Macapagal-Arroyo v.

People of the Philippines

[G.R. No. 220598, July 19, 2016]

Petitioners in this case are former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) and former
Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) Budget and Accounts Officer Benigno Aguas.

The Ombudsman charged in the Sandiganbayan with plunder as defined by, and penalized under
Section 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 the following: (1)
GMA, (2) Aguas, (3) former PCSO General Manager and Vice Chairman Rosario C. Uriarte, (4)
former PCSO Chairman of the Board of Directors Sergio O. Valencia, (5) former members of the
PCSO Board of Directors, and (6) two former officials of the Commission on Audit (COA).

The Sandiganbayan eventually acquired jurisidiction over most of the accused, including
petitioners. All filed petitions for bail, which the Sandiganbayan granted except those of the
petitioners. Their motions for reconsideration were denied. GMA assailed the denial of her
petition for bail before the Supreme Court. However, this remains unresolved.

After the Prosecution rested its case, the accused separately filed their demurrers to evidence
asserting that the Prosecution did not establish a case for plunder against them.

The Sandiganbayan granted the demurrers and dismissed the case against the accused within its
jurisdiction, except for petitioners and Valencia. It held that there was sufficient evidence
showing that they had conspired to commit plunder.

Petitioners filed the case before the Supreme Court on certiorari to assail the denial of their
demurrers to evidence, on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.

According to the prosecution, the petition for certiorari of GMA was improper to challenge the
denial of her demurrer to evidence.

PROCEDURAL ISSUE: Whether or not the special civil action for certiorari is proper to assail
the denial of the demurrers to evidence

RULING: YES. Certiorari is proper since the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in
denying GMA’s demurrer to evidence.

As a general rule, the special civil action for certiorari is generally not proper to assail such an
interlocutory order issued by the trial court because of the availability of another remedy in the
ordinary course of law. Moreover, Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court expressly
provides, “the order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the
demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment.”

However, by way of exception, the Court pronounced “In the exercise of our superintending
control over other courts, we are to be guided by all the circumstances of each particular case ‘as
the ends of justice may require.’ So it is that the writ will be granted where necessary to prevent
a substantial wrong or to do substantial” (citing Ong v. People)

The Sandiganbayan as the trial court was guilty of grave abuse of discretion when it capriciously
denied the demurrers to evidence despite the absence of competent and sufficient evidence to
sustain the indictment for plunder, and despite the absence of the factual bases to expect a guilty
verdict.

Thus, notwithstanding the interlocutory character and effect of the denial of the demurrers to
evidence, the petitioners as the accused could avail themselves of the remedy of certiorari when
the denial was tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

For reference, Rule 119, Section 23 provides:

Demurrer to evidence. – After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on
the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the
opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without
leave of court.

If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce
evidence in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the
accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the
evidence for the prosecution.

The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall specifically state its grounds and
shall be filed within a non-extendible period of five (5) days after the prosecution rests its case.
The prosecution may oppose the motion within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from its
receipt.

If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to evidence within a non-
extendible period of ten (10) days from notice. The prosecution may oppose the demurrer to
evidence within a similar period from its receipt.

The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself
shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment.