Arroyo vs SB

Created

Created by

Tags

Arroyo vs Sandiganbayan

Procedural History

 Arroyo and other PCSO and COA officials were charged with Plunder
before the Sandiganbayan.

 Sandiganbayan was able to acquire jurisdiction over GMA, Valencia,

Morato, Roquero, and Aguas. With the exception of GMA and Aguas, the
rest of the accused were granted bail because the evidence against them
was not strong.

 Trial ensued, with Atty. Aleta Tolentino as prosecution's main witness. Her
testimony stems from her as a member of the board of directors of the
PCSO, in which capacity she was able to perform an audit where she found
the anomalies such as excessive disbursements among others

 Upon senate hearings, it was concluded that there was no reason for each
intelligence fund disbursed and approved by GMA.

 There were also testimonies from officers of other law enforcement

agencies to corroborate Tolentino's testimony that PCSO did not request
any intelligence operations from their offices

 After prosecution rested its case, the accused filed their demurrers to
evidence

 Sandiganbayan granted those of Morato, Roquero, Taruc, and Villar since

there was no evidence that they diverted funds for themselves. However,
they denied GMA, Aguas, and Valencia due to sufficient and strong
evidence of plunder for GMA and Aguas and malversation for Valencia.

 SB held that a GMA and Aguas had strong evidence against them in
raiding the public treasury by withdrawing and receiving funds from PCSO

Arroyo vs SB 1
 and unlawfully transferring them to their own possession and control. Once
the "raider" gets material possession, the raid is completed. The improper
acquisition of CIF funds amounts to a raid.

 There need not be a checking of the bank accounts because Arroyo's acts
of signing and clearing the additional CIF funds aided and abetted
Uriarte's successful raids on the public treasury, which is co-conspiracy.

Contentions

Arroyo:

50 M requirement - there was no evidence of the 365M she had allegedly

procured due to the scheme; no proof on unjust enrichment which is the
gravamen of plunder

how can she be the mastermind without performing any overt act

information does not charge an offense of plunder

Aguas:

insufficiency of evidence

Prosec:

no gadalej on SB because it merely interpreted what constitutes plunder

under law and jurisprudence

actual personal gain is not an element of plunder

Issue: w/n there is sufficient evidence to establish elements of plunder

Held: NO

Ratio

 Certiorari is proper because there was indeed gadalej committed by

Sandiganbayan

Resolution: the judicial power of the court includes the power to

correct gadalej and in this case, there was due to the capricious denial
of the demurrer despite the lack of competent and sufficient evidence

the prohibition contained in Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court
is not an insuperable obstacle to the review by the Court of the denial
of the demurrer to evidence through certiorari.

Arroyo vs SB 2
  Prosec did not properly allege and prove conspiracy among GMA, Aguas,
and Uriarte

to constitute conspiracy, each co-conspirator must have shown to

perform an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

In this case, the mere affixing of GMA's OK is not an overt act of

plunder as it is commonly done in practice. Further, SB held that this is
her overt act and signified her being the mastermind which was only
put in the denial of the demurrer and not on the information.

wheel conspiracy: there is a single person or group, the hub, dealing

with other people or the spokes. Spokes do not interact with each
other but with the hub only. This was held with president Estrada.

Chain conspiracy: individuals linked together in a vertical chain to

achieve a criminal objective. US v Bruno case - each conspirator knew
that the success of that part with which he was immediately concerned
was dependent upon success of the whole." This means, therefore, that
"every member of the conspiracy was liable for every illegal
transaction carried out by other members of the conspiracy

There was an implied conspiracy in the information but it was not

explicitly alleged if by agreement, wheel, or chain but the sufficiency of
the allegation of the conspiracy. HOWEVER, the allegation of the
conspiracy is not as material as the identification of the main
plunderer sought to be prosecuted in the plunder law.

SB condemned GMA as the main plunderer despite the absence of the

specific allegation in the information and there was no evidence that
substantiated that.

Prosec's failure to properly allege the main plunderer is fatal because it

violates the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against
them

GMA's approval of Uriarte's requests for additional CIFs did not make
her part of any design to raid the public treasury as the means to
amass, accumulate and acquire ill-gotten wealth.

Prosec is merely relying on GMA being the superior officer but this is
misplaced. only applied in GMA's actions as commander in chief of AFP
or human rights issues.

Arroyo vs SB 3
 On Aguas: 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 GMA's
participation, he could not release any money because there was then
no budget available for the additional CIFs.

GMA and Aguas could only be held criminally responsible for their own
actions

 No proof of amassing at least 50 Million Pesos against GMA and Aguas

corpus delicti is the acquisition of ill-gotten wealth at least 50M in

value. Failure to establish such should lead to the dismissal of the
criminal prosecution.

there is no evidence on this material

 Prosec failed to prove the predicate act of raiding the public treasury

SB erred in ruling personal benefit is not needed to prove the act of

raiding.

in the senate hearing, what was removed was the person who
benefited from the plunderer's action (eg wife of plunderer, etc) not
the personal benefit of the accused co-conspirators and the main
plunderer.

Sandiganbayan completely ignored the failure of the information to sufficiently

charge conspiracy to commit plunder against the petitioners; and ignored the
lack of evidence establishing the corpus delicti of amassing, accumulation and
acquisition of ill-gotten wealth in the total amount of at least P50,000,000.00
through any or all of the predicate crimes. The Sandiganbayan thereby acted
capriciously, thus gravely abusing its discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.

Granted demurrer, dismissed criminal cases

Arroyo vs SB 4