G.R. No. 191834 , G.R. No. 191900, G.R. No. 191951, March 04, 2020
JOSEPHINE ESPINOSA, PETITIONER, V. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 191900] FELICISIMO F. LAZARTE, JOSEPHINE C. ANGSICO, AND VIRGILIO C. DACALOS, PETITIONERS, V. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 191951] NOEL A. LOBRIDO, PETITIONER, V. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners, all employees of the National Housing Authority (NHA), were charged with violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for allegedly giving unwarranted benefits to Triad Construction and Development Corporation (Triad Construction) in relation to the Pahanocoy Sites and Services Project Phase I (Pahanocoy Project) in Bacolod City. The Information alleged that they caused the payment of P1,280,964.20 to Triad Construction for its final work accomplishment, despite a Special Audit by the Commission on Audit (COA) revealing the actual accomplishment was only P330,075.76, thus giving unwarranted benefits to the contractor to the prejudice of the government.
After the prosecution presented its evidence, the petitioners filed Demurrers to Evidence. The Sandiganbayan denied these demurrers and subsequent motions for reconsideration, ordering the petitioners to present their evidence. The petitioners then filed consolidated Petitions for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, assailing the Sandiganbayan’s denial of their demurrers as having been committed with grave abuse of discretion.
The prosecution’s evidence included testimony from Candido Montesa Fajutag, Jr., the project engineer, who reported irregularities and substandard work, and refused to sign the fourth progress billing. COA auditors, led by Atty. Sheila Uy-Villa, testified that their investigation revealed the final billing included works that did not exist or were already paid to a previous contractor, and that necessary supporting documents and contract variation orders were lacking. Core drilling and soil tests indicated required works were not performed and pavement thickness was substandard.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners’ Demurrers to Evidence.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and affirmed the Sandiganbayan Resolutions. The Court held that a petition for certiorari assailing the denial of a demurrer to evidence is limited to reviewing whether the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that such petitions are emphatically discouraged as the accused still has the remedy of proceeding with trial and presenting evidence; filing a petition for certiorari at this stage borders on being contumacious.
The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan. A demurrer to evidence should be granted only if the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that the prosecution’s evidence, if unrebutted, was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The evidence presented, including testimonies and audit findings on irregularities, overbillings, lack of supporting documents, and substandard work, established the elements of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 : that the accused are public officers, the alleged acts were done in the discharge of their official functions, they acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, and their actions caused undue injury to the government or gave unwarranted benefits to a private party.
The Sandiganbayan’s evaluation of the evidence’s sufficiency was a function within its discretion, and its denial of the demurrers was not done in a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary manner. Therefore, the petitions were dismissed for lack of merit.