ELEMENTS OF PLUNDER AS A CRIMINAL
OFFENSE
Having reached the foregoing Findings of Fact after a meticulous and laborious study of the voluminous testimonial and documentary evidence of both the prosecution and the defense on the four (4) sub-paragraphs of the Amended Information, the Court is now called upon to apply the Anti-Plunder Law to the facts of this case. The accused are charged with plunder as defined and penalized under Republic Act No. 7080, as amended, entitled “An Act Defining And Penalizing The Crime Of Plunder, As Amended” (July 12, 1991). Particularly, Section 2 of the said law provides as follows:
Section 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties.- Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill gotten-wealth through a combination or series of overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof 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 and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. 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. 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. The Court shall declare any and ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and share of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in the favor of the State. (As to the penalty, this section is amended by Republic Act No. 9346 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty in the Philippines. RA 9346 was signed into law on June 24, 2006. In view of its provisions, the penalty for the crime of plunder is now reclusion perpetua pursuant to Section 2 (a) of RA 9346. In addition, the convicted person shall be eligible for parole under Act. No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.)
Section 1 (d) of the same statute cited in Section 2 above reads:
d) Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or in directly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes:
1) Through misappropriation, conversation, mis-use, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury;
2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/ or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned;
3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of asset belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivision, agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or –controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including promises of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;
5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or
6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
RA No. 7080, as amended, enunciates a rule of evidence in Section 4 thereof which is quoted hereunder:
Section 4. Rule of Evidence. – For purpose of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy.
The case of Joseph Ejercito Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148560, promulgated November 19, 2001), which upheld this Court’s Resolution dated July 9, 2001 denying accused Former President Estrada’s Motion to Quash the information in this case, enumerates the elements of the crime of plunder, as follows:
(1) That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons;
(2) That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of the following overt or criminal acts described in Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080 as amended; and
(3) That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or acquired is at least P50,000,000.00.
The terms “Combination” and “Series” were likewise defined in the above-cited case as follows:
Thus when the Plunder Law speaks of “combination,” it is referring to at least two (2) acts falling under different categories of enumeration provided in Sec. 1, par. (d), e.g., raids on the public treasury in Sec.1, par. (d), subpar. (1), and fraudulent conveyance of assets belongings to the National Government under Sec.1, par. (d), subpar. (3).
On the other hand, to constitute a “series”, there must be two (2) or more overt or criminal acts falling under the same category of enumeration found in Sec. 1, par. (d), say, misappropriation , malversation and raids on the public treasury, all of which fall under Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1). Verily, had the legislature intended a technical or distinctive meaning for “combination” and “series,” it would have taken greater pains in specifically providing for it in the law ( People v. Joseph Estrada et al., Criminal Case No. 26558, September 12, 2007).
