Gloria Macapagal Arroyo vs. People of the Philippines and the Sandiganbayan, G.R No.

220598, July 19, 2016

Plunder case was filed against Former President Gloria Macapagal

Arroyo (GMA) and former PCSO Budget and Accountant Officer The state did not sufficiently established the existence of
Benigno Aguas. That these public officers taking undue advantage of conspiracy between GMA, Aguas and Uriarte and also failed to
their appointments, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, establish the elements of the crime of plunder.
criminally, amass, accumulated and acquire directly P365,997,915
Pesos, through series of overt act schemes in committing the offense
of plunder.

Republic Act (R.A) No. 7080, amended by RA 7659 defines and
penalizes the case filed.
Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, GR No. 148965, February, 26, 2002, 377
SCRA 538, 556.
The said public officers were accused of conspiring in the
commitment of the case of plunder by doing different schemes.
The prosecution sought to show was an implied conspiracy to
commit plunder among all of the accused on the basis of their
collective actions prior to, during and after the implied
agreement. It is notable that the Prosecution did not alleged that
the conspiracy among the group was by express agreement or by
chain conspiracy.

The accused were: (a) diverting in several instances, funds from the
operating budget of the PCSO to its intelligence funds and
converting and misusing the proceeds for their personal gains; (b)
raiding the public treasury by withdrawing and receiving in several
instances the above mentioned funds and unlawfully transferring or
conveying the same into their possession and control through
irregularly issued disbursement vouchers and fictitious
expenditures; and, (c) taking advantage of their positions unjustly
enrich themselves for the prejudice of the Filipino people.
The State miserably failed to prove the corpos delicti of plunder by
failing to identify the main plunderer as well as the personal
benefit on the part of the raider of the public treasury to enable
the success of the crime of plunder. And that the prosecution failed
to sufficiently provide evidence to prove to prove the conspiracy
done by the accused on the case of plunder.