Case Digest

Details
Docket Number G.R. No. 220598 Case Title Arroyo V. SANDIGANBAYAN, (First Division)

Facts
On July 10, 2012 The Ombudsman in Sandiganbayan Charged the Former Gloria Macapagal Arroyo with
plunder.

During 2008-2009 accused Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and the people around her in their respective government
offices are taking undue advantage of their governmental positions, authority, relationships, influence,
connections, power and conniving with each other to willfully and unlawfully amass and gain directly and
indirectly ill gotten wealth. They amassed a total of PHP365,997,915.00
This was done through diverting funds from PCSO to Intelligence funds and illegally disbursing the said funds
through vouchers and fictitious expenditures.

The petitioner Gloria Arroyo points out that the state failed to prove the corpus delicti (concrete evidence of a
crime) of plunder. Petitioner pointed out that the court needed to correctly identify the main plunderer as
well as how the person benefited from the raider of the public treasury to successfully prosecute the plunderers,
the petitioner claimed that the state did not prove the conspiracy that justified her inclusion in the charge.

The petitioners insist that the consideration and granting of the motion for reconsideration can amount to a
violation of the constitution that prohibits double jeopardy because of their acquittal.

The requirement of personal benefit on the part of the main plunderer or his co-conspirators by virtue of their
plunder was not removed. As a result, not only did the Prosecution fail to show where the money went but,
more importantly, that GMA and et al had personally benefited from the same. Hence, the Prosecution did not
prove the predicate act of raids on the public treasury beyond reasonable doubt

Issue
Whether the state sufficiently established the existence of conspiracy among GMA and the people surrounding
her.

Whether the state sufficiently established all the elements on the crime of plunder
a ) Was there evidence of amassing, accumulating or acquiring ill-gotten wealth in the total amount of not less
than P50,000,000.00?
b) was there evidences of receiving directly or indirectly any commissions, gifts, kickback with any government
contract or project by the office of the public officer concerned.
c) was there evidences of undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection, or influence
to unjustly enrich themselves
 Held/Rationale
The Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. (They didn’t allow Ombudsman to have a
reconsideration)

Ratio Decidendi:

The State emphasizes that the crime of plunder did not require personal gain on the part of the treasury raider by
citing the plain meaning rule. It insists that, in accordance with the plain meaning rule, raids on the public
treasury are defined as the taking of public funds through dishonest or illegal means. According to this definition,
the plunderer or any of his accomplices do not need to enjoy or benefit personally in order for them to be found
guilty of plunder. The State's claims are unfounded. The Prosecution did not properly allege and prove the
existence of conspiracy among Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and et al

In the predicate act of raids on the public treasury, the prerequisites for the identification of the primary plunderer
and for personal gain have been written in R.A. No. 7080 in its entirety as well as across relevant jurisprudence.
Following are the points we made explicit in the decision:
An analysis of the evidence indicates that the prosecution's goal was to demonstrate an implicit agreement among
the accused, based on their collective activities before, during, and after the inferred agreement, to conduct the
plunder. It is noteworthy that the prosecution did not claim that all of the accused conspired with one another with
express agreement, or that the conspiracy involved a wheel or a chain. Each of the accused must be proven to
have committed at least one overt act in support of the conspiracy in order for them to be held accountable as
co-conspirators; otherwise, they will all only be held accountable for the consequences of their individual actions.
It is in this regard that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of its
jurisdiction. To start with, its conclusion that Gloria Macapagal Arroyo had been the mastermind of plunder was
plainly conjectural and outrightly unfounded considering that the information did not aver at all that she had been
the mastermind; hence, the Sandiganbayan thereby acted capriciously and arbitrarily. No evidence of GMA and et
al collecting, accumulating, or obtaining ill-gotten riches worth at least P50 million was presented.
Another critical mistake in the prosecution was this.

In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, the court stated that the chief plunderer for whose benefit the amassment,
accumulation, and acquisition were accomplished was necessary in order to understand the essence of the
conspiracy charge:
To assist the president Estrada in acquiring ill-gotten wealth or helping him amass it. The Amended Information's
subparagraphs (a) to (d) claimed that each accused participated in the conspiracy in a different way. Therefore,
the primary allegation of the conspiracy charge is not that each accused agreed to receive protection money from
illegal gambling, that each diverted a portion of the tobacco excise tax, that each accused directed the GSIS and
SSS to buy shares of Belle Corporation and receive commissions from such sale, or that each unjustly enriched
himself from commissions, gifts, and kickbacks; rather, the primary allegation is that each accused agreed to
participate by their individual acts in acquisition of ill-gotten wealth of and/or for former President Estrada.
SC can reverse the ruling of SandiganBayan. Review powers on the other branches of government and especially
lower court.

Other Information (if applicable)