PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (2ND DIVISION), QUINTIN SALUDAGA Y BORDEOS, ARTHUS ADRIATICO Y ERUDA AND ROMEO DE LUNA, RESPONDENTS.

People versus Sandiganbayan

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by the People of the Philippines against the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan and against Mayor Quintin Saludaga, Revenue Collection Clerk Arthus Adriatico, and private individual Romeo de Luna. The People ask the Supreme Court to annul the Sandiganbayan's resolution granting the respondents' demurrer to evidence and dismissing the criminal case for falsification of public documents. The case matters because it fixes the narrow doorway through which the prosecution may still reach a dismissal that operates as an acquittal: not by appeal, which double jeopardy forbids, but only by certiorari for grave abuse of discretion.

Procedural History

The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas charged the three respondents before the Sandiganbayan with falsification of public documents under the Revised Penal Code. All three pleaded not guilty, and the parties entered into a joint stipulation of facts. The prosecution presented its witnesses, rested its case, and made its formal offer of evidence, which the Sandiganbayan admitted. The respondents then obtained leave and filed a joint demurrer to evidence on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. The Sandiganbayan granted the demurrer and dismissed the criminal case. From that dismissal the People came directly to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65, imputing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Facts

In December 1997, Romeo de Luna entered into pakyaw contracts with the Municipality of Lavezares, Northern Samar, for the construction of shallow well hand pumps. At that time, the private complainant Armando Chan was the Vice Mayor. Sometime in January 1999, Adriatico issued an official receipt dated August 27, 1997, for de Luna's payment of 200 pesos for a mayor's permit to operate as a pakyaw contractor, and Mayor Saludaga signed a mayor's permit covering the period August 27, 1997 to December 30, 1997.

The prosecution's theory was that the respondents connived to antedate these documents so that de Luna would appear to have been a licensed pakyaw contractor when the contracts were executed in December 1997. The Provincial Treasurer and the Municipal Treasurer both testified that the booklet containing the official receipt was issued to the municipality only in October 1998, so it could not have been used for a transaction completed in 1997. The prosecution also presented a Time Book and Payroll for September 1997 to show that de Luna was a hired municipal laborer, not a contractor.

In their defenses, Mayor Saludaga invoked the Arias doctrine, that a head of office may rely in good faith on his subordinates. Adriatico argued that his name did not appear on the receipt and that antedating it was not necessarily an untruth, since the payment was for a past transaction. De Luna argued that the documents neither affirmed nor denied his status as a contractor. The Sandiganbayan found that the prosecution failed to prove that the offenders took advantage of their official positions and that they made untruthful statements in a narration of facts, and it granted the demurrer.

Issues

• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it granted the respondents' demurrer to evidence and dismissed the criminal case.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

This is the vehicle the People used, and it confines the Court to correcting jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, not errors of judgment.

Section 23 of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

Section 23. Demurrer to evidence. — After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence: (1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution an opportunity to be heard; or (2) on motion of the accused with prior leave of court.

This is the procedural device whose grant the People challenge, and whose grant in criminal cases amounts to an acquittal.

Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister. — The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: x x x x 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.

This is the crime charged, and its elements are the measure against which the Sandiganbayan weighed the prosecution's evidence.

Ruling

The Court dismissed the petition. On the sole issue, it held that the Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its discretion. Grave abuse of discretion means a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility. Mere abuse is not enough.

The Court explained that a demurrer to evidence challenges the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence, and the task is to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. In criminal cases, the grant of a demurrer amounts to an acquittal and the dismissal order may not be appealed, because that would place the accused in double jeopardy. It may, however, be reviewed through certiorari, but only where the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion, such as where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or the trial was a sham.

Reviewing the assailed resolution, the Court found that the Sandiganbayan had thoroughly passed upon the testimonial and documentary evidence and measured it against the elements of the crime. It found no proof that Mayor Saludaga took advantage of his position in the issuance of the official receipt, no falsification in the antedating of the receipt because there was some colorable truth in it, and no proof that de Luna was not a bona fide contractor. The Court stressed that it was not ruling on the legal soundness of the resolution. Even if the Sandiganbayan erred in weighing the evidence, such error is an error of judgment, not grave abuse of discretion, and may no longer be appealed because it would place the respondents in double jeopardy.

Doctrine

A demurrer to evidence is granted when the prosecution's evidence is insufficient in point of law to sustain the issue. In criminal cases, its grant amounts to an acquittal and cannot be appealed, for that would violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. The dismissal may be reached only by a petition for certiorari under Section 1 of Rule 65, and only on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Certiorari corrects errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment; a misappreciation of evidence, without more, is not grave abuse of discretion. For falsification under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements are that the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a narration of facts, that he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated, and that the facts narrated are absolutely false; the offender must also have taken advantage of his official position. Conspiracy must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, resting on nothing less than moral certainty.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, and the Sandiganbayan's resolution granting the demurrer and dismissing the criminal case was sustained.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the grant of a demurrer to evidence is an acquittal that cannot be appealed, and may be reached only by certiorari for grave abuse of discretion, never to correct an error of judgment. Examiners use this case to test the double jeopardy bar, the limited scope of Rule 65, and the elements of falsification by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.