Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was charged with plunder together with several officials of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO). The prosecution alleged that hundreds of millions of pesos had been unlawfully released from the PCSO’s Confidential and Intelligence Fund through a series of irregular disbursements. According to the prosecution, President Arroyo approved requests for additional confidential funds submitted by PCSO officials. These approvals allegedly enabled the illegal release of public funds amounting to more than ₱365 million, giving rise to the charge of plunder.
After the prosecution finished presenting its evidence, Arroyo asked the Sandiganbayan to dismiss the case through a demurrer to evidence. She argued that the prosecution had failed to prove one of the essential elements of plunder—that she had amassed, accumulated, or acquired ill-gotten wealth. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion. Was the Sandiganbayan correct in denying it?
No, it was not. The Court explained that under the Plunder Law, the gravamen of the offense is the amassing, accumulation, or acquisition of ill-gotten wealth worth at least ₱50 million through a combination or series of specified criminal acts. In other words, it is not enough to prove that public funds were illegally disbursed. The prosecution must also prove that the accused actually amassed, accumulated, or acquired the alleged ill-gotten wealth.
After examining the evidence, the Court found that the prosecution failed to present proof that Arroyo personally received, accumulated, or acquired any portion of the alleged ₱365 million. Although the prosecution established that Arroyo approved requests for additional confidential funds, it failed to present evidence showing that she obtained the money for herself or that she conspired with others to amass the alleged ill-gotten wealth.
The Court stressed that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court also rejected the theory that merely approving the release of funds automatically made Arroyo liable for plunder.
According to the Court, criminal liability cannot rest on assumptions or speculation. Every essential element of the offense—including the existence of conspiracy, where alleged—must be established by competent evidence. The prosecution failed to do so. Because the prosecution’s evidence was legally insufficient, the Supreme Court granted Arroyo’s demurrer to evidence.
Accordingly, it dismissed the plunder case against her and ordered her immediate release from detention, unless she was being lawfully held for another cause.
Arroyo v. Sandiganbayan. G.R. No. 220598. July 19, 2016.