RA 7080 (CRIME OF PLUNDER)

Questions Answer Basis

Any public officer who, by himself or in

connivance with members of his family,
Who Sec 12, RA 7659
relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business
associates, subordinates or other persons

amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten

Acts Sec 12, RA 7659
wealth
How Through one or the combination of the Sec 1(d), RA 7080
following:
1) Through misappropriation, conversion,
misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids
on the public treasury;
2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any
commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks
or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any
person and/or entity in connection with any
government contract or project or by reason of
the office or position of the public officer
concerned;

3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or

disposition of assets belonging to the National
Government or any of its subdivisions,
agencies or instrumentalities or government-
owned or -controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries;

4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting

directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity
or any other form of interest or participation
including promise of future employment in any
business enterprise or undertaking;

5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or

commercial monopolies or other combinations
and/or implementation of decrees and orders
intended to benefit particular persons or special
interests; or

6) By taking undue advantage of official

position, authority, relationship, connection or
influence to unjustly enrich himself or
themselves at the expense and to the damage
and prejudice of the Filipino people and the
Republic of the Philippines.
Penalty Reclusion Perpetua to Death, for the public
official and persons who participated, subject to
degree of participation and the attendance of Sec 12, RA 7659
mitigating and aggravating circumstance.
Competent Court Sandiganbayan Sec 3, RA 7080
Prescription Plunder - within 20 years; recovery of wealth
Sec 6, RA 7080
- prescription, estoppel, laches will not apply
 Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo vs.People of the Philippines and the Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 220598, 19 July 2016
(1)Petitioners in this case are former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and former Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office
(PCSO) Budget and Accounts Officer Benigno Aguas.
(2)The Ombudsman charged in the Sandiganbayan with plunder as defined by, and penalized under Section 2 of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 the following: (1) GMA, (2) Aguas, (3) former PCSO General Manager and
Vice Chairman Rosario C. Uriarte, (4) former PCSO Chairman of the Board of Directors Sergio O. Valencia, (5) former
members of the PCSO Board of Directors, and (6) two former officials of the Commission on Audit (COA).
(3)The Sandiganbayan eventually acquired jurisidiction over most of the accused, including petitioners. All filed petitions
for bail, which the Sandiganbayan granted except those of the petitioners. Their motions for reconsideration were denied.
Facts GMA assailed the denial of her petition for bail before the Supreme Court. However, this remains unresolved.

(4)After the Prosecution rested its case, the accused separately filed their demurrers to evidence asserting that the
Prosecution did not establish a case for plunder against them.
(5)The Sandiganbayan granted the demurrers and dismissed the case against the accused within its jurisdiction, except for
petitioners and Valencia. It held that there was sufficient evidence showing that they had conspired to commit plunder.
(5)Petitioners filed this case before the Supreme Court on certiorari before the Supreme Court to assail the denial of their
demurrers to evidence, on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Issue Allegation of the Prosecution Ruling

Whether or not the
Prosecution sufficiently
established the existence of
conspiracy among GMA, Aguas,
and Uriarte.
GMA, Uriarte and Aguas
committed acts showing the
existence of an implied
conspiracy among themselves,
thereby making all of them the
main plunderers. The sole overt
act of GMA to become a part of
the conspiracy was her approval
via the marginal note of “OK” of
all the requests made by Uriarte
for the use of additional
intelligence fund.
No. It is notable that the Prosecution did not allege that the conspiracy among all of the
accused was by express agreement, or was a wheel conspiracy or a chain conspiracy.
Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080 requires in the criminal charge for plunder against
several individuals that there must be a main plunderer and her co-conspirators. Such
identification of the main plunderer was not only necessary because the law required
such identification, but also because it was essential in safeguarding the rights of all of
the accused to be properly informed of the charges they were being made answerable
for. In fine, the Prosecution’s failure to properly allege the main plunderer should be
fatal to the cause against the petitioners for violating the rights of each accused to be
informed of the charges against each of them.
 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. As regards Aguas, his certifications and signatures on the
disbursement vouchers were insufficient bases to conclude that he was into any
conspiracy to commit plunder or any other crime. Without GMA’s participation, he could
not release any money because there was then no budget available for the additional
CIFs. Whatever irregularities he might have committed did not amount to plunder, or to
any implied conspiracy to commit plunder.

Whether or not there was The Prosecution adduced no evidence showing that either GMA or Aguas or even
evidence of amassing, Uriarte, for that matter, had amassed, accumulated or acquired illgotten wealth of any
accumulating or acquiring ill- amount. There was also no evidence, testimonial or otherwise, presented by the
gotten wealth in the total amount Prosecution showing even the remotest possibility that the CIFs of the PCSO had been
of not less than P50 million diverted to either GMA or Aguas, or Uriarte.
Whether pror not the predicate act The common thread that binds all the four terms in Section 1(d) of Republic Act No.
of raiding the public treasury 7080 together (misappropriation, conversion, misuse or malversation of public funds)
alleged in the information was is that the public officer used the property taken. Pursuant to the maxim of noscitur
proved by the Prosecution a sociis, raids on the public treasury requires the raider to use the property taken
impliedly for his personal benefit.

Source: https://emirvmendoza.wordpress.com/2016/07/22/case-digest-macapagal-arroyo-v-people-of-the-philippines-g-r-no-220598-july-19-2016/