Ombudsman appeals SC’s dismissal of Gloria Arroyo’s plunder case

The Office of the Ombudsman on Wednesday filed a motion for reconsideration urging the Supreme Court (SC) to reverse its ruling dismissing the plunder case against former President and incumbent Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

In a 32-page motion for reconsideration (MR) signed by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, the anti-graft body said the SC committed “grave errors” when it dismissed the case outright last month, allegedly without fully taking into account all the evidence presented by the prosecution.

“The Honorable Court committed grave errors which amount to a violation or deprivation of the state’s fundamental right to due process of law,” the MR filed before the SC En Banc Wednesday afternoon read.

In a vote of 11-4, the SC En Banc on July 19 ruled to dismiss the plunder case against Mrs. Arroyo due to the “insufficiency of evidence” of the prosecution team.

The high court also dismissed the plunder case against Mrs. Arroyo’s co-accused former Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) budget and accounts manager Benigno Aguas.

The case stemmed from the alleged misuse of P366-million worth of PCSO’s confidential intelligence fund (CIF) from 2008 to 2010 during Mrs. Arroyo’s term as president.

The other co-accused in the case, former PCSO general manager Rosario Uriarte remains at large.

“The evidence presented by the prosecution was not fully taken into account, including but not limited to the irregularities in the confidential intelligence fund (CIF) disbursement process [and] questionable practice of co-mingling of funds…,” the Ombudsman’s MR read.

The Ombudsman said the SC also failed to consider Aguas’ reports to the Commission on Audit (COA), in which the former PCSO official supposedly admitted that the bulk of the P365,997,915.00 withdrawn from the PCSO’s CIF were diverted to the Office of the President.

“Arroyo and Aguas, by indispensable cooperation, in conspiracy with their co-accused (Uriarte) committed plunder via a complex, illegal scheme which defrauded PCSO hundreds of million pesos,” the MR read.

Personal benefit

The Ombudsman also countered the SC’s statement in its ruling that the case must be dismissed as the prosecution failed to present any proof that Arroyo and Aguas personally amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten of at least P50 million, the threshold amount for a crime to be considered as plunder.

The Ombudsman argued that “personal benefit” is not among the elements of plunder provided under Republic Act 7080 or the Anti-Plunder Law.

"Unlawful taking or apoderamiento is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he or she has no opportunity to dispose of the same," the Ombudsman’s MR read.

The Ombudsman said what is important in a plunder case is for the prosecution to prove that the accused has the “intent to gain” in committing the crime.

“The concept of actual personal gain, benefit or enrichment to the offender is immaterial as the important consideration in offenses involving the unlawful taking of property, as in plunder, is the intent to gain,” the Ombudsman said.

The Ombudsman maintained that Arroyo’s approval of the release of the CIF was not just a “ministerial act” as the SC said in its decision, but was “willful and deliberate”.

Arroyo and Aguas, through their respective petition for certiorari, elevated the case before the SC after the Sandiganbayan First Division denied their petition for bail and their demurrer to evidence.

A demurrer to evidence seeks the dismissal of the case halfway through the trial the ground of the supposed weak evidence of the prosecution.

In its MR, the Ombudsman also argued that under Rule 119 Section 23 of the Rules of Court, “an order denying the demurrer to evidence shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before [the case’s] judgment”.

“Jurisprudence holds that if the accused’s demurrer to evidence is denied, his or her remedy is…to continue with the case in due course and when an unfavorable verdict is handed down, to take an appeal in the manner of motion for reconsideration,” the Ombudsman said.

Lastly, the Ombudsman said “even assuming that elements of plunder was not proven beyond reasonable doubt”, the case should not have been dismissed outright as  “the accused who participated in the misuse of the PCSO’s CIF may be convicted of Malversation, which is a predicate act of and included in Plunder [case]”.

“The evidence presented by the People shows beyond reasonable doubt that Arroyo, Aguas and their co-accused (Uriarte) in (crime number) SB-12-CRM-0174 are guilty of malversation,” the Ombudsman claimed.

“In view thereof, the People respectfully submit that it is premature to dismiss the case and set herein petitioners free. The assailed Resolutions [of the Sandiganbayan First Division] denying their demurrer to evidence, with their consequent effects, should be reinstated,” the Ombudsman pleaded.

Arroyo and Aguas were set free on July 21 or two days after the SC voted on the case. —JST, GMA News