Lawyerly

GR No. 213455

2015-08-11

BRION, J.

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), subparagraph (1)].[98]

GR No. 213455

2015-08-11

JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. PEOPLE

BRION, J.

As laid down in Joseph Ejercito Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan,[157] the elements of Plunder are: 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;

GR No. 209464

2015-07-01

DANDY L. DUNGO v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

A common misconception is that all mala in se crimes are found in the Revised Penal Code (RPC), while all mala prohibita crimes are provided by special penal laws. In reality, however, there may be mala in se crimes under special laws, such as plunder under R.A. No. 7080, as amended.[66]

GR No. 206666

2015-01-21

ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

There are crimes, however, in which the abomination lies in the significance and implications of the subject criminal acts in the scheme of the larger socio-political and economic context in which the state finds itself to be struggling to develop and provide for its poor and underprivileged masses. Reeling from decades of corrupt tyrannical rule that bankrupted the government and impoverished the population, the Philippine Government must muster the political will to dismantle the culture of corruption, dishonesty, greed and syndicated criminality that so deeply entrenched itself in the structures of society and the psyche of the populace. [With the government] terribly lacking the money to provide even the most basic services to its people, any form of misappropriation or misapplication of government funds translates to an actual threat to the very existence of government, and in turn, the very survival of the people it governs over. Viewed in this context, no less heinous are the effects and repercussions of crimes like qualified bribery, destructive arson resulting in death, and drug offenses involving government officials, employees or officers, that their perpetrators must not be allowed to cause further destruction and damage to society.[221] (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 206666

2015-01-21

ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

To recognize this legislative wisdom is, thus, to recognize that penalizing plunder inherently entails the exclusion of a convict from elective exercises for public office, both as a candidate and as a voter, as well as from offices and public employments. This is consistent with the recognition that plunder is an "abomination . . . in the scheme of the larger socio-political and economic context."[226] Through the penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification, it is, thus, ensured that a person convicted of plunder will no longer find himself or herself in the same setting, i.e., holding (elective) public office, which, in the first place, enabled the commission of plunder.

GR No. 187836

2014-11-25

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY OFFICERS v. ALFREDO S. LIM

PEREZ, J.

Considering that the provisions thereof run contrary to Ordinance No. 8027, the petitioners in G.R. No. 156052 filed a "Manifestation and Motion to: a) Stop the City Council of Manila from further hearing the amending ordinance to Ordinance No. 8027; [and] b) Transfer the monitoring of the enforcement of the Resolution of the Honorable Court on this case dated 13 February 2008 from Branch 39, Manila Regional Trial Court to the Supreme Court."[40]

GR No. 187836

2014-11-25

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY OFFICERS v. ALFREDO S. LIM

PEREZ, J.

Succeeding motions were thus denied and/or noted without action. And, after the "Very Urgent Motion to Stop the Mayor of the City of Manila from Signing Draft Ordinance No. 7177 and to Cite Him for Contempt if He Would Do So" filed on 19 May 2009 was denied on 2 June 2009 for being moot,[43] all pleadings pertaining to the earlier motion against the drafting of an ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 8027 were noted without action.[44]

GR No. 203335

2014-02-18

JOSE JESUS M. DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

ABAD, J.

To prohibit the transmission of unsolicited ads would deny a person the right to read his emails, even unsolicited commercial ads addressed to him. Commercial speech is a separate category of speech which is not accorded the same level of protection as that given to other constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression but is nonetheless entitled to protection.[36] The State cannot rob him of this right without violating the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression. Unsolicited advertisements are legitimate forms of expression.

GR No. 203335

2014-02-18

JOSE JESUS M. DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

ABAD, J.

A statute falls under the overbreadth doctrine when "a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms."[178] Section 4(c)(4) of Rep. Act No. 10175 and Articles 353, 354, and 355 produce a chilling effect on speech by being fatally inconsistent with Ayer Productions as well as by imposing criminal liability in addition to civil ones. Not only once, but several times, did this court uphold the freedom of speech and expression under Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution[179] over an alleged infringement of privacy or defamation. This trend implies an evolving rejection of the criminal nature of libel and must be expressly recognized in view of this court's duty to uphold the guarantees under the Constitution.

GR No. 169364

2009-09-18

PEOPLE v. EVANGELINE SITON Y SACIL

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The State, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that pursuant to the Court's ruling in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,[7] the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines apply only to free speech cases and not to penal statutes. It also asserted that Article 202 (2) must be presumed valid and constitutional, since the respondents failed to overcome this presumption.

GR No. 167011

2008-04-30

SPS. CARLOS S. ROMUALDEZ AND ERLINDA R. ROMUALDEZ v. COMELEC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Notably, herein petitioners do not cite a word in the challenged provision, the import or meaning of which they do not understand. This is in stark contrast to the case of Estrada v. Sandiganbayan[42] where therein petitioner sought for statutory definition of particular words in the challenged statute. Even then, the Court in Estrada rejected the argument.

GR No. 160869

2007-05-11

AASJS MEMBER - HECTOR GUMANGAN CALILUNG v. SIMEON DATUMANONG

QUISUMBING, J.

Moreover, in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,[11] we said that the courts must assume that the legislature is ever conscious of the borders and edges of its plenary powers, and passed laws with full knowledge of the facts and for the purpose of promoting what is right and advancing the welfare of the majority. Hence, in determining whether the acts of the legislature are in tune with the fundamental law, we must proceed with judicial restraint and act with caution and forbearance.[12] The doctrine of separation of powers demands no less. We cannot arrogate the duty of setting the parameters of what constitutes dual allegiance when the Constitution itself has clearly delegated the duty of determining what acts constitute dual allegiance for study and legislation by Congress.

GR No. 148965

2002-02-26

JOSE “JINGGOY” E. ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

PUNO, J.

The contention deserves our scant attention. The constitutionality of R.A. No. 7080, the Anti-Plunder Law, has been settled in the case of Estrada v. Sandiganbayan.[11] We take off from the Amended Information which charged petitioner, together with former President Joseph E. Estrada, Atty. Edward Serapio, Charlie "Atong" Ang, Yolanda T. Ricaforte and others, with the crime of plunder as follows: "AMENDED INFORMATION

GR No. 148965

2002-02-26

JOSE “JINGGOY” E. ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

PUNO, J.

On July 9, 2001, respondent Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying petitioner's "Motion to Quash and Suspend" and "Very Urgent Omnibus Motion."[6] Petitioner's alternative prayer to post bail was set for hearing after arraignment of all accused. The court held:

GR No. 148965

2002-02-26

JOSE “JINGGOY” E. ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

PUNO, J.

It matters little that sub-paragraph (a) did not utilize the exact words "combination" or "series" as they appear in R.A. No. 7080. For in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,[13] we held that where these two terms are to be taken in their popular, not technical, meaning, the word "series" is synonymous with the clause "on several instances." "Series" refers to a repetition of the same predicate act in any of the items in Section 1 (d) of the law. The word "combination" contemplates the commission of at least any two different predicate acts in any of said items. Plainly, sub-paragraph (a) of the Amended Information charges petitioner with plunder committed by a series of the same predicate act under Section 1 (d) (2) of the law.

	GR No. 213455 2015-08-11	JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
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), subparagraph (1)].[98]
	GR No. 213455 2015-08-11	JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
As laid down in Joseph Ejercito Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan,[157] the elements of Plunder are: 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;
	GR No. 209464 2015-07-01	DANDY L. DUNGO v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
A common misconception is that all mala in se crimes are found in the Revised Penal Code (RPC), while all mala prohibita crimes are provided by special penal laws. In reality, however, there may be mala in se crimes under special laws, such as plunder under R.A. No. 7080, as amended.[66]
	GR No. 206666 2015-01-21	ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
There are crimes, however, in which the abomination lies in the significance and implications of the subject criminal acts in the scheme of the larger socio-political and economic context in which the state finds itself to be struggling to develop and provide for its poor and underprivileged masses. Reeling from decades of corrupt tyrannical rule that bankrupted the government and impoverished the population, the Philippine Government must muster the political will to dismantle the culture of corruption, dishonesty, greed and syndicated criminality that so deeply entrenched itself in the structures of society and the psyche of the populace. [With the government] terribly lacking the money to provide even the most basic services to its people, any form of misappropriation or misapplication of government funds translates to an actual threat to the very existence of government, and in turn, the very survival of the people it governs over. Viewed in this context, no less heinous are the effects and repercussions of crimes like qualified bribery, destructive arson resulting in death, and drug offenses involving government officials, employees or officers, that their perpetrators must not be allowed to cause further destruction and damage to society.[221] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 206666 2015-01-21	ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
To recognize this legislative wisdom is, thus, to recognize that penalizing plunder inherently entails the exclusion of a convict from elective exercises for public office, both as a candidate and as a voter, as well as from offices and public employments. This is consistent with the recognition that plunder is an "abomination . . . in the scheme of the larger socio-political and economic context."[226] Through the penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification, it is, thus, ensured that a person convicted of plunder will no longer find himself or herself in the same setting, i.e., holding (elective) public office, which, in the first place, enabled the commission of plunder.
	GR No. 187836 2014-11-25	SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY OFFICERS v. ALFREDO S. LIM PEREZ, J.
Considering that the provisions thereof run contrary to Ordinance No. 8027, the petitioners in G.R. No. 156052 filed a "Manifestation and Motion to: a) Stop the City Council of Manila from further hearing the amending ordinance to Ordinance No. 8027; [and] b) Transfer the monitoring of the enforcement of the Resolution of the Honorable Court on this case dated 13 February 2008 from Branch 39, Manila Regional Trial Court to the Supreme Court."[40]
	GR No. 187836 2014-11-25	SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY OFFICERS v. ALFREDO S. LIM PEREZ, J.
Succeeding motions were thus denied and/or noted without action. And, after the "Very Urgent Motion to Stop the Mayor of the City of Manila from Signing Draft Ordinance No. 7177 and to Cite Him for Contempt if He Would Do So" filed on 19 May 2009 was denied on 2 June 2009 for being moot,[43] all pleadings pertaining to the earlier motion against the drafting of an ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 8027 were noted without action.[44]
	GR No. 203335 2014-02-18	JOSE JESUS M. DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE ABAD, J.
To prohibit the transmission of unsolicited ads would deny a person the right to read his emails, even unsolicited commercial ads addressed to him. Commercial speech is a separate category of speech which is not accorded the same level of protection as that given to other constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression but is nonetheless entitled to protection.[36] The State cannot rob him of this right without violating the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression. Unsolicited advertisements are legitimate forms of expression.
	GR No. 203335 2014-02-18	JOSE JESUS M. DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE ABAD, J.
A statute falls under the overbreadth doctrine when "a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms."[178] Section 4(c)(4) of Rep. Act No. 10175 and Articles 353, 354, and 355 produce a chilling effect on speech by being fatally inconsistent with Ayer Productions as well as by imposing criminal liability in addition to civil ones. Not only once, but several times, did this court uphold the freedom of speech and expression under Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution[179] over an alleged infringement of privacy or defamation. This trend implies an evolving rejection of the criminal nature of libel and must be expressly recognized in view of this court's duty to uphold the guarantees under the Constitution.
	GR No. 169364 2009-09-18	PEOPLE v. EVANGELINE SITON Y SACIL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The State, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that pursuant to the Court's ruling in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,[7] the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines apply only to free speech cases and not to penal statutes. It also asserted that Article 202 (2) must be presumed valid and constitutional, since the respondents failed to overcome this presumption.
	GR No. 167011 2008-04-30	SPS. CARLOS S. ROMUALDEZ AND ERLINDA R. ROMUALDEZ v. COMELEC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Notably, herein petitioners do not cite a word in the challenged provision, the import or meaning of which they do not understand. This is in stark contrast to the case of Estrada v. Sandiganbayan[42] where therein petitioner sought for statutory definition of particular words in the challenged statute. Even then, the Court in Estrada rejected the argument.
	GR No. 160869 2007-05-11	AASJS MEMBER - HECTOR GUMANGAN CALILUNG v. SIMEON DATUMANONG QUISUMBING, J.
Moreover, in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,[11] we said that the courts must assume that the legislature is ever conscious of the borders and edges of its plenary powers, and passed laws with full knowledge of the facts and for the purpose of promoting what is right and advancing the welfare of the majority. Hence, in determining whether the acts of the legislature are in tune with the fundamental law, we must proceed with judicial restraint and act with caution and forbearance.[12] The doctrine of separation of powers demands no less. We cannot arrogate the duty of setting the parameters of what constitutes dual allegiance when the Constitution itself has clearly delegated the duty of determining what acts constitute dual allegiance for study and legislation by Congress.
	GR No. 148965 2002-02-26	JOSE “JINGGOY” E. ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN PUNO, J.
The contention deserves our scant attention. The constitutionality of R.A. No. 7080, the Anti-Plunder Law, has been settled in the case of Estrada v. Sandiganbayan.[11] We take off from the Amended Information which charged petitioner, together with former President Joseph E. Estrada, Atty. Edward Serapio, Charlie "Atong" Ang, Yolanda T. Ricaforte and others, with the crime of plunder as follows: "AMENDED INFORMATION
	GR No. 148965 2002-02-26	JOSE “JINGGOY” E. ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN PUNO, J.
On July 9, 2001, respondent Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying petitioner's "Motion to Quash and Suspend" and "Very Urgent Omnibus Motion."[6] Petitioner's alternative prayer to post bail was set for hearing after arraignment of all accused. The court held:
	GR No. 148965 2002-02-26	JOSE “JINGGOY” E. ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN PUNO, J.
It matters little that sub-paragraph (a) did not utilize the exact words "combination" or "series" as they appear in R.A. No. 7080. For in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,[13] we held that where these two terms are to be taken in their popular, not technical, meaning, the word "series" is synonymous with the clause "on several instances." "Series" refers to a repetition of the same predicate act in any of the items in Section 1 (d) of the law. The word "combination" contemplates the commission of at least any two different predicate acts in any of said items. Plainly, sub-paragraph (a) of the Amended Information charges petitioner with plunder committed by a series of the same predicate act under Section 1 (d) (2) of the law.

JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN