ESTRADA v SANDIGANBAYAN challenge to legislative acts is the most difficult challenge to

mount successfully since the challenger must establish that

November 19, 2001 no set of circumstances exists.

Facts: Doctrines mentioned are analytical tools developed for facial

challenge of a statute in free speech cases. With respect to
Petitioner Joseph Estrada prosecuted An Act Defining and
such statue, the established rule is that one to who
Penalizing the Crime of Plunder, wishes to impress upon the
application of a statute is constitutional will not be heard to
Court that the assailed law is so defectively fashioned that it
attack the statute on the ground that impliedly it might also
crosses that thin but distinct line which divides the valid from
be taken as applying to other persons or other situations in
the constitutionally infirm. His contentions are mainly based
which its application might be unconstitutional. On its face
on the effects of the said law that it suffers from the vice of
invalidation of statues results in striking them down entirely
vagueness; it dispenses with the "reasonable doubt" standard
on the ground that they might be applied to parties not
in criminal prosecutions; and it abolishes the element of
before the Court whose activities are constitutionally
mens rea in crimes already punishable under The Revised
protected. It is evident that the purported ambiguity of the
Penal Code saying that it violates the fundamental rights of
Plunder Law is more imagined than real.
the accused. The focal point of the case is the alleged
“vagueness” of the law in the terms it uses. Particularly, this The crime of plunder as a malum in se is deemed to have
terms are: combination, series and unwarranted. Because of been resolve in the Congress’ decision to include it among the
this, the petitioner uses the facial challenge on the validity of heinous crime punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.
the mentioned law. Supreme Court holds the plunder law constitutional and
petition is dismissed for lacking merit.
Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner possesses the locus standi to

attack the validity of the law using the facial challenge. Issues:

Ruling: 1. WON Plunder Law is unconstitutional for being vague

On how the law uses the terms combination and series does No. As long as the law affords some comprehensible guide or
not constitute vagueness. The petitioner’s contention that it rule that would inform those who are subject to it what
would not give a fair warning and sufficient notice of what conduct would render them liable to its penalties, its validity
the law seeks to penalize cannot be plausibly argued. Void- will be sustained. The amended information itself closely
for-vagueness doctrine is manifestly misplaced under the tracks the language of law, indicating w/ reasonable certainty
petitioner’s reliance since ordinary intelligence can the various elements of the offense w/c the petitioner is
understand what conduct is prohibited by the statute. It can alleged to have committed.
only be invoked against that specie of legislation that is
utterly vague on its face, wherein clarification by a saving We discern nothing in the foregoing that is vague or
clause or construction cannot be invoked. Said doctrine may ambiguous that will confuse petitioner in his defense.
not invoked in this case since the statute is clear and free
from ambiguity. Vagueness doctrine merely requires a Petitioner however bewails the failure of the law to provide
reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld, for the statutory definition of the terms “combination” and
not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude. “series” in the key phrase “a combination or series of overt or
criminal acts. These omissions, according to the petitioner,
On the other hand, overbreadth doctrine decrees that render the Plunder Law unconstitutional for being
governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which impermissibly vague and overbroad and deny him the right to
sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
protected freedoms. against him, hence violative of his fundamental right to due
process.
Doctrine of strict scrutiny holds that a facial challenge is
allowed to be made to vague statute and to one which is A statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because
overbroad because of possible chilling effect upon protected general terms are used herein, or because of the employment
speech. Furthermore, in the area of criminal law, the law of terms without defining them.
cannot take chances as in the area of free speech. A facial
A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks Relative to petitioner’s contentions on the purported defect
comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence of Sec. 4 is his submission that “pattern” is a “very important
most necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its element of the crime of plunder;” and that Sec. 4 is “two-
application. In such instance, the statute is repugnant to the pronged, (as) it contains a rule of evidence and a substantive
Constitution in two (2) respects – it violates due process for element of the crime, “ such that without it the accused
failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, cannot be convicted of plunder –
fair notice of what conduct to avoid; and, it leaves law
enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions We do not subscribe to petitioner’s stand. Primarily, all the
and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle. essential elements of plunder can be culled and understood
from its definition in Sec. 2, in relation to sec. 1 par. (d). Sec. 4
A facial challenge is allowed to be made to vague statute and purports to do no more than prescribe a rule of procedure for
to one which is overbroad because of possible “chilling the prosecution of a criminal case for plunder. Being a purely
effect” upon protected speech. The possible harm to society procedural measure, Sec. 4 does not define or establish any
in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is substantive right in favor of the accused but only operated in
outweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of furtherance of a remedy.
other may be deterred and perceived grievances left to fester
because of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad What is crucial for the prosecution is to present sufficient
statutes. But in criminal law, the law cannot take chances as evidence to engender that moral certitude exacted by the
in the area of free speech. fundamental law to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
2. WON the Plunder Law requires less evidence for
providing the predicate crimes of plunder and therefore 3. WON Plunder as defined in RA 7080 is a malum
violates the rights of the accused to due process prohibitum, and if so, whether it is within the power of
Congress to so classify it.
No. Sec. 4 (Rule of Evidence) states that: For purposes of
establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to No. It is malum in se which requires proof of criminal intent.
prove each and every criminal act done by the accused in Precisely because the constitutive crimes are mala in se the
furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to amass, element of mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for
accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to plunder. It is noteworthy that the amended information
establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or alleges that the crime of plunder was committed “willfully,
criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or unlawfully and criminally.” It thus alleges guilty knowledge on
conspiracy. the part of petitioner.

In a criminal prosecution for plunder, as in all other crimes, In support of his contention In support of his contention that
the accused always has in his favor the presumption of the statute eliminates the requirement of mens rea and that
innocence guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and unless the is the reason he claims the statute is void, petitioner cites the
State succeeds in demonstrating by proof beyond reasonable following remarks of Senator Tañada made during the
doubt that culpability lies, the accused is entitled to an deliberation on S.B. No.733
acquittal.
Senator Tañada was only saying that where the charge is
The “reasonable doubt” standard has acquired such exalted conspiracy to commit plunder, the prosecution need not
stature in the realm of constitutional law as it gives life to the prove each and every criminal act done to further the scheme
Due Process Clause which protects the accused against or conspiracy, it being enough if it proves beyond reasonable
conviction except upon proof of reasonable doubt of every doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the
fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy. As far as the acts
charged. constituting the pattern are concerned, however, the
elements of the crime must be proved and the requisite mens
Not everything alleged in the information needs to be proved rea must be shown.
beyond reasonable doubt. What is required to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt is every element of the crime The application of mitigating and extenuating circumstances
charged—the element of the offense. in the Revised Penal Code to prosecutions under the Anti-
Plunder Law indicates quite clearly that mens rea is an
element of plunder since the degree of responsibility of the 2. Whether or not the ordinance was unconstitutional for
offender is determined by his criminal intent. being ex post facto

Finally, any doubt as to whether the crime of plunder is a Held:

malum in se must be deemed to have been resolved in the
affirmative by the decision of Congress in 1993 to include it 1. No, the coverage of the ordinance covers him as the
among the heinous crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua actual operator of the fishpond thus he comes with
to death. the term “Manager”. He was the one who spent
money in developing and maintaining it, so despite
The evil of a crime may take various forms. There are crimes only leasing it from the national government, the
that are, by their very nature, despicable, either because life latter does not get any profit as it goes only to
was callously taken or the victim is treated like an animal and Nazario. The dates of payment are also clearly stated
utterly dehumanized as to completely disrupt the normal “Beginnin and taking effect from 1964 if the fishpond
course of his or her growth as a human being. started operating in 1964”.
2. As a rule, a statute or act may be said to be vague
There are crimes however in which the abomination lies in when it lacks comprehensible standards that men
the significance and implications of the subject criminal acts "of common intelligence must necessarily guess at
in the scheme of the larger socio-political and economic its meaning and differ as to its application." 11 It is
context in which the state finds itself to be struggling to repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: (1) it
develop and provide for its poor and underprivileged masses. violates due process for failure to accord persons,
especially the parties targetted by it, fair notice of
The legislative declaration in R.A. No.7659 that plunder is a
the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law enforcers
heinous offense implies that it is a malum in se. For when the
unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and
acts punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong,
becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government
they are mala in se and it does not matter that such acts are
muscle.
punished in a special law, especially since in the case of
plunder the predicate crimes are mainly mala in se. 2. No, it is not ex post facto. Ordinance 4 was enacted in 1955
so it can’t be that the amendment under Ordinance 12 is
Held: PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court holds that RA 7080
being made to apply retroactively. Also, the act of non-
otherwise known as the Plunder Law, as amended by RA
payment has been made punishable since 1955 so it means
7659, is CONSTITUTIONAL. Consequently, the petition to
Ordinance 12 is not imposing a retroactive penalty
declare the law unconstitutional is DISMISSED for lack of
merit The appeal is DISMISSED with cost against the appellant.

People vs Nazario Primicias v Municipality of Urdaneta

Facts: Facts:

Eusebio Nazario was charged in violation of refusal and On February 8, 1965, Primicia was driving his car within the
failure to pay his municipal taxes amounting to Php 362.62 jurisdiction of Urdaneta when he was found violating
because of his fishpond operation provided under Ordinance Municipal Order 3, Series of 1964 for overtaking a truck. The
4, Series of 1955, as amended. He is a resident of Sta. Mesa Courts of First Instance decided that from the action initiated
Manila and just leases a fishpond located at Pagbilao, Quezon by Primicias, the Municipal Order was null and void and had
with the Philippine Fisheries Commission. The years in been repealed by Republic Act 4136, the Land Transportation
question of failure to pay was for 1964, 1965, and 1966. and Traffic Code
Nazario did not pay because he was not sure if he was
covered under the ordinance. He was found guilty thus this Issues:
petition.
1. Whether or not Municipal Order 3 of Urdaneta is null and
Issues: void

1. Whether or not Ordinance 4, Series of 1955, as amended 2. Whether or not the Municipal Order is not definite in its
null and void for being ambiguous and uncertain terms or ambiguous.
Held: Held: No. Resolution is a valid exercise of police power. EDSA,
a main traffic artery which runs through several cities and
1. Municipal Order 3 is null and void as there is an explicit municipalities in the Metro Manila area, supports an endless
repeal in RA 4136 and as per general rule, the later law stream of traffic and the resulting activity, noise and pollution
prevails over an earlier law and any conflict between a are hardly conducive to the health, safety or welfare of the
municipal order and a national law must be ruled in favor of residents in its route. Health, safety, peace, good order and
the statute. general welfare of the people in the locality are justifications
for this. It should be stressed, that while non-impairment of
2. Yes, the terms of Municipal Order 3 was ambiguous and
contracts is constitutionally guaranteed, the rule is not
not definite. “Vehicular Traffic” is not defined and no
absolute, since it has to be reconciled with the legitimate
distinctions were made between cars, trucks, buses, etc.
exercise of police power.
Appealed decision is therefore AFFIRMED

Ortigas v Feati Bank

Facts: Plaintiff is engaged in real estate business, developing

and selling lots to the public, particularly the Highway Hills
Subdivision along EDSA. On March 4, 1952, plaintiff, as
vendor, and Augusto Padilla and Natividad Angeles, as
vendees, entered into separate agreements of sale on
installments over two parcels of land of the Subdivision. On
July 19, 1962, the said vendees transferred their rights and
interests over the aforesaid lots in favor of one Emma
Chavez. Upon completion of payment of the purchase price,
the plaintiff executed the corresponding deeds of sale in
favor of Emma Chavez. Both the agreements (of sale on
installment) and the deeds of sale contained the stipulations
or restrictions that:

1. The parcel of land shall be used exclusively for residential

purposes, and she shall not be entitled to take or remove soil,
stones or gravel from it or any other lots belonging to the
Seller.

2. All buildings and other improvements (except the fence)

which may be constructed at any time in said lot must be, (a)
of strong materials and properly painted, (b) provided with
modern sanitary installations connected either to the public
sewer or to an approved septic tank, and (c) shall not be at a
distance of less than two (2) meters from its boundary lines.

Eventually said lots were bought by defendant. Lot 5 directly

from Chavez and Lot 6 from Republic Flour Mills by deed of
exchange, with same restrictions. Plaintiff claims that
restriction is for the beautification of the subdivision.
Defendant claimed of the commercialization of western part
of EDSA. Defendant began constructing a commercial bank
building. Plaintiff demand to stop it, which forced him to file a
case, which was later dismissed, upholding police power.
Motion for recon was denied, hence the appeal.

Issue: Whether or Not non-impairment clause violated.