ARROYO V PEOPLE

GADALEJ of the Sandiganbayan

FACTS
Petitioners: President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and former Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) Budget and Accounts Officer Benigno Aguas.
The Ombudsman charged in the Sandiganbayan with plunder as defined by, and
penalized under Section 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No.
7659 the following: (1) GMA, (2) Aguas, (3) former PCSO General Manager and Vice
Chairman Rosario C. Uriarte, (4) former PCSO Chairman of the Board of Directors
Sergio O. Valencia, (5) former members of the PCSO Board of Directors, and (6) two
former officials of the Commission on Audit (COA).
The Sandiganbayan eventually acquired jurisidiction over most of the accused,
including petitioners. All filed petitions for bail, which the Sandiganbayan granted
except those of the petitioners. Their motions for reconsideration were denied. GMA
assailed the denial of her petition for bail before the Supreme Court. However, this
remains unresolved.
After the Prosecution rested its case, the accused separately filed their demurrers to
evidence asserting that the Prosecution did not establish a case for plunder against
them.
The Sandiganbayan granted the demurrers and dismissed the case against the
accused within its jurisdiction, except for petitioners and Valencia. It held that there
was sufficient evidence showing that they had conspired to commit plunder.
Petitioners filed this case before the Supreme Court on certiorari before the
Supreme Court to assail the denial of their demurrers to evidence, on the ground
of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
ISSUE 1
Has the Prosecution sufficiently established the existence of conspiracy among GMA, Aguas,
and Uriarte NO.
Sub-issues
As regards petitioner GMA
o HELD: The Supreme Court rejected the Sandiganbayans declaration in
denying GMAs demurrer that GMA, Aguas, and Uriate had conspired and
committed plunder. The Prosecution did not sufficiently allege the existence
of a conspiracy among GMA, Aguas and Uriarte.
o what the Prosecution sought to show was an implied conspiracy to commit
plunder among all of the accused on the basis of their collective actions prior
to, during and after the implied agreement. It is notable that the Prosecution
did not allege that the conspiracy among all of the accused was by express
agreement, or was a wheel conspiracy or a chain conspiracy. This was
another fatal flaw of the Prosecution.
Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080 (Plunder Law) requires in the criminal charge for
plunder against several individuals that there must be a main plunderer and her co-
conspirators, who may be members of her family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity,
business associates, subordinates or other persons. In other words, the allegation of the
wheel conspiracy or express conspiracy in the information was appropriate because the
main plunderer would then be identified in either manner. Citing Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan, The gravamen of the conspiracy chargeis that each of them, by their
individual acts, agreed to participate, directly or indirectly, in the amassing, accumulation
and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth of and/or for former President Estrada.
 o Such identification of the main plunderer was not only necessary because the
law required such identification, but also because it was essential in
safeguarding the rights of all of the accused to be properly informed of the
charges they were being made answerable for.
o In fine, the Prosecutions failure to properly allege the main plunderer should be
fatal to the cause against the petitioners for violating the rights of each accused
to be informed of the charges against each of them.
As regards Aguas
HELD: Aguas certifications and signatures on the disbursement vouchers were
insufficient bases to conclude that he was into any conspiracy to commit plunder or
any other crime. Without GMAs participation, he could not release any money
because there was then no budget available for the additional CIFs. Whatever
irregularities he might have committed did not amount to plunder, or to any implied
conspiracy to commit plunder.

ISSUE 2
Has the Prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of the crime of plunder NO.
Sub-issues:
Was there evidence of amassing, accumulating or acquiring ill-gotten wealth in the
total amount of not less than P50 million NO.
o HELD: The Prosecution adduced no evidence showing that either GMA or
Aguas or even Uriarte, for that matter, had amassed, accumulated or
acquired illgotten wealth of any amount. There was also no evidence,
testimonial or otherwise, presented by the Prosecution showing even the
remotest possibility that the CIFs of the PCSO had been diverted to either
GMA or Aguas, or Uriarte.
Was the predicate act of raiding the public treasury alleged in the information was
proved by the Prosecution NO.
o SANDIGANBAYAN: In order to prove the predicate act of raids of the public
treasury, the Prosecution need not establish that the public officer had
benefited from such act; and that what was necessary was proving that the
public officer had raided the public coffers.
HELD
The common thread that binds all the four terms in Section 1(d) of Republic Act No.
7080 together (misappropriation, conversion, misuse or malversation of public
funds) is that the public officer used the property taken. Pursuant to the maxim of
noscitur a sociis, raids on the public treasury requires the raider to use the property
taken impliedly for his personal benefit.
The exercise of this power to correct grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government cannot be thwarted by rules of procedure to the contrary or for the
sake of the convenience of one side. This is because the Court has the bounden
constitutional duty to strike down grave abuse of discretion whenever and wherever
it is committed. Thus, notwithstanding the interlocutory character and effect of the
denial of the demurrers to evidence, the petitioners as the accused could avail
themselves of the remedy of certiorari when the denial was tainted with grave abuse
of discretion. As we shall soon show, the Sandiganbayan as the trial court was guilty
of grave abuse of discretion when it capriciously denied the demurrers to evidence
 despite the absence of competent and sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment
for plunder, and despite the absence of the factual bases to expect a guilty verdict.
OPINIONS
Leonen, dissenting:
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was a highly intelligent President who knew what she was
doing. Having had an extraordinary term of nine (9) years as President of the
Philippines, she had the experience to make her wise to many, if not all, of the
schemes perpetrated within the government bureaucracy that allowed the pilferage
of public coffers especially if these were repeated acts in ever-increasing amounts
reaching millions of pesos.
The more judicious course of action is to let trial proceed at the Sandiganbayan. For
months, it received the entire body of evidence while it sat as a collegiate court.
Enlightened by the evidence with which it has intimate acquaintance, the
Sandiganbayan is in a better position to evaluate them and decide on the full merits
of the case at first instance. It has the competence to evaluate both substance and
nuance of this case. Thus, in this important case, what would have emerged is a
more circumspect judgment that should have then elevated the quality of
adjudication, should an appeal be subsequently taken.
As President, it was her duty to stop-not abet or participate-in such schemes.
o was aware that the power to increase the allocation and, therefore,
disbursement of additional confidential and intelligence funds (CIF) of the
Philippine Charity and Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) was hers alone.
o She did not have to approve any request for increase if it was not properly
supported by adequate funds and the enumeration of specific activities.She
was also aware that, as President who occupied the highest office imbued
with public trust, it was her duty under the Constitution and our laws that all
the financial controls supported by audit observations be complied with to
ensure that all funds be disbursed in a regular manner and for legitimate
purposes.
Perlas-Bernabe, concurring and dissenting:
For a conspiracy charge to prosper, it is important to show that the accused had
prior knowledge of the criminal design; otherwise, it would hardly be the case that
his alleged participation would be in furtherance of such design. In theory,
conspiracy exists when two (2) or more persons come to an agreement concerning
the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To prove conspiracy, the
prosecution must establish the following requisites: (1)two or more persons came
to an agreement; (2) the agreement concerned the commission of a crime; and (3)
the execution of the felony was decided upon.
I am hard-pressed to find that Arroyo's periodic approvals of Uriarte's multiple
letter-requests for additional CIF funds - which was the sole justification behind the
Sandiganbayan ruling under present scrutiny - amount to sufficient evidence which
would prove her complicity in the Plunder of CIF funds
considering that Arroyo's "OK" notations in Uriarte' s letter-requests are the only
pieces of evidence which the Sandiganbayan used to link her to the Plunder charge,
and that the same does not sufficiently prove that she assented to or committed any
irregularity so as to facilitate the criminal design, it is my considered opinion that
the Sandiganbayan patently erred - and in so doing, gravely abused its discretion - in
denying Arroyo's demurrer to evidence.
 the evidence of the prosecution has failed to prove Arroyo's commission of the
crime, and her precise degree of participation under the evidentiary threshold of
proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. While the records do reveal circumstances
that may point to certain irregularities that Arroyo may or may not have knowingly
committed, in the context of this criminal case for the high crime of Plunder, there
lingers reasonable doubt as to her actual knowledge of the criminal design and that
her approval of the release of CIF funds was in furtherance thereof. Case law
instructs that "[i]ndeed, suspicion no matter how strong must never sway judgment
Sereno, dissenting:
find that the prosecution has sufficiently alleged and established conspiracy in the
commission of the crime of plunder involving, among others, petitioners Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo (Arroyo) and Benigno B. Aguas (Aguas)
No grave abuse of discretion in the Sandiganbayan rulings, which denied
petitioners' demurrers and motions for reconsideration.
o The ponencia completely ignored the stark irregularities in the
Confidential/Intelligence Fund (CIF) disbursement process and effectively
excuses the breach of budget ceilings by the practice of commingling of
funds
o retroactively introduces two additional elements in the prosecution of the
crime of plunder - the identification of a main plunderer and personal
benefit to him or her - an effect that is not contemplated in the law nor
explicitly required by any jurisprudence;
o denies efficacy to the concept of implied conspiracy that had been carefully
laid down in Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan
o creates an unwarranted certiorari precedent by completely ignoring the
evidentiary effect of formal reports to the Commission on Audit (COA) that
had been admitted by the trial court; and5.
o erred in characterizing the prosecution's evidence as not showing "even the
remotest possibility that the CIFs of the PCSO had been diverted to either
[Arroyo] or Aguas or Uriarte," when petitioner Aguas himself reported to
COA that P244 million of nearly P366 million controverted Philippine
Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) funds had been diverted to the Office of
the President.