ROMUALDEZ VS SANDIGANBAYAN

GR. NO. 152259, July 29, 2004

FACTS
Sandiganbayan filed a criminal case against Alfredo T. Romuladez.
Romualdez files a Motion to Dismiss.
On or about and during the period of July 16, 1975 to July 29, 1975,
Alfredo T. Romualdez, brother-in-law of Ferdinand Marcos (related by
affinity within the third civil degree), with bad faith intervene in a
contract between the National Shipyard and Steel Corporation
(NASSCO), a government-owned and controlled corporation and the
Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Company (BASECO), a private
corporation, the majority stocks of which is owned by former President
Marcos, whereby NASSCO sold, transferred and conveyed to the
BASECO its ownership and all its titles and interests over all equipment
and facilities, located at the Engineer Island Shops including some of
its equipment and machineries from Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte
needed by BASECO in its shipbuilding and ship repair program for the
amount of P5,000,000. The act is said to be a violation of RA 3019, Sec
5 (Anti Graft and Corruption Practices Act, Prohibition on Certain
Relatives).
Section 5. Prohibition on certain relatives. It shall be unlawful for the
spouse or for any relative, by consanguinity or affinity, within the third
civil degree, of the President of the Philippines, xxx, to intervene,
directly or indirectly, in any business, transaction, contract or
application with the Government: xxx.
ISSUE (Statutory Construction, Presumption of
Constitutionality)
Whether or not Sec 5 of RA 3019 is unconstitutional because its
vagueness (on the term intervene) violates the due process right of an
individual to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation
against him.
DECISION
The Court has not declared any penal law unconstitutional on the
ground of ambiguity.
Romualdez claim that the term intervene is vague,, but the Court
says it can be easily understood through simple statutory construction.
The absence of a statutory definition of a term used in a statute will
not render the law void for vagueness, if the meaning can be
determined through the judicial function of construction. Elementary is
the principle that words should be construed in their ordinary and usual

meaning. The term intervene should therefore be understood in its

ordinary acceptation, which is to come between. Criminally liable is
anyone covered in the enumeration of Sec 5 of RA 3019.
In sum, the Court holds that the challenged provision is not vague, and
that in any event, the void for vagueness doctrine is not applicable to
the case. The Petition is dismissed and the questioned Resolutions of
the Sandiganbayan are affirmed.