Definition; elements, sufficiency of standards. – “As it is written, the Plunder Law contains ascertainable standards and well-defined parameters which would enable the accused to determine the nature of his violation. Section 2 is sufficiently explicit in it description of the acts, conduct and conditions required or forbidden, and prescribes the elements of the crime with reasonable certainty and particularity. Thus –
- 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;
- That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of the following overt or criminal acts: (a) through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury; (b by receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift5, share, percentage, kickback or any other form of pecuniary benefits from any other person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer; (c) by the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government nor any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of Government owned of controlled corporations or their subsidiaries; (d) by obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking; € 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 (f) by taking advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the prejudice and damage of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines; and
- That the aggregate amount or total vale of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or acquired is at least P50,000,000.00.”
As long as the law affords some comprehensible guide or rule that would inform those who are subject to it what conduct would render them liable to its penalties, its validity will be sustained. It must sufficiently guide the judge in its application; the counsel, in defending one charged with its violation; and more importantly, the accuse, in identifying the realm of the proscribed conduct. Indeed, it can be understood with little difficulty that what the assailed statues punishes is the act of a p[ublic officer in amassing or accumulating ill-gotten wealth of at least P50,000,000.00 through a series or combination of acts enumerated in Sec. 1 par. (D) of the Plunder Law.”[1]
“Notably, plunder is a crime composed of several predicate criminal acts. To prove plunder, the prosecution must weave a web out of the six ways of illegally amassing wealth and show how the various acts reveal a combination or series of means or schemes that reveal a pattern of criminality. The interrelationship of the separate acts must be shown and be established as a scheme to accumulate ill-gotten wealth amounting to at least P50 million.
Plunder thus involves intricate predicate criminal acts and numerous transactions and schemes that span a period of time. Naturally, in its prosecution, the State possesses an “effective flexibility” of proving a predicate criminal act or transaction, not originally contemplated in the Information, but is otherwise included in the broad statutory definition, in light of subsequently discovered evidence. The unwarranted use flexibility is what the bill of particulars guards against.”[2]
Combination, series, and pattern under the Plunder Law (R.A. 7080 as amended)
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 treasure in Sec. 1 par. (d ), subpar. (1) and fraudulent conveyance of assets belonging to the National Government under Sec. 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 category f 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.
As for “pattern,” we agree with the observations of the Sandiganbayan that this term is sufficiently defined in Section 4 in relation to Sec. 1, par. (D), and Sec. 2-
X x x under Sec. 1 (d) of the law, a “pattern” consists of at least a combination or series of overt or criminal acts enumerated in subsections (1) to (6) of Sec. 1 (d). Secondly, pursuant to Sec. 2 of the law, the pattern of overt or criminal acts is directed towards a common purpose or goal which is to enable the public officer to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. And thirdly, there must either be an ‘overall unlawful scheme’ or ‘conspiracy’ to achieve said common goal. As commonly understood, the term ‘overall unlawful scheme’ indicates a ‘general plan of action or method’ which the principal accused and public officer and others conniving with him follow to achieve the aforesaid common goal. In the alternative, if there is no such overall scheme or where the schemes or method used by multiple accused vary, the overt or criminal acts for part of a conspiracy to attain a common goal.”[3]
“Plunder is the crime committed by public officers when they amass wealth involving at least P50 million by means of a combination or a series of overt acts/ Under these terms, it is not sufficient to simply allege that the amount of ill-gotten wealth amassed amounted to at least P50 million; the manner of massaging the ill-gotten wealth — whether through a combination or series of overt acts under Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080 — is an important element that must be alleged.
When the Plunder Law speaks of ”combination,” it refers to at least two (2) acts falling under different categories listed in Section 1, paragraph (d) of R.A. No. 7080 [for example, raids on the public treasury under Section paragraph (d), subparagraph (1), and fraudulent conveyance of assets belonging to the National Government under Section 1, paragraph (d), subparagraph (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 Section 1, paragraph (d) [for example, misappropriation, malversation and raids on the public treasury, all of which fall under Section 1, paragraph (d), subpragraph (1)”[4] (citations omitted)
“The heart of the Plunder Law lies in the phrase “combination or series of overt or criminal acts.” Hence, even if the the accumulated ill-gotten wealth amounts to at least P50 million, a person cannot be prosecuted for the crime of plunder if this resulted from a single criminal act. This interpretation of the Plunder Law is very clear from the congressional deliberations.”[5]
Main plunderer doctrine. – “The law on plunder requires that a particular public officer must be identified as the one who amassed, acquired or accumulated ill-gotten wealth because it plainly states that plunder is committed by any public officer officer, who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates r other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of at least P50,000,000.00 through a combination or series of overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof. Surely, the law requires in the criminal charge fro plunder against several individuals that there must be a main plunderer and her co-conspirators, who may be members of her family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons. In other words, the allegation of the wheel conspiracy y or express conspiracy in the information was appropriate because the main plunderer would then be identified in either manner. Of course, implied conspiracy could also identify the main plunderer, but that fact must be properly alleged and duly proven by the Prosecution.”[6]
Raids on the public treasury. – “The phrase raids on the public treasury is found in Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080, which provides:
Section 1. Definition of Terms. – x x x
X x x x
((d) Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession for any person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents a, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes.
- Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury:
X x x x
To discern the proper import of the phrase raids on the public treasury, the key is to look at the accompanying words: misappropriation, conversion, misuse or malversation of public funds. This process is conformable with the maxim of statutory construction noscitur a sociis, by which the correct construction of a particular word or phrase that is ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various meanings may be made by considering the company of the words in which the word or phrase is found or with which it is associated. Verily, a word or phrase Ina statute is always used in association with other words or phrases, and its meaning may, therefore, be modified or restricted by the latter.
To convert connotes the act of using or disposing of another’s property as if it were one’s own.; to misappropriate means to own, to take something for one’s benefit; misuse means “a good, substance, privilege, or right used improperly, unforeseeably, or not as intended,’ and malversation occurs “when any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or partially. The common thread that binds all the four terms together is that the public officer used the property taken. Considering that raids on the public treasury is in the company of the four other terms that require the use of the property taken, the phrase raids on the public treasury similarly requires such use of the property taken. Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan gravelly erred in contending that the mere accumulation and gathering constituted the forbidden act of raids on the public treasury. Pursuant to the maxim of noscitur a sociis, rads on the public treasury requires the broader to use the property impliedly for his personal benefit.”[7](Citations omitted)
[1] Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001.
[2] Enrile v. People of the Philippines, et. Al, G.R. No. 213445, August 11, 2015
[3] Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001
[4] Enrile v. People of the Philippines, et al, G.R. No. 213445, August 11, 2015
[5] Enrile v. People of the Philippines, et al, G.R. No. 213445, August 11, 2015, citing HR Committee Journal, May 7, 1991
[6] Macapagal-Arroyo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 220598, July 19, 2016
[7] Macapagal-Arroyo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 220598, July 19, 2016