G.R. Nos. 153952-71; August 23, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, vs. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (4th Div.) and HENRY BARRERA, Respondents.

FACTS

Mayor Henry Barrera of Candelaria, Zambales, was charged with multiple counts of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft Act). The Informations alleged that on or about June 30, 1998, through manifest partiality or evident bad faith, and in conspiracy with other officials, he prevented several legitimate lessee-stallholders from occupying their newly assigned stalls in the public market by issuing and implementing Memorandum No. 1. The stalls had been awarded by the previous mayor before Barrera assumed office. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated key facts, including that Barrera, after taking his oath, pleaded with the complainants not to occupy the stalls and that a public hearing was later conducted by the Sangguniang Bayan.
After the prosecution presented its witnesses and evidence, Mayor Barrera filed a Demurrer to Evidence. The Sandiganbayan granted the demurrer and dismissed the cases, ruling that the elements of the offense under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 were not established beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution filed this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, alleging the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the demurrer.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting the Demurrer to Evidence and dismissing the criminal cases against Mayor Henry Barrera.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan. A demurrer to evidence tests the legal sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence. The grant or denial of such a demurrer is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. For a petition for certiorari to succeed, the abuse of discretion must be so grave, patent, and arbitrary as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.
The Sandiganbayan correctly found the prosecution’s evidence insufficient to prove the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, particularly manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The court noted that Barrera’s act of pleading with the stallholders and the subsequent public hearing indicated an attempt to address a contentious public issue involving displaced vendors from a prior market fire, rather than a corrupt act. The prosecution failed to prove that Barrera’s issuance of the memorandum was patently unlawful or done with malicious intent. The Supreme Court emphasized that certiorari is not a remedy for errors of judgment, but for jurisdictional errors. The Sandiganbayan acted within its jurisdiction in evaluating the evidence, and its decision, even if allegedly erroneous, did not constitute grave abuse of discretion warranting the extraordinary writ.