Pattern | Anti-Plunder Act [R.A. No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659] | SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

CRIMINAL LAW > IV. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS > I. Anti-Plunder Act [R.A. No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659] > 3. Pattern

Definition and Essence of "Pattern" in Plunder Cases: The concept of "pattern" is a critical element in proving plunder under Republic Act No. 7080, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. It refers to a series or combination of overt or criminal acts that collectively show a scheme or system of illegal accumulation of wealth.

---

Key Provisions of the Law on "Pattern":

1. Section 2 of R.A. No. 7080 (Definition of Plunder):

   • The law defines plunder as a crime committed by any public officer who, by themselves or in connivance with others, amasses, accumulates, or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt criminal acts involving at least Fifty Million Pesos (₱50,000,000.00).

2. Combination or Series Requirement:

   • The term "pattern" is established by showing a combination or series of acts that are linked to a common purpose or objective of acquiring ill-gotten wealth.
   • A combination involves multiple acts of varying nature (e.g., bribery, malversation, embezzlement).
   • A series involves repetitive acts of the same nature (e.g., multiple instances of extortion).

3. Pattern as Evidence of Scheme or System:

   • The prosecution must demonstrate that the criminal acts form part of a larger scheme or system of conduct.
   • Isolated or sporadic acts without a clear connection to a broader plan may not satisfy the requirement of a pattern.

---

Judicial Interpretation of "Pattern" in Jurisprudence:

1. People v. Estrada (G.R. No. 164368, 2007):

   • The Supreme Court clarified that a "pattern" does not merely mean the mechanical repetition of acts but involves a coherent system or scheme aimed at achieving the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth.
   • The Court highlighted that the combination or series of acts must be sufficiently linked to prove the overarching criminal design.

2. People v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 124671-72, 2001):

   • The "combination" or "series" must involve criminal acts enumerated in Section 1(d) of the law, such as bribery, extortion, fraud, malversation, and other offenses involving public funds.

3. Ombudsman v. Balajadia (G.R. No. 144365, 2002):

   • The Court ruled that a "pattern" is present when the acts, though different in nature, are clearly connected by their intent to acquire wealth unlawfully.

---

Proving the Pattern:

To establish a pattern under the Anti-Plunder Act, the prosecution must prove the following elements:

1. Existence of Ill-Gotten Wealth:

   • Evidence of funds, properties, or assets unlawfully acquired by the accused.
   • The amount must reach or exceed the statutory threshold of ₱50,000,000.00.

2. Combination or Series of Acts:

   • Evidence of at least two criminal acts falling under the categories enumerated in the law.
   • Examples include multiple instances of bribery, repeated embezzlement of public funds, or the orchestration of fraudulent transactions.

3. Connection Between Acts:

   • Proof that the acts are not isolated incidents but part of a unified, intentional plan or scheme.
   • The prosecution may use direct evidence (e.g., records, testimonies) or circumstantial evidence showing the accused’s intention to accumulate wealth illegally.

---

Defenses Against the Allegation of a Pattern:

1. Denial of Connection Between Acts:

   • The accused may argue that the acts, though committed, are unrelated and do not form a pattern.
   • The defense may focus on disproving the existence of a common scheme.

2. Absence of Ill-Gotten Wealth:

   • Proving that the assets or properties in question were lawfully acquired, thus negating the alleged pattern of illegal accumulation.

3. Challenge to the Validity of Evidence:

   • Questioning the admissibility, authenticity, or sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence to prove the combination or series of acts.

---

Importance of Pattern in Plunder Cases:

The element of a "pattern" distinguishes plunder from lesser offenses such as individual acts of bribery or malversation. The law targets public officials who engage in systematic corruption, reflecting its intent to penalize those who exploit public office to amass vast wealth. Without a proven pattern, the charge of plunder may fail, and the accused may only be held liable for the individual acts, each punishable under different laws.

In conclusion, the "pattern" under the Anti-Plunder Act requires a showing of interconnected criminal acts aimed at achieving a single unlawful purpose. Courts demand robust and clear evidence to support the existence of this element, ensuring that only those who engage in systemic corruption are convicted of plunder.