Case Digest: People vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 197953, August 5, 2015

                              Rule 119: Trial, Demurrer to Evidence | Criminal Procedure

Facts:

The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas charged the following respondents with the Sandiganbayan for Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171 of RPC: 

(1) Quintin Saludaga -

Mayor of Lavezares, Northern Samar;

(2) Arthus E. Adriatico -

Revenue Collection Clerk;

 (3) Romeo De Luna -

 private individual.

The prosecution submitted that the respondents Mayor Saludaga and Adriatico connived, confederated with, and mutually helped one another in falsifying the subject Official Receipt and the mayor's permit to make it appear tha tDe Luna was a bona fide pakyaw   contractor. The respondents pleaded NOT guilty.

After the prosecution presented its witnesses, it rested its case and submitted its formal offer of evidence, which the Sandiganbayan admitted. The respondents filed a joint motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence, which Sandiganbayan granted. On the ground of insufficiency of evidence, the respondents argued that the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy.

Issue:

WoN the Sandiganbayan gravely abused his discretion when it granted the Demurrer to Evidence.  (NO)

Held:

Guided by the foregoing principles, we hold that the Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its discretion when it granted the respondents' demurrer.

A scrutiny of the assailed resolution shows that the Sandiganbayan thoroughly passed upon the prosecution's testimonial and documentary pieces of evidence. Finding them insufficient to support the charge vis-a-vis the elements of the crime, the graft court granted the demurrer and dismissed the criminal case.

In a nutshell, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the case because the prosecution failed to prove some elements of the crime, namely: (i) that the offenders take advantage of their official positions and (ii) that they falsify a document by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.

The Sandiganbayan justified its grant of the demurrer as follows:

First, the Sandiganbayan was not convinced that Mayor Saludaga took advantage of his official position to falsify the subject OR. It held that the prosecution's evidence failed to establish that he was in any way involved in the execution and issuance of the subject OR.

Although Mayor Saludaga signed the mayor's permit, the Sandiganbayan ruled that it is the issuance of the subject OR to support the mayor's permit which is crucial in determining his culpability for the crime charged against him. As it was not shown that Mayor Saludaga had any involvement in its issuance, he could not have taken advantage of his position as Mayor and knowingly made untruthful narration of facts in the said document.

Second, the Sandiganbayan was not persuaded that the subject OR was in fact falsified.

While Adriatico admitted that he issued the subject OR and that he antedated it to August 27, 1997, the Sandiganbayan held that such act does not constitute falsification. It held that if the statements are not altogether false, there being some colorable truth in them, the crime of falsification is deemed not to have been committed. Adriatico did not necessarily make an untruthful statement of fact as to the date, there being truth that the payment received was for a past transaction.

Finally, the Sandiganbayan held that the prosecution failed to prove that De Luna was not a bona fide pakyaw contractor when the contracts were executed in December 1997. The graft court did not give credence to the prosecution's evidence (i.e., Time Book and Payroll for the period September 15 to September 30, 1997) that De Luna was a mere laborer employed by the municipality. It also dismissed the insinuations made by the prosecution's witnesses Chan and Lim that De Luna was not a qualified contractor, holding that they were mere insinuations and nothing more.

To our mind, the foregoing disquisitions sufficiently counter the People's claim that the Sandiganbayan completely ignored the prosecution's evidence and that it disregarded settled jurisprudence.

On the contrary, we find that the Sandiganbayan, by examining the prosecution's evidence vis-a-vis the elements of the crime, adequately laid the basis in resolving to grant the demurrer. We do not see how this method of arriving at a decision or resolution can be deemed a grave abuse of discretion. Simply put, we are not convinced that the Sandiganbayan acted in a capricious, arbitrary, and whimsical manner when it granted the respondents' demurrer.

This is not to say that the Sandiganbayan correctly applied the law to the facts of the case. Our finding is limited to the issue of grave abuse of discretion; we do not rule on the legal soundness of the Sandiganbayan resolution.

To reiterate, certiorari shall lie only when the respondent court gravely abuses its discretion such as when it blatantly ignores facts or denies a party due process. Certiorari does not correct errors of judgment.

Thus, even if the Sandiganbayan erred in weighing the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence, such error does not necessarily amount to grave abuse of discretion.46It is merely an error of judgment which may no longer be appealed because it would place the respondents in double jeopardy.

In the case of People v. Sandiganbayan, we found the Sandiganbayan to have erred in applying certain provisions of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines when it granted the accused's demurrer to evidence. Nonetheless, we held that even if the Sandiganbayan proceeded from an erroneous interpretation of the law, the error committed was an error of judgment and not of jurisdiction.

We found therein that the People failed to establish that the dismissal order was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. In fine, we held that the error committed by the Sandiganbayan is of such a nature that could no longer be rectified on appeal by the prosecution because it would place the accused in double jeopardy.

In another case, after the prosecution had presented its evidence and rested its case, the accused filed a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case. On appeal by the prosecution to this Court, we were of the view that the dismissal order was erroneous and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. However, we ruled that such error could not be corrected because double jeopardy had already set in.48redarclaw

In sum, although the Sandiganbayan, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion, may have erred in dismissing the criminal case, such error may no longer be annulled or set aside because it would place the respondents in double jeopardy.

At any rate, even if we go beyond the function of certiorari and dissect the prosecution's theory that the respondents conspired to commit the crime, we still sustain the Sandiganbayan.

Three acts are undisputed: (1) Adriatico issued the antedated subject OR in 1999, (2) De Luna requested Adriatico to antedate the OR, and (3) Mayor Saludaga signed in 1999 the mayor's permit which allowed De Luna to engage as pakyaw contractor for the period August 27 -December 30, 1997.

As a rule, conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused. However, it is required that said acts must clearly manifest a concurrence of wills, a common intent or design to commit a crime.

The concurrence of will and common intent or design to commit a crime is not clearly manifest in the present case. The charge of conspiracy simply does not hold water.

No convincing evidence was presented to show how the respondents conspired to commit the crime. We find no credible proof that links or gives unifying purpose to the respondents' individual acts. Without such proof, we cannot conclude with moral certainty that they conspired, connived, and mutually helped one another to commit the crime. These acts, on their own and nothing more, do not support the allegation of conspiracy.

As a final point, we note the People's suggestion that the Sandiganbayan, in granting the demurrer, tried to exculpate Mayor Saludaga and thereby abetted the freeing of a corrupt public official. While we recognize the prosecutors' efforts in bringing unscrupulous public officials to justice, we find these comments unwarranted and unfair to the Sandiganbayan. Besides, unfounded accusations such as these have no place in a pleading.