GR 153304; (February, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153304 -05; February 7, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION), IMELDA R. MARCOS, JOSE CONRADO BENITEZ and GILBERT C. DULAY, Respondents.
FACTS
The People of the Philippines filed two criminal informations for Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code against Imelda R. Marcos, then Minister of Human Settlements (MHS), and her deputies, Jose Conrado Benitez and Gilbert Dulay. The charges stemmed from the alleged anomalous disbursement of funds under the MHS Kabisig Program in 1984. In Criminal Case No. 20345, respondents were accused of misappropriating ₱57.954 million through cash advances approved by Benitez and received by Dulay, with Marcos’s concurrence. In Criminal Case No. 20346, they, along with Rafael Zagala, were accused of misappropriating ₱40 million through cash advances to Zagala. Only Marcos and Benitez were arraigned and tried, as Dulay remained at large and Zagala died.
During trial, the prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of Commission on Audit (COA) Auditor Iluminada Cortez and related documentary evidence. She testified that ₱100 million was released for the KSS Project, with ₱60 million disbursed as cash advances—₱40 million to Zagala and ₱20 million to Dulay. The prosecution alleged these funds were misappropriated. After the prosecution rested, the respondents filed demurrers to evidence, arguing the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting the demurrers to evidence and acquitting the respondents.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision. The Court held that the grant of a demurrer to evidence is equivalent to an acquittal and cannot be appealed without placing the accused in double jeopardy. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is only permissible if the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion, such as a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary disregard of evidence.
The Court found no such abuse. The Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti of malversation—the fact of misappropriation. The evidence merely showed the release and receipt of funds but crucially failed to prove that the funds were not used for their intended public purpose. Auditor Cortez’s testimony was largely based on an incomplete audit and unverified documents, and she admitted she could not confirm if the cash advances were actually liquidated or if supporting documents existed elsewhere. The prosecution did not present evidence, such as the recipients’ liquidation reports or testimonies from program beneficiaries, to prove conversion for personal use. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan’s determination that the evidence of guilt was insufficient was a valid exercise of judicial discretion, not an abuse thereof. The acquittal is final.