Case Digest: People vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 233437, April 26, 2021

Evidence | Rule 130

Leonen, J.

Petitioner: People of the Philippines  

Respondent: Sandiganbayan, Lauro L. Baja, Jr

 

Facts:

• From April 9, 2003, to February 2007, Lauro L. Baja, Jr. served as the Philippine Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

• Baja incurred representation expenses, submitted claims for reimbursement, and all claims were allowed.

• In 2006, the Commission on Audit (COA) initiated an audit of the Philippine Mission to the UN, which revealed questionable documentation of expenses.

• Reimbursements totaling $9,689.96 for 2005 lacked proper documentation, such as incomplete receipts and missing proof of payment.

• Receipts were computerized, unnumbered, and missing the names of establishments.

• Photocopies of checks did not prove receipt by payees.

• COA raised concerns over improper documentation, with checks submitted by Baja not showing evidence of being received or paid.

• A fact-finding team validated the audit's findings and identified additional questionable expenses for 2003 and 2004, totaling $19,245.00.

• In March 2008, Jaime D. Jacob of the Philippine Anti-Graft Commission filed a complaint, accusing Baja of violating Republic Act No. 9184, Republic Act No. 3019, and Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. 

• Baja allegedly claimed $28,934.96 in fictitious representation expenses over three years (2003-2005) without proper documentation.

• The prosecution presented several witnesses, including Relacion, Fe Osea Balerite, Cordera, and Sy.

• Relacion testified as part of the fact-finding team that validated audit findings.

• Balerite, a state auditor, identified documents in her Judicial Affidavit.

• Cordera testified about preparing a tabulation of Baja's 2005 representation expenses and the Audit Observation Memorandum.

• No notice of disallowance was issued due to the audit suspension, awaiting further documents.

• Sy was not presented, as his testimony would only corroborate Cordera's.

• Baja filed a Demurrer to Evidence, arguing that the prosecution did not prove the expenses were fictitious or non-existent.

• Baja claimed that failure to properly document expenses did not violate the laws he was charged under and that no bad faith or undue injury was proven.

Sandiganbayan: Granted Baja's Demurrer to Evidence, finding that while improper documentation existed, there was no proof of fictitious or non-existent transactions.

• The Sandiganbayan found the prosecution did not sufficiently prove Baja's bad faith or that the government suffered undue injury.

• The case was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

Issues:

1. Whether the Petition for Certiorari is barred by respondent Lauro L. Baja, Jr.'s right against double jeopardy.

2. Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly found that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of respondent Lauro L. Baja, Jr.'s alleged fictitious or non-existent reimbursement expenses.

Held:

Under Article III, Section 21 of the Constitution, all persons have the right not to be placed in double jeopardy of punishment for one offense:

SECTION 21. 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.

This Court has held that once a demurrer to evidence has been granted in a criminal case, the grant amounts to an acquittal, and any further prosecution for the same offense would violate Article III, Section 21 of the Constitution. In People v. Sandiganbayan:

Under Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, the trial court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence upon a demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court. Thus, in resolving the accused's demurrer to evidence, the court is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or support a verdict of guilt. The grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a grave abuse of discretion. Significantly, once the court grants the demurrer, such order amounts to an acquittal; and any further prosecution of the accused would violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy. This constitutes an exception to the rule that the dismissal of a criminal case made with the express consent of the accused or upon his own motion bars a plea of double jeopardy.

The only time when assailing the grant of a demurrer to evidence will not violate the right against double jeopardy is when the trial court is shown to have gravely abused its discretion, such that the prosecution's right to due process was violated, denying it the opportunity to present its case. The petitioner must prove that the trial court "blatantly abused its authority to apoint so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice."

Here, petitioner argues that its Petition does not violate respondent Baja's right against double jeopardy because the Sandiganbayan allegedly acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan committed a "gross misapprehension of facts"  tantamount to grave abuse of discretion, warranting the reversal of the grant of Demurrer to Evidence.

There is a gross misapprehension of facts when the trial court makes findings based on significant contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses, or when these findings are unfounded, speculative, or arbitrary. 

Petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan should have found that respondent Baja's expenses were non-existent or fictitious. It claims that it had convincingly established this:

In the instant case, the negative averment that Baja, Jr.'s expenses were non-existent or fictitious had been convincingly established by these proven facts: (a) computerized receipts which were not pre-numbered and did not contain the names of the establishments to which payments were made; (b) photocopies of Baja, Jr.'s personal checks which he submitted to support his claims for reimbursements did not show any indication that these were received by the payees and subsequently paid by the drawee bank. 

However, a review of the Sandiganbayan's March 20, 2017 and June 27, 2017 Resolutions shows that the Sandiganbayan did not commit a gross misapprehension of the facts in the case. Its findings were based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, while the prosecution proved that respondent Baja's expenses were improperly documented, it failed to present enough evidence that would lead to a conclusion that these expenses were completely fictitious or non-existent:

The prosecution should have presented another evidence to prove that the checks were issued by the accused as payment for the service of waiters, purchase of food, caterers were never negotiated or paid to the waiters, caterers or restaurants. The mere fact that the checks submitted as proof of payment do not show that they were honored and paid for does not mean that the same were not paid. It should be remembered that the negotiation of the checks was not made in the Philippines but in another jurisdiction. The prosecution should have proven the indications that will determine negotiation of checks in the United States of America. Not even statements or affidavits of waiters, caterers or any person with personal knowledge that payment to waiters were presented to corroborate the evidence submitted. The fact that there were originals or even photocopies of the checks without any proof that these were negotiated at the issuing bank alone is not sufficient proof that the expenses were non-existing or fictitious. It must be corroborated by some other forms of evidence.

The teams sent by the Philippine government to conduct the audit and/or fact-finding investigation should have delved deeper and made inquiries to determine if payments or expenses sought to be reimbursed by the accused were indeed made. They could have even inquired from the accused himself about the originals of the checks or secured copies of the bank statements to reflect the debit of the checks issued. But, the investigators were content with simply inquiring on the fate of Chemical Bank, which was merged with Chase Manhattan Bank in 1996 and renamed as Chase Manhattan Corporation. And, when they were held off because of bank secrecy, they did not inquire further.

. . . .

Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrer thereto is such evidence in character, weight or amount as will legally justify the judicial or official action demanded according to the circumstances. To be considered sufficient, therefore, the evidence must prove: (a) the commission of the crime, and (b) the precise degree of participation therein by the accused.

In the case of accused Baja, the prosecution failed to establish sufficient evidence that accused Baja caused the reimbursement of non­ existent or fictitious representation expenses. Certainly, the hearsay statements made by Mr. Sung of Azure could cast doubt on the authenticity of the two (2) receipts that were submitted by accused Baja for reimbursement. But, it could not lead to certainty that the said receipts are fictitious or the entries therein fictitious. The provisional receipts attached to the reimbursement documents do not also indicate that no payments or expenses were incurred. And, as discussed above, the attached photocopy or original checks without proof that the same were paid or negotiated does not contradict payment of services or goods.

This Court gives it to the prosecution that there was, indeed, improper documentation of reimbursement of expenses. Unfortunately, it could not lead to a conclusion that these documents, even if improper, are evidence of non-existent or fictitious transactions.

The Information specifically charged respondent Baja with claiming and receiving reimbursement for non-existent or fictitious representation expenses, and not for merely submitting incomplete documents to support his claims. As the Sandiganbayan noted, the irregularities in the supporting documents are insufficient positive proof of the alleged nonpayment. The prosecution bore the burden to prove the allegations in the Information. If its evidence was insufficient to establish the elements of the offense charged, respondent Baja's guilt could not have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The grant of the Demurrer to Evidence was proper.

Petitioner was unable to show that the Sandiganbayan, in granting Demurrer, blatantly abused its authority as to deprive itself of "its very power to dispense justice."The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. To reverse its grant of the Demurrer to Evidence and dismissal of the case would be to violate respondent Baja's right against double jeopardy.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. March 20, 2017 and June 27, 2017 Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan Special Fourth Division in SB-11-CRM-0031 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Hernando, Inting, Delos Santos, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.