GR 175930; (February, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 175930-31 & 176010-11; February 11, 2008
WILFRED A. NICOLAS, petitioner, vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, Third Division and the OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, respondents. JOSE FRANCISCO ARRIOLA, petitioner, vs. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Wilfred Nicolas and Jose Francisco Arriola, former Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB), were charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code and Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft). The charges stemmed from the release and subsequent disappearance of a seized 40-foot container van suspected of carrying undeclared goods. The van, initially turned over to a military compound for safekeeping, was released to EIIB and brokerage representatives based on documents including a Notice of Withdrawal and an Authority for Withdrawal. The prosecution alleged the release was unauthorized, causing the government to lose customs duties and taxes.
After the prosecution rested its case, petitioners filed a Demurrer to Evidence, arguing the evidence failed to prove their guilt. The Sandiganbayan denied the demurrer and subsequent motions for reconsideration. The court admitted several prosecution exhibits but excluded others for being mere photocopies. The admitted evidence included a Turn-Over Receipt, a Certification of Withdrawal, and affidavits, but none bore the signatures of the petitioners or directly linked them to the alleged fraudulent release of the cargo.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners’ Demurrer to Evidence despite the prosecution’s alleged failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petitions, ruling that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion. A demurrer to evidence should be granted when the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient to support a conviction. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence sorely lacking. Crucially, none of the admitted documentary evidence contained the signatures of petitioners Nicolas or Arriola or otherwise demonstrated their direct participation in or approval of the container van’s release. The testimonial evidence also failed to establish that petitioners conspired in or perpetrated the alleged crimes.
The prosecution did not present the original or certified true copies of critical documents like the Notice of Withdrawal, and the witnesses could not affirmatively link the petitioners to the issuance of the release documents. Furthermore, the evidence failed to conclusively prove that customs duties were due and unpaid for the specific shipment in question. Since the prosecution’s evidence, even if given the highest evidentiary value, did not prove the petitioners’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Sandiganbayan’s denial of the demurrer was capricious and whimsical, amounting to grave abuse of discretion. The criminal cases against petitioners were consequently dismissed.