(L) Former PCSO chairman Sergio Valencia and PCSO assistant manager for finance Benigno Aguas. KAREN BONCOCAN/INQUIRER.net
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has cleared former Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) chairman Sergio Valencia of malversation of public funds under the Arroyo administration.
In a decision dated June 10, the Court’s first division reversed Sandiganbayan’s earlier denial of Valencia’s demurrer to evidence in relation to the alleged illegal and fraudulent release, withdrawal, and disbursement of PCSO’s Confidential Intelligence Fund (CIF) from 2007 to 2010.
A demurrer to evidence is a document filed by the accused to contest evidence presented by the prosecution. A demurrer granted by the court could lead to the dismissal of the case.
“It is therefore apparent that in denying the petitioner’s (Valencia’s) Demurrer to Evidence and ruling that there was sufficient evidence to hold him liable for malversation despite the lack of specific allegations of the factual details pertaining to the crime of malversation in the information, respondent Sandiganbayan is said to have gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction,” the decision read referring to Sandiganbayan’s 2015 decision to deny Valencia’s demurrer to evidence.
Charged with plunder
Valencia was among the government officials who were charged for plunder in 2012. Other officials who were charged with plunder in relation to the PCSO case were former president Gloria-Macapagal Arroyo, former PCSO Budget and Accounts Officer Benigno Aguas, former PCSO General Manager and Vice Chairman Rosario Uriarte.
The Sandiganbayan in 2013, however, allowed Valencia to post bail for not reaching the plunder’s threshold of P50 million.
Valencia then sought for the case to be dismissed since “the prosecution failed to prove that he amassed, accumulated, or acquired ill-gotten wealth amounting to at least P50 million.”
This was denied by Sandiganbayan in 2015, saying that there was still sufficient evidence to convict him of malversation.
The Supreme Court acquitted Macapagal-Arroyo of plunder in 2016 with the others also acquitted in separate decisions.
Uriarte was the last one acquitted in 2018.
Similar decision
The SC cited the acquittal of Arroyo and Aguas based on failure to provide sufficient evidence in clearing Valencia.
The SC said that the previous case “involves closely similar factual evidence” as the Valencia case.
“It is well to note that the Information subject of the aforementioned cases of Arroyo and Aguas is the very same information under scrutiny in the present case wherein petitioner is their co-accused and where all the incidental matters stemmed and had their origin,” the Court said.
“We are therefore not free to disregard it in any related case which involves closely similar factual evidence. Otherwise, we would jettison the doctrine of immutability of final judgment and further, obviate the possibility of rendering conflicting rulings on the same set of facts and circumstances in the same information,” it added.