uilin! 'lo%*s of %onstitutional a,ui%ation an that eter#inations that statutes
are fa%ially in"ali properly o%%ur only as lo!i%al out!ro$ths of rulin! on $hether statutes #ay 'e applie to parti%ular liti!ants on
parti%ular fa%ts&
6<A8
Constitution, Art& FIII, K7 an :& Co#pare An!ara v& Ele%toral Co##ission, 9A -hil& 7A;, 7:3 47;A95= )6T8he po$er of ,ui%ial
re"ie$ is li#ite to a%tual %ases an %ontro"ersies to 'e e+er%ise after full opportunity of ar!u#ent 'y the parties, an li#ite further
to 'e %onstitutional Cuestion raise or the "ery lis #ota presente& Any atte#pt at a'stra%tion %oul only lea to iale%ti%s an 'arren
le!al Cuestions an to sterile %on%lusions unrelate to a%tualities&)
6<>8
>27 U&S& A1, :<(:A, <1 L& E& < 99;, 932 47;175& A%%or, Unite States v& Raines, A9< U&S& 71, > L& E& < :<> 47;925= Boar of
Trustees, State Uni"& of N&E& v& Ho+, >;< U&S& >9;, 729 L& E& < A33 47;3;5&
6<:8
Broari%* v& O*laho#a, >7A U&S& at 97A, A1 L& E& < at 3>7= National Eno$#ent for the Arts v& Hinley, :<> U&S& :9;, :32
47;;35&
6<98
H.B-BS, In%& v. City of @allas, >;A U&S& <<A, 721 L& E& < 92A 47;;25= Cru0 v& Se%retary of En"iron#ent an Natural Resour%es,
D&R& No& 7A:A3:, 9 @e%e#'er <222 4Meno0a, ?&, Separate Opinion5&
6<18
Unite States v& National @airy -ro& Corp&, A1< U&S& <;, A<(AA, ; L& E& < :97, :9:(9 47;9A5&
6<38
D&R& No& :13>7, A2 July 7;3<, 77: SCRA 1;A&
6<;8
-eople v& Dan!uso, D&R& No& 77:>A2, <A No"e#'er 7;;:, <:2 SCRA <93, <1>(<1:&
6A28
-eople v. Dar%ia, D&R& No& ;>731, > No"e#'er 7;;<, <7: SCRA A>;, A92&
6A78
Then Senate -resient Jo"ito R& Salon!a %onstrue in 'rief the pro"ision, thus$ise? NIf there are letOs say 7:2 %ri#es all in all,
%ri#inal a%ts, $hether 'ri'ery, #isappropriation, #al"ersation, e+tortion, you nee not pro"e all those 'eyon reasona'le ou't& If
you %an pro"e 'y pattern, letOs say 72, 'ut ea%h #ust 'e pro"e 'eyon reasona'le ou't, you o not ha"e to pro"e 7:2 %ri#es& ThatOs
the #eanin! of this 4@eli'erations of Co##ittee on Constitutional A#en#ents an Re"ision of La$s, 7: No"e#'er 7;33, %ite in
the Sani!an'ayan Resolution of ; July <2275&
6A<8
T%3, &J %eptember +99&, pp. &&6-&+&.
6AA8
> Re%or of the Senate 7A79, : June 7;3;&
6A>8
I'i&
6A:8
Ros%hen "& .ar, <1; U&S& AA1, AA;, 1A L&E& 1<<, 1<3 47;<;5&
6A98
<91 SCRA 93<, 1<7(< 47;;15 4e#phasis ae5&
6A18
Bla%*/s La$ @i%tionary ;:; 47;;25= Lo0ano "& Martine0, 7>9 SCRA A<>, AA3 47;395&
6A38
D&R& No& 771>1<, 1 He'ruary 7;;1, <91 SCRA 93<&