Arroyo plunder case: A timeline

1

July 10, 2012: The Ombudsman charges former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo with plunder before the Sandiganbayan anti-graft court. Arroyo and other officials of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) are accused of embezzling P366 million in confidential and intelligence funds from 2008 to 2010.

Advertisements

October 4, 2012: Arroyo is ordered arrested and is detained at the Veterans Memorial Medical Center (VMMC) in Quezon City.

November 5, 2013: The Sandiganbayan denies petitions for bail by Arroyo and one of her co-accused, Benigno Aguas, a former PCSO official, on the ground that the evidence of guilt against them is strong.

February 19, 2014: Motions for reconsideration filed by Arroyo and Aguas are denied by the Sandiganbayan.

April 6, 2015: The Sandiganbayan grants the “demurrers to evidence” of co-accused Manuel Morato, Jose Taruc, Raymundo Roquero and Reynaldo Villar, and dismisses the charges against them for being weak. The court rules that they did not divert any PCSO funds to themselves, or raid the public treasury.

However, the Sandiganbayan denies the demurrers of Arroyo and Aguas, saying there is enough evidence to try them for plunder.

October 15, 2015: Arroyo asks the Supreme Court to review the Sandiganbayan’s ruling and stop her trial at the Sandiganbayan for 30 days. The high court extends this request for two more times.

July 10, 2016: The Manila Times reports that an overwhelming majority of Supreme Court justices are inclined to acquit Arroyo of plunder.

July 19, 2016: The Supreme Court votes 11-4 to acquit and free Arroyo and Aguas, granting their demurrers to evidence and finding the prosecution’s case weak.

July 21, 2016: The high tribunal releases the full text of the ruling after a two-day delay. Arroyo finally leaves the VMMC after four years of detention.

Share.
loading...
Loading...

Please follow our commenting guidelines.

1 Comment

  1. PCSO plunder is just a drop in the bucket. There are many more incident of plunder in which the fg is suspected to have committed. Why confine to just this one? Is this our law to just concentrate on one and let go the rest?