G.R. No. 228281 , June 14, 2021
People of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Honorable Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division) and Benjamin S. Abalos, Respondents.

FACTS

This is a Petition for Certiorari assailing the Sandiganbayan’s Decision which acquitted private respondent Benjamin S. Abalos, then Chairman of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), of violation of Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The charge stemmed from the National Broadband Network (NBN) Project contract between the Philippine Government (through the DOTC) and Zhing Xing Telecommunications Equipment, Inc. (ZTE). The Amended Information alleged that from September 2006 to April 2007, Abalos, while COMELEC Chairman and thus constitutionally prohibited from having financial interest in any government contract, willfully and criminally had direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in the business transaction between the Government and ZTE for the NBN Project. It was alleged he brokered for ZTE for a fee or commission, as shown by acts including attending conferences, lunch meetings, and golf games with ZTE officials; meeting with them in China; asking for his commission balance; offering a P200 Million bribe to NEDA Director General Romulo Neri to ensure the project’s approval; offering $10 Million to Jose De Venecia III to withdraw a competing proposal from Amsterdam Holdings, Inc. (AHI); and arranging meetings between ZTE officials and DOTC Secretary Leandro Mendoza.
The prosecution presented evidence of multiple meetings attended by Abalos where the NBN Project was discussed, including gatherings at Wack Wack Golf and Country Club, meetings in China, and encounters with various officials and private individuals such as Sec. Neri, Jose De Venecia III, and ZTE executives. Key testimonies included Sec. Neri stating Abalos told him “Sec., may 200 ka dyan” during a golf game, and Jose De Venecia III testifying that Abalos asked him to withdraw AHI’s proposal in exchange for $10 Million and discussed expecting commissions from the ZTE deal during a meeting in China.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in acquitting respondent Benjamin S. Abalos.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the Petition for Certiorari and AFFIRMED the Sandiganbayan’s Decision and Resolution acquitting Abalos. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Its evaluation of the prosecution’s evidence and conclusion that guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt were within its authority as the trier of facts. The Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal and cannot review errors of judgment, only jurisdictional errors. The petitioner’s arguments essentially questioned the Sandiganbayan’s assessment of the evidence and credibility of witnesses, which is beyond the scope of certiorari. Furthermore, the Court upheld the constitutional right against double jeopardy, which bars a second prosecution after an acquittal. The Sandiganbayan’s acquittal was based on its finding that the prosecution failed to prove all elements of the crime, particularly Abalos’s financial or pecuniary interest in the NBN contract. The alleged acts of brokering and offering bribes, even if proven, did not by themselves establish the element of financial interest required under Section 3(h) of R.A. No. 3019 . The Sandiganbayan’s decision was supported by the evidence and law, and no grave abuse of discretion was found.