Case Digest (G.R. No. 220598)
Facts:
Macapagal-Arroyo v. People, G.R. Nos. 220598 and 220953, April 18, 2017, Supreme Court En Banc, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.The Office of the Ombudsman filed Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 in the Sandiganbayan (First Division) charging then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and several others, including Benigno B. Aguas (Budget and Accounts Manager, PCSO), with plunder under Republic Act No. 7080 (as amended). The information alleged that from January 2008 to June 2010 the accused, in connivance, amassed ill‑gotten wealth totaling approximately P365,997,915.00 through schemes involving transfers from PCSO operating funds to its Confidential/Intelligence Fund (CIF), irregular disbursements, and fictitious expenditures.
After the prosecution rested, the petitioners filed demurrers to evidence which the Sandiganbayan denied by resolutions dated April 6, 2015 and September 10, 2015. The petitioners sought relief by filing consolidated special civil actions for certiorari before the Supreme Court to assail those interlocutory denials. On July 19, 2016 the Court granted the certiorari petitions: it annulled and set aside the Sandiganbayan resolutions, granted the demurrers to evidence, dismissed Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 as to petitioners Arroyo and Aguas for insufficiency of evidence, and ordered their immediate release.
The Office of the Ombudsman moved for reconsideration (filed August 3, 2016), arguing (among other points) that: (1) Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court bars certiorari review of an interlocutory denial of a demurrer to evidence; (2) the Court had impermissibly added elements to the crime of plunder (requiring identification of a “main plunderer” and proof of personal benefit for raids on the public treasury) not found in RA 7080; and (3) the evidence, properly viewed in toto, established conspiracy and sufficient proof of plunder or at least malversation. The petitioners opposed the motion contending that reconsideration would reopen an acquittal and thus violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
By the April 18, 2017 Resolution now before us the Court (En Banc, Bersamin, J.) de...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Supreme Court's giving due course to petitions for certiorari challenging the Sandiganbayan's interlocutory denial of demurrers to evidence proper despite Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court?
- Did the Court err in requiring, as elements of plunder, the identification of a main plunderer and proof of personal benefit for the predicate act “raids on the public treasury,” thereby adding elements beyond RA 7080?
- Would consideration and granting of the State’s motion for reconsideration reopen prosecution and thus violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopar...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)