Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision dismissing the P366-million plunder case of former President and now Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in connection with the disbursement of confidential funds from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO).
The high court last July 19 granted Arroyo’s petition which sought a reversal of the Sandiganbayan’s decision denying her demurrer to evidence. A demurrer to evidence is filed after the prosecution has finished its presentation of evidence. The demurrer is filed on the ground that the prosecution’s evidence is weak.
The high court said “[t]here was no evidence, testimonial or otherwise, presented by the [Ombudsman] showing even the remotest possibility that the [CIF] of the PCSO had been diverted to either GMA or (Benigno) Aguas…”
The high court also ruled that the Sandiganbayan’s conclusion that Arroyo was the mastermind of the alleged plunder was “plainly conjectural and outrightly unfounded.”
The Ombudsman, in her 32-page motion for reconsideration, said the high court has committed “grave errors which amount to a violation or deprivation of the state’s fundamental right to due process of law.”
“The evidence presented by the [Ombudsman] was not fully taken into account, including but not limited to the irregularities in the [CIF] disbursement process, questionable practice of co-mingling of funds and [former PCSO Budget and Accounts Manager Benigno Aguas’] reports to the Commission on Audit (COA) that bulk of the P365,997,915.00 withdrawn from the [PCSO’s] CIF were diverted to the Arroyo-headed Office of the President,” the motion read.
The Ombudsman argued that Arroyo and co-accused Aguas, who was also acquitted in the assailed SC ruling, acted in conspiracy with their other co-accused “via a complex, illegal scheme which defrauded PCSO in hundreds of millions of pesos.”
The Ombudsman added that “personal benefit” is not an element in the crime of plunder.
She said what counts is the “plain meaning” of the offense itself — “the act of taking public money through fraudulent or unlawful means.”
“The concept of actual personal gain, benefit or enrichment to the offender is immaterial as the important consideration in offenses involving the unlawful taking of property, as in plunder, is the intent to gain…Unlawful taking or apoderamiento is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he or she has no opportunity to dispose of the same,” the motion stated. JE