Case Digest (G.R. No. 191913)
Facts:
In G.R. No. 220598 and G.R. No. 220953, former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office Budget and Accounts Manager Benigno B. Aguas were charged in Sandiganbayan Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 with the crime of plunder under Republic Act No. 7080, as amended. They filed demurrers to evidence which the Sandiganbayan denied in resolutions dated April 6 and September 10, 2015. The petitioners then sought certiorari relief from the Supreme Court, which on July 19, 2016, granted their petitions, annulled the Sandiganbayan resolutions, granted the demurrers to evidence, dismissed the plunder cases for insufficiency of evidence, and ordered their immediate release. On August 3, 2016, the Office of the Ombudsman moved for reconsideration, contending that (1) certiorari was improper under Rule 119, Section 23; (2) the Court imposed additional elements not found in RA 7080; (3) the People’s evidence was not fully appraised; and (4) in any event, mCase Digest (G.R. No. 191913)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (then President) and Benigno B. Aguas (Budget and Accounts Manager, PCSO) were charged with plunder in Sandiganbayan Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 for allegedly diverting PHP 365,997,915.00 from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) Confidential/Intelligence Fund to the Office of the President between January 2008 and June 2010.
- The Sandiganbayan (First Division) denied their demurrers to evidence on April 6 and September 10, 2015, compelling them to proceed to trial.
- Supreme Court Proceedings
- On July 19, 2016, the Supreme Court granted the consolidated petitions for certiorari (G.R. Nos. 220598 and 220953), annulled the Sandiganbayan resolutions, granted the demurrers to evidence, dismissed the plunder charges against Macapagal-Arroyo and Aguas for insufficiency of evidence, and ordered their immediate release.
- On August 3, 2016, the Office of the Ombudsman filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the Court:
- Improperly entertained certiorari from an interlocutory order under Rule 119, Section 23.
- Violated the State’s due process by adding elements (main plunderer identification and personal benefit) not in R.A. 7080.
- Overlooked the totality of its evidence proving plunder or, at least, malversation.
- Petitioners’ Opposition and State’s Reply
- Petitioners contended that allowing reconsideration would violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, that the State failed to prove plunder elements and conspiracy, and that malversation could not be substituted post-acquittal without violating the right to be informed of charges.
- The State replied that no final acquittal occurred because it was denied its day in court and that the information sufficiently informed petitioners of the charges, including malversation.
Issues:
- Procedural Issues
- Whether the Supreme Court properly took cognizance of certiorari petitions attacking the Sandiganbayan’s interlocutory denial of demurrers, despite Rule 119, Section 23’s prohibition.
- Whether granting certiorari and dismissing the case deprived the State of due process or constituted double jeopardy.
- Substantive Issues
- Whether the Court erred in imposing additional elements for plunder—identification of a main plunderer and proof of personal benefit in a raid on the public treasury—beyond those in R.A. 7080.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish:
- The corpus delicti of plunder under R.A. 7080, or
- The lesser crime of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)