Demurrer to evidence; the 'main plunderer' requirement
Summary
The Supreme Court En Banc denied the State's motion for reconsideration of its July 19, 2016 decision dismissing plunder charges against former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and PCSO official Benigno Aguas. The Court reaffirmed that the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti of plunder under RA 7080, particularly the identification of the main plunderer and personal benefit requirement for 'raids on public treasury.' The Court held that granting the motion would violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy since the dismissal for insufficiency of evidence constituted an acquittal. The resolution clarified that certiorari was the proper remedy to review the Sandiganbayan's denial of demurrer to evidence when tainted with grave abuse of discretion, notwithstanding Rule 119, Section 23 restrictions.
Focus of dispute
Motion for reconsideration of Supreme Court decision dismissing plunder charges against former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Benigno Aguas for insufficiency of evidence
Legal facts
Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and PCSO Budget and Accounts Manager Benigno Aguas were charged with plunder under RA 7080 in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 involving PHP365,997,915.00 allegedly diverted from PCSO Confidential/Intelligence Fund from January 2008 to June 2010. Sandiganbayan denied their demurrers to evidence. Supreme Court granted certiorari and dismissed case for insufficiency of evidence on July 19, 2016. State filed motion for reconsideration on August 3, 2016.
Judgement and reasoning
Sandiganbayan (First Division)
Denied demurrers to evidence filed by petitioners, finding sufficient evidence to proceed with trial on plunder charges involving diversion of PCSO funds.
Supreme Court (En Banc)
DENIED the State's motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. Held that: (1) certiorari was proper remedy despite Section 23, Rule 119 prohibition due to grave abuse of discretion; (2) plunder law requires identification of main plunderer and personal benefit for 'raids on public treasury' predicate act; (3) prosecution failed to establish corpus delicti of plunder and insufficient evidence existed; (4) granting motion for reconsideration would violate constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy as dismissal constituted acquittal. Prosecution failed to prove petitioners amassed ill-gotten wealth or personally benefited from alleged scheme.