Spl 1.2

of 52
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
    148560 : January 29, 2002 : Atty. Villarama : En Banc [G.R. No. 148560.January 29, 2002] ESTRADA  vs.  SANDIGANBAYAN et al  . EN BANC Gentlemen: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this  Court dated JAN 29 2002. G.R. No. 148560( Joseph Ejercito Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (3r d Division) and the People of the Philippines. ) Considering the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada and finding nothing therein that in any way compels a modification of the decision rendered in this case on November 19, 2001, the Court, by vote of 10 to 4 of its members, with one abstention, RESOLVED to DENY with finality the aforesaid motion for reconsideration, as well as petitioner's motion for oral arguments, for lack of merit. Davide, Jr. C.J.,  and Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, JJ. reiterate their votes to dismiss the petition in this case. In addition, Mendoza, J.  filed a separate opinion (hereto attached) in which David    e, Jr., C.J., and Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ.,  concur. Panganiban, J.,  reiterates his concurring opinion in the main case and holds that it is unnecessary to rule on whether, as contended by petitioner, the Anti-Plunder Law should initially be presumed invalid for allegedly derogating fundamental rights, because the State has shown - and the Court has already upheld - its constitutionality. Kapunan, Pardo, Ynares-Santiago, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., maintain their respective dissents. Carpio, J., reiterates that he takes no part, having been one of the complainants before the Office of the Ombudsman. Considering that petitioner's motions for reconsideration and f or oral arguments have been denied with finality, no further pleadings shall be entertained by this Court. SEPARATE OPINION MENDOZA, J ,   concurring in the denial of the motion for reco nsideration  : Petitioner moves for a reconsideration of the decision rendered in this case on November 19, 2001. He makes several arguments which can be reduced to two propositions. First,  he contends that a facial review of the Anti-Plunder Law is required because (1) the law imposes the death penalty; (2) where a    penal law affects fundamental rights, the law is presumed void and the government has the burden of showingthat it is valid; (3) the provisions of the Anti-Plunder Law are not severable so that, if any provision is void, the whole statute is void, petitioner invoking in this connection the principle that no one can be prosecuted except under a valid law. Second, petitioner contends that (1) the provisions of the Anti-Plunder Law under which he is being prosecuted are vague and overbroad and their vagueness cannot be cured either by reference to the specific allegations of the Amended Information or by judicial construction and (2) the provisions in question violate the Due Process and Equal Protection guarantees of the Constitution. These contentions will be dealt with in Part I and Part II in the order in which they are made. Then, in Part III, the implications of adopting petitioner's theory will be discussed. I.ON PETITIONER'S CLAIM THAT THE ANTI-PLUMBER LAW MUST BE REVIEWED NOT ONLY AS APPLIED TO HIM BUT ALSO AS APPLIED TO OTHERS TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THAT LAW The question is whether petitioner can assail R.A. No. 7080 on the ground that as applied to other persons it is unconstitu    tional for being vague and overbroad. The question arises in the following contex t. Section 2, in relation to §1(d), of R.A. N o. 7080, otherwise known as the Anti-Plunder Law, makes it a crime for any public officer, directly or indirectly, to amass, accumulate or acquire . . . any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession amounting to at least P50 million, through a combination or series of any of the following overt or criminal acts: 1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury. 2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, an 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 assets belonging to the National Government or any of  its subdivisions, 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 the promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!