( 2nd related story to GMA asks SC to Dismiss Plunder Case )

NO EVIDENCE OF ILL GOTTEN WEALTH ON GMA ET AL IN PCSO CASE

A main witness in the plunder case filed against former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and several
others today declared that they have no evidence to show that the former President and her co-accused
had acquired ill-gotten wealth from PCSO funds.
During the continuation of her cross-examination in the bail hearings, main witness Aleta Tolentino, a
member of the PCSO Board of Directors, said they have not determined if Mrs. Arroyo and her coaccused actually received money from the confidential/intelligence funds (CIF) of the PCSO.
We dont know where the money is. We dont know where it is. We dont know where the money went,
who saved it, Tolentino said in response to the question asked by Justice Rodolfo Ponferrada on what
evidence did they find to show that the accused in the case acquired ill-gotten wealth, which is one of the
important elements of the crime of plunder.
The elements of the plunder include that the offender is a public officer; that he amassed, accumulated or
acquired ill-gotten wealth of at least P50M.Legal experts have stressed that evidence of ill-gotten wealth
must be established in the crime of plunder otherwise there is no crime.
In the copy of the first resolution submitted by Uriarte to the Sandiganbayan, the panel, headed by graft
investigator Cornelio Somido, dismissed the plunder charged against the accused because they found no
evidence to support that accused acquired ill-gotten wealth as required.
The resolution said, (w)hat was merely established in the record was that respondent Uriarte received the
check and the money representing the additional CIFs as requested, approved by respondent GMA and
confirmed by the respondent Board of Directors. The encashment of the checks was evidenced by
respondent Uriartes signature in the dorsal portion of the checks. The record is completely wanting of
proof that the proceeds of the checks became the ill-gotten wealth of the respondents.
It further stated that (t)he mere fact of receipt of the amount by a public officer by the nature of his
public position does not automatically categorize the amount received as ill-gotten wealth. For to construe
receipt alone at that stage would create a notion that cash advances in small amounts even for minor
purposes such as travel, petty cash and the like of a cashier or any public officer would already be
classified as ill-gotten wealth.
The first resolution or the Somido resolution also stated that (t)o be considered as ill-gotten wealth, this
Office is of the view that there must be evidence showing that the amount was already converted in some
form that would establish ownership by the public officer i.e. bank deposits, properties, stocks in the name
of the public officer or his/her dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates and
not by mere physical possession of the amount. However, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales,
disapproved the Somido resolution and constituted another panel which eventually filed the plunder case
against the accused.