An Act Defining and Penalizing The Crime of Plunder

Student: Crystal Y.
Pacas
Instructor: ATTY. LORY JEAN G. DUOS
Date: February 13, 2016

Special Penal Laws
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080

An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder
What is Plunder?
A plunder is defined as a term chosen from other equally apt terminologies like kleptocracy and
economic treason, punishes the use of high office for personal enrichment, committed thru a
series of acts done not in the public eye but in stealth and secrecy over a period of time, that may
involve so many persons, here and abroad, and which touch so many states and territorial units.
The acts and/or omissions sought to be penalized do not involve simple cases of malversation of
public funds, bribery, extortion, theft and graft but constitute plunder of an entire nation resulting
in material damage to the national economy. (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 148965, February
26, 2002, 377 SCRA 538, 555)
Who commits plunder?

Plunder is committed by any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with member of his
family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons.
How plunder is committed?
Plunder is committed by accumulating or acquiring 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).
What is the penalty?
The penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. However, the death penalty was already abolished,
which means that the applicable penalty is reclusion perpetua, without prejudice to other
accessory penalties that may be imposed by the court.
What is the other penalty in addition to imprisonment?
In case of conviction by final judgment, the accused shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits
under any law. However, if the accused is acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to
the salaries and other benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the
meantime, administrative proceedings have been filed against him.
What is the effect of a charge of plunder on a public officer still in office?
Sec. 5 of RA No. 7080:
Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this
Act whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be
suspended from office.
What is the court that has jurisdiction over the crime of plunder?
Until otherwise provided by law, all prosecutions under the law is at the Sandiganbayan. The
Supreme Court clarified that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the crime of plunder
unless committed by public officials and employees occupying the positions with Salary Grade
27 or higher, under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (RA No. 6758)
in relation to their office.
What is the prescriptive period in prosecuting a public officer with plunder?
The prescriptive period in prosecuting a public officer with the crime of plunder punishable
under RA 7080 is twenty (20) years.
What is the specific rule of evidence provided under this law?
For 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.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002, 377 SCRA 538, 555
FACTS:
On 4 April 2001, an Information for plunder was filed against former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada,
together with Jose Jinggoy Estrada, Charlie Atong Ang, Edward Serapio, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Alma
Alfaro, Eleuterio Tan, a.k.a. Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas, and John and
Jane Does, for the crime of Plunder defined and penalized under R.A. No. 7080, as amended by Sec. 12
of R.A. No. 7659.
RULING OF THE COURT
The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt the elements of plunder as against former
President Estrada, thus:
a) The principal accused Joseph Ejercito Estrada, at the time of the commission of the acts charged in the
Amended Information was the President of the Republic of the Philippines;
b) He acted in connivance with then Governor Luis Chavit Singson who was granted immunity from suit
by the Office of the Ombudsman, and with the participation of other persons named by prosecution
witnesses in the course of the trial of this case, in amassing, accumulating and acquitting ill-gotten wealth
as follows;
i) by a series of acts of receiving bi-monthly collections from jueteng, a form of illegal
gambling during the period beginning November 1998 to August 2000 in the aggregate amount
of P545,291,000.00. Out of this amount, P200,000,000.00 was deposited in the Erap Muslim
Youth Foundation; and
ii) by a series consisting of two acts of ordering the GSIS and the SSS to purchase shares of stock
of Belle Corporation and collecting or receiving commission from the sales of Belle Shares in
the amount in P189,700,000.00 which was deposited in the Jose Velarde account.
With respect to Jinggoy Estrada, the gaps in the prosecuting as evidence to the latter, create uncertainty in
the mind of the Court as to the participation of Jinggoy Estrada in the collection and receipt of jueteng
money.
With respect to Serapio, neither Governor Chavit Singsons testimony nor the ledger entries proved that
Serapio was involved in any way in the collection of disbursement of jueteng protection money. It is
difficult to presume any criminal intent on the part of Serapio to conceal or launder jueteng protection
money in order to contribute to the amassing and accumulation of ill-gotten wealth by former President
Estrada in connection with the transfer of the P200,000,000.00 to the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation.
As proven, the collections in several instances from illegal gambling money went way beyond the
minimum of P50,000,000.00 set by the Anti-Plunder Law. These repeated collections of jueteng money
from November 1998 to August 2000 would fall within the purview of a series of illegal acts
constituting plunder. The said series of facts, on its own, would have been sufficient to convict the
principal accused, former President Estrada. However, this Court also finds that former President Estrada
is criminally liable for plunder for receiving commissions from the purchase of Belle shares by the GSIS
and by the SSS in grave abuse of his power on two separate occasions as charged in sub-paragraph (b) of
the Amended Information. Clearly, the receipt of these commissions on two occasions likewise meets the
definition of a series of two similar unlawful acts employing the same scheme to accumulate ill-gotten
wealth.
Therefore, the Court hereby declares former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, GUILTY, beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of PLUNDER, defined in and penalized by Republic Act No. 7080, as
amended. On the other hand, for failure of the prosecution to prove and establish their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, the Court finds the accused Jose Jinggoy Estrada and Atty. Edward S. Serapio NOT
GUILTY of the crime of plunder, and accordingly, the Court hereby orders their ACQUITTAL.

An Act Defining and Penalizing The Crime of Plunder

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Act Defining and Penalizing The Crime of Plunder

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Act Defining and Penalizing The Crime of Plunder

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Student: Crystal Y.

Date: February 13, 2016

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080

Who commits plunder?

You might also like