G.R. No.

2230398 June 10, 2019

SERGIO O. VALENCIA, Petitioner
vs.
HON. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents

FACTS:

A complaint against the petitioner was filed alleging the

irregularities in the utilization and additional grant of Confidential
and Intelligence Fund (CIF) to the PCSO. Another was also filed in
connection with the illegal and fraudulent release, withdrawal, and
disbursement of PCSO’s CIF. The complaints include Gloria Arroyo
and other PCSO and COA management.

After they filed their counter-affidavits, the Ombudsman still

found probable cause to indict them. And their Motion for
Reconsideration was denied. However, their Petition for Bail was
granted by the Sandiganbayan.

Petitioner Valencia then filed a Motion for Leave of Court to

File Demurrer to Evidence which was granted. To support his
Demurrer to Evidence, he contended that the elements of plunder
was not established and pointed out that there was no evidence to
prove conspiracy.

The Sandiganbayan however, denied the Demurrer to

Evidence.

ISSUE:

Whether or not, the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its

discretion in finding that there is sufficient evidence to hold
petitioner liable for malversation under the RPC.

RULING OF THE COURT:

Respondent Sandiganbayan is said to have gravely abused its

discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

During the pendency of this case, the issue regarding the

sufficiency of the allegations in the information for plunder as to
include the crime of malversation against herein petitioner was
already resolved in the April 18, 2017 En Banc Resolution of the
Court in Macapagal-Arroyo v. People. The decision granted the
Demurrer to Evidence of Arroyo and Aguas and dismissed the
criminal case against them for insufficiency of evidence.

The court judiciously believes that the foregoing ruling

squarely applies in the instant petition since the Information
subject of the aforementioned cases of Arroyo and Aguas is the very
same information under scrutiny in the present case. Hence, there
is no reason not to apply the ruling in the present petition since it
has reached its finality, per Entry of Judgment, on May 30, 2017.