GR 165996; (October, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 165996 October 17, 2005
RODOLFO G. VALENCIA, Petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Rodolfo G. Valencia, then Governor of Oriental Mindoro, was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. The information alleged that on December 1, 1992, he appointed Cresente Umbao as a Sangguniang Bayan member within one year after Umbao lost in the May 1992 elections, purportedly causing undue injury to the government and giving unwarranted benefit. After pleading not guilty, the parties submitted a Joint Stipulation of Facts during pre-trial. Based on this, the prosecution rested its case, waiving the presentation of further evidence. Valencia then filed a motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence, arguing the stipulation was inadmissible due to his lack of signature and that, even if admitted, it failed to establish the essential elements of the crime.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence and in recalling the pre-trial order based on the Joint Stipulation of Facts.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. A demurrer to evidence is filed after the prosecution rests its case, challenging the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence. The Court found that the prosecution had not formally offered its evidence when the motion was filed; it had merely announced its intention to rest based on the stipulation. The Sandiganbayan’s subsequent recall of the pre-trial order, due to petitioner’s refusal to sign the stipulation, rendered the motion for leave moot. The proper course was for the prosecution to formally present its evidence. Furthermore, the denial of a motion for leave to file a demurrer is an interlocutory order not subject to certiorari, as it does not terminate the proceedings. Petitioner’s remedy was to proceed to trial and, if convicted, to appeal. The Court emphasized that certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal and is not available to challenge interlocutory orders where other adequate remedies exist, such as presenting defense evidence. Thus, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.