G.R.No.220598(GloriaMacapagalArroyov.

PeopleofthePhilippines
andtheSandiganbayan[FirstDivision]);G.R.No.220953(BenignoB.
Aguasv.Sandiganbayan[FirstDivision])
Promulgated:
July19,2016

~ ~-~:~

x
x
DISSENTINGOPINION
SERENO,CJ:
Giventherecordsandpleadingsinthesecases,Iregistermydissent
fromtheponencia.Contrarytotheponencia'sconclusion,Ifindthatthe
prosecutionhassufficientlyallegedandestablishedconspiracyinthe
commissionofthecrimeofplunderinvolving,amongothers,petitioners
GloriaMacapagalArroyo(Arroyo)andBenignoB.Aguas(Aguas).I
thereforefindnograveabuseofdiscretionintheSandiganbayanrulings,
whichdeniedpetitioners'demurrersandmotionsforreconsideration.
Insum,mystrongobjectiontotheMajorityOpinionisimpelledbyat
leastfive(5)doctrinalandpolicyconsiderations.
1.Theponenciacompletelyignoresthestarkirregularitiesinthe
Confidential/IntelligenceFund(CIF)disbursementprocessand
effectivelyexcusesthebreachofbudgetceilingsbythepracticeof
comminglingoffunds;
2.Theponenciaretroactivelyintroducestwoadditionalelementsin
theprosecutionofthecrimeofplundertheidentificationofa
mainplundererandpersonalbenefittohimorheraneffectthat
isnotcontemplatedinthelawnorexplicitlyrequiredbyany
jurisprudence;
3.Theponenciadeniesefficacytotheconceptofimpliedconspiracy
thathadbeencarefullylaiddowninAlvizov.Sandiganbayan;1
4.Theponenciacreatesanunwarrantedcertiorariprecedentby
completelyignoringtheevidentiaryeffectofformalreportstothe
CommissiononAudit(COA)thathadbeenadmittedbythetrial
court;and

454Phil.34(2003).

DissentingOpinion2G.R.Nos.220598and220953

5.Theponenciahasgrosslyerredincharacterizingtheprosecution's

evidenceasnotshowing"eventheremotestpossibilitythatthe
CIFsofthePCSOhadbeendivertedtoeither[Arroyo]orAguasor
Uriarte,"2whenpetitionerAguashimselfreportedtoCOAthat
P244millionofnearlyP366millioncontrovertedPhilippine
CharitySweepstakesOffice(PCSO)fundshadbeendivertedtothe
OfficeofthePresident.
I
Theprosecutionhassufficientlyallegedandestablished
conspiracyamongtheaccusedspecificallypetitioners
ArroyoandAguas.
Preliminarily,theponenciastatesthattheprosecutiondidnotproperly
allegeconspiracy.Idisagree.
Estradav.Sandiganbayan3(2002Estrada)isinstructiveastowhen
theallegationsintheInformationmaybedeemedsufficienttoconstitute
conspiracy.Inthatcase,Westated:
[I]tisenoughtoallegeconspiracyasamodeinthecommissionof
anoffenseineitherofthefollowingmanner:(1)byuseoftheword
conspire,oritsderivativesorsynonyms,suchasconfederate,connive,
collude,etc;or(2)byallegationofbasicfactsconstitutingtheconspiracy
inamannerthatapersonofcommonunderstandingwouldknowwhatis
intended,andwithsuchprecisionaswouldenabletheaccusedto
competentlyenterapleatoasubsequentindictmentbasedonthesame
4facts.

IntheInformation5inthiscase,alltheaccusedpublicofficerswere
allegedtohave"connivedandconspired"inunlawfullyamassing,
accumulatingandacquiringillgottenwealthinthetotalamountof
1>365,997,915through(a)"divertingfundsfromtheoperatingbudgetof
PCSOtoits[CIF]xxxandtransferringtheproceedstothemselvesxxxfor
theirpersonalgainandbenefit;(b)"raidingthepublictreasuryby
withdrawingandreceivingxxxandunlawfullytransferringorconveying
thesameintotheirpossessionandcontrol;"and(c)"takingadvantageof
theirrespectiveofficialpositionsxxxtounjustlyenrichthemselvesxxxat
theexpenseof,andthedamageandprejudiceoftheFilipinopeopleandthe
RepublicofthePhilippines."
2

Decision,p.42.
No.148965,26February2002,377SCRA538.

3G.R.

4Id.at563,565.

5Annex"D"ofthePetition.

DissentingOpinion3G.R.Nos.220598and220953

Contrarytotheponencia,Ifindtheallegationsaboveconsistentwith
Ourpronouncementin2002Estrada,6whereinconspiracywassuccessfully
proven.
Onanotherpoint,theponenciadeclaresthattheprosecutionfailedto
establishorproveconspiracy.Areviewoftherecordsbeforeuscontradicts
thisposition.
Theprosecution'stheoryoftheconspiracytocommitplunderisthat
PCSOfundswererepeatedlysiphonedoffpurportedlytofundactivities
whichwerenotactuallyconducteda3yearprocesswhichcouldnothave
beenaccomplishedwithouttheindispensableactsofaccusedpublicofficers
whotookadvantageoftheirpositionstoamassnearlyP366million.
Toappreciatetheprosecution'stheoryofconspiracy,itisnecessaryto
haveabird'seyeviewoftheprocedurefordisbursementofCIFfunds.The
testimonybeforetheSandiganbayanofprosecutionwitness,Atty.Aleta
Tolentino,ChairpersonofthePCSOAuditCommittee,providesthe
procedurebrieflyoutlinedbelow:
1.ProvisionorallotmentofabudgetfortheCIFintheCorporate
OperatingBudget;7
2.ApprovalofthereleaseoftheCIFbythePresidentofthe
Philippines;8
3.Designationofadisbursingofficerwhowillhavecustodyofthe
amountsreceivedascashadvancesforthe
confidential/intelligence(CI)operation;
4.Issuanceofthecheckforthecashadvanceanddisbursement
thereof;
5.LiquidationoftheCIFcashadvanceswiththedocumentssent
directlybysealedenvelopetotheCOAchairpersonorhis/her
representative;9and
6.ClearingofaccountabilityonthebasisoftheCreditNotice
issuedbytheCOAchairpersonorhis/herrepresentative. 10
ThePCSOfundsarecomprisedofthePrizeFund(PF),CharityFund
(CF)andtheOperatingFund(OF).Thesehavespecificallotmentsfrom
PCSOnetreceipts:55o/oforprizes,30%forcharityandonly15%are

allottedforoperatingexpensesandcapitalexpenditures. 11 However,theCIF
expendituresarebynatureoperatingexpenses.Therefore,thefundingisand
mustbesourcedfromtheOperatingFund.
6G.R.No.148965,26February2002,377SCRA538.
7Rollo(G.R.No.220598),p.466;seealsoCOACircular92385.

8Id.;seealsoCOACircular92385andLetteroflnstructionNo.1282(1983).
9Id.at466469;seealsoCOACirculars92385and200902.
10 Id.at471.

SeeSection2,BatasPambansaBig.42,AnActAmendingtheCharterofthePhilippineCharity
SweepstakesOffice.
11

(
DissentingOpinion4G.R.Nos.220598and220953

Expendituresforprizesandcharityfollowstrictdisbursement,
accounting,andliquidationprocedures.12 Incontrast,proceduresforCIF
expendituresarelessstrictbecauseoftheirconfidentialnature.
Fundsforconfidentialorintelligenceprojectsareusuallyreleasedas
cashadvances.UnderCOArules,theliquidationdocumentsthereforare
sentinsealedenvelopesdirectlytotheCOAchairperson(orhis/her
representative).
Giventheprosecution'sclaimthatPCSOfundswereallcommingled
inoneaccount,itiseasiertoseethesignificanceofusingtheCIFroutein
divertingfundsforpersonalgain.Utilizingthatrouteminimizestherisksof
discoveryandthetrackingofanyanomaly,irregularity,orillegalityinthe
withdrawaloffunds.
Thelaxprocessofdisbursement,accounting,andliquidationhasbeen
identifiedinthefieldoffinancialmanagementasapossible,ifnotperfect,
locusforfraud.InFraudandCorruptionAwarenessHandbook,HowIt
WorksandWhattoLookFor:AHandbookforStaff,13 theWorldBankstates
thatfraudthrivesinaccountingsystemswithvulnerabilities. 14
Fraudinfinancialmanagement(FM)cantaketheformofeither
individualstakingadvantageofsystemvulnerabilitiestoredirectfundsfor
theirownpurposes,orworkingwithotherpartiesinacollusivesetup.
xxx
Theftmayrangefromverysmallamountstosophisticatedschemes
involvinglargesumsofmoney.Moreoftenthannot,theftisperformed
inamannerthatispremeditated,systematicormethodical,withthe
explicitintenttoconcealtheactivitiesfromotherindividuals.Often,it
involvesatrustedpersonembezzlingonlyasmallproportionorfractionof
thefundsreceived,inanattempttominimizetheriskofdetection.The
methodusuallyinvolvesdirectandgradualtransfersofprojectfundsfor

personaluseordiversionofpaymentsforlegitimateexpensesintoa
personalaccount.15(Emphasesours)

Tomymind,theprosecutionhassuccessfullyestablishedthe
conspiracyschemethroughthevariousirregularitiesintheCIF
disbursement.Theseirregularitiesorredflagsclearlyspellaconspiracyto
commitplunderwhentheamountsinvolvedandtheprocessesofrequesting,
approval,andliquidatingtheamountsareholisticallyconsidered.
12Seeforexample,PCSO'sanswerstoFrequentlyAskedQuestionsonhowtoclaimprizesandrequestfor

medicalassistance(http://www.pcso.gov.ph/index.php/rrequentlyaskquestions/)anditsPrizePayment
workflowchart(http://www.pcso.gov.ph/wpcontent/uploads/2015/03/44.functionalcharttreas.pdf),both
accessedon6July2016).

FraudandCorruptionAwarenessHandbook,HowitWorksandWhattoLookFor:AHandbookfor
Staff.http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDOII/Resources/INTinsiderraudtext090909.pdf(last
13

accessedon15July2016).
14 Id.
isId.

DissentingOpinion5G.R.Nos.220598and220953

Theirregularitiesinthe
approval,disbursement,and
liquidationofthefunds
First,whenArroyoapprovedtherequests,thePCSOwasoperating
onadeficit.16 Thissituationmeansthatitisirregulartoauthorizeadditional
CIFwhenthefundsourceisnegative.It istantamounttoauthorizingtheuse
ofotherPCSOfundsthatofthePrizeFundandCharityFundfor
purposesotherthanthoseallowedbylaw.
In2005,thePCSOhadadeficitofP916million.17In2006,thedeficit
wasPl,000,078,683.23,P215millionofwhichcomprisedtheCIFexpenses.
Forthatyear,theCIFbudgetwasonlyP10million.18 Otherwisestated,the
CIFexpenseexceededthebudgetbyP205million.
Ontheotherhand,theCIFdisbursementsamountedtoP77,478,70519
in2007whentheCIFbudgetwasonlyP25,480,550.20TheCIFexpenditure
exceededitsbudgetbyalmostP52million.
In2008,UriarteaskedforandreceivedapprovalfromArroyofor
additionalCIFintheamountofP25millioninAprilandanotherP50
millioninAugust.21 InitsCorporateOperatingBudget(COB)approvedin
May,thePCSOboardallocatedP28millionfortheCIF.22Theactual
disbursementamountedtoP86,555,06023soCIFexpenditureswereP58
millionmorethanitsallocatedbudget.24

Fourtimesin2009,Uriarteaskedforandreceivedapprovalfrom
ArroyoforadditionalCIFinthetotalamountofP90millionP50million
inJanuary,PlOmillioninApril,anotherPlOmillioninJulyandthenP20
millioninOctober.25TheboardallocatedP60millioninitsCorporate
OperatingBudgetapprovedinMarch.26TheactualCIFdisbursementwas
?138,420,875,27sotheoverspendingwasmorethanP78million.
For2010,UriarteaskedforandreceivedapprovalfromArroyofor
additionalCIFintheamountofPl50millioninJanuary. 28Theboard
allocatedP60millionfortheCIFinitsCorporateOperatingBudget,which
wasapprovedinMarch.TheCIFdisbursement,asofJune2010,was
Pl41,021,980,29sooverspendingwasbymorethanP81million.
16
17

Rollo(G.R.No.220598),p.463;"Theywereworkingonadeficitfrom2004to2009."
Id.at464.

18Id.
19

Id.

20Id.

21Id.at157.
22Id.

23Id.at466.
24OrPIOmillionifthebudgetwasP28million.

25Rollo(G.R.No.220598),p.
26Id.
27

158.

Id.at.470.

28Id.at158.
29Id.at466.

DissentingOpinion6 G.R.Nos.220598and220953

It isworthnotingthatfrompreviousallocationsofPlOmillion(PS
millioneachfortheOfficeoftheChairpersonandfortheOfficeofthe
ViceChairperson
),theCIFbudgetwasgraduallybutsignificantlyincreasedto
P60millionin2009and2010.Still,additionalamountswererequestedand
authorized,reachingverysignificantCIFexpendituresintheyearswhenthe
PCSOwasonadeficit,from2004to2009.Forafullercontext,the
informationistabulated:
CIFAllocationActualCIF
CIFAdditional
Year
inPCSOCOBDisbursements
DisbursementCIFapproved
OverBudgetbyArroyo
2006Pl0,000,000P215,000,000P205,000,000Noinformation

2007P25,480,550P77,478,705P51,998,155Noinformation
2008P28,000,000P86,555,060P58,555,060P75,000,000
2009P60,000,000P138,420,875P78,420,875P90,000,000
2010P60,000,000P141,021,980jUP81,021,980P150,000,000
TotalP183,480,550P658,476,620P474,996,070P315,000,000

Fromtheabove,variousirregularitiescanalreadybenoted.The
repeatedandunqualifiedapprovalofadditionalCIFwasmadeevenwhen
therewerenomoreoperatingfundsleft.Therequestsweremadeand
approvedevenbeforetheCorporateOperatingBudgetwasapprovedbythe
PCSOBoard.Andtheamountsrequestedweresignificantlylargeamounts.
Despitetheabovefactsandfiguresculledfromtherecords,the
ponenciaremarksthatcomminglingwasfarfromillegal.31 Theponencia
downplaysthefactthattherewasnolongeranybudgetwhenArroyo
approvedtherequestsandconsiderstheapprovaljustified"consideringthat
thefundsofthePCSOwerecommingledintooneaccountxxx."Whilethe
actofcomminglingmaynotbyitselfbeillegal,thefactthatitcontinuedto
besuccessfullymaintaineddespitetheCOAadvicetostopthepractice
meansthatitwasdeliberatelyusedtofacilitatetheraidofgovernment
coffers.Themajorityshouldnothavedownplayedtheviciousnessofthis
practice.It isacriticalredflagoffinancialfraud.
Second,theprosecutionwitnesstestifiedthatfor2009,therecorded
CIFexpensewasonlyP24,968,300,whileactualvouchersfortheCIFcash
advancestotalledP138,420,875.32Thisdiscrepancyisanotherredflag.
TheCIFcashadvancesremainasaccountabilitiesofthespecial
disbursingofficersuntilliquidated.Aftertheyareproperlyliquidatedand
clearedbytheCOAchairpersonorhis/herrepresentative,the
Confidential/Intelligenceexpensesarethenrecordedassuch.
30Forsixmonths,uptoJune2010only.
31Decision,p.29.

Rollo(G.R.No.220598),p.476.

32

DissentingOpinion7G.R.Nos.220598and220953

Thewitnessfound,however,thatreceivablesfromUriarteand
ValenciafortheCIFdisbursementsamountingtoPl06,386,800and
P90,428,780,respectively,wereremoved.Thesewereinsteadrecordedas
expensesunderthePrizeFundandCharityFund.33For2008,anotherP63.75
millionwasobtainedfromtheCharityFundandthePrizeFund. 34
Thesefactsandfiguresarethemostcompellingevidenceofa

fraudulentschemeinthiscasecashadvancesbeingtakenasCIF
expensesforwithdrawalpurposesandthereafterbeingpassedoffasPF
andCFexpensesforrecordingpurposes.Apparently,thereasonfor
takingcashadvancesfromthecommon(commingled)accountasCIF
expenseswastherelativeeaseofwithdrawalandsubsequentliquidationof
thefunds.Ontheotherhand,theapparentpurposeofrecordingthesame
cashadvancesinthebooksasPFandCFexpenseswastoavoiddetectionof
thelackofCIF.
Redflagsareagainreadilynoticeablehereintheformofmissing
fundsandapparentmisuse.Missingfundsoccurwhencashappearstobe
missingaftera"reviewoftransactiondocumentationandfinancial
documents,"whileapparentmisusehappenswhenfundsarespenton
"personalornonbusinessrelated"matters.35
33Id.
34Id.

Theprosecutionwitnesspointedouttheseredflagsasfollows:
ThewitnessalsorelatedthatshetracedtherecordsoftheCIFfund
(sincesuchwasnolongerstatedasareceivable),andreviewedwhetherit
wasrecordedasanexpensein2008.ShefoundoutthattherecordedCIF
fundexpense,asrecordedinthecorporateoperatingbudgetasactually
disbursed,wasonlyP21,102,000.Assuch,sheconfrontedher
accountantsandaskedthem"Saantinagoitongamountnato?"The
personnelintheaccountingofficesaidthatthebalanceoftheP86million
ortheadditionalP21millionwasnotrecordedintheoperatingfund
budgetbecausetheyusedtheprizefundandcharityfundas
instructedbyAguas.JournalEntryVoucherNo.8121443dated
December31,2008,signedbyElmerCamba,Aguas(Headofthe
AccountingDepartment),andHutchBalleras(oneofthestaffinthe
AccountingDepartment),showedthatthisprocedurewasdone.xxx
AttachedtotheJournalEntryVoucherwasadocumentwhich
reads"AllocationofConfidentialandIntelligenceFundExpenses,"and
wasthebasisofCambaindoingtheJournalEntryVoucher.Inthesame
document,therewasawrittenannotationdated12312008whichreads
thattheadjustmentsofCIF,CFandIF,beneficiaryofthefundisCFand
PFandsignedbyAguas.
Theyear2009wasasimilarcasexxx.36(Emphasesours)

35See

note13.

36Rollo(G.R.No.220598),p.475.

DissentingOpinion8G.R.Nos.220598and220953

Fromtheforegoing,theparticipationofpetitionerAguasis

established.Hewasintimatelyprivytothetransactionsandtothescheme.
HisparticipationwasnecessaryfordivertingthefundsfromthePrizeFund
andtheCharityFundtounderwritethelackofOperatingFundfortheCIF
cashadvances.Heisthusproventohavecommittedanindispensableactin
coveringthetracksofUriarteandValencia,aswillbeexplainedfurther.
Third,witnessTolentinoreportedthatfortheirrespectivecash
advances,UriarteandValenciaapprovedthevoucherscertifyingthe
necessityandthelegalityofthedisbursementandthereafterauthorizedthe
paymentthereof.Theyalsocosignedwiththetreasurerthecheckspayable
totheirownnames.
Thus,asituationinwhichthesamepersonapprovedthedisbursement
andsignedthecheckforpaymenttothatsamepersonisreadilyobserved.
Thissituationisirregular.Intheusualcourseofthings,payeesdonotgetto
approvevouchersandsigncheckspayabletothemselves.
ThewitnessfurtherfoundthatwhileUriartewasauthorizedbythe
BoardofDirectors37tobetheSpecialDisbursingOfficer(SDO),Valencia
designatedhimselfastheSDOforhisowncashadvances,uponthe
recommendationofCOAAuditorPlaras.38UnderCOArules,theBoardof
Directors,nottheChairperson,hasauthoritytodesignateSDOs.
Theusualcheckandbalancemechanismforthesegregationofduties
wasthereforetotallyignored.Thedisregardofthatmechanismstrongly
indicatesanintentiontokeepknowledgeofthetransactionstoasfewpeople
aspossible.Infraudulentschemes,risksofdetectionareavoidedbykeeping
theconspiracyorconnivanceknowntoasfewpeopleasnecessary.Thisis
thereforeanotherredflag.
Fourth,theaccountabilitiesofUriarteandValenciafortheCIFcash
advancestheyavailedofwereremovedfromtherecordsonthebasisofthe
issuanceofaCreditNotice.AndthisissuanceofcreditnoticebyCOACIF
UnitHeadPlarasisalsomarkedbyirregularities.39
TherelevanttestimonyofprosecutionwitnessAtty.AletaTolentinois
summedupbytheSandiganbayaninitsResolutiondated5November2013
asfollows:
Asregardsthesixthstepthecreditnotice,thesamewasnot
validlyissuedbytheCOA.Thecreditnoticeisasettlementoranaction
madebytheCOAAuditorsandisgivenoncetheChairman,inthecaseof
CIFFund,findsthattheliquidationreportandallthesupportingpapers
areinorder.Inthiscase,thesupportingpapersandtheliquidationreport
werenotinorder,hence,thecreditnoticeshouldnothavebeenissued.
37Id.at467.
38Id.

39Id.at471.

DissentingOpinion9G.R.Nos.220598and220953

Further,thecreditnoticehastofollowaspecificform.TheCOA
Chairmanorhisrepresentativecan:1)settlethecashadvancewhen
everythingisinorder;2)suspendthesettlementiftherearedeficiencies
andthenaskforsubmissionofthedeficiencies;or3)outrightlydisallow
itincasesaidcashadvancesareillegal,irregularorunconscionable,
extravagantorexcessive.Insteadoffollowingthisform,theCOA
issuedadocumentdatedJanuary10,2011,whichstatedthatthereis
anirregularuseofthepricefundandthecharityfundforCIFFund.
Thedocumentbearsanannotationwhichsays,"waitfortransmittal,draft"
amongothers.ThedocumentwasnotsignedbyPlaras,whowasthe
HeadoftheConfidentialandIntelligenceFundUnitunderCOA
ChairmanVillar.Instead,sheinstructedherstaffto"pleaseaskAguasto
submitthesupplementalbudget."Thisdocumentwasnotdeliveredto
PCSOGeneralManagerJ.M.Roxas.Theyinsteadreceivedanotherletter
datedJanuary12,2011whichwasalmostidenticaltothefirstdocument,
exceptitwassignedbyPlaras,andthefindingoftheirregularuseofthe
prizefundandthecharityfundwasomitted.Instead,theword"various"
wassubstitutedandthentheamountofP137,500,000.Therefore,instead
oftheearlierfindingofirregularity,suddenly,theCOAissueda
creditnoticeasregardsthetotalofP140,000,000.Thecreditnotice
alsodidnotspecifythatthetransactionhasbeenaudited,indicating
thatnoauditwasmade.40(Emphasesours)

Ineffect,UriarteandValenciawereclearedoftheresponsibilityto
liquidatetheirCIFcashadvances,therebyrenderingthefundsfullyintheir
controlanddisposition.
TheclearancemadebyCOAAuditorPlaras,despitethepresenceof
severalirregularities,isanotherredflagaspeciesofapprovaloverride
whichignoresanirregularitywithrespecttopayment. 41
Finally,thepurposesfortheamountsweresupposedlyforthe
conductofCIFactivitiesasreflectedintheaccomplishmentreportbutthese
activitiesweresubsequentlybeliedbytestimonialevidence.The
prosecutioninthisregardsufficientlyestablishedanaspectofthe
conspiracyschemebyshowingthatthefinaldestinationoftheamount
waslinkedtopetitionerArroyoandherOfficeasadmittedbyacoconspirator.
InitsResolutiondated6April2015,theSandiganbayanstatedthe
following:
40Id.

InanattempttoexplainandjustifytheuseoftheseCIFfunds,

Uriarte,togetherwithAguas,certifiedthatthesewereutilizedforthe
followingpurposes:
a)Fraudandthreatthataffectintegrityofoperation.
b)Bombthreat,kidnapping,destabilizationandterrorism.
c)Bilateralandsecurityrelation.

41 Seenote13.

DissentingOpinion10 G.R.Nos.220598and220953

AccordingtoUriarteandAguas,thesepurposesweretobe
accomplishedthrough"cooperation"oflawenforcerswhichinclude
themilitary,policeandtheNBI.Thesecondandthirdpurposeswere
nevermentionedinUriarte'sletterrequestsforadditionalCIFfunds
addressedtoArroyo.Aguas,ontheotherhand,issuedanaccomplishment
reportaddressedtotheCOA,sayingthatthe"OfficeofthePresident"
requiredfundingfromtheCIFfundsofthePCSOtoachievethe
secondandthirdpurposesabovementioned.For2009and2010,the
fundsallegedlyusedforsuchpurposesamountedtoP244,500,000.
Suchgargantuanamountsshouldhavebeencovered,atthevery
least,bysomedocumentationcoveringfundtransfersoragreementswith
themilitary,policeortheNBI,notwithstandingthattheseinvolvedCIF
funds.However,alltheintelligencechiefsoftheArmy,Navy,Air
Force,thePNPandtheNBI,testifiedthatfortheperiod20082010,
theirrecordsdonotshowanyPCSOrelatedoperationsinvolvingany
ofthepurposesmentionedbyUriarteandAguasintheirmatrixof
accomplishments.Neitherwerethereanymemorandaofagreementsor
anyotherdocumentationcoveringfundtransfersorrequestsforassistance
orsurveillancerelatedtosaidpurposes.xxxAsitstands,theactualuse
oftheseCIFfundsisstillunexplained.42(Citationsomittedand
emphasesours)

Thesestatementsmadebytheantigraftcourtarenotwithoutany
legalorfactualbasis.
IntheFormalOfferofExhibitsfortheProsecutiondated4June2014
inadditiontotheExhibitspreviouslyofferedinevidenceontheFormal
OfferofExhibitsfortheProsecutiondated26February2013,variouspieces
ofdocumentaryevidencewerepresented.Amongthemarethecertifications
madebyUriarteandAguas.Themostpertinentofthesearethefollowing:
PCSOMatrixofIntelligenceAccomplishmentsforthe
Exhibit"Z714"periodofJanuary2009toDecember2009datedMarch
9,2010

Exhibit"Z717"PCSOMatrixofIntelligenceAccomplishmentsforthe
periodofJanuary2009toDecember2009
Exhibit"Z142"LetterdatedFebruary8,2010addressedtoReynaldo
A.Villar,Chairman,COA,fromRosarioC.Uriarte,
showingtheamountofP73,993,846.00astheTotalIF
advancedandliquidatedcoveringtheperiodofJuly1
toDecember31,2009
Exhibit"Z1
- 72"LetterdatedFebruary8,2010addressedtoReynaldo
A.Villar,Chairman,COA,fromSergio0. Valencia,
PCSOChairman,re:cashadvancesandliquidation
madefromtheIntelligence/ConfidentialFundinthe
amountofP2,394,654.00
42Id.at163164.

DissentingOpinion11 G.R.Nos.220598and220953

Exhibit"Z784"LetterdatedOctober19,2009addressedtoReynaldo
A.Villar,Chairman,COA,fromSergio0. Valencia,
re:variouscashadvancesandliquidationmadefrom
theIntelligence/ConfidentialFundintheamount.of
P2498,300.00
MatrixofIntelligenceAccomplishmentperiodcovered
Exhibit"A816"January2010toJune2010dated06.29.10preparedby
OIC,Manager,BudgetandAccountingDepartment
andReviewedbyViceChairmanandGeneralManager
dated06.29.10
Exhibit"A1135"PCSOMatrixofIntelligenceAccomplishmentfrom
January2010toJune2010
Exhibit"A1155"PCSOMatrixofIntelligenceAccomplishmentfrom
January2010toJune2010
Exhibit"Y768,"theAccomplishmentReportontheUtilizationofthe
CIFofthePCSO,ismostcrucial.Inthisreport,petitionerAguasspecifically
stated:
Butwhatismorepronounce(sic)inthedispositionandhandling
oftheCIFwasthoseactivitiesandprogramscomingfromtheOfficeof
thePresidentwhichdonotonlyinvolvedthePCSOs(sic)operationbut
thenationalsecuritythreat(destabilization,terroristact,bombscare,etc.)

ingeneralwhichrequireenoughfundingfromavailablesourcescoming
fromdifferentagenciesundertheOfficeofthePresident.

Thesepiecesofdocumentaryevidencewereusedasbasisbythe
SandiganbayantoconcludethattheOfficeofthePresidenthadrequiredand
receivedtheCIFfundsofthePCSOtopurportedlyachievethesecondand
thirdpurposes,i.e.bombthreat,kidnapping,destabilizationandterrorism
andbilateralandsecurityrelation,respectively.Thetestimoniesofallthe
intelligencechiefsoftheArmy,Navy,AirForce,thePhilippineNational
PoliceandtheNationalBureauofInvestigation,however,allprovethat
fortheperiod20082010,thereneverwasanyPCSOrelatedorfunded
operation.
Theconspiracyisthussufficientlyshownthroughtherepeated
approvalsofArroyoofadditionalCIFrequestsinthecourseofthree
years;theirregularitiesinthedisbursement,accounting,and
liquidationofthefundsandtheactiveparticipationthereinofthe
accused;andfinally,ashowingthattheOfficeofthePresident,which
Arroyocontrolled,wasthefinaldestinationoftheamounts.TheCIF
releaseswouldnothavebeenmadepossiblewithouttheapprovalof
Arroyo.Thefundscouldnothavebeendisbursedwithoutthe
complicityandovertactofAguas.Uriarte(theonewhoreceivedthe
amounts)wasdefinitelypartofthescheme.Aguascouldnothave
clearedUriarte(andValencia)withoutthecreditnoticeofPlaras.Thus,
theconnivanceandconspiracyofArroyo,Uriarte,Valencia,Aguasand
Plarasareclearlyestablished.

~
DissentingOpinion12 G.R.Nos.220598and220953

RelevantPlunderLaw
prov1s1onsandjurisprudence
inrelationtothecase
Section4ofthePlunderLawstates:

Section4.RuleofEvidence.Forpurposesofestablishingthe
crimeofplunder,itshallnotbenecessarytoproveeachandevery
criminalactdonebytheaccusedinfurtheranceoftheschemeor
conspiracytoamass,accumulateoracquireill gottenwealth,itbeing
sufficienttoestablishbeyondreasonabledoubtapatternofovertor
criminalactsindicativeoftheoverallunlawfulschemeorconspiracy.

Forpurposesofprovingthecrimeofplunder,proofofeachandevery

criminalactdonebytheaccusedinfurtheranceoftheschemeorconspiracy
toamass,accumulateoracquireillgottenwealthisnotrequired.Section4
deemssufficienttheestablishmentbeyondreasonabledoubtof"apatternof
overtorcriminalactsindicativeoftheoverallunlawfulschemeor
conspiracy."
Estradav.Sandiganbayan43(2001Estrada)providesaninstructive
discussionon"pattern"byusingtheprovisionsoftheAntiPlunderLaw:
(A]'pattern'consistsofatleastacombinationorseriesofovertor
criminalactsenumeratedinsubsections(1)to(6)ofSec.1(d).Secondly,
pursuanttoSec.2ofthelaw,thepatternofovertorcriminalacts
isdirectedtowardsacommonpurposeorgoalwhichistoenablethe
publicofficertoamass,accumulateoracquireillgottenwealth.And
thirdly,theremusteitherbean'overallunlawfulscheme'or'conspiracy'to
achievesaidcommongoal.Ascommonlyunderstood,theterm'overall
unlawfulscheme'indicatesa'generalplanofactionormethod'whichthe
principalaccusedandpublicofficerandothersconnivingwithhim,follow
toachievetheaforesaidcommongoal.Inthealternative,ifthereisno
suchoverallschemeorwheretheschemesormethodsusedbymultiple
accusedvary,theovertorcriminalactsmustformpartofaconspiracyto
attam. acommongoa1.4 4

By"series,"Estradateachesthattheremustbeatleasttwoovertor
criminalactsfallingunderthesamecategoryofenumerationfoundin
Section1,paragraph(d)oftheAntiPlunderLaw,suchasmisappropriation,
malversationandraidsonthepublictreasury,allofwhichfallunderSection
1,paragraph(d),subparagraph(1)ofthelaw.45
Withrespectto"combination,"Estradarequiresatleasttwoactsthat
fallunderthedifferentcategoriesoftheenumerationgivenbySection1,
paragraph(d)ofthePlunderLaw.Exampleswouldberaidsonthepublic
43421Phil.290,515.

Id.

44

Id.

45

DissentingOpinion13 G.R.Nos.220598and220953

treasuryunderSection1,paragraph(d),subparagraph(1),andfraudulent
conveyanceofassetsbelongingtotheNationalGovernmentunderSection1,
paragraph(d),subparagraph(3).
Foreaseofreference,Section1(d)isquotedbelow:
SECTION1.....(d)"Illgottenwealth"meansanyasset,
property,business,enterpriseormaterialpossessionofanyperson
withinthepurviewofSectionTwo(2)hereof,acquiredbyhimdirectly

orindirectlythroughdummies,nominees,agents,subordinatesand/or
businessassociatesbyanycombinationorseriesofthefollowingmeans
orsimilarschemes:
(1)Throughmisappropriation,conversion,misuse,ormalversation
ofpublicfundsorraidsonthepublictreasury;
(2)Byreceiving,directlyorindirectly,anycommission,gift,
share,percentage,kickbacksoranyotherformofpecuniary
benefitfromanypersonand/orentityinconnectionwithany
governmentcontractorprojectorbyreasonoftheofficeor
positionofthepublicofficeconcerned;
(3)Bytheillegalorfraudulentconveyanceordispositionofassets
belongingtotheNationalGovernmentoranyofits
subdivisions,agenciesorinstrumentalities,orgovernment
ownedorcontrolledcorporationsandtheirsubsidiaries;
(4)Byobtaining,receivingoracceptingdirectlyorindirectlyany
sharesofstock,equityoranyotherformofinterestor
participationincludingthepromiseoffutureemploymentin
anybusinessenterpriseorundertaking;
(5)Byestablishingagricultural,industrialorcommercial
monopoliesorothercombinationsand/orimplementationof
decreesandordersintendedtobenefitparticularpersonsor
specialinterests;or
(6)Bytakingadvantageofofficialposition,authority,relationship,
connectionorinfluencetounjustlyenrichhimselfor
themselvesattheexpenseandtothedamageandprejudiceof
theFilipinopeopleandtheRepublicofthePhilippines.

It iswelltonote,too,thatconspiracymaybemadebyevidenceofa
chainofcircumstances.46It maybeestablishedfromthe"mode,method,

andmannerbywhichtheoffensewasperpetrated,orinferred
fromtheactsoftheaccusedthemselveswhensuchactspointtoajoint
purposeanddesign,concertedactionandcommunityofinterest."47
46Peop!ev.Bergonia,339Phil.284(1997).
47Salapuddinv.CourtofAppeals,704Phil.577(2013).

(
DissentingOpinion14 G.R.Nos.220598and220953

OurpronouncementinAlvizov.Sandiganbayan48isinstructive:
Directproofisnotessentialtoshowconspiracy.It neednotbe
shownthatthepartiesactuallycametogetherandagreedinexpressterms
toenterintoandpursueacommondesign.Theexistenceoftheassentof
mindswhichisinvolvedinaconspiracymaybe,andfromthesecrecyof
thecrime,usuallymustbe,inferredbythecourtfromproofoffactsand

circumstanceswhich,takentogether,apparentlyindicatethattheyare
merelypartsofsomecompletewhole.If itisprovedthattwoormore
personsaimedbytheiractstowardstheaccomplishmentofthesame
unlawfulobject,eachdoingapartsothattheiracts,thoughapparently
independent,wereinfactconnectedandcooperative,indicatinga
closenessofpersonalassociationandaconcurrenceofsentiments,thena
conspiracymaybeinferredthoughnoactualmeetingamongthemto
concertmeansisproved.Thus,theproofofconspiracy,whichis
essentiallyhatchedundercoverandoutofviewofothersthanthose
directlyconcerned,isperhapsmostfrequentlymadebyevidenceofa
chainofcircumstancesonly.(citationsomitted)49

Theindispensableroleof
petitionerArroyo
Inthisregard,Arroyo'sapprovalnowassumesgreatersignificance.
PetitionerArroyo'sactherrepeatedandunqualifiedapproval
representedthenecessaryandindispensableactionthatstartedthe"taking"
process.Therepeatedapprovaloftherequestsinthecourseofthreeyearsis
thecrucialandindispensableactwithoutwhichtheamountofnearlyP366
millioncouldnothavebeenplundered.
Theponenciarulesthattheprosecutionfailedtoestablishanovertact
infurtheranceoftheconspiracy,eitheronthepartofpetitionerArroyoor
Aguas.It reasonsthatArroyo's"mereapproval"50ofViceChairmanand
GeneralManagerUriarte'srequestsforCIFdidnotmakeherpartofany
criminalconspiracy.Ontheotherhand,asregardspetitionerAguas,the
ponenciaexplainsthat"withoutGMA'sparticipation,hecouldnotrelease
anymoneybecausetherewasthennobudgetavailablefortheadditional
CIFs.Whateverirregularitieshemighthavecommitteddidnotamountto
plunder,ortoanyconspiracytocommitplunder."51
Thesepronouncements,however,areperceptiblyconflicted.Contrary
tothepronouncementsoftheponencia,Arroyo'smannerofapproving
requestsforadditionalCIFs,seventimesinthecourseofthreeyears,reveals
theinitial,indispensableactintheconspiracytocommitplunder.Allthe
individualactsoftheconspiratorsfromthetimetherequestswereapproved
untilthemomenttheamountswerefinallyintheOfficeofthePresident
48454Phil.34(2003).
49Id.at106.

50Decision,p.27.
51 Id.at40.

~
DissentingOpinion15G.R.Nos.220598and220953

indicateacompletewhole.Theintenttoaccumulate,amass,oracquirethe
PCSOfundsisthusshownthroughthesuccessiveactswhichatfirstappear
tobeindependentbut,infact,areconnectedandcooperative.Thechainof
circumstancesfromtheinscriptionofamere"ok"ofpetitionerArroyoonall
therequests,uptothetimetheamountswereproventobewiththeOfficeof
thePresidentasindicatedintheaccomplishmentreport(Exhibit"Y 768")
sufficientlyprovestheconspiracytocommitplunder.
Inotherwords,Arroyo'sapprovalofUriarte'srequestcannotbe
simplydownplayedasaninnocent,legal,commonandvalidpractice,asthe
ponenciawouldwant,toexonerateArroyoandAguas.Asaptlystatedbythe
Sandiganbayan:
WhileitistruethatArroyowasneverinvolvedintheactual
withdrawals/cashadvancesandreleaseoftheCIForintheir
disbursementsanditsliquidation,Arroyo'sapprovalofthegrantand
releaseofthesefundsfacilitatedUriarte'scommissionoftheseriesof
raidsonPCSOcoffersbecausewithoutArroyor'sapprovaloftherelease,
Uriartecouldnothavesucceededinaccumulatingthesame. 52

Thepowerofcontroloverthe
PCSOofpetitionerArroyo
Giventhetotalityofthecircumstancesdiscussedabove,the
prosecution'sclaimthatArroyohadknownthatUriartewouldraidthe
publictreasuryandmisusethefundsthelatterhaddisbursed,owingtothe
factthattheformerPresidenthadthepowerofcontroloverthePCSO,
consequentlyappearstobecorrect.
Theponencia,however,missesthispointanddeliberatelychoosesto
rejecttheprosecution'sclaimbystatingthatthedoctrineofcommand
responsibilitydoesnotapplysincethiscasedoesnotinvolveArroyo's
functionsasCommanderinChiefoftheArmedForcesofthePhilippines,or
ahumanrightsissue.
Contrarytothatstatementoftheponencia,however,thecontrolofthe
President,notonlyoverthePCSO,butalsoovertheintelligencefunds,is
clearlymandatedbyLetterofInstructionNo.(LOI)1282whichshedslight
ontheroleofthePresidentwhenitcomestotheexpenditureofintelligence
funds.LOI1282provides:
Inrecentyearsintelligencefundsappropriatedforthevarious
ministriesandcertainofficeshavebeen,asreportsreachingmeindicate,
spentwithlessthanfullregardforsecrecyandprudence.Ontheonehand,
therehavebeenfartoomanyleakagesofinformationonexpendituresof
saidfunds;andontheotherhand,wheresecrecyhasbeenobserved,the
Presidenthimselfwasoftenleftunawareofhowthesefundshadbeen
utilized.

51Rollo(G.R.No.220598),

p.502.

DissentingOpinion16 G.R.Nos.220598and220953

Effectiveimmediately,allrequestsfortheallocationorrelease
ofintelligencefundsshallindicateinfulldetailthespecificpurposes
forwhichsaidfundsshallbespentandshallexplainthecircumstances
givingrisetothenecessityfortheexpenditureandtheparticularaimsto
beaccomplished.
Therequestsandthedetailedexplanationsshallbesubmittedtothe
Presidentpersonally.
It isimperativethatsuchdetailedpresentationsbemadetothe
Presidentsinordertoavoidsuchduplicationofexpendituresashas
takenplaceinthepastbecauseofthelackofcentralizedplanningand
organizeddispositionofintelligencefunds.
Fullcomplianceherewithisdesired.(Emphasesours)

TheforegoingshowsthenatureofthecontrolofthePresident
overtheintelligencefunds.UnlessArroyoweretodemonstrateinher
defense,theresponsibilityandcontrolofintelligencefundsisdirectand
personal.Theirregularitiesthattranspiredshouldthereforebewithin
theknowledgeofArroyoasPresidentofthePhilippines,consideringthe
factthatthiscaseinvolvesnotonebutrepeatedandunqualified
approvalofsevenrequestsforreleaseofCIFfundsinaspanofthree
years.Eventheponenciaadmits:"[w]ithoutGMA'sparticipation,he
(Aguas)couldnotreleaseanymoneybecausetherewasthennobudget
availablefortheadditionalCIFs."53
II

ThereisevidencetoshowthatUriarte,Arroyo,orAguas
amassed,accumulated,oracquiredillgottenwealth.
Theponenciastatesthat"theProsecutionadducednoevidence
showingthateitherArroyoorAguasorevenUriarte,forthatmatter,had
amassed,accumulatedoracquiredillgottenwealthofanyamount.Italso
didnotpresentevidence,testimonialorotherwise,showingeventhe
remotestpossibilitythattheCIFsofthePCSOhadbeendivertedtoArroyo,
Aguas,orUriarte."54Imustdisagree.
AsheldbythisCourtin2001Estrada,55theonlyelementsofthe
crimeofplunderarethefollowing:
1.Thattheoffenderisapublicofficerwhoactsbyhimselforin
connivancewithmembersofhisfamily,relativesbyaffinityor
consanguinity,businessassociates,subordinatesorotherpersons;

p.40.

53Decision,

54Id.at42.
55421Phil.290,5I5.

DissentingOpinion17 G.R.Nos.220598and220953

2.Thatheamassed,accumulatedoracquiredillgottenwealththrougha
combinationorseriesofthefollowingovertorcriminalacts:(a)
throughmisappropriation,conversion,misuse,ormalversationof
publicfundsorraidsonthepublictreasury;(b)byreceiving,directly
orindirectly,anycommission,gift,share,percentage,kickbackorany
otherformofpecuniarybenefitsfromanypersonand/orentityin
connectionwithanygovernmentcontractorprojectorbyreasonofthe
officeorpositionofthepublicofficer;(c)bytheillegalorfraudulent
conveyanceordispositionofassetsbelongingtotheNational
Governmentoranyofitssubdivisions,agenciesorinstrumentalitiesof
Governmentownedorcontrolledcorporationsortheirsubsidiaries;(d)
byobtaining,receivingoracceptingdirectlyorindirectlyanysharesof
stock,equityoranyotherformofinterestorparticipationincluding
thepromiseoffutureemploymentinanybusinessenterpriseor
undertaking;(e)byestablishingagricultural,industrialorcommercial
monopoliesorothercombinationsand/orimplementationofdecrees
andordersintendedtobenefitparticularpersonsorspecialinterests;or
(f) bytakingadvantageofofficialposition,authority,relationship,
connectionorinfluencetounjustlyenrichhimselforthemselvesatthe
expenseandtothedamageandprejudiceoftheFilipinopeopleandthe
RepublicofthePhilippines;and,
3.Thattheaggregateamountortotalvalueoftheillgottenwealth
amassed,accumulatedoracquiredisatleastP50,000,000.00.

Toemphasize,theprosecution,aspreviouslydiscussed,presented
evidenceprovingthatUriartehadmadeseveralcashadvances.The
SandiganbayanquotedpertinentpartsofitsResolutiondated5November
2013denyingthepetitionsforbailinitsResolutiondated6April2015
denyingthepetitioners'demurrers.TheSandiganbayanstatedthereinthat
"UriartewasabletoaccumulateduringthatperiodCIFfundsinthetotal
amountofP352,681,646;"that"Uriartelootedgovernmentfundsand
appearstohavenotbeenabletoaccountforit;"andthat"theencashmentof
thechecks,whichnamedherasthe'payee,'gaveUriartematerial
possessionoftheCIFfundsthatshedisposedofatwill."56
FromJanuary2008toJune2010,thefollowingcashadvanceswere
made:

200820092010Total
CIFintheCOBfrom
thepreviouslOMCIFP28,000,000P60,000,000P60,000,000P148,000,000
in2000
AdditionalCIF
requestedbyUriarteP75,000,000P90,000,000Pl50,000,000P315,000,000
andgrantedbyArroyo
CashadvancesbyP8l,698,060Pl32,760,096Pl38,223,490P352,681,646
Uriarte
CashadvancesbyP4,857,000PS,660,779P2,798,490Pl3,316,269
Valencia
TOTALP86,555,060Pl38,420,875Pl41,021,980P365,997,915
56Id.at160;SandiganbayanResolutiondated6April2015,p.31.

~
DissentingOpinion18 G.R.Nos.220598and220953

Again,inits6April2015Resolution,theSandiganbayanconsidered
theaccomplishmentreportthatwassubmittedbypetitionerAguastoCOA.
HesaidthereinthattheOfficeofthePresidentrequiredfundingfromthe
CIFfundsofthePCSOtoachievethesecondandthethirdpurposes,i.e.,
bombthreat,kidnapping,destabilizationandterrorism;andbilateraland
secun.tyre1at1. 0n.57
Theactofamassing,accumulating,oracquiringCIFfundsisthus
evident.IagreewiththeSandiganbayan'spronouncementthatArroyowas
rightlychargedasacoconspiratorofUriartewhoreceivedthecashadvance
formostoftheamounts.58
It hadbeenarguedthatreceiptbytheOfficeofthePresidentisnot
necessarilyreceiptofthemoneysbyArroyo.Thishoweverisamatterof
defense,consideringthatArroyocontrolstheOfficeofthePresident.
III
Personalbenefitneednotbeproven.
Theponenciaharpsonthefailureoftheprosecutiontoallegeinthe
Informationandprovethattheamountamassed,accumulated,andacquired
wasforthebenefitofanidentifiedmainplunderer.
Inparticular,theponencialeansonthisCourt'spronouncementthat
whatisrequiredinaconspiracychargeisnotthateveryaccusedmusthave
performedalltheactsconstitutingthecrimeofplunder,butthat"eachof
them,bytheirindividualacts,agreedtoparticipate,directlyorindirectly,in
theamassing,accumulationandacquisitionofillgottenwealthofand/orfor
formerPresidentEstrada."59

TheponenciaalsotakesissuewiththeSandiganbayan'sstatement
thatallthatisrequiredisthatthepublicofficermusthaveraidedthepublic
coffers,withoutneedtoprovepersonalbenefitonthepartofthepublic
officer.
It citesthedeliberationsonSenateBillNo.733,whichlateron
becameRepublicActNo.7080,tosupportthethesisthatpersonalbenefiton
thepartofthemainplunderer,orthecoconspiratorsbyvirtueoftheir
plunder,isstillnecessary.It thenconcludesthattheprosecutionfailedto
shownotonlywherethemoneywentbut,moreimportant,whetherArroyo
andAguashadpersonallybenefitedtherefrom.
57Id.at163.
58Rollo(G.R.No.220598),p.205;SandiganbayanResolutiondatedI0September2015.

59Id.

r
DissentingOpinion19 G.R.Nos.220598and220953

Tobeginwith,thefailureoftheInformationtonamethemam
plundererinparticularisnotcrucial.
Section2ofthePlunderLawdoesnotrequireamastermindoramain
recipientwhenitcomestoplunderasacollectiveact:
Section2.DefinitionoftheCrimeofPlunder;Penalties.
Anypublicofficerwho,byhimselforinconnivancewith
membersofhisfamily,relativesbyaffinityorconsanguinity,business
associates,subordinatesorotherpersons,amasses,accumulates
oracquiresillgottenwealththroughacombinationorseriesofovert
criminalactsasdescribedinSection1(d)hereofintheaggregateamount
ortotalvalueofatleastFiftymillionpesos(PS0,000,000.00)shallbe
guiltyofthecrimeofplunderandshallbepunishedbyreclusion
perpetuatodeath.Anypersonwhoparticipatedwiththesaidpublic
officerinthecommissionofanoffensecontributingtothe
crimeofplundershalllikewisebepunishedforsuchoffense.Inthe
impositionofpenalties,thedegreeofparticipationandtheattendanceof
mitigatingandextenuatingcircumstances,asprovidedbytheRevised
PenalCode,shallbeconsideredbythecourt.Thecourtshalldeclareany
andallillgottenwealthandtheirinterestsandotherincomesandassets
includingthepropertiesandsharesofstocksderivedfromthedepositor
investmentthereofforfeitedinfavoroftheState.(Emphasisours)

Ontheotherhand,ascanbeseenfromabove,allthatisrequiredby

Section2isthatthereisapublicofficerwhoactsinconnivancewithother
offendersinacommondesigntoamass,accumulateoracquireillgotten
wealth,theaggregateamountofwhichisatleastP50Million.Inother
words,itisonlytheconspiracythatneedstobeallegedinanInformation.
Inaconspiracy,theactofoneistheactofall.60 Everyconspirator
becomesaprincipalevenifthepersondidnotparticipateintheactal
commissionofeveryactconstitutingthecrime.61 Hence,itisnotmaterialif
onlyUriarteamongalltheaccusedisprovenorshowntohavetaken
materialpossessionoftheplunderedamount.
It isthusnotcrucialtoidentifythemainplundererintheInformation,
solongasconspiracyisproperlyallegedandestablished.Identificationin
theInformationofthemainplundererortheaccusedwhoacquiresthe
greatestlootisimmaterial,asitsufficesthatanyoneortwoofthe
conspiratorsareproventohavetransfenedtheplunderedamountto
themselves.
Inthiscase,thereisampleevidencetoshowthatUriartegained
materialpossessionoftheamountsthroughcashadvancesfacilitatedbythe
repeatedandunqualifiedapprovaloftherequestsbyAnoyoandthatalarge
portionoftheamountreceivedascashadvancewaslatercertifiedbyAguas
tohavebeenusedbytheOfficeofthePresident.
60U.S.v./pi!,27Phil.530(1914).
61

Id.

~
DissentingOpinion20G.R.Nos.220598and220953

Whatshouldbeunderscoredatthisjunctureisthatinprosecutionfor
plunder,itisenoughthatoneormoreoftheconspiratorsmustbeshownto
havegainedmaterialpossessionofatleastP50millionthroughanyora
combinationoraseriesofovertcriminalacts,orsimilarschemesormeans
enumeratedinthelawandstatedintheInformation.
OurrulinginValenzuelav.People,62atheftcase,isinstructive:
Theabilityoftheoffendertofreelydisposeofthepropertystolen
isnotaconstitutiveelementofthecrimeoftheft.xxxTorestatewhat
thisCourthasrepeatedlyheld:theelementsofthecrimeoftheftas
providedforinArticle308oftheRevisedPenalCodeare: (1) thattherebe
takingofpersonalproperty;(2)thatsaidpropertybelongstoanother;(3)
thatthetakingbedonewithintenttogain;(4)thatthetakingbedone
withouttheconsentoftheowner;and(5)thatthetakingbeaccomplished
withouttheuseofviolenceagainstorintimidationofpersonsorforce
uponthings.

xxxitisimmaterialtotheproductofthefelonythatthe
offender,oncehavingcommittedalltheactsofexecutionfortheft,is
ableorunabletofreelydisposeofthepropertystolensincethe
deprivationfromtheowneralonehasalreadyensuedfromsuchacts
ofexecution.ThisconclusionisreflectedinChiefJusticeAquino's
commentaries,asearliercited,that[i]ntheftorrobberythecrimeis
consummatedaftertheaccusedhadmaterialpossessionofthething
withintenttoappropriatethesame,althoughhisactofmakinguseof
thethingwasfrustrated.
xxxx
Indeed,wehave,afterall,heldthatunlawfultaking,
orapoderamiento,isdeemedcompletefromthemomenttheoffender
gainspossessionofthething,evenifhehasnoopportunitytodispose
ofthesame.

Soitiswithplunder.Howthemoneywasdisposedofandwho
inevitablybenefitedthemosttherefromamongalltheaccusedneednotbe
shownforaslongasmaterialpossessionofatleastP50millionwasshown
throughtheunlawfulactsmentionedinthelaw.
IquotewithapprovaltheSandiganbayaninitspronouncement,as
follows:
It shouldbenotedthatinbothR.A.No.7080andthePCGGrules,
theenumerationofthepossiblepredicateactsinthecommissionof
plunderdidnotassociateorrequiretheconceptofpersonalgain/benefitor
unjustenrichmentwithrespecttoraidsonthepublictreasury,asameans
tocommitplunder.It would,therefore,appearthata"raidonthepublic
treasury"canbesaidtohavebeenachievedthruthepillagingorlootingof

62G.R.No.160188,21June2007.

DissentingOpinion21 G.R.Nos.220598and220953

publiccofferseitherthroughmisuse,misappropriationorconversion,
withoutneedofestablishinggainorprofittotheraider.Otherwisestated,
oncea"raider"getsmaterialpossessionofagovernmentasset
throughimpropermeansandhasfreedisposalofthesame,theraid
orpillageiscompleted.xxx
xxxx
It isnotdisputedthatUriarteaskedforandwasgrantedauthority
byArroyotouseadditionalCIFfundsduringtheperiod20082010.
UriartewasabletoaccumulateduringthatperiodCIFfundsinthetotal
amountofP352,681,646.xxx

xxxx
TheseflagrantviolationsoftherulesontheuseofCIFfunds
evidentlycharacterizetheseriesofwithdrawalsbyandreleasestoUriarte
as"raids"onthePCSOcoffers,whichispartofthepublictreasury.These
were,ineverysense,"pillage,"asUriartelootedgovernmentfundsand
appearstohavenotbeenabletoaccountforit.Themoniescameintoher
possessionand,admittedly,shedisburseditforpurposesotherthanwhat
thesewereintendedfor,thus,amountingto"misuse"ofthesame.
Therefore,theadditionalCIFfundsareillgotten,asdefinedbyR.A.
7080,thePCGGrules,andRepublicv.Sandiganbayan.Theencashment
ofthechecks,whichnamedheras"payee,"gaveUriartematerial
possessionoftheCIFfundswhichshedisposedofatwill.
xxxx
xxxThesewerethusimproperuseoftheadditionalCIFfunds
amountingtoraidsonthePCSOcoffersandwereillgottenbecause
Uriartehadencashedthechecksandcameintopossessionofthe
monies,whichshehadcompletefreedomtodisposeof,butwasnot
abletoaccountfor.(Emphasesours)

Thesemattersconsidered,Ifindthepronouncementsintheponencia
unwarranted.
IV
ArroyoandAguasfailedtoshowevidencethatthe
Sandiganbayangravelyabuseditsdiscretion.
Section23ofRule119states:
SECTION23.DemurrertoEvidence.Aftertheprosecution
restsitscase,thecourtmaydismisstheactiononthegroundof
insufficiencyofevidence(1)onitsowninitiativeaftergivingthe
prosecutiontheopportunitytobeheardor(2)upondemurrertoevidence
filedbytheaccusedwithorwithoutleaveofcourt.

DissentingOpinion22G.R.Nos.220598and220953
If thecourtdeniesthedemurrertoevidencefiledwithleaveof

court,theaccusedmayadduceevidenceinhisdefense. Whenthe
demurrertoevidenceisfiledwithoutleaveofcourt,theaccusedwaives
therighttopresentevidenceandsubmitsthecaseforjudgmentonthe
basisoftheevidencefortheprosecution.(15a)
Themotionforleaveofcourttofiledemurrertoevidenceshall
specificallystateitsgroundsandshallbefiledwithinanonextendible
periodoffive(5)daysaftertheprosecutionrestsitscase.Theprosecution

mayopposethemotionwithinanonextendibleperiodoffive(5)days
fromitsreceipt.
If leaveofcourtisgranted,theaccusedshallfilethedemurrerto
evidencewithinanonextendibleperiodoften(I 0)daysfromnotice.The
prosecutionmayopposethedemurrertoevidencewithinasimilarperiod
fromitsreceipt.
Theorderdenyingthemotionforleaveofcourttofile
demurrertoevidenceorthedemurreritselfshallnotbereviewableby
appealorbycertioraribeforejudgment.(n)63 (Emphasessupplied)

Jurisprudencehasaffirmedtherule,subjecttotherecognized
exceptionthatthedenialofademurrermaybethepropersubjectofaRule
65petitionwhenthedenialistaintedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion. 64
Certiorarithereforeisnottheproperrecourseagainstadenialofa
demurrertoevidence.UndertheRulesofCourt,theappropriateremedyis
forthecourttoproceedwiththetrial,afterwhichtheaccusedmayfilean
appealfromthejudgmentrenderedbythelowercourt.
Consequently,Iamnotpreparedtoimputegraveabuseofdiscretion
onthepartoftheSandiganbayan.Forreasonsalreadydiscussed,the
prosecution'sevidencehassatisfactorilyestablishedtheelementsofthe
crimeofplunder.
Further,itmustbeemphasizedthataccesstothisCourtthrougha
Rule65petitionisnarrowandlimited.Thatrecourseexcludestheresolution
offactualquestions.65Inthepresentcase,thequestionofwhetheradenialof
thedemurrertoevidenceisproperisfactualinnature,asitinvolvesatestof
thesufficiencyofevidence.
ThisCourthasmadeapronouncementonthenatureofademurrerto
evidenceinthiswise:
[Ad]emurrertoevidenceisanobjectionbyoneofthepartiesinan
action,totheeffectthattheevidencewhichhisadversaryproducedis
63RevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure,A.M.No.00503SC,3October2000.
64Peoplev.Go,G.R.No.191015,6August2014,732SCRA216,andAlaril/av.Sandiganbayan,393

Phil.143(2000).
65DonOrestesRomualdezElectricCooperative,Inc.v.NLRC,377Phil.268(1999).

~
DissentingOpinion23G.R.Nos.220598and220953

insufficientinpointoflaw,whethertrueornot,tomakeoutacaseor
sustaintheissue.Thepartydemurringchallengesthesufficiencyofthe
wholeevidencetosustainaverdict.Thecourt,inpassinguponthe
sufficiencyoftheevidenceraisedinademurrer,ismerelyrequiredto
ascertainwhetherthereiscompetentorsufficientevidencetosustain
theindictmentortosupportaverdictofguilt. 66

Whatconstitutessufficientevidencehasalsobeendefinedasfollows:
Sufficientevidenceforpurposesoffrustratingademurrerthereto
issuchevidenceincharacter,weightoramountaswilllegallyjustifythe
judicialorofficialactiondemandedaccordingtothecircumstances.Tobe
consideredsufficienttherefore,theevidencemustprove:(a)the
commissionofthecrime,and(b)theprecisedegreeofparticipation
thereinbytheaccused.67

Whenthereisnoshowingofsuchgraveabuse,certiorariisnotthe
properremedy.Rather,theappropriaterecoursefromanorderdenyinga
demurrertoevidenceisforthecourttoproceedwiththetrial,afterwhich
theaccusedmayfileanappealfromthejudgmentofthelowercourt
renderedaftersuchtrial.Inthepresentcase,I amnotpreparedtorulethat
theSandiganbayanhasgravelyabuseditsdiscretionwhenitdenied
petitioners'demurrertoevidence.TheSandiganbayanfoundthatthe
prosecution'sevidencesatisfactorilyestablishedtheelementsofthecrime
charged.Thereisnothingintherecordsofthiscase,norinthepleadingsof
petitionersthatwouldshowotherwise.
Further,itmustbeborneinmindthattheSandiganbayanisa
constitutionallymandatedtribunaldesignedtoresolvecasesinvolvinggraft
andcorruption.Assuch,itistheexpertinthefieldofgraftcases.Onthe
otherhand,thisCourtisnotatrieroffacts.TheSandiganbayanmustbe
allowedtocompletetheentirecourseofthetrialasitseesfit.
Afinalnote.Thecrimecharged,thepersonalitiesinvolved,the
amountinquestion,andthepublicinterestatstakeareconsiderationsthat
shouldpromptustodemonstrateanevenhand,consciousthatthebenefitsof
theDecisionwouldcascadetotheleastpowerfulaccusedinallfuture
proceedings.Wemustbemindfulofthepotentiallydiscouragingimpactofa
grantofthisparticulardemurrerontheconfidenceoftrialcourts.
NearlyP366millionofthePeople'smoneyismissing.Direct
documentaryevidencewherebypetitionerAguasstatesthatalargepartof
thisorP244.5milliontobeexactwasdivertedtotheOfficeofthePresident
underpetitionerArroyowasconsideredsufficientbytheSandiganbayarito
requirebothpetitionershereintoproceedwiththepresentationoftheir
Gutibv.CA,371Phil.293(1999).

66

67Id.at305.

DissentingOpinion24G.R.Nos.220598and220953

defenseevidence.Thiscogentconclusionbytheconstitutionallymandated

courtthathastriedtheprosecution'sevidenceonplundercannotbe
overriddenwillynillybythisCourt.
IfurtherfullyagreewithJusticeMarvicMarioVictorF.Leoneninhis
SeparateDissentingOpinion.
IthereforevotetoDISMISSthepetitions.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice