GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN, (FIRST DIVISION)

----------------------

[G.R. No. 220953]

BENIGNO B. AGUAS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION)

G.R. No. 220598        April 18, 2017

 

BERSAMIN, J.

FACTS:

On July 19, 2016, the Court promulgated its decision disposing Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Benigno Aguas for insufficiency of evidence. On August 3, 2016, the State, through the Office of the Ombudsman, moved for the reconsideration of the decision.

ISSUE:

Whether the decision of the Court composed additional elements for plunder.

RULING:

No. The requirements for the identification of the main plunderer and for personal benefit in the predicate act of raids on the public treasury have been written in R.A. No. 7080 itself as well as embedded in pertinent jurisprudence.

The law on plunder requires that a particular public officer must be identified as the one who amassed, acquired or accumulated ill-gotten wealth because it plainly states that plunder is committed by any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of at least P50,000,000.00 through a combination or series of overt criminal acts us described in Section 1(d) hereof. Indeed, because plunder is a crime that only a public official can commit by amassing, accumulating, or acquiring ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of at least P50,000,000.00, the identification in the information of such public official as the main plunderer among the several individuals thus charged is logically necessary under the law itself.

The phrase raids on the public treasury as used in Section 1(d) of R. A. No. 7080 is itself ambiguous. This is to differentiate the predicate act of raids on the public treasury from other offenses involving property, like robbery, theft, or estafa. Considering that R.A. No. 7080 does not expressly define this predicate act, the Court has necessarily resorted to statutory construction. In so doing, the Court did not adopt the State's submission that personal benefit on the part of the accused need not be alleged and shown because doing so would have defeated the clear intent of the law itself, which was to punish the amassing, accumulating, or acquiring of ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of at least P50,000,000.00 by any combination or series of acts of misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury.

As a result, not only did the Prosecution fail to show where the money went but, more importantly, that GMA and Aguas had personally benefited from the same. Hence, the Prosecution did not prove the predicate act of raids on the public treasury beyond reasonable doubt.