Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, GR No.

148560

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

FACTS: Former Pres. Estrada filed a petition to declare RA 7089 or the Plunder Law invalid for suffering the vice of vagueness. He avers that the law failed to provide for the statutory definitions of the terms combination and series in Sec. 1, par. (d) and Sec. 2, and the word pattern in Sec. 4. According to him, the omissions render the law unconstitutional for being impermissibly vague and overbroad which violated his fundamental right to due process. Ratio: A statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because general terms are used therein, or because of the employment of terms without defining them; much less do we have to define every word we use. Congress inability to so define the words employed in a statue will not necessarily result in the vagueness or ambiguity of the law so long as the legislative will is clear, or at least, can be gathered from the whole act, which is distinctly expressed in the Plunder Law. It is a well-settled principle in legal hermeneutics that words of a statue will be interpreted in their natural, plain and ordinary acceptation and signification, unless it is evident that the legislature intended a technical or special legal meaning to those words. The intention of the lawmakers to use statutory phraseology in such a manner is always presumed People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 FACTS: Burgos was accused by a certain Masamlok of forcibly recruiting him to join the NPA by threatening his life with the use of a firearm. Police, acting on Masamloks information, went to find Burgos who at that time was plowing his field. They asked about the firearm which they were able to locate after questioning Burgos wife. The police were also able to locate allegedly subversive documents buried a few meters from Burgos house after the latter pointed them to the location. Burgos was arrested without warrant. RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of subversion and ruled that the warrantless arrest was valid under Rule 113, Sec. 5 of the ROC. HELD: Under Sec. 5 of Rule 113, the officer arresting a person who has just committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must have personal knowledge of that fact. The offense must also be committed in his presence or within his view. In arrests without a warrant, it is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. A crime must in fact or actually have been committed first. That a crime has been committed is an essential precondition. It is not enough to suspect that a crime may have been committed. The fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed.