G.R. No. 164577; July 5, 2010
People of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Sandiganbayan (First Division), Victorino A. Basco, Romeo S. David, and Rogelio L. Luis, Respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, high-ranking officers of government corporations, were charged before the Sandiganbayan with violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Information alleged they conspired to enter into negotiated contracts for road construction projects without public bidding, resulting in alleged overpricing and causing undue injury to the government. After the prosecution rested its case, presenting only one witness from the Office of the Ombudsman, the respondents filed demurrers to evidence. They argued the testimony was hearsay, the evidence on overpricing was insufficient, and a prior Court of Appeals decision in a related administrative case had already upheld the validity of the negotiated contracts.
The Sandiganbayan initially denied the demurrers but, upon reconsideration, granted them. It held the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the crime, particularly evident bad faith or manifest partiality, and noted the CA’s prior exoneration in the administrative case based on the finding that direct negotiation was legally justified as “time was of the essence.” The prosecution filed this petition, arguing the grant of the demurrer was erroneous.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the demurrers to evidence, thereby warranting a reversal without violating the respondents’ right against double jeopardy.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The grant of a demurrer to evidence after the prosecution rests its case is equivalent to an acquittal. An appeal by the prosecution from such an acquittal places the accused in double jeopardy, which is constitutionally prohibited. The only exception is if the trial court’s action was attended by grave abuse of discretion, meaning a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
Here, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The Sandiganbayan’s resolution was based on its evaluation that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The lone witness had no personal knowledge of the transactions, and the prosecution relied on a generic DPWH cost table without specific proof that the contract prices were indeed excessive. The Sandiganbayan also correctly considered the factual and legal implications of the Court of Appeals’ prior ruling, which validated the contracts. The Sandiganbayan acted within its jurisdiction in weighing the evidence; its conclusion, even if allegedly erroneous, was a judicial error not correctible by certiorari. Absent a clear showing of grave abuse, the acquittal stands, and double jeopardy bars any further appeal.