SC upholds case dismissal vs Arroyo over NBN-ZTE deal
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal of case against former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo over the allegedly anomalous National Broadband Network deal signed while she was the chief executive.
The SC’s Third Division has dismissed the Petition for Certiorari filed by the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman to reverse the Sandiganbayan’s grant of Arroyo’s demurrer to evidence in August 2016 for lack of merit.
A demurrer to evidence is a challenge to prosecution evidence. If granted, the case will be dismissed, without the accused needing to present their defense evidence.
In the assailed ruling, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the graft charge against Arroyo as it found that “the prosecution failed to prove the existence of any direct or indirect interest for personal gain on the part of [Arroyo] during the entire deliberations of the NBN Contract.”
But the Ombudsman, in its petition, said the anti-graft court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it granted Arroyo’s demurrer.
The SC, however, junked the petition as it found it bereft of merit.
Double jeopardy
The court held that while a grant of demurrer to evidence in a criminal case may be assailed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the plea at hand “infringes upon [Arroyo’s] constitutional right against double jeopardy.”
“We adhere to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and appealable. The right against double jeopardy is enshrined in Article III, Section 21 of the Constitution,” the resolution further read.
It added that the petition assails the Sandiganbayan’s evaluation and assessment of evidence presented by the prosecution, which are “purported errors of judgement or those involving misappreciation of evidence or errors of law.”
“All told, the instant petition primarily raises issues pertaining to alleged errors of judgment, not errors of jurisdiction, which is tantamount to an appeal contrary to the express injunction of the Constitution, the Rules of Court and prevailing jurisprudence. Conformably then, we need not embark upon review of the factual and evidentiary issues raised by petitioner as these are obviously not within the realm of our jurisdiction,” the resolution read.
The SC resolution is dated Oct. 14, 2020, but was only recently made public. Associate Justice Marvic Leonen was noted as on leave, while Associate Justice Alexander Gesmundo stood as acting chairperson of the division. — Kristine Joy Patag
- Latest
- Trending
