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: Whether or not the Plunder Law is a malum prohibitum

RULING:

NO. Plunder is a malum in se which requires proof of criminal intent (mens

rea) such that:
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) 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.