Title
Supreme Court
Arroyo vs. Sandiganbayan, 5th Division
Case
G.R. No. 210488
Decision Date
Dec 1, 2021
Jose Miguel Arroyo accused of graft in PNP helicopter procurement; Supreme Court ruled no probable cause, citing lack of conspiracy evidence with public officers.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 210488)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Helicopter Procurement
    • In 2009, the Philippine National Police (PNP) contracted Manila Aerospace Products Trading Corporation (MAPTRA) to purchase one brand-new Robinson R44 Raven II and two Robinson R44 Raven I helicopters for a total of ₱104,985,000.00.
    • National Police Commission rules required all units to be brand-new, but two Raven I helicopters (SN 1372, 1374) were allegedly pre-owned by then-First Gentleman Jose Miguel T. Arroyo (Arroyo).
  • Archibald Po’s Affidavit and Senate Statements
    • Po, owner of Lionair Inc. and Asian Spirit Inc., testified he purchased five R44 Raven I helicopters upon Arroyo’s request, imported them tax-free under Asian Spirit, and charged maintenance fees to Arroyo.
    • Po alleged in June 2009 he sold two pre-owned Raven I helicopters to MAPTRA at US$448,173.73 each, turned them over in December 2009, and remitted proceeds to Arroyo.
  • Arroyo’s Denials and Documentary Evidence
    • Arroyo filed a counter-affidavit denying involvement, insisting Lourdes T. Arroyo, Inc. (LTA)––run by his brother Iggy––advanced funds to Po, and that he divested from LTA in 2001.
    • He submitted export certificates, invoices, and ATO registrations showing Lionair/Aisan Spirit as owners, and a Deed of Assignment (2001) transferring his LTA shares to Benito Araneta.
  • Ombudsman Preliminary Investigation
    • The Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman (FIO-OMB) found probable cause to charge Arroyo under Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019, citing Arroyo’s alleged beneficial ownership and trust relationship with Po, despite deed registration issues.
    • Denying Arroyo’s motion for reconsideration (Feb. 15, 2013), the OMB emphasized unregistered share transfer, irrevocable proxy clause, and testimony of a Lionair dispatcher.
  • Sandiganbayan Proceedings and Supreme Court Action
    • Information SB-12-CRM-0164 was filed; Arroyo posted bail and sought judicial determination of probable cause before Sandiganbayan.
    • Sandiganbayan denied his motion (Aug. 15, 2013; Nov. 6, 2013). Arroyo filed a certiorari petition under Rule 65 in the SC, which (Jan. 27, 2020) dismissed it for lack of grave abuse of discretion and mootness after Sandiganbayan’s independent prob­able-cause finding.
    • Arroyo’s subsequent Motion for Reconsideration reiterates lack of evidence, absence of conspiracy, and alleged mis­appre­ciation of facts; the OSG opposes.

Issues:

  • Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause and exercising jurisdiction over Arroyo, a private individual, absent evidence of conspiracy with public officers?
  • Was Arroyo’s right to a speedy disposition of his case violated given the protracted proceedings and purported lack of evidence?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.