GR 174504; (March, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 174504; March 21, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division) and MANUEL G. BARCENAS, Respondents.
FACTS
On May 21, 2004, private respondent Manuel G. Barcenas, then Vice-Mayor of Toledo City, was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1445. The Information alleged that on or about December 19, 1995, Barcenas, having obtained cash advances totaling ₱61,765.00 from the city government, willfully failed to liquidate them despite demands. He pleaded not guilty at arraignment. The prosecution presented its lone witness, COA State Auditor Manolo Tulibao Villad, and then rested its case. Barcenas filed a motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence, which the Sandiganbayan granted. On July 26, 2006, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a Resolution granting the demurrer and dismissing the case. The Sandiganbayan ruled that the testimony of the prosecution’s witness confirmed that Barcenas had liquidated the cash advances by the time the case was filed, thus finding the element of damage to the government wanting.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting the demurrer to evidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that an order of dismissal arising from the grant of a demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal and cannot be appealed, as it would place the accused in double jeopardy. Such an order is reviewable only by certiorari under Rule 65 if it was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The burden is on the petitioner to prove such grave abuse, which was not demonstrated in this case. The Sandiganbayan granted the demurrer based on its finding that the prosecution failed to prove damage, as the cash advances had been liquidated. While the Supreme Court noted, in discussing the legal provisions, that actual damage is not an essential element of the offense under Section 89 of P.D. No. 1445 (the mere failure to liquidate within the prescribed period being punishable), this observation pertained to the interpretation of the law and did not equate to a finding that the Sandiganbayan’s action was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The Sandiganbayan’s decision, even if potentially based on a misinterpretation, constituted an error of judgment, not jurisdiction. Therefore, the dismissal order, having the effect of an acquittal, stands.