Estrada vs.
Sandiganbayan
369 SCRA 394 (2001)
Facts:
On 4 April 2001, Information for plunder was filed against
former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada. Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada,
the highest-ranking official to be prosecuted under RA 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of
Plunder), as amended by RA 7659, assailed the said law for
being unconstitutional. He contends that (a) it suffers from the
vice of vagueness; (b) it dispenses with the “reasonable doubt” standard in
criminal prosecutions; and, (c) it abolishes the element ofmens rea in crimes already
punishable under The Revised Penal Code, all of which are violations
of fundamental right of due process.
Issue:
WON the Plunder Law is a malum prohibitum?
Held:
No.
Ratio:
Plunder is a malum in se which
requires proof of criminal intent (mens rea)
o
Any 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.
o
In the imposition of penalties, the
degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating
circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by
the court.
§ indicates quite clearly that mens
rea is an element of plunder since the
degree of responsibility of the offender is determined by his criminal intent
o
The legislative declaration in R.A.
No. 7659 that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is a malum in se.
For when the acts punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong, they are
mala in se and it does not matter that such acts are punished in a special law,
especially since in the case of plunder the predicate crimes are mainly mala in
se
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento