For the crime of plunder to be committed, the accused public officer must have amassed ill-gotten wealth of not less than 50 million pesos. If the public officer therefore after having amassed 49 million and so many hundreds already stop, this crime cannot be incurred.
The second requisite: The amount must be incurred by at least 2 acts covered by different paragraphs under Section 1(d) of the law. At least 2 of the said paragraphs must be violated. This was the interpretation made by the SC because the law provides for a combination or series of overt or criminal acts. So since the law used the word ‘combination’, 2 at least is required. So if the P50 million was accumulated by one act of receiving kickback, that cannot give rise to the crime of plunder. There must be another commission of subsection d Section 1 - the second one, that is already obtaining or accumulating ill gotten wealth. But if the ill-gotten wealth was accumulated through a series of acts, the series of acts maybe under the same enumeration. If there are only 2, it must be fall under different paragraphs or enumeration in that subsection d.
So if the same act was committed twice, that cannot bring about the crime of plunder - Important word ‘COMBINATION’.
Another important aspect of this crime: The violation is held to be a malum in se. That means the criminal intent must be established in accumulating the ill-gotten wealth of at least 50 million pesos for it to be punished.
No comments:
Post a Comment