Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 95 views

    MACAPAGAL-ARROYO v. PEOPLE

    Uploaded by

    Zephania Chantal Sy
    Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office Budget Manager Benigno Aguas were charged with conspiracy to commit plunder. They filed petitions for bail and demurrers to the plunder charge, which were denied by the Sandiganbayan. They then filed petitions for certiorari, which were also denied. The issue was whether allowing the prosecution's motion for reconsideration would violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court held that granting the motion for reconsideration would violate the prohibition against double jeopardy, as the dismissal of charges for insufficiency of evidence amounted to an acquittal, which cannot be appealed or reconsidered once

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    MACAPAGAL-ARROYO v. PEOPLE

    Uploaded by

    Zephania Chantal Sy
    95 views1 page
    Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office Budget Manager Benigno Aguas were charged with conspiracy to commit plunder. They filed petitions for bail and demurrers to the plunder charge, which were denied by the Sandiganbayan. They then filed petitions for certiorari, which were also denied. The issue was whether allowing the prosecution's motion for reconsideration would violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court held that granting the motion for reconsideration would violate the prohibition against double jeopardy, as the dismissal of charges for insufficiency of evidence amounted to an acquittal, which cannot be appealed or reconsidered once

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office Budget Manager Benigno Aguas were charged with conspiracy to commit plunder. They filed petitions for bail and demurrers to the plunder charge, which were denied by the Sandiganbayan. They then filed petitions for certiorari, which were also denied. The issue was whether allowing the prosecution's motion for reconsideration would violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court held that granting the motion for reconsideration would violate the prohibition against double jeopardy, as the dismissal of charges for insufficiency of evidence amounted to an acquittal, which cannot be appealed or reconsidered once

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    95 views1 page

    MACAPAGAL-ARROYO v. PEOPLE

    Uploaded by

    Zephania Chantal Sy
    Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office Budget Manager Benigno Aguas were charged with conspiracy to commit plunder. They filed petitions for bail and demurrers to the plunder charge, which were denied by the Sandiganbayan. They then filed petitions for certiorari, which were also denied. The issue was whether allowing the prosecution's motion for reconsideration would violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court held that granting the motion for reconsideration would violate the prohibition against double jeopardy, as the dismissal of charges for insufficiency of evidence amounted to an acquittal, which cannot be appealed or reconsidered once

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    MACAPAGAL-ARROYO v.

    PEOPLE
    FACTS:
    The Court resolves the consolidated petitions for certiorari separately filed by former President Gloria
    Macapagal-Arroyo and Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) Budget and Accounts Manager Benigno
    B. Aguas. On July 10, 2012, the Ombudsman charged in the Sandiganbayan former President Gloria
    Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) and PCSO Budget and Accounts Manager Aguas (and some other officials of PCSO
    and Commission on Audit) for conspiracy to commit plunder. Charges against Aguas and others were later
    dismissed after their respective demurrers to evidence were granted, except for Uriarte and Valdes who were
    at large.
    Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the then President of the Philippines, and Benigno Aguas, then PCSO Budget and
    Accounts Manager, all public officers committing the offense in relation to their respective offices. GMA and
    Aguas separately filed their respective petitions for bail which were denied by the Sandiganbayan on the
    ground that the evidence against them was strong.
    GMA and Aguas' demurrers to plunder were denied by the Sandiganbayan after the Prosecution rested its
    case against them. The duo then filed their respective petitions for certiorari, which were also denied. They had
    alleged that there was sufficient evidence to show that they had conspired to commit plunder.

    ISSUE:
    Wheteher or not the consideration and granting of the motion for reconsideration of the State will amount to the
    violation of the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy.

    HELD:
    Yes. Granting the motion for reconsideration would violate the Constitutional prohibition against double
    jeopardy.
    Section 21, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution states:
    No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law
    and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same
    act.
    The constitutional prohibition against placing a person under double jeopardy for the same offense bars not
    only a new and independent prosecution but also an appeal in the same action after jeopardy had attached. As
    such, every acquittal becomes final immediately upon promulgation and cannot be recalled for correction or
    amendment. In the present case, the Court's consequential dismissal of Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174
    as to the petitioners for insufficiency of evidence amounted to their acquittal of the crime of plunder charged
    against them. With the acquittal being immediately final, granting the State's motion for reconsideration in this
    case would violate the Constitutional prohibition.

    It is cogent to remind in this regard that the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy provides to the
    accused three related protections, specifically: protection against a second prosecution for the same offense
    after acquittal; protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and protection
    against multiple punishments for the same offense.

    You might also like