SC orders Sandigan to drop Mike Arroyo from graft case over PNP helicopter deal
MANILA, Philippines — A special division of the Supreme Court has ordered the Sandiganbayan to drop former first gentleman Mike Arroyo from the graft case over the alleged anomalous purchase of second-hand helicopters in 2009 and 2010.
The Special Third Division of the high court voted 4-1 to grant Arroyo’s Motion for Reconsideration that assailed the same division’s decision that dismissed his Petition for Certiorari.
“The Sandiganbayan is ordered to drop Jose Miguel T. Arroyo from the Information filed in the criminal case docketed as SB-12-CRM-10164 at any stage of the proceedings,” the 19-page ruling read.
The ruling, penned by now-retired Associate Justice Rosmari Carandang, is dated Dec. 1, 2021, but was uploaded only on the SC website on April 10.
Concurring are Associate Justices Rodil Zalameda, Mario Lopez and Samuel Gaerlan, while Associate Justice Marvic Leonen wrote a dissenting opinion.
The case stemmed from the Philippine National Police’s purchase of three helicopters from Manila Aerospace Products Trading Corporation (MAPTRA) in 2009 which included two standard Robinson R44 Raven I light police operational helicopters worth P62,672,086.90 and one fully equipped Robinson R44 Raven II LPOH worth P42.312,913.10.
The Ombudsman said that the National Police Commission prescribed that all three helicopters should be brand new, but its investigation showed that the two Robinson R44 Raven were pre-owned by Arroyo, thus there was an overpayment of about P34 million.
Arroyo, in his counter-affidavit, said he is a complete stranger to MAPTRA who sold the choppers and that it was Lourdes T. Arroyo Incorporated (LTA), whose president is Iggy and the first gentleman's brother, transacted with the advancement of money.
The court’s ruling
The SC found that the Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to charge Arroyo, citing insufficiency of prosecution evidence to back its claim of conspiracy.
“The reasoning given by the OMB are mere implications of ownership by Arroyo of the subject helicopters, as against the documentary proofs that LTA, a corporation distinct from Arroyo and which advanced the money for purchase of the helicopters,” the ruling read.
While the SC said that it remains mindful that it is not a trier of facts, after a judicial review, “the Court finds that the OMB has grossly misappreciated the attendant and clear facts in a manner that is tantamount to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.”
The SC also noted that at the time of the procurement, Arroyo had already divested from LTA and assigned his shares to someone else.
The SC, however, did not agree with Arroyo’s argument that the Ombudsman violated his right to speedy disposition. While the case had been pending for a decade, “there is no proof to show that the period was characterized by vexatious, capricious or oppressive delays amounting to a violation of his right to speedy disposition of the case against him.”
Leonen’s dissenting
Leonen filed a 17-page dissenting where he said he voted to deny Arroyo’s appeal.
“As a rule, this Court does not interfere with the Office of the Ombudsman’s exercise of investigatory and prosecutor prerogatives, unless there is clear showing of grave abuse of discretion,” the justice said.
Leonen also pointed out that the Office of the Ombudsman has the exclusive sphere of determining probable cause for the purpose of filing of an Information, and when the charge sheet has been filed, the court acquires jurisdiction over the judicial determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
“In this case, the Sandiganbayan has already judicially determined, independently of the finding of the Office of the Ombudsman, that there is probable cause to proceed to trial,” the justice said.
He also noted that while the ponencia concluded there was no sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy and equate LTA ownership to Arroyo’s ownership, the SC earlier held that “there is conspiracy when an accused is involved in the commission of the crime, regardless of the degree of participation.”
“In all, respondent and the Office of the Ombudsman discharged their duty by discussing the bases of their findings of probable cause against petitioner. The possible involvement of petitioner in the sale surfaced during the investigations, which raised questions and must be threshed out in a full-blown trial,” the Opinion further read.
- Latest
- Trending
