TOPIC Trial

CASE NO. G.R. No. 220953

CASE NAME Aguas v. Sandiganbayan
MEMBER Robyn Bangsil

DOCTRINE
- Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that “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, it is not an insuperable obstacle to this action that the denial of the demurrers to evidence of
the petitioners was an interlocutory order that did not terminate the proceedings, and the proper
recourse of the demurring accused was to go to trial, and that in case of their conviction they may
then appeal the conviction, and assign the denial as among the errors to be reviewed.
- Notwithstanding the interlocutory character and effect of the denial of the demurrers to evidence, the
petitioners as the accused could avail themselves of the remedy of certiorari when the denial was
tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

RECIT-READY DIGEST
The Court resolves the consolidated petitions for certiorari separately filed by former President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) Budget and Accounts
Manager Benigno B. Aguas. The following, among others, were charged by the Ombudsman in the SB
for conspiracy to commit plunder. After the Prosecution rested its case, accused GMA and Aguas
separately filed their demurrers to evidence asserting that the Prosecution did not establish a case for
plunder against them, which were denied because there was sufficient evidence to show that they had
conspired to commit plunder. After the respective motions for reconsideration filed by GMA and Aguas
were likewise denied by the Sandiganbayan, they filed their respective petitions for certiorari. Hence, this
case. CRIMPRO ISSUE: Whether or not the special civil action for certiorari is proper to assail the
denial of the demurrers to evidence? The court ruled that this is not the proper procedure, however
because there was a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
(GADALEJ) on the part of the Sandiganbayan, the court took cognizance of the petitions because (See
doctrine portion.) With regard to the substantive issues, the court ruled that the prosecution did not
properly allege and prove the existence of conspiracy among GMA, Aguas and Uriarte. The Prosecution’s
failure to properly allege the main plunderer and how such was committed is fatal for violating the rights
of each accused to be informed of the charges against each of them. Neither did the prosecution adduce
proof of (a) amassing, or accumulating, or acquiring ill-gotten wealth of at least P50M against GMA and
Aguas, and (b) the predicate act of raiding the public treasury.

FACTS
- The Court resolves the consolidated petitions for certiorari separately filed by former President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) Budget and Accounts
Manager Benigno B. Aguas.
- On July 10, 2012, the Ombudsman charged in the Sandiganbayan former President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) and PCSO Budget and Accounts Manager Aguas (and some other
officials of PCSO and Commission on Audit whose charges were later dismissed by the
Sandiganbayan after their respective demurrers to evidence were granted, except for Uriarte and
Valdes who were at large) for conspiracy to commit plunder, as defined by, and penalized under
Section 2 (b) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659.
- The information reads: “That during the period from January 2008 to June 2010 or sometime prior or
subsequent thereto xxx accused Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the then President of the Philippines xxx
Benigno Aguas, then PCSO Budget and Accounts Manager, all public officers committing the offense

1
 in relation to their respective offices and taking undue advantage of their respective official positions,
authority, relationships, connections or influence, conniving, conspiring and confederating with one
another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate and/or acquire,
directly or indirectly, ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of PHP365,997,915.00,
more or less, [by raiding the public treasury]”
- Thereafter, accused GMA and Aguas separately filed their respective petitions for bail, which were
denied by the Sandiganbayan on the ground that the evidence of guilt against them was strong.
- After the Prosecution rested its case, accused GMA and Aguas then separately filed their demurrers to
evidence asserting that the Prosecution did not establish a case for plunder against them. The same
were denied by the Sandiganbayan, holding that there was sufficient evidence to show that they had
conspired to commit plunder.
- After the respective motions for reconsideration filed by GMA and Aguas were likewise denied by
the Sandiganbayan, they filed their respective petitions for certiorari.

ISSUE/S and HELD

1. Whether or not the special civil action for certiorari is proper to assail the denial of the
demurrers to evidence? NO (but the court allowed it bc there was GADALEJ) Relevant
Issue!
2. Whether or not the State sufficiently established the existence of conspiracy among GMA, Aguas,
and Uriarte? NO
3. Whether or not the State sufficiently established all the elements of the crime of plunder: (a) Was
there evidence of amassing, accumulating or acquiring ill-gotten wealth in the total amount of not
less than P50,000,000.00? (b) Was the predicate act of raiding the public treasury alleged in the
information proved by the Prosecution? NO

RATIO
1. On the issue of the special civil action for certiorari being proper to assail the denial of the
demurrers to evidence, the court ruled that it is generally not proper to assail an
interlocutory order issued by the trial court because of the availability of another remedy in
the ordinary course of law.
- Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that “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.”
- It is not an insuperable obstacle to this action that the denial of the demurrers to evidence of the
petitioners was an interlocutory order that did not terminate the proceedings, and the proper recourse
of the demurring accused was to go to trial, and that in case of their conviction they may then appeal
the conviction, and assign the denial as among the errors to be reviewed.
- Situations in which the writ of certiorari may issue should not be limited, because to do so would be
to destroy its comprehensiveness and usefulness.
- The exercise of this power to correct GADALEJ on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government cannot be thwarted by rules of procedure to the contrary or for the sake of the
convenience of one side.
- Notwithstanding the interlocutory character and effect of the denial of the demurrers to evidence, the
petitioners as the accused could avail themselves of the remedy of certiorari when the denial was
tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

2. On this issue, the court ruled that the prosecution did not properly allege and prove the existence
of conspiracy among GMA, Aguas and Uriarte.
- The information suggests that the Prosecution sought to show an implied conspiracy to
commit plunder among all of the accused based on their collective actions prior to, during
and after the implied agreement. It is notable that the Prosecution did not allege that the

2
 conspiracy among all of the accused was by express agreement, or was a wheel conspiracy or
a chain conspiracy.
- In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, an information alleging conspiracy is sufficient if it alleges
conspiracy either: (1) with the use of the word conspire, or its derivatives or synonyms, such
as confederate, connive, collude, etc; or (2) by allegations of the basic facts constituting the
conspiracy in a manner that a person of common understanding would know what is being
conveyed, and with such precision as would enable the accused to competently enter a plea to
a subsequent indictment based on the same facts.
- We are not talking about the sufficiency of the information as to the allegation of conspiracy,
however, but the identification of the main plunderer sought to be prosecuted under R.A. No.
7080 as an element of the crime of plunder.
- This is necessary to enable all the accused to prepare their defense because they are presumed
to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constituted the offense charged.
- Despite the silence of the information on who the main plunderer or the mastermind was, the
Sandiganbayan readily condemned GMA in its resolution dated September 10, 2015 as the
mastermind despite the absence of the specific allegation in the information to that effect.
Even worse, there was no evidence that substantiated such sweeping generalization.
- In fine, the Prosecution’s failure to properly allege the main plunderer should be fatal
to the cause of the State against the petitioners for violating the rights of each accused to
be informed of the charges against each of them.

3. On this issue, no proof of (a) amassing, or accumulating, or acquiring ill-gotten wealth of at least
P50M was adduced against GMA and Aguas, and (b) the predicate act of raiding the public
treasury.
(a) The Prosecution adduced no evidence showing that either GMA or Aguas or even Uriarte
had accumulated ill-gotten wealth of any amount. There was also no evidence, testimonial or
otherwise, presented by the Prosecution showing even the remotest possibility that the CIFs
(Confidential/Intelligence Funds) of the PCSO had been diverted to either GMA or Aguas, or
Uriarte.
- The corpus delicti of plunder is the amassment, accumulation or acquisition of ill-gotten wealth
valued at not less than P50M. The failure to establish this should lead to the dismissal of the
criminal prosecution.
(b) The Prosecution failed to prove the predicate act of raiding the public treasury (under
Section 2 (b) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7080, as amended)
- To discern the proper import of the phrase raids on the public treasury, the key is to look at the
accompanying words: misappropriation, conversion, misuse or malversation of public funds.
o Convert - connotes the act of using or disposing of another’s property as if it were one’s own; to
misappropriate means to own, to take something for one’s own benefit;
o Misuse - means “a good, substance, privilege, or right used improperly, unforeseeably, or not as
intended;”
o Malversation - occurs when “any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is
accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate
or shall consent, through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such
public funds, or property, wholly or partially.”
- The common thread that binds all four terms together is that the public officer used the property
taken. Raids on the public treasury is in the company of the four other terms that require the use
of the property taken, hence, it similarly requires such use of the property taken.
- Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in contending that the mere accumulation and
gathering constituted the forbidden act of raids on the public treasury. Pursuant to the maxim of
noscitur a sociis, raids on the public treasury requires the raider to use the property taken
impliedly for his personal benefit.

3
 - 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.

DISPOSTIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petitions for certiorari; ANNULS and SETS ASIDE the
resolutions issued in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 by the Sandiganbayan on April 6, 2015 and
September 10, 2015; GRANTS the petitioners’ respective demurrers to evidence; DISMISSES Criminal
Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 as to the petitioners GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO and BENIGNO
AGUAS for insufficiency of evidence; ORDERS the immediate release from detention of said petitioners;
and MAKES no pronouncements on costs of suit.