REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

~anOtBanhat!anQuezon City

FIRST DIVISION

PE PLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

- ve sus - CRIM. CASE NO. S8-12-CRM-0174For: Plunder

GL RIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO,ET L.

Accused. Present:

DE LA CRUZ, J., ChairpersonECONG, J.CALDONA, JJ.

Promulgated on:,

. I I " I'/~ "J .,,/ If r

)(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- - - - - - - - - -)(

DECISION

DE A CRUZ, J.

Accused Rosario C. Uriarte stands charged of Plunder,defi ed and penalized under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080.The accusatory portion of the Information against her reads:

That during the period from January 2008 to June 2010, orsometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Ouezon City,Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,accused GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, then the President ofthe Republic of the Philippines, ROSARIO C. URIARTE, thenGeneral Manager and Vice Chairman, SERGIO O. VALENCIA,then Chairman of the Board of Directors, MANUEL L. MORATO,JOSE R. TARUC V, RAYMUNDO T. ROOUERO, MA. FATIMAA.S. VALDES, then members of the Board of Directors, BENIGNOB. AGUAS, then Budget and Accounts Manager, all of PhilippineCharity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), REYNALDO A. VILLAR,then Chairman, and NILDA B. PLARAS, then Head ofIntelligence/Confidential Fund Fraud Audit Unit, both of theCommission on Audit, all public officers committing the offense inrelationto their respectiveofficesand taking undue advantage of

c.' I

DE ISIONpp . G/oria M. Arroyo, et al.Cri . Case No. S8-12-CRM-0174

Pag 20/11

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --x

their respective official positions, authority, relationships,connections or influence, conniving, conspiring and confederatingwith one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully andcriminally amass, accumulate and/or acquire, directly or indirectly,ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of THREEHUNDRED SIXTY FIVE MILLION NINE HUNDRED NINETYSEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTEEN PESOS(PHP365,997,915.00), more or less, through any or a combinationor a series of overt or criminal acts, or similar schemes or means,described as follows:

(a) diverting, in several instances, funds from the operating budgetof PCSO to its Confidential/Intelligence Fund that could beaccessed and withdrawn at any time with minimal restrictions, andconverting, misusing, and/or illegally conveying or transferring theproceeds drawn from said fund in the aforementioned sum, also inseveral instances, to themselves, in the guise of fictitiousexpenditures, for their personal gain and benefit;

(b) raiding the public treasury by withdrawing and receiving, inseveral instances, the above-mentioned amount from theConfidential/Intelligence Fund from PCSO's accounts, and/orunlawfully transferring or conveying the same into theirpossession and control through irregularly issued disbursementvouchers and fictitious expenditures; and

(c) taking advantage of their respective official positions, authority,relationships, connections or influence, in several instances, tounjustly enrich themselves in the aforementioned sum, at theexpense of, and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipinopeople and the Republic of the Philippines.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Prior to accused Uriarte's submission to the jurisdiction ofthis Court, her eo-accused Morato, Roquero, Taruc and Villar wereacq itted on demurrer to evidence in the Court's Resolution, datedApr I 6, 2015. On the other hand, in the same resolution, thesep rate demurrers to evidence of accused Arroyo and Aguaswer~ denied. Accused Arroyo and Aguas moved to reconsider thedenial of their demurrers to evidence. But the Court, in itsRe olution, dated September 10, 2015, denied the said motion forrec nsideration. Thus, accused Arroyo and Aguas separatelybro ght the matter up to the Supreme Court on a petition force orari to question the denial of their demurrers to evidence.

In a consolidated Decision. promulgated on July 19, 2016, inMa apaga/-Arroyo v. People (G.R. No. 220598) and Aguas v.

·1

DE SIONpp 11 • Gloria M. Arroyo, et al.Cri CaseNo. SB-12-CRM-0174

Pag 30/11

x-- ------------------------------------------------------------x

Sa diganbayan (G.R. No. 220953), the Supreme Court annulledan set aside the April 6, 2015 and September 10, 2015res lutions of the Sandiganbayan, thereby dismissing this case asto rroyo and Aguas. The High Court upheld the acquittal ofArr yo and Aguas in its Resolution, dated April 18, 2017. Itbe me final and executory on May 30, 2017.1 TheSa diganbayan also acquitted accused Valdes on a demurrer toevi ence in its Resolution, dated March 30, 2017, and so wasPia as on a motion to dismiss in its Resolution, dated October 4,2017.

Meanwhile, on November 16, 2016, accused Uriartesur endered to the operatives of the National Bureau ofInv stigation-NCR, and her arraignment was set.

Upon being arraigned on November 22, 2016, accusedUri rte pleaded not guilty to the charge against her."

On June 22, 2017, accused Uriate was allowed bail."

At the pre-trial," the prosecution and accused Uriartead pted their averments, stipulations and admissions embodied inthe" Joint Stipulation, dated September 25, 2017.5 The partieslike ise stipulated that the prosecution would formally offer thesa e batch of documents for the same purposes they were offereddur ng the bail hearing, and that the Court would rule to admit themin vidence. Also, accused Uriarte would no longer present anydo mentary evidence for her defense.6

In a Manifestation/Compliance, dated March 23, 2018,sed Uriarte stated that after having thoroughly reviewed therecords, and considering the stipulations of the parties, sheno longer presenting any testimonial evidence and was

rdingly submitting the case for decision based on the saidlations.

DISCUSSION

1 Entr of Judgment issued by the Supreme Court, Record, Vol. XLVII, pp. 309-3102 Rec d, Vol. XLV, p. 6003 Rec d, Voi. XLVII, pp. 117-119

q Pre- ia\ Order, dated January 15, 2018, Record, Vol. XLVII, pp. 5-65 Rec d, Voi. XLVII, pp. 447-4886 Ord r of the Court, dated October 23, 2017 amended on January 15, 2018 1 I

I(y,

Ir:-:'

DE ISIONpp v . Gloria M. Arroyo, et al.Cri CaseNo. S8-12-CRM-0174

40/11

x-- ------------------------------------------------------------x

Has the prosecution proven beyond reasonable doubt thatacc sed Uriarte committed the crime of plunder as charged in the

rmation?

The Supreme Court, in the case of Macapaga/- Arroyo v.Pe pie,' answered this question in the negative. Indeed, the HighCo rt elucidated the reasons in the previously mentionedcon olidated Decision, dated July 19, 2016. The pertinent portionsof t e said Decision are quoted below.

11.

The Prosecution did not properly allege and prove theexistence of conspiracy among GMA, Aguas and Uriarte

xxx xxx xxx

The Prosecution insisted that a conspiracy existed amongGMA, Uriarte, Valencia and the Members of the peso Board ofDirectors, Aguas, Vi liar and Plaras. The Sandiganbayan agreedwith the Prosecution as to the conspirators involved, declaring thatGMA, Aguas, and Uriarte had conspired and committed plunder.

A review of the records of the case compels us to reject theSandiganbayan's declaration in light of the information filedagainst the petitioners, and the foregoing exposition on the nature,forms and extent of conspiracy. On the contrary, the Prosecutiondid not sufficiently allege the existence of conspiracy amongGMA, Aguas and Uriarte.

A perusal of the information suggests that what theProsecution sought to show was an implied conspiracy to commitplunder among all of the accused on the basis of their collectiveactions prior to, during and after the implied agreement. It isnotable that the Prosecution did not allege that the conspiracyamong all of the accused was by express agreement, or was awheel conspiracy or a chain conspiracy.

This was another fatal flaw of the Prosecution.

In its present version, under which the petitioners werecharged, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080 (Plunder Law)states:

Section 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder;Penalties. - Any public officer who, by himself or in connivancewith members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity,business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses,

7 sup

DE ISIONpp . Gloria M. Arroyo, et 0/.Cri • Case No. S8-12-CRM-0174

Pag 5 of 11

x-- ------------------------------------------------------------x

accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combinationor series of overt criminal acts as described in Section 1(d)hereof in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fiftymillion pesos (P50,OOO,OOO.OO)shall be guilty of the crime ofplunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death.Any person who participated with the said public officer in thecommission of an offense contributing to the crime of plundershall likewise be punished for such offense. In the imposition ofpenalties, the degree of participation and the attendance ofmitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by theRevised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court. The courtshall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests andother incomes and assets including the properties and shares ofstocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited infavor of the State. [As Amended by Section 12, Republic Act No.7659 (The Death Penalty Law)]

Section 1(d) of Republic Act No. 7080 provides:

Section 1. Definition of terms. - As used in this Act, the term:

xxx x

d. "II-gotten wealth" means any asset, property, businessenterprise or material possession of any person within thepurview of Section two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly orindirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinatesand/or business associates by any combination or series of thefollowing means or similar schemes:

1.Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, ormalversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury;

2. By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift,share, percentage, kickbacks or any/or entity in connection withany government contract or project or by reason of the office orposition of the public officer concerned;

3. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition ofassets belonging to the National Government or any of itssubdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-ownedor controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;

4. By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectlyany shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest orparticipation including the promise of future employment in anybusiness enterprise or undertaking;

5. By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercialmonopolies or other combinations and/or implementation ofdecrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons orspecial interests; or

O. By laKing undue advantage of official position, authority,relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or

.I> I

pp v . Gloria M. Arroyo, et al.Cri Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174

60f11

x-- ------------------------------------------------------------x

themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice ofthe Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.

The law on plunder requires that a particular public officermust be identified as the one who amassed, acquired oraccumulated ill-gotten wealth because it plainly states that plunderis committed by any public officer who, by himself or inconnivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity orconsanguinity, business associates, subordinates or otherpersons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth inthe aggregate amount or total value of at least P50,OOO,OOO.OOthrough a combination or series of overt criminal acts asdescribed in Section 1(d) hereof. Surely, the law requires in thecriminal charge for plunder against several individuals that theremust be a main plunderer and her eo-conspirators, who maybemembers of her family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity,business associates, subordinates or other persons. In otherwords, the allegation of wheel conspiracy or express conspiracy inthe information was appropriate because the main plundererwould then be identified in either manner. Of course, impliedconspiracy could also identify the main plunderer, but that factmust be properly alleged and duly proven by the Prosecution.

This interpretation IS supported by Estrada v.Sandiganbayan,8 where the Court explained the nature of theconspiracy charge and the necessity for the main plunderer forwhose benefit the amassment, accumulation and acquisition wasmade, thus:

There is no denying the fact that the "plunder of an entirenation resulting in material damage to the national economy" ismade up of a complex and manifold network of crimes. In thecrime of plunder, therefore, different parties may be united by acommon purpose. In the case at bar, the different accused andtheir different criminal acts have a commonality - to help theformer President amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth.Sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) in the Amended Information alleged thedifferent participation of each accused in the conspiracy. Thegravamen of the conspiracy charge therefore, is not that eachaccused agreed to receive protection money from illegalgambling, that each misappropriated a portion of the tobaccoexcise tax, that each accused ordered the GSIS and SSS topurchase shares of Belle Corporation and receive commissionsfrom such sale, nor that each unjustly enriched himself fromcommissions, gifts and kickbacks; rather, it is that each of them,by their individual acts, agreed to participate, directly orindirectly, in the amassing, accumulation and acquisition ofill-gotten wealth of and/or for former President Estrada. [boldunderscoring supplied for emphasis]

. 148965, February 26, 2002, 377 seRA 538, 556

~, r

./I.

DE ISIONpp . Gloria M. Arroyo, et al.Cri . Case No. S8-12-CRM-0174

Pag 70/11

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --x

Here considering that 10 persons have been accused ofamassing, accumulating and/or acquiring ill-gotten wealthaggregating P365,997,951.00, it would be improbable that thecrime charged was plunder if none of them was alleged to be themain plunderer. As such, each of the 10 accused would accountfor the aliquot amount of only P36,599,791.50, or exactly 1/10 ofthe alleged aggregate ill-gotten wealth, which is far below thethreshold value of ill-gotten wealth required for plunder.

xxx xxx xxx

In fine, the Prosecution's failure to properly allege the mainplunderer should be fatal to the cause of the State against thepetitioners for violating the rights of each accused to be informedof the charges against each of them.

Nevertheless, the Prosecution insists that GMA, Uriarteand Aguas committed acts showing the existence of an impliedconspiracy among themselves, thereby making all of them themain plunderers. On this score, the Prosecution points out that thesole overt act of GMA to become a part of the conspiracy was herapproval via the marginal note of "OK" of all the requests made byUriarte for the use of additional intelligence fund. The Prosecutionstresses that by approving Uriarte's requests in that manner, GMAviolated the following:

a. Letter of Instruction 1282, which required requests foradditional confidential and intelligence funds (CIFs) to beaccompanied with detailed, specific project proposals andspecifications; and

b. COA Circular No. 92-385, which allowed the President toapprove the release of additional CIFs only if there was anexisting budget to cover the request.

The insistence of the Prosecution is unwarranted. GMA'sapproval of Uriarte's requests for additional CIFs did not make herpart of any design to raid the public treasury as the means toamass, accumulate and acquire ill-gotten wealth. Absent thespecific allegation in the information to that effect, and competentproof thereon, GMA's approval of Uriarte's requests, even ifunqualified, could not make her part of any criminal conspiracy tocommit plunder or any other crime considering that her approvalwas not by any means irregular or illegal.

The Prosecution takes GMA to task for approving Uriarte'srequest despite the requests failing to provide "the full detail [of]the specific purposes for which said funds shall be spent and shallexplain the circumstances giving rise to the necessity for theexpenditure and the particular aims to be accomplished." It posits

DE IS/ONpp . Gloria M. Arroyo, et al.Cri . Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174

Pag 80/11

x-- ------------------------------------------------------------x

that the requests were not specific enough, contrary to what isrequired of LOI 1282.

LOI 1282 reads:

LETTER OF INSTRUCTION NO. 1282

To: All Ministries and Offices Concerned

In recent years intelligence funds appropriated for the variousministries and certain offices have been, as reports reaching meindicate, spent with less than full regard for secrecy andprudence. On the one hand, there have been far too manyleakages of information on expenditures of said funds; and onthe other hand, where secrecy has been observed, the Presidenthimself was often left unaware of how these funds had beenutilized.

Effective immediately, all requests for the allocation or release ofintelligence funds shall indicate in full detail the specific purposesfor which said funds shall be spent and shall explain thecircumstances giving rise to the necessity for the expenditureand the particular aims to be accomplished.

The requests and the detailed explanations shall be submitted tothe President personally.

It is imperative that such detailed presentations be made to thePresident in order to avoid such duplication of expenditures ashas taken place in the past because of the lack of centralizedplanning and organized disposition of intelligence funds.

Full compliance herewith is desired.

Manila, January 12, 1983.

(Sgd.) FERDINAND E. MARC OSPresident of the Philippines

However, an examination of Uriarte's several requestsindicates their compliance with LOI No. 1282. The requests,similarly worded, furnished: (a) the full details of the specificpurposes for which the funds would be spent; (b) the explanationsof the circumstances giving rise to the necessity of theexpenditure; and (c) the particular aims to be accomplished.

The specific purpose and circumstances for the necessityof the expenditures were laid down as follows:

In dispensing its mandate, PCSO has been constantlyencountering a number of fraudulent schemes and nefariousactivities on a continuing basis which affect the integrity of ouroperations, to wit:

1. \

DE ISIONpp . Glor;a M. Arroyo, et al.Cri . Case No. S8-12-CRM-0174

Pag 90! 11

x-- ------------------------------------------------------------x

1. Donated medicines sometimes end up in drug stores forsale even if they were labeled "Donated by peso - Not forSale";

2. Unwarranted or unofficial use of ambulances bybeneficiary-donees;

3. Unauthorized expenditures of endowment fund for charitypatients and organizations;

4. Lotto and sweepstakes scams victimizing innocent peopleof winning the jackpot and selling tampered tickets as winningtickets;

5. Fixers for the different programs of peso such asAmbulance Donation Project, Endowment Fund Program andIndividual Medical Assistance Program;

6. Other fraudulent schemes and activities which put thepeso in bad light.

A reading of the requests also reveals that the additionalCIF's requested were to be used to protect PCSO's image and theintegrity of its operations. The Court thus cannot share theProsecution's dismissiveness of the requests for not beingcompliant with LOI No. 1282. According to its terms, LOI No. 1282did not detail any qualification as to how specific the requestsshould be made. Hence, we should not make any otherpronouncement than to rule that Uriarte's requests were compliantwith LOI No. 1282.

COA Circular No. 92-385 required that additional requestfor CIF's would be approved only when there was availablebudget. In this regard, the Prosecution suggests that there was nolonger any budget when GMA approved Uriarte's requestsbecause the budget had earmarked intelligence funds that hadalready been maxed out and used. The suggestion is notacceptable, however, considering that the funds of the PCSOwere co-mingled into one account as early as 2007.Consequently, although only 15% of PCSO's revenues wasappropriated to an operation fund from which the CIF could besourced, the remaining 85% of PCSO's revenues, already eo-mingled with the operating fund, could still sustain the additionalrequests. In short, there was available budget from which to drawthe additional requests for CIFS.

It is notable that the COA, although frowning upon PCSO'sco-mingling of funds, did not rule such co-mingling as illegal. Assuch, sourcing the requested additional CIF's from one accountwas far from illegal.

Lastly! the Prosecution's effort to show irregularities asbadges of bad faith has led it to claim that GMA had known thatUriarte would raid the public treasury, and would misuse the

DE ISIONpp . Gloria M. Arroyo, et al.Cri . Case No. S8-12-CRM-0174

Pag 10 of 11

x-- ------------------------------------------------------------x

amounts disbursed. This knowledge was imputed to GMA byvirtue of her power of control over peso.

The foregoing pronouncement was rendered by the SupremeCo rt after evaluation of the same sets of facts, circumstances,an evidence now under consideration. The prosecution has notad uced any new or compelling evidence to warrant a findingdiff rent from what has already been rendered by the SupremeCo rt. Thus, as the High Tribunal categorically cleared Uriarte ofcui ability from the instant charge of plunder, it behooves thisCo rt to acquit her.

WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, accused RosarioC. riarte is hereby ACQUITTED of the charge of plunder defined

penalized under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080.

As the acts or omission from which the civil liability mightdid not exist, no civil liability may be assessed against the

sed.

Accordingly, the hold departure order issued against accusedUri rte by reason of this case is hereby LIFTED and SET ASIDE,and her bond RELEASED, subject to the usual accounting andauditing procedures.

SO ORDERED.

EFREN N D~ LA CRUZAssoci te Justice

We Concur:

GE ~E ffl-rH~CONGAssociate Justice

1

i /"\gh~,I'~'r:'~J\Ii.( .Cru ~)\,'-

E C;;~RDO M. CALDONA'-.>Associate Justice

DECISIONpp vs. Gloria M. Arroyo, et al.Crlm. Case No. S8-12-CRM-0174

Page 11 of 11

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --x

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above decision werereached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writerof the opinion of the Court's Division.

~1~EFREN IJ/ D LA CRUZ

Chairperson, First Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, andthe Division's Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified thatthe conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultationbef re the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of theCo rt's Division.

fo."~oM. ~E-TAN ------'Presiding Justice