Case Summary (G.R. No. 190147)
Petitioner(s)
Petitioners in the Supreme Court petitions: Gloria Macapagal‑Arroyo and Benigno B. Aguas, each assailing the Sandiganbayan resolutions that denied their demurrers to evidence and motions for reconsideration.
Respondent(s) and Forum Below
Respondents: People of the Philippines and the Sandiganbayan (First Division). The criminal prosecution was docketed in the Sandiganbayan as Criminal Case No. SB‑12‑CRM‑0174.
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
- Charges filed by the Ombudsman: July 10, 2012.
- Sandiganbayan acquired jurisdiction over various accused between late 2012 and 2014.
- Sandiganbayan denied the demurrers to evidence of GMA and Aguas: April 6, 2015; denied their motions for reconsideration: September 10, 2015.
- Supreme Court decision: applied the 1987 Constitution (decision rendered in 2016).
Applicable Law and Normative Framework
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (judicial duty to correct grave abuse of discretion).
- Republic Act No. 7080 (Plunder Law), as amended by R.A. No. 7659. Key provisions: definition of ill‑gotten wealth (Section 1(d)); definition/penalties for plunder (Section 2); Section 4 (rule of evidence on proving plunder via pattern of overt acts).
- PCSO Charter (R.A. No. 1169, as amended) governing separate funds (prize, charity, operating).
- COA issuances: COA Circular No. 92‑385 and COA Circular No. 2003‑002 (procedures for approval, disbursement, liquidation and audit of confidential/intelligence funds), and Letter of Instruction No. 1282 (requirements for intelligence fund requests).
- Presidential Executive Orders affecting PCSO supervision (E.O. Nos. 383 and 455 were noted).
Criminal Information (core allegations)
The Information charged ten public officers with plunder (aggregate alleged ill‑gotten wealth P365,997,915.00), alleging a combination/series of acts including: (a) diverting PCSO operating fund to CIF and converting/disbursing CIF proceeds as fictitious expenditures for personal gain; (b) raiding the public treasury by withdrawing CIF sums and conveying them into possession through irregular disbursement vouchers; and (c) taking undue advantage of official position to unjustly enrich themselves.
Principal Prosecution Evidence (overview of Atty. Aleta Tolentino’s testimony and documentary exhibits)
- Tolentino, PCSO Board Audit Committee chair, reviewed COA reports and PCSO financial statements for 2005–2009 and found commingling of funds (prize, charity, operating) in one main account contrary to PCSO Charter and accounting principles; PCSO operated at a deficit 2004–2009.
- COA and PCSO records showed CIF disbursements greatly exceeded approved CIF budget amounts in 2008–2010; Tolentino summarized CIF cash advances totaling approximately P365,997,915 (with most disbursed via Vice‑Chair/GM Rosario Uriarte and some by Chairman Valencia).
- Documentary trail: multiple one‑page letter‑requests by Uriarte to the President seeking additional CIF (2008–2010); these bore marginal “OK” notations and signatures attributed to then‑President Arroyo. The requests did not specify detailed project proposals as LOI 1282 prescribes.
- Designation and controls: Board resolutions later (and inconsistently) designated Uriarte as Special Disbursing Officer (SDO); Valencia purportedly designated himself as SDO without board resolution; fidelity bonds and specimen signatures required by COA circulars were deficient or submitted late and inadequate in amount.
- Disbursement and liquidation irregularities: vouchers often described only generalized cash advances from CIF without project‑specific details; supporting documents for many cash advances were missing from PCSO records or claimed to be in confidential files; COA credit notices and audit actions were irregular in form and timing.
- Accounting adjustments: journal entries showed amounts credited from operating fund to prize and charity funds to account for CIF disbursements; COA audit reports reflected discrepancies between amounts due from officers (receivables) and actual cash advances taken by Uriarte/Valencia.
- Intelligence agency witnesses (AFP, PNP, NBI) testified they had no records of PCSO‑funded intelligence operations corresponding to the purported uses claimed in PCSO’s matrices/accomplishment reports.
- A matrix/accomplishment report and Aguas’ accomplishment report indicated large portions of CIF were described as used for matters involving the Office of the President (e.g., bomb threats, terrorism, bilateral/security relations) totaling large sums (the prosecution highlighted P244.5M of P365.9M in certain reports).
Proceedings in Sandiganbayan and Decisions on Demurrers
- After prosecution rested, GMA, Aguas, Valencia, Morato, Taruc V, Roquero and Villar filed demurrers to evidence. On April 6, 2015, the Sandiganbayan: granted demurrers of Morato, Roquero, Taruc and Villar (dismissing charges against them) but denied demurrers of GMA, Aguas and Valencia, finding sufficient evidence of conspiracy and, as to Valencia, malversation. The Sandiganbayan concluded Uriarte’s withdrawals constituted “raids” on PCSO coffers and that Arroyo’s approvals facilitated those raids. Motions for reconsideration were denied on September 10, 2015.
Procedural Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
Whether certiorari (Rule 65) was a proper remedy to assail the Sandiganbayan’s denial of demurrers to evidence, and whether the denial was tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction such that the Court should intervene before final judgment.
Legal Standards Applied by the Supreme Court (procedural and substantive)
- Procedural: ordinarily denial of a demurrer to evidence is interlocutory and not reviewable by certiorari; however, certiorari may lie when the denial is tainted by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court has a constitutional duty (1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, §1) to correct grave abuse of discretion.
- Conspiracy: to be proven by express or implied proof; implied conspiracy requires proof of acts showing a common unlawful objective and overt acts by each accused in furtherance of conspiracy; an overt act must have an immediate and necessary relation to the offense. Mere presence, knowledge, or acquiescence does not suffice.
- Elements of plunder (RA 7080): (1) public officer acting alone or in connivance with others; (2) amassing, accumulating or acquiring ill‑gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts enumerated in Section 1(d); (3) aggregate value of ill‑gotten wealth at least P50,000,000. Section 4 permits proof by demonstrating a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme.
Supreme Court Majority Analysis — Procedural Disposition (certiorari proper)
The Court accepted certiorari because it found the Sandiganbayan had committed grave abuse of discretion—denying demurrers despite absence of competent and sufficient evidence to sustain a plunder indictment against GMA and Aguas. The Court emphasized its constitutional duty to correct grave abuses even when interlocutory.
Supreme Court Majority Analysis — Conspiracy (insufficiency of proof)
The Court held the prosecution failed to properly allege and prove an express or sufficiently established implied conspiracy among GMA, Aguas and Uriarte as charged. Key points:
- The Information did not identify a main plunderer or adequately plead the nature/form of the conspiracy (wheel, chain, express), a fatal defect given the aggregation element of plunder against multiple accused.
- Implied conspiracy cannot rest on conjecture; each accused must be shown to have performed at least an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The Court found Arroyo’s marginal “OK” on requests to be a routine approval act and not an overt act having the immediate and necessary relation to plunder required to establish conspiracy. The Sandiganbayan’s conclusion that Arroyo was the mastermind without pleading or evidence was capricious.
- As to Aguas, his certifications on vouchers were insufficient to establish conspiracy to commit plunder absent evidence of Arroyo’s active participation; his acts could render him accountable for his own wrongdoing but did not establish the requisite conspiracy to amass ill‑gotten wealth by the group as charged.
Supreme Court Majority Analysis — Corpus Delicti of Plunder (no proof of amassing P50M by petitioners)
The Court found the prosecution failed to adduce evidence that GMA or Aguas (or Uriarte, as to these petitioners) actually amassed, accumulated or acquired ill‑gotten wealth meeting the P50M threshold attributable to either petitioner:
- The principal witness (Tolentino) expressly acknowledged she did not know the existence or whereabouts of alleged ill‑gotten wealth and could not show that monies had been diverted to petitioners personally.
- Section 1(d)’s language and legislative history do not eliminate the requirement that the main plunderer (or conspirator) be the beneficiary/possessor of ill‑gotten wealth; the Court construed “raids on the public treasury” in light of associated terms (misappropriation, conversion, misuse, malversation) to require that the raider have used the property taken, implying personal benefit. The Court held the prosecution did not establish that GMA or Aguas personally benefited or that the funds were shown to have been amassed by them.
Supreme Court Majority Analysis — Predicate Act of “Raiding the Public Treasury” (failure to prove)
The Court analyzed Section 1(d)(1) and concluded that “raids on the public treasury,” when read with the accompanying words (noscitur a sociis), requires at least use of the taken property in a manner implying personal benefit. The Court found the prosecution did not prove that petitioners personally used or benefited from the CIF withdrawals sufficient to sustain that predicate act beyond reasonable doubt as against GMA and Aguas.
Supreme Court Maj
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 190147)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Consolidated petitions for certiorari filed in the Supreme Court to assail and annul Sandiganbayan resolutions dated April 6, 2015 and September 10, 2015 that (a) denied the demurrers to evidence of petitioners Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) and Benigno B. Aguas, and (b) denied their motions for reconsideration.
- Petitioners contended that the Sandiganbayan’s denials were tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Court’s disposition: the consolidated petitions were granted; the Sandiganbayan resolutions of April 6, 2015 and September 10, 2015 were annulled and set aside; the demurrers to evidence of GMA and Aguas were granted; Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 was dismissed as to GMA and Aguas for insufficiency of evidence; immediate release from detention of those petitioners was ordered; no pronouncement on costs.
Antecedents and Background Facts
- On July 10, 2012 the Ombudsman charged multiple public officers, including former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Rosario C. Uriarte (PCSO General Manager/Vice Chairman), Sergio O. Valencia (PCSO Chairman), Benigno B. Aguas (PCSO Budget and Accounts Officer), other PCSO board members, COA Chairman Reynaldo A. Villar and COA official Nilda B. Plaras, with plunder. The case was Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174, assigned to the Sandiganbayan First Division.
- The Information alleged an aggregate ill-gotten wealth of PHP365,997,915.00, and described predicate means including: (a) diversion of funds from PCSO operating budget to Confidential/Intelligence Fund (CIF) and converting/misusing proceeds as fictitious expenditures for personal gain; (b) raiding the public treasury by withdrawing and receiving amounts from CIF and unlawfully transferring them into possession and control of accused through irregular disbursement vouchers and fictitious expenditures; and (c) taking advantage of official positions to unjustly enrich themselves.
- By end of October 2012 the Sandiganbayan had acquired jurisdiction over GMA, Valencia, Morato and Aguas. Other respondents’ personal jurisdictions were later acquired at different times; some accused remained at large.
- Several accused filed separate petitions for bail; Valencia, Morato and Roquero were granted bail on June 6, 2013; GMA and Aguas had bail petitions denied by the Sandiganbayan on November 5, 2013 (motions for reconsideration denied Feb 19, 2014). GMA’s challenge of the bail denial remained pending at the time.
The Information: Charge and Elements Alleged
- The Information charged that from January 2008 to June 2010 (or thereabouts) accused public officers connived, conspired and confederated to willfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate and/or acquire ill-gotten wealth totaling PHP365,997,915.00 by a combination or series of overt criminal acts as enumerated in Sec. 1(d) of RA 7080 (Plunder Law) as amended:
- misappropriation/conversion/misuse/malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury;
- receiving commissions/gifts/kickbacks in connection with government contracts;
- illegal or fraudulent conveyance/disposition of government assets;
- obtaining shares/interest or promise of future employment;
- establishing monopolies or combinations to benefit special interests;
- taking undue advantage of official position to unjustly enrich themselves.
Jurisdictional and Case Status Points in Sandiganbayan
- The State presented its case and rested, with Atty. Aleta Tolentino as the main witness for the prosecution, supported by testimony from law enforcement intelligence officers and additional witnesses from PCSO and COA.
- After the prosecution rested, GMA, Aguas, Valencia, Morato, Taruc V, Roquero and Villar separately filed demurrers to evidence asserting insufficiency of proof to sustain plunder charges.
- On April 6, 2015 the Sandiganbayan: granted demurrers to evidence of Morato, Roquero, Taruc and Villar and dismissed charges against them; denied demurrers of GMA, Aguas and Valencia, holding sufficient evidence of conspiracy and malversation against them. The Sandiganbayan denied motions for reconsideration of GMA and Aguas on September 10, 2015.
Prosecution’s Case — Principal Witness Aleta Tolentino (Summary)
- Qualifications and role:
- Aleta Tolentino is a certified public accountant and lawyer, member of PICPA and IBP, CPA for 30 years, lawyer for 20 years, practiced accountancy and law, auditing and teaching experience, member of PCSO Board of Directors and appointed as Chairman of an Audit Committee.
- Materials reviewed:
- COA Annual Reports of PCSO for 2006–2009 and annual financial statements for 2005–2009 (Exhs. D–G).
- Major audit findings presented by Tolentino:
- Commingling of PCSO funds: charity fund, prize fund, and operating fund maintained in a single main account — violation of Section 6 of the PCSO Charter and GAAP.
- Excessive disbursement of the Confidential/Intelligence Fund (CIF) and excessive advertising expenses.
- Merger of internal audit with budget and accounting department contrary to internal audit rules.
- CIF allocations exceeded parliamentary/charter-based ceilings: original allocation P10M (P5M each for Chair and GM in 2002), but subsequent approvals by President Arroyo increased CIF substantially without a legal basis or budgetary appropriation.
- PCSO operated on deficits (2004–2009), with specific deficits: 2005 ~P916M; 2006 ~P1,000,078,683.23; CIF expense P215M in 2006 (exceeding P10M allocation).
- COA repeatedly recommended separation of prize and charity funds from operating funds; recommendation not followed.
- Evidence of requests and approvals:
- Records showed multiple letters/memoranda from Uriarte to President Arroyo requesting additional CIF and showing Arroyo’s signature/“OK” on such letters (seven letters/memoranda identified).
- Tolentino obtained summaries and check copies showing CIF disbursements totaling P365,997,915 based on records provided by PCSO Treasurer (Mercy Hinayon) and Budget & Accounting Manager (Dorothy Robles), and asked for certified true copies of checks and vouchers.
- Stepwise flowchart (per COA circulars and LOI 1282) reviewed and used by Tolentino:
- Provision/allotment of budget for CIF in Corporate Operating Budget (COB) — requirement often not met.
- Approval of release by the President — Tolentino found President’s approvals were unqualified but, she argued, approvals were given notwithstanding absence of budget and lack of detailed project proposals as required by LOI 1282 and COA Circulars.
- Designation of Special Disbursing Officer (SDO) — Tolentino identified Board Resolutions which later designated Uriarte (various Board Resolutions cited) but found deficiencies including instances where Valencia self-designated by a certification, lack of fidelity bonds, and SDOs signing as payees and signatories in contradictory roles.
- Issuance and encashment of checks/cash advances — Tolentino identified vouchers and checks paid to Uriarte and Valencia as payees; excessive cash advances and irregular cash advance practices were highlighted.
- Liquidation process — Tolentino found liquidation reports were couched in general terms, lacking supporting papers and project specificity, often submitted late or not at all; COA Circular liquidation forms and requirements not complied with.
- COA Credit Notice issuance — Tolentino detailed irregularities in COA credit notices issued by Plaras (drafts and unsigned documents, later signed versions with changed language and amounts), and concluded that credit notices did not conform with COA Circular 2003-002 and in many cases appeared to have no proper audit trail.
- Recording/Accounting treatment — Tolentino traced journal entry vouchers that reclassified amounts charged as CIF into Prize Fund (PF) and Charity Fund (CF) accounts (Journal Entry Voucher No. 8121443 dated Dec 31, 2008 and No. 9121157 dated Dec 29, 2009), effectively removing receivables from officers and recording expenses against PF and CF.
- Quantitative findings summarized by Tolentino:
- Total CIF disbursements for 2008–2010 per vouchers summarized at P365,997,915.
- Cash advances identified as made by Uriarte alone totaled P352,681,646 (per Sandiganbayan summation quoted by the State court); cash advances by Valencia also identified in lower amounts (various sums cited across 2008–2010).
- Examples: 2008 CIF COB allocation P28M vs actual CIF disbursement P86,555,060; 2009 CIF COB allocation P60M vs actual CIF disbursement P138,420,875; 2010 (to June) CIF COB allocation P60M vs actual disbursement P141,021,980 (to June).
- Tolentino’s procedural steps taken:
- Reported findings to PCSO Board and Audit Committee; requested supporting documents; testified before Senate Blue Ribbon Committee; secured transcripts; sought certified copies of checks and vouchers; compiled summaries of disbursements and liquidations.
Additional Prosecution Evidence and Witnesses
- Testimonies of law enforcement/intelligence officers called by the State to corroborate Tolentino’s findings: Capt. Ramil Roberto Enriquez (PAF), Col. Teofilo Reyno Bailon, Jr. (PAF), Col. Ernest Marc Rosal (ISAFP), Lt. Col. Vince James de Guzman Bantilan (Army), Col. Orlando Suarez (AFP J12), Ruel Lasala (NBI), Atty. Reynaldo Ofialda Esmeralda (NBI), NBI agents (Dave Segunial, Romy Bon Huy Lim, Palmer Mallari), Virgilio L. Mendez (NBI Director), Charles T. Calima, Jr. (PNP Director for Intelligence).
- Other prosecution witnesses: Atty. Anamarie Villaluz Gonzales (PCSO HR manager), Flerida Africa Jimenez (Head, COA Intelligence/Confidential Fund Audit Unit), Noel Clemente (Director, COA).
- Documentary evidence offered included PCSO COBs, COA Reports, Board Resolutions, letters from Uriarte to President Arroyo bearing “OK” notations, CIF cash advance summaries, liquidation reports, Journal Entry Vouchers, COA credit notices and transmittals, PCSO matrices of intelligence accomplishments, and Aguas’s accomplishment report stating