Pp. vs. SanchezFacts:While Gladys, 9 -year old girl, wasleft alone in theirapartment, the accused entered in her room andrapedher. This was done by the accused three times. The accused was later arrested and taken to the police station.It was found outin the medico-legal report that there was absence of any laceration in the hymen. Theaccused raised the defense of alibi, contendingthat he wasnot there when theincident occurred.

Issue:W/N accused is guilty of the crime charged

Held:Yes. Even if there had been no lacerations of the hymen, it does not necessarily mean that there was norape. A broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. The merest introduction of the male organ into the labiaof pudendum is sufficient. The mere penetration of the penis by the entry thereof into the labis majora of thefemale organ, even without rupture of thehymen, suffices to warrant a conviction ofrape.With regards to the degree of alibi of the accused, the court ruled that alibi is inherently a weak defensebecause it is tofabricate and difficult to disprove it. For alibito bebelieved, credible and tangible proof ofphysicalimpossibility for the accused to be at thescene of the crime is indispensable

AMELITO R. MUTUC vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (36 SCRA 228) Case Digest

Facts:Petitioner Amelito Mutuc was a candidate for the position of delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He alleged that respondent Commission on Elections gave his certificate of candidacy due course but prohibited him from using jingles in his mobile units equipped with sound system and loud speakers. According to him, this violated his constitutional right to freedom of speech. Petitioner filed a case against Commission on elections seeking a writ of prohibition and at the same time praying for a preliminary injunction. The respondent argued that this authority was granted by the Constitutional Convention Act.

Issues:

Was the prohibition imposed by respondent a violation of the right to freedom of speech of the petitioner?

Ruling:

Supreme Court ruled that there was absence of statutory authority on the part of respondent to impose such ban in the light of the doctine of ejusdem generis. The respondent commission failed to manifest fealty to a cardinal principle of construction that a statute should be interpreted to assure its being consonance with, rather than repugnant to, any constitutional command or prescription. The Constitution prohibits abridgement of free speech or a free press. According to the Supreme Court, this preferred freedom calls all the more for the utmost respect when what may be curtailed is the dissemination of information to make more meaningful the equally vital right of suffrage. What the respondent Commission did was to impose censorship on petitioner, an evil against which this constitutional right is directed.

The respondent Commission is permanently restrained and prohibited from enforcing or implementing or demanding compliance with its aforesaid order banning the use of political taped jingles.

ENBANC

Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan

December 22, 2012byLagangang ButasEstrada vs. SandiganbayanG.R. No. 148560. November 19, 2001

Petitioner: Joseph Ejercito EstradaRespondents: Sandiganbayan (Third Division) and People of the PhilippinesPonente: J. BellosilloFACTS:Section 2 of R.A. No. 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder) as amended by R.A. No. 7659 substantially provides that any public officer who amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts in the aggregate amount or total value of at least fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder.Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada, being prosecuted under the said Act, assailed its constitutionality, arguing inter alia, that it abolishes the element ofmens reain crimes already punishable under The Revised Penal Code; and as such, a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused to due process and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

ISSUE:Whether or not the crime of plunder as defined in R.A. No. 7080 is amalum prohibitum.

HELD:No. The Supreme Court held that plunder ismalum in sewhich requires proof of criminal intent. Moreover, the legislative declaration in R.A. No. 7659 that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is amalum in se. The predicate crimes in the case of plunder involve acts which are inherently immoral or inherently wrong, and are committed willfully, unlawfully and criminally by the offender, alleging his guilty knowledge. Thus, the crime of plunder is amalum in se.

SandiganbayanG.R. No. 148560November 19,2001

Lessons Applicable:

Consti Overbreadth doctrine, void-for-vagueness doctrine

Crim Law 1- mala in se

Crim pro proof beyond reasonable doubt

Laws Applicable: Art. 3 RPC

FACTS:

An information is filed against former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada a.k.a. 'Asiong Salonga' and 'Jose Velarde,' together with Jose 'Jinggoy' Estrada, Charlie 'Atong' Ang, Edward Serapio, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Alma Alfaro, John Doe a.k.a. Eleuterio Tan or Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas and John Does & Jane Does of the crime of Plunder under RA 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder)

June, 1998 to January 2001: Estrada himself and/or in connivance/conspiracy with his co-accused, who are members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity,business associates, subordinates and/or other persons, by taking undue advantage of his official position, authority, relationship, connection, orinfluence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate and acquire by himself, directly or indirectly, ill-gotten wealth of P4,097,804,173.17 thereby unjustly enriching himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines, through any or a combination or a series of overt or criminal acts, or similar schemes or means

Received P545,000,000.00 in the form of gift, share, percentage, kickback or any form of pecuniary benefit, by himself and/or in connection with co-accused Charlie 'Atong' Ang, Jose 'Jinggoy' Estrada, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Edward Serapio, and John Does and Jane Does, in consideration of toleration or protection of illegal gambling

Diverting, receiving, misappropriating,convertingor misusing directly or indirectly, for his or their personal gain and benefit, public funds of P130,000,000.00, more or less, representing a portion of P200,000,000.00) tobacco excise tax share allocated for the provinceofIlocosSurunderR.A. No. 7171, by himself and/or in connivance with co-accused Charlie 'Atong' Ang, Alma Alfaro, John Doe a.k.a. Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas, and other John Does & Jane Does

For His Personal Gain And Benefit, The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) To Purchase 351,878,000 Shares Of Stocks, More Or Less, And TheSocial Security System(SSS), 329,855,000 Shares Of Stock, More Or Less, Of The Belle Corporation worth P1,102,965,607.50 and P744,612,450.00 respectively andby collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by himself and/or in connivance with John Does and Jane Does, commissions or percentages by reason of said purchases which became part of the deposit in the equitable-pci bank underthe accountnameJose Velarde

by unjustly enriching himself from commissions, gifts, shares, percentages, kickbacks, or any form of pecuniary benefits, in connivance with John Does and Jane Does, P3,233,104,173.17 and depositing the same under his account name Jose Velarde at the Equitable-Pci Bank

Estrada questions the constitutionality of the Plunder Law since for him:

1.it suffers from the vice of vagueness

2.it dispenses with the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal prosecutions

3.it abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes already punishable under The Revised Penal Code

April 4, 2001: Office of the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan 8 separate Informations, docketed as:1.Crim. Case No. 26558, for violation of RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659

2.Crim. Cases Nos. 26559 to 26562, inclusive, for violation of Secs. 3, par. (a), 3, par. (a), 3, par. (e) and 3, par. (e), of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act),respectively

3.Crim. CaseNo. 26563, for violation of Sec. 7, par. (d), of RA 6713 (The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees)

4.Crim. Case No. 26564, for Perjury (Art. 183 of The Revised Penal Code)

5.Crim. Case No. 26565, for Illegal Use Of An Alias (CA No. 142, as amended by RA 6085)

April 11, 2001: Estrada filed an Omnibus Motion on the grounds of lack of preliminary investigation, reconsideration/reinvestigation of offenses and opportunity to prove lack of probable cause. - Denied

April 25, 2001: Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution in Crim. Case No. 26558 finding that a probable cause for the offense of plunder exists to justify the issuance of warrants for the arrest ofthe accusedJune 14, 2001: Estrada moved to quash the Information in Crim. Case No. 26558 on the ground that the facts alleged therein did NOT constitute an indictable offense since the law on which it was based was unconstitutional for vagueness and that the Amended Information for Plunder charged more than 1 offense Denied

Estrada filed a petition for certiorari are:

1.The Plunder Law is unconstitutional for being vague

2.The Plunder Law requires less evidence for proving the predicate crimes of plunder and therefore violates the rights ofthe accusedto due process

3.Whether Plunder as defined in RA 7080 is a malum prohibitum, and if so, whether it is within the power of Congress to so classify it

ISSUES:

1.W/N the Plunder Law is constitutional (consti1)

2.W/N the Plunder Law dispenses with the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal prosecutions (crim pro)

3.W/N the Plunder Law is a malum prohibitum (crim law 1)

HELD: Petition is dismissed. Plunder Law is constitutional.

1.YES

Miserably failed in the instant case to discharge his burden and overcome the presumption of constitutionality of the Plunder Law

Plunder Law contains ascertainable standards and well-defined parameters which would enablethe accusedto determine the nature of his violation.Combination- at least two (2) acts falling under different categories of enumeration

series - must be two (2) or more overt or criminal acts falling under the same category of enumeration

pattern - at least a combination or series of overt or criminal acts enumerated in subsections (1) to (6) of Sec. 1 (d)

Void-For-Vagueness Doctrine - a statute which either forbids or requires 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

oThe test in determining whether a criminal statute is void for uncertainty is whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice

ocan only be invoked against that specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, i.e., that which cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction

oa statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application.othe statute is repugnant to the Constitution in 2 respects:

a.it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid

b.it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle

oAs for the vagueness doctrine, it is said that a litigant may challenge a statute on its face only if it is vague in all its possible applications

Overbreadth Doctrine - a governmental purpose may NOT be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms

ooverbreadth claims, if entertained at all, have been curtailed when invoked against ordinarycriminal lawsthat are sought to be applied to protected conduct

A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible "chilling effect" upon protected speech.Criminal statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting from their very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for this reason alone, the State may well be prevented from enacting laws against socially harmful conduct.In the area ofcriminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech.

The overbreadth and vagueness doctrines then have special application only to free speech cases.

2.NO.

The use of the "reasonable doubt" standard is indispensable to command the respect and confidence of the community in the application of criminal law.ohas acquired such exalted stature in the realm of constitutional law as it gives life to the Due Process Clause which protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged

What the prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt is only a number of acts sufficient to form a combination or series which would constitute a pattern and involving an amount of at least P50,000,000.00.There is no need to prove each and every other act alleged in the Information to have been committed by the accused in furtherance of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth

oPattern is merely a by-product of the proof of the predicate acts.This conclusion is consistent with reason and common sense.There would be no other explanation for a combinationorseries of overt or criminal acts to stash P50,000,000.00 or more, than "a scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill gotten wealth."

3.NO

plunder is a malum in se which requires proof of criminal intent (mens rea)

oAny 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.oIn 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.

indicates quite clearly that mens reais an element of plunder since the degree of responsibility of the offender is determined by his criminal intent

oThe 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

Blo Umpar Adiong vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 103956, 207 SCRA 712 , March 31, 1992Case Title:BLO UMPAR ADIONG, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

Case Nature:PETITION to review the decision of the Commission on Elections.

Division: EN BANCCounsel: Romulo R. MacalintalPonente: GUTIERREZ, JR., CRUZDispositive Portion:WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The portion of Section 15(a) of Resolution No. 2347 of the Commission on Elections providing that decals and stickers may be posted only in any of the authorized posting areas provided in paragraph (f) of Section 21 hereof is DECLARED NULL and VOID.

Syllabi Class:Constitutional Law|Commission on Elections|Freedom of Speech

Syllabi:1. Constitutional Law; Commission on Elections; Freedom of Speech; The COMELECs prohibition on posting of decals and stickers on mobile places whether public or private except in designated areas provided for by the COMELEC itself is null and void on constitutional grounds.-

The COMELECs prohibition on posting of decals and stickers on mobile places whether public or private except in designated areas provided for by the COMELEC itself is null and void on constitutional grounds.2. Constitutional Law; Commission on Elections; Freedom of Speech; The qualitative significance of freedom of expression arises from the fact that it is the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other freedom.-

This qualitative significance of freedom of expression arises from the fact that it is the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other freedom. (Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 [1937]; Salonga v. Pao, 134 SCRA 438 [1985]) It is difficult to imagine how the other provisions of the Bill of Rights and the right to free elections may be guaranteed if the freedom to speak and to convince or persuade is denied and taken away.3. Constitutional Law; Commission on Elections; Freedom of Speech; Verily, the restriction as to where the decals and stickers should be posted is so broad that it encompasses even the citizens private property which in this case is a privately-owned vehicle.-

The resolution prohibits the posting of decals and stickers not more than eight and one-half (8-1/2) inches in width and fourteen (14) inches in length in any place, including mobile places whether public or private except in areas designated by the COMELEC. Verily, the restriction as to where the decals and stickers should be posted is so broad that it encompasses even the citizens private property, which in this case is a privately-owned vehicle. In consequence of this prohibition, another cardinal rule prescribed by the Constitution would be violated. Section 1, Article III of the Bill of Rights provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law.4. Constitutional Law; Commission on Elections; Freedom of Speech; The prohibition on posting of decals and stickers on mobile places whether public or private except in the authorized areas designated by the COMELEC becomes censorship which cannot be justified by the Constitution.-

In sum, the prohibition on posting of decals and stickers on mobile places whether public or private except in the authorized areas designated by the COMELEC becomes censorship which cannot be justified by the Constitution