SC justice favors GMA acquittal, but...

MANILA, Philippines – Of the 15 justices of the Supreme Court (SC) who voted in last Tuesday’s ruling to dismiss the plunder case against former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, onlyAssociate Justice Estela Perlas Bernabe had a split vote.

Bernabe joined the majority in favor of Arroyo while she made a dissenting opinion against the co-accused, former Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) budget officer Benigno Aguas.

In her 19-page separate concurring and dissenting opinion, Bernabe stated: “I vote to grant the petition filed by petitioner Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in G.R. No. 220598 and deny the petition filed by petitioner Benigno Aguas in G.R. No. 220953.”

A total of 11 justices voted to dismiss the plunder case against Arroyo while four, including Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, voted against.

With the dissenting opinion of Bernabe, the vote of 10-5 went in favor of Aguas.

“After a careful study of this case, it is my view that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying Arroyo’s demurrer to evidence on account of lack of sufficient evidence to prove her complicity in the alleged plunder of CIF (Confidential and Intelligence Funds),” Bernabe said.

She also disagreed with the Sandiganbayan’s findings that Arroyo’s “ok” notations in PCSO general manager Rosario Uriarte’s multiple letter-requests for additional CIF funds violated administrative rules.

“I disagree with the Sandiganbayan’s findings… While she may have approved the use of CIF funds which would be the determinative act for which Uriarte was able to amass, acquire or accumulate the questioned funds, the prosecution failed to satisfactorily establish any overt act on Arroyo’s part that would clearly show that she knew that the funds she had approved for release was to further the alleged criminal design,” Bernabe said.

“In other words,” she added, “while Arroyo’s approval was an indispensible act in ultimately realizing the objective of the scheme or pattern of criminal acts alleged in the plunder information, there is no sufficient evidence – whether direct or circumstantial – to prove that she had knowledge of such objective and hence, could have given her assent thereto. Without knowledge, there can be no agreement, which is precisely the essence of conspiracy.”