CASE 2017-0021: GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN, (First Division), (G.R. NO. 220598 18 APRIL 2017 BERSAMIN, J.); BENIGNO B. AGUAS, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division), (G.R. NO. 220953) (SUBJECT/S: IN PLUNDER CASE IT IS NECESSARY TO IDENTIFY THE MAIN PLUNDERER AND THAT THE ACCUSED BENEFITED PERSONALLY FROM THE CRIME; CERTIORARI CAN BE A REMEDY EVEN IF DENIAL OF DEMURRER IS JUST INTERLOCUTORY)
DISPOSITIVE:
“WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.”
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
THE STATE ARGUES THAT CERTIORARI IS NOT THE REMEDY BECAUSE THE RULES OF COURT PROHIBITS THE REVIEW OF THE DENIAL OF DEMURRER PRIOR TO THE JUDGMENT. SUCH DENIAL IS ONLY AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. IS THE STATE CORREC?
THE STATE IS WRONG.
THE SC CAN TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BECAUSE THE SANDIGAN GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION.
IT IS NOT AN INSUPERABLE OBSTACLE TO THIS ACTION.
IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS SUPERINTENDING CONTROL OVER OTHER COURTS, SC IS TO BE GUIDED BY ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH PARTICULAR CASE ‘AS THE ENDS OF JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE.’ SO IT IS THAT THE WRIT WILL BE GRANTED WHERE NECESSARY TO PREVENT A SUBSTANTIAL WRONG OR TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
THE STATE ARGUES THAT THE DECISION IMPOSED ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS FOR PLUNDER: THAT THE MAIN PLUNDERER BE IDENTIFIED AND THAT THE ACCUSED BENEFITED FROM THE CRIME. IS THE STATE CORRECT?
THE STATE IS WRONG.
“The submissions of the State are unfounded.
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.”
“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.”
THE STATE ARGUES THAT IT HAS ESTABLISHED AT LEAST A CASE FOR MALVERSATION AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. IS THE STATE CORRECT?
NO.
THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF MALVERSATION ARE NOT STATED IN THE INFORMATION.
“In thereby averring the predicate act of malversation, the State did not sufficiently allege the aforementioned essential elements of malversation in the information. The omission from the information of factual details descriptive of the aforementioned elements of malversation highlighted the insufficiency of the allegations. Consequently, the State’s position is entirely unfounded.”
CAN THE GRANTING OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE STATE AMOUNT TO A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
YES BECAUSE THE DECISION WAS A PRIOR JEOPARDY.
BUT THERE IS AN EXCEPTION: WHEN THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
“The rule on double jeopardy, however, is not without exceptions. In People v. Laguio, Jr., this Court stated that the only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion, thus:
… The only instance when double ,jeopardy will not attach is when the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a sham. However, while certiorari may be availed of to correct an erroneous acquittal, the petitioner in such an extraordinary proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice.”
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. GO TO YOUR DOWNLOADED FILES AND OPEN THE THE CASE FILE.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.
