Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Promulgated:
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
~
Separate Concurring and Dissenting 2 G.R. Nos. 220598 and 220953
Opinion
,;
Separate Concurring and Dissenting 3 G.R. Nos. 220598 and 220953
Opinion
Further, the ponencia held that the prosecution failed to prove any
overt acts from petitioners that would establish their respective participations
in the conspiracy to commit Plunder, reasoning that: (a) Arroyo's mere
unqualified approval of Uriarte's requests for additional CIF funds - which
was not by any means irregular or illegal - did not make her part of the
design to raid the public treasury and thereby amass, acquire, or accumulate
ill-gotten wealth22 ; and (b) Aguas's certifications and signatures on the
disbursement vouchers were insufficient bases to conclude that he was
involved in any conspiracy to commit Plunder as those would not have
meant anything had Arroyo not authorized the release of additional CIF
funds. 23
Finally, anent the predicate act of raiding the public treasury, the
ponencia theorized that a "raid on the public treasury" under Section 1 (d)
24
(I ) of the Plunder Law "requires the raider to use property taken impliedly
for his personal benefit" 25 in line with the principle of noscitur a sociis, or
16 Id. at 47.
11 Id. at 28.
1s ld.at41.
19 Id. at 43.
20 Id. at 35.
21
Id. at 36.
22
Id.
23
Id. at 40.
24
SECTION I. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act, the term -
xx xx
d) Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any
person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through
dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of
the following means or similar schemes:
I) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on
the public treasury[.]
25
Ponencia, p. 45.
~
Separate Concurring and Dissenting 4 G.R. Nos. 220598 and 220953
Opinion
I.
xx xx
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, case law has recognized certain exceptions to this rule. For
instance, in Nicolas v. Sandiganbayan, 29 this Court had the occasion to
explain:
On whether certiorari is the proper remedy in the consolidated
petitions, the general rule prevailing is that it does not lie to review an
order denying a demurrer to evidence, which is equivalent to a motion to
dismiss, filed after the prosecution has presented its evidence and rested its
case.
26
Aisporna v. Court ofAppeals, 198 Phil. 838, 847 (1982).
27
Ponencia, pp. 44-45.
28
See id. at 46.
29
568 Phil. 297 (2008).
~
Separate Concurring and Dissenting 5 G.R. Nos. 220598 and 220953
Opinion
Rule 41:
xx xx
xx xx
Rule 65:
As case law shows, despite the prohibition foisted in Section 23, Rule
119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court may take
cognizance of the petitions for certiorari against orders denying demurrers
to evidence if only to correct an "oppressive exercise of judicial authority"
which is manifested by patent errors in the assailed ruling amounting to
grave abuse of discretion.
30
Id. at 309-310.
ti
Separate Concurring and Dissenting 6 G.R. Nos. 220598 and 220953
Opinion
31
In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan [421 Phil. 290, 351 (200 I)], it was explained:
Combination - the result or product of combining; the act or process of combining. To combine is
to bring into such close relationship as to obscure individual characters.
Series - a number of things or events of the same class coming one after another in spatial and
temporal succession.
That Congress intended the words "combination" and "series" to be understood in their popular
meanings is pristinely evident from the legislative deliberations on the bill which eventually became
RA 7080 or the Plunder Law[.]
32
See Section 12 of RA 7659, amending Section 2 of RA 7080.
33
See portions of the Information as reproduced in the ponencia, pp. 2-3.
34
See id. at 34-36.
~
Separate Concurring and Dissenting 7 G.R. Nos. 220598 and 220953
Opinion
II.
35
People v. Cinco, 622 Phil. 858, 866-867 (2009), citing Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure.
36
People v. Go, G.R. No. 191015, August 6, 2014, 732 SCRA 216, 237-238; citations omitted.
~
Separate Concurring and Dissenting 8 G.R. Nos. 220598 and 220953
Opinion
37
See People v. Fabros, 429 Phil. 701, 713-714 (2002).
38
Id. at 714; emphasis and italics supplied.
!<
Separate Concurring and Dissenting 9 G.R. Nos. 220598 and 220953
Opinion
for which the funds will be spent; (Q) provide detailed explanations as to
the circumstances giving rise to the necessity for the expenditure and
the particular aims to be accomplished by the release of funds; and (f)
be presented personally to the President for his perusal and
examination.
39
See portions of LOI 1282 as reproduced in the ponencia, pp. 36-37.
40
See id. at 7.
~
Separate Concurring and Dissenting IO G.R. Nos. 220598 and 220953
Opinion
41
See Omnibus Opposition (to the Demurrer to Evidence by accused Arroyo, Valencia, Morato,
Roquero, Taruc V, Aguas, and Villar) filed by the Official of the Special Prosecutor dated September
14, 2014, p. 73, attached as Annex "P" in Arroyo's Petition in G.R. No. 220598. See also April 6, 2015
Sandiganbayan Resolution, p. 28.
~
Separate Concurring and Dissenting 11 G.R. Nos. 220598 and 220953
Opinion
In the letter-request dated April 27, 2009, for PIO Million, the
purposes were as follows:
In the letter-request dated July 2, 2009, for another PIO Million, the
stated purposes were:
42
Attached as Annex "Q" in Arroyo's Petition in G.R. No. 220598, p. 74. See also April 6, 2015
Sandiganbayan Resolution, p. 28.
43
Attached as Annex "S" in Arroyo's Petition in G.R. No. 220598, p. 76. See also April 6, 2015
Sandiganbayan Resolution, p. 29.
!(
Separate Concurring and Dissenting 12 G.R. Nos. 220598 and 220953
Opinion
Its regularization will counter the illegal numbers game but will
entail massive monitoring and policing using confidential agents in the
area to ensure that all stakeholders are consulted in the process.
44
Attached as Annex "T" in Arroyo's Petition in G.R. No. 220598, p. 77. See also April 6, 2015
Sandiganbayan Resolution, p. 29.
45
Attached as Annex "R" in Arroyo's Petition in G.R. No. 220598, p. 75. See also April 6, 2015
Sandiganbayan Resolution, p. 29 (erroneously dated as "January 19, 2009 in the Sandiganbayan
Resolution).
{
Separate Concurring and Dissenting 13 G.R. Nos. 220598 and 220953
Opinion
To stress, LOI 1282 merely required that requests for additional CIF
funds shall "indicate in full detail the specific purposes for which said funds
shall be spent," and "explain the circumstances giving rise to the necessity
46
Attached as Annex "W" in Arroyo's Petition in G.R. No. 220598, p. 78. See also April 6, 2015
Sandiganbayan Resolution, p. 29.
47
See April 6, 2015 Sandiganbayan Resolution, p. 41.
J
Separate Concurring and Dissenting 14 G.R. Nos. 220598 and 220953
Opinion
for the expenditure and the particular aims to be accomplished." 48 It did not
provide for any other parameter as to how the purposes and the underlying
circumstances should be particularized, thereby giving the President ample
discretion to scrutinize and deem by himself/herself whether or not a letter-
request indeed complied with the requirements of LOI 1282. In this case, it
must be pointed out that as General Manager of the PCSO, Uriarte enjoyed
the full trust and confidence not only of the PCSO Board of Directors who
appointed her as such, but also of the President (Arroyo, in this instance),
who is the appointing authority of the said board. 49 Hence, when Arroyo
placed her "OK" notations on Uriarte's letter-requests, it is as if she deemed
such letter-requests compliant with the requirements of LOI 1282. Thus,
while the Sandiganbayan correctly examined Arroyo's alleged participation
under the lens of her duties under LOI 1282, it, however, erroneously
concluded that there was sufficient evidence to prove that she knew of any
Plunder conspiracy and henceforth, proceeded to approve the release of CIF
funds in furtherance thereof.
i
Separate Concurring and Dissenting 15 G.R. Nos. 220598 and 220953
Opinion
prepare these reports. She did not have any participation in the preparation
of these reports. The reason for this is that she is not the payee or recipient
of the CIF. Under the law, the special disbursing officer, who is the
accountable officer, prepares the liquidation report. The President is not
the accountable officer for CIF because she did not receive or use the
CIF.53
53
See id. at 23.
54
People v. Maraorao, 688 Phil. 458, 467 (2012).
55
"It is a standing rule that every public official is entitled to the presumption of good faith in the
discharge of official duties, such that, in the absence of any proof that a public officer has acted with
malice or bad faith, he should not be charged with personal liability for damages that may result from
the performance of an official duty. Good faith is always presumed and he who alleges the contrary
bears the burden to convincingly show that malice or bad faith attended the public officer's
performance of his duties." Dimapilis-Baldoz v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 199114, July 16,
2013,703 SCRA 318, 337.
~
Separate Concurring and Dissenting 16 G.R. Nos. 220598 and 220953
Opinion
56
See Petition of Aguas in G.R. No. 220953, pp. 8 and 46.
J
Separate Concurring and Dissenting 17 G.R. Nos. 220598 and 220953
Opinion
prior liquidation paved the way for Uriarte to acquire ill-gotten wealth by
raiding the public coffers of the PCSO.
Since the records show how Aguas evidently ignored his auditing
duties and responsibilities in defiance of guidelines and control measures set
therefor, there appears to be sufficient evidence to link him as a co-
conspirator who had assented and eventually, facilitated Uriarte's
amassment, accumulation, or acquisition of CIF funds subject of the present
Plunder charge. Therefore, no grave abuse of discretion was committed by
the Sandiganbayan in denying Aguas' s demurrer to evidence.
xx xx
N
Separate Concurring and Dissenting 18 G.R. Nos. 220598 and 220953
Opinion
Finally, the Sandiganbayan aptly pointed out that: "to require proof
that monies went to a plunderer's bank account or was used to acquire real
or personal properties for any other purpose to personally benefit the
plunderer, is absurd. Suppose a plunderer had already illegally amassed,
acquired, or accumulated P50 Million or more of government funds and just
decided to keep it in his vault and never used such funds for any purpose to
benefit him, would that not be plunder? Or, if immediately right after such
amassing, the monies went up in flames or recovered by the police, negating
any opportunity for the person to actually benefit, would that not still be
plunder? Surely, in such cases, a plunder charge could still prosper and the
argument that the fact of personal benefit should still be evidence-based
must fail." 60 The ponencia's appreciation of the Plunder Law tends to
deleteriously impact the prosecution of other pending Plunder cases.
Unfortunately, the majority has imposed a rule which now requires the State
to submit direct proof of personal benefit for an accused plunderer, as well
as those who have conspired with him to be convicted. I strongly criticize
this approach as it is practically the case that those who have raided the
coffers of our government, especially in light of the fairly recent PDAF 61
controversy and now current litigations, would, in great likelihood, had
already hidden the money they stole through ingenious schemes and means.
Regrettably, the majority's interpretation tends to enervate the potency of the
Plunder Law's force.
58
Parungao v. Sandiganbayan, 274 Phil. 451, 460 (1991 ).
59
See also September I 0, 2015 Sandiganbayan Resolution, pp. 8-9.
60
See September I 0, 2015 Sandiganbayan Resolution, p. I 0.
61
"Priority Development Assistance Fund.
Separate Concurring and Dissenting 19 G.R. Nos. 220598 and 220953
Opinion
ESTEL~~-BERNABE
Associate Justice