G.R. No. 233280 -92, September 18, 2019.
People of the Philippines, Petitioner, v. Hon. Sandiganbayan (Second Division) and Felicidad B. Zurbano, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Felicidad B. Zurbano, the Provincial Director of TESDA-Cavite, was indicted for thirteen (13) counts of violating Section 3(h) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Informations alleged she had an indirect financial or pecuniary interest in contracts entered into by her office with CDZ Enterprises, a sole proprietorship owned by her sister, Nieves Brillo Cabigan. The parties entered into a Joint Stipulation of Facts which established, among others, Zurbano’s public position, her sister’s ownership of CDZ Enterprises, and the existence of at least thirteen Purchase Orders from CDZ Enterprises to TESDA-Cavite.
The prosecution presented two witnesses. Arnold Campos, a driver and designated canvasser, testified that Zurbano controlled the procurement process: she retained one canvass form, later returned it with CDZ Enterprises’ prices as the lowest bid, used the TESDA service vehicle to deliver supplies from CDZ Enterprises, and had him collect checks payable to CDZ Enterprises. Julita Osia, a Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) member, testified that the BAC’s role was merely to sign pre-prepared canvass and abstract documents provided by Campos.
The defense presented Zurbano, who denied the allegations. She asserted her involvement was limited to approving Purchase Requests and signing canvass forms and Purchase Orders. She claimed the BAC was appointed by her predecessor, denied retaining canvass forms, and stated she was informed of an arrangement between her sister and Campos for delivery using the service vehicle.
The Sandiganbayan initially found Zurbano guilty. Upon Motion for Reconsideration, it reversed its decision and acquitted her. The Sandiganbayan held that while Zurbano intervened in the contracts, the prosecution failed to prove the second element of Section 3(h) that she had a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in the business of her sister. Mere kinship does not equate to pecuniary interest, and no evidence showed she received material benefit or shared in the profits of CDZ Enterprises.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in acquitting respondent Felicidad B. Zurbano of violation of Section 3(h) of R.A. No. 3019 .

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the acquittal. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan’s acquittal was based on an evaluation of the evidence and pertained to errors of judgment, not errors of jurisdiction. All elements of double jeopardy are present: (1) a valid Information, (2) a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) the accused had pleaded, and (4) the accused was acquitted. The prosecution was not denied due process as it was given full opportunity to present its case. The only instance where double jeopardy does not bar a review is when the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion, such as where the prosecution was not allowed to present its case or the trial was a sham, which were not present here. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion; it merely re-evaluated the evidence and found the element of pecuniary interest unproven beyond reasonable doubt.