Estrada vs.

Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 148560. November 19, 2001

Petitioner: Joseph Ejercito Estrada

Respondents: Sandiganbayan (Third Division) and People of the Philippines
Ponente: J. Bellosillo

FACTS:
Section 2 of R.A. No. 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder) as amended by
R.A. No. 7659 substantially provides that any public officer who amasses, accumulates or acquires
ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts in the aggregate amount or
total value of at least fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of
plunder. Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada, being prosecuted under the said Act, assailed its
constitutionality, arguing inter alia, that it abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes already
punishable under The Revised Penal Code; and as such, a violation of the fundamental rights of the
accused to due process and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime of plunder as defined in R.A. No. 7080 is a malum prohibitum.

HELD:
No. The Supreme Court held that plunder is malum in se which requires proof of criminal intent.
Moreover, the legislative declaration in R.A. No. 7659 that plunder is a heinous offense implies that
it is a malum in se. The predicate crimes in the case of plunder involve acts which are inherently
immoral or inherently wrong, and are committed willfully, unlawfully and criminally by the
offender, alleging his guilty knowledge. Thus, the crime of plunder is a malum in se.

ATTY. IRENEO L. TORRES AND MRS. NATIVIDAD CELESTINO v. ATTY.

JOSE CONCEPCION JAVIER

A.M. No. 5910 (2005)

Inclusion of derogatory statements actuated by his giving vent to ill-feelings stated in

the pleading is not covered by the absolute immunity or privileged communication.

Atty. Ireneo L. Torres and Mrs. Natividad Celestino charged Atty. Jose
Concepcion Javier for malpractice, gross misconduct in office as an attorney and/or
violation of the lawyers oath for employing statements and remarks on his pleadings
which are false, unsubstantiated, with malicious imputation, abusive, offensive and
improper with the character of an attorney as a quasi-judicial officer.
Atty. Javier professes that he was angry while he was preparing his pleadings
considering that his wife was included to the burglary exposed in the present case. Also,
he invokes that those statements he made are privileged communication, it forming part
of a judicial proceeding.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Javier is administratively liable for the alleged offensive statements
he made in his pleadings

HELD:

It is well entrenched in Philippine jurisprudence that for reasons of public policy,

utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings, including all kinds of
pleadings, petitions and motions, are absolutely privileged so long as they are pertinent
and relevant to the subject inquiry, however false or malicious they may be. A matter,
however, to which the privilege does not extend must be so palpably wanting in relation
to the subject matter of the controversy that no reasonable man can doubt its
irrelevancy or impropriety. That matter alleged in a pleading need not be in every case
material to the issues presented by the pleadings. It must, however, be legitimately
related thereto, or so pertinent to the subject of the controversy that it may become the
subject of inquiry in the course of the trial.

Clearly, Atty. Javiers primordial reason for the offensive remark stated in his pleadings
was his emotional reaction in view of the fact that herein Complainant was in a legal
dispute with his wife. This excuse cannot be sustained; that the Atty. Javier is
representing his wife is not at all an excuse.

In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyers language must be dignified
and choice of language is important in the preparation of pleadings. In the assertion of
his clients rights, a lawyer even one gifted with superior intellect is enjoined to rein
up his temper.

Thus, the inclusion of the derogatory statements by respondent was actuated by his
giving vent to his ill-feelings towards Atty. Torres, a purpose to which the mantle of
absolute immunity does not extend.