People vs Arroyo
and Arroyo for failure of the information to
Facts:
Former President Gloria Arroyo and several high
ranking officials of PCSO and COA were
charged before the Sandiganbayan of plunder
for conniving, conspiring and confederating with
one another in amassing for themselves funds
of PCSO, among others, through excessive
disbursements of Confidential and Intelligence
Fund amounting to PHP365,997,915.00, more
or less. After the Prosecution rested its case,
several of the accused filed their separate
demurer, asserting that the prosecution failed to
establish evidence against them.
Sandiganbayan granted the demurer except
those filed by Arroyo, Aguas and Valencia,
holding that there was sufficient evidence
showing that they had conspired to commit
plunder.
The Sandiganbayn in its ruling stated that the
findings of the Court clearly point out the
commission by Uriarte, PCSO General
Manager , of the crime of Plunder, as to
Arroyo's participation, Arroyo's "OK" notation
and signature on Uriarte’ s letter-requests
signified unqualified approval of Uriarte's request
to use the additional CIF funds. The
Sandiganbayan explained that although she did
not actually commit any "overt act" of illegally
amassing CIF funds, her act of approving not
only the additional CIF funds but also their
releases, aided and abetted accused Uriarte's
successful raids on the public treasury. Thus,
this petition filed by Arroyo and Aguas imputing
grave abuse of discretion to Sandiganbayan for
denying their demurer to evidence
One of the substantive issue is:
Whether or not the State sufficiently
established the existence of conspiracy
among GMA, Aguas, and Uriarte (issue
related to the topic)
Ruling:
The Court ultimately ruled in favour of Aguas
sufficiently charge conspiracy to commit plunder
against the petitioners; and ignored the lack of
evidence establishing the corpus delicti of
amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-
gotten wealth.
In ruling so, the Court had a discussion in
relation to the applicability of the doctrine of
command responsibility (Issue in topic)
The Prosecution's effort to show irregularities as
badges of bad faith has led it to claim that GMA
had known that Uriarte would raid the public
treasury, and would misuse the amounts
disbursed. This knowledge was imputed to GMA
by virtue of her power of control over PCSO.
The Prosecution seems to be relying on the
doctrine of command responsibility to impute the
actions of subordinate officers to GMA as the
superior officer. The reliance is misplaced, for
incriminating GMA under those terms was
legally unacceptable and incomprehensible. The
application of the doctrine of command
responsibility is limited, and cannot be true for all
litigations. Command responsibility pertains to
the responsibility of commanders for crimes
committed by subordinate members of the
armed forces or other persons subject to their
control in international wars or domestic conflict.
The doctrine has also found application in civil
actions for human rights abuses. But this case
involves neither a probe of GMA’s actions as the
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, nor of a human rights issue. As
such, it is legally improper to impute the actions
of Uriarte to GMA in the absence of any
conspiracy between them.