27. Estrada v.

Sandiganbayan
TITLE JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
(Third Division) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondents.

GR NUMBER G.R. No. 148560

DATE November 19, 2001

PONENTE BELLOSILLO, J.

NATURE/ Plunder, not void for vagueness

KEYWORDS

FACTS On April 25, 2001, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution in

Criminal Case No. 26558, finding probable cause that
petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada, then the President of the
Philippines has committed the offense of plunder, and that he
be prosecuted under RA 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing
the Crime of Plunder). The petitioner contended that RA 7080
was unconstitutional, on the grounds that 1.) it abolishes the
element of mens rea in crimes already punishable under The
Revised Penal Code, thus violating the fundamental rights of
the accused. The said law allegedly suffers from vagueness on
the terms it uses, particularly: ‘combination’, ‘series’, and
‘unwarrented’. Based on this, the petitioner used the facial
challenge to question the validity of RA 7080.

ISSUE(S) Whether or not the Plunder Law is unconstitutional for being

vague.

RULING(S) No. A statue is not rendered uncertain and void merely

because of the employment of general terms or the failure to
define the terms used therein. The validity of a law is
sustained, so long as the law provides some comprehensible
guide as to what would render those subject to the said law
liable to its penalties. The petitioner cannot rely on the void-
for-vagueness doctrine, since this doctrine does not apply to
laws that merely consist of imprecise language.

The void-for-vagueness doctrine states that a statue which

either forbids or required the doing of an act in terms so
vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily
guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates
the first essential of due process of law.