Former president and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (INQUIRER FILE PHOTO / LYN RILLON)
BAGUIO CITY—Voting 11-4, the Supreme Court has affirmed its July 2016 decision granting former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s petition seeking the dismissal of her remaining plunder case before the Sandiganbayan regarding the alleged misuse of P366-million fund from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO).
At a press conference, the high court’s Information Chief Atty. Theodore Te said the decision was reached during Tuesday’s en banc where 11 justices voted to deny the motion for reconsideration filed by Office of the Solicitor General.
READ: SC junks remaining Arroyo plunder case, sets her free
Arroyo, in her demurrer to evidence petition, sought the dismissal of her case for lack of evidence.
In her petition, Arroyo sought the reversal of two Sandiganbayan resolutions dated April 6, 2015 and September 10, 2015 that denied her demurrer to evidence plea.
A demurrer to evidence is in effect a motion to dismiss filed by the accused after the prosecution finished its presentation of evidence. It is anchored on the ground that the evidence presented is insufficient.
“Not a single exhibit of the 637 exhibits offered by the prosecution nor a single testimony of the 21 witnesses of the prosecution was offered by the prosecution to prove that [Arroyo] amassed, accumulated, or acquired even a single peso of the alleged ill-gotten wealth amounting to P365,997,915.00 or any part of that amount alleged in the Information,” Arroyo’s petition stated.
The four justices who dissented are Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, Associate Justices Marvic Leonen and Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa
On the other hand, the high court granted the same relieve to Mrs. Arroyo’s co-accused, former PCSO Assistant General Manager Benigno Aguas and ordered his relief from the Philippine National Police Custodial Center.
“The Court noted that its decision had granted petitioners’ respective demurrers to the evidence which resulted in their acquittal and thus any attempt to reconsider the Decision would amount to double jeopardy,” Te said.
In the case of Aguas, the Court 10 magistrates voted against the granting of Ombudsman’s MR while five voted to grant the appeal. IDL/rga