G.R. No. 189365; October 12, 2011
HON. JUDGE JESUS B. MUPAS, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 112 and CARMELITA F. ZAFRA, Chief Administrative Officer, DSWD, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, thru its duly authorized representative, the Legal Service of the DSWD, Quezon City and the Office of the Solicitor General, Respondents.

FACTS

Private petitioner Carmelita F. Zafra, Supply Officer V of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), arranged for the withdrawal and replacement of 200 cartons of Bear Brand Powdered Milk nearing expiry on November 14, 1998. She instructed DSWD personnel Marcelina Beltran, who relayed it to Manuelito Roga. On the appointed date, no DSWD Property Division personnel arrived. Instead, three unidentified persons, including Zafra’s sister Ofelia Saclayan, hauled the milk valued at ₱306,736. An internal DSWD investigation found Zafra guilty of dishonesty and negligence, leading to her dismissal. The Civil Service Commission, in Resolution No. 992652 dated December 3, 1999, modified this, absolving her of dishonesty but finding her guilty of simple neglect of duty and imposing a six-month suspension. Subsequently, the Ombudsman filed two Informations with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay (Branch 112): Criminal Case No. 02-0371 for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Criminal Case No. 02-0372 for Malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code against Zafra, Beltran, Roga, and Saclayan. After the prosecution rested its case, Zafra filed a Demurrer to Evidence, which the RTC granted via Orders dated December 19, 2007, and June 2, 2008. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC Orders in its Decision dated March 19, 2009, and denied Zafra’s Motion for Reconsideration on August 28, 2009. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Regional Trial Court’s grant of petitioner Zafra’s Demurrer to Evidence in Criminal Case Nos. 02-0371 and 02-0372.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The CA correctly reversed the RTC’s grant of the demurrer.
1. On the Demurrer to Evidence: A demurrer to evidence should be granted only when the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC erred in granting it as the prosecution’s evidence, if unrebutted, could sustain a conviction. The grant of a demurrer amounts to an acquittal and cannot be appealed due to double jeopardy, unless it was granted with grave abuse of discretion. In this case, the RTC’s grant was tainted with grave abuse of discretion as it capriciously and arbitrarily ignored the prosecution’s evidence which established a prima facie case.
2. On the Charges:
* For Malversation (Article 217, RPC): The prosecution established prima facie elements. As a DSWD Supply Officer, Zafra was an accountable officer for the public property (milk). Evidence showed she arranged the withdrawal, but the goods were taken by unauthorized persons, including her sister, and were never replaced or accounted for, resulting in loss. Her subsequent inaction and failure to inquire about the goods or follow up with the supplier constituted prima facie evidence of conversion or malversation.
* For Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019: The prosecution presented prima facie evidence of the elements. Zafra, a public officer, arranged the withdrawal on a Saturday, a non-working day, deviating from standard procedure. The goods were taken by her sister and others, causing undue injury to the government in the amount of ₱306,736. Her actions and subsequent failure to act constituted gross negligence amounting to bad faith or at least gross inexcusable negligence, which is sufficient under the law.
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution’s evidence, including the DSWD committee report, the CSC Resolution finding her guilty of simple neglect, and witness testimonies, sufficiently established a prima facie case for both crimes. Therefore, the RTC should not have granted the demurrer and should have required the defense to present its evidence. The case was remanded to the RTC for the continuation of trial.