G.R. No.

148560 November 19, 2001

JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, petitioner,

vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS
On April 4, 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman filed eight separate charges, including one for
violation of Republic Act 7080 (RA 7080), before the Sandiganbayan. On April 25, 2001, the
Sandiganbayan Third Division issued a resolution stating that there was probable cause for
plunder, justifying the arrest of the accused. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on
June 25, 2001, which was denied by the court.
The petitioner argues that the charges against him under RA 7080 suffer from vagueness,
dispense with the "reasonable doubt" standard, and abolish the element of mens rea. These
arguments challenge the fundamental rights of the accused. Despite continuous challenges
from the petitioner, the respondent rejects these arguments and upholds the prosecution of the
petitioner under RA 7080.

ISSUE
Whether Plunder as defined in RA 7080 as malum prohibitum,

RULING
No. In the case of People v. Valenzona, it is stated in the ruling of the Supreme Court that “Mala
in se” refers to the knowledge of an act being done in which criminal intent is the state of mind
that goes beyond voluntariness. Thus crimes of mala in se requires proof of criminal intent while
mala prohibita it is sufficient that the prohibited acts are done freely and consciously.
In this case, the application of mitigating and extenuating circumstances 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 offender is determined by his
criminal intent.
In this case the doubts whether the crime of plunder is a mala in se is resolved in the affirmative
by the decision of Congress in 1993 to include it among the heinous crimes punishable
by reclusion perpetua to death.