THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 245356-57. March 2, 2022.]
EFRAIM C. GENUINO, petitioner,vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, THIRD DIVISION, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 2, 2022, which reads as follows:
G.R. Nos. 245356-57 — Efraim C. Genuino v. Sandiganbayan, Third Division, and the People of the Philippines
RESOLUTION
The Case
Petitioner Efraim C. Genuino was the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), a government-owned and controlled corporation created to regulate all games of chance authorized by existing franchise or permitted by law. Since its creation in 1977, PAGCOR has demonstrated its reliability as a source of income for the government and, as of December 1982, has generated gross revenue of P1.677 billion.
One of the marketing programs of PAGCOR was the Player Tracking System (PTS) where casino patrons are rewarded with rebates which can be used to redeem food within the casino premises and other privileges. 1 It was also designed to encourage PAGCOR patrons to continue playing and earn points despite losing actual money. 2 Marketing programs such as these were funded through PAGCOR's budget for "Operating Expenses" (OPEX). 3
Due to supposed clamor among casino patrons to redeem their PTS points with "Baler" movie passes, PAGCOR's Corporate Communications Services Department (CCSD) requested its Board of Directors to allow the distribution of "Baler" movie tickets to different PAGCOR branches.
"Baler" was a movie co-produced by Viva Productions, Inc. and BIDA Foundation and an official entry in the 2008 Metro Manila Film Festival. It depicted the heroic blockade of the last Spanish contingent at Baler, Aurora known as the "Siege of Baler."
Under Resolution No. 08-3302 4 dated December 16, 2008, the PAGCOR Board approved the distribution of "Baler" tickets, thus:
Baler Movie Passes
Baler, one of the entries in the 2008 Metro Manila Film Festival, is a movie about heroism, courage, love of freedom, patriotism, endurance, and chivalry in time of war. Viva Films and BIDA Foundation, Inc., [have] partnered in promoting the said film.
Due to the clamor of casino patrons to have Baler movie passes be made chargeable to their Player Tracking System (PTS) points, and as requested by the CCSD Vice President in his Memorandum dated December 3, 2008, the Board, on motion and seconded, APPROVED the distribution to PAGCOR branches of movie passes for BALER, one of the entries in the 2008 Metro Manila Film Festival, for the period December 25 and 26, 2008, and the accumulated remittances/payments from the different branches be made payable to the BIDA Foundation, Inc., x x x 5
xxx xxx xxx
On June 14, 2011, however, Eugene D. Manalastas, a member of the PAGCOR Board of Directors, filed a complaint-affidavit 6 before the Department of Justice (DOJ) against petitioner and other PAGCOR executives for malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code and violation of Section 3 (e) 7 of Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019). Particularly, he accused petitioner of causing damage and prejudice to the government when he (petitioner) ordered, authorized, consented, allowed, and/or permitted the processing and disbursement of P26,700,000.00 of PAGCOR funds for the purchase of "Baler" movie tickets. 8 More, petitioner acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence when he gave unwarranted benefits to BIDA Foundation by entering into grossly and manifestly disadvantageous transactions with the latter. 9 Manalastas brought to fore the fact that the executive producer of "Baler" was petitioner's own son Erwin Genuino. 10 CAIHTE
By Resolutions dated July 19 and 20, 2012, the DOJ endorsed its finding of probable cause to charge petitioner with malversation and violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, respectively, to the Ombudsman who, under Joint Review Resolution dated February 20, 2013, approved the DOJ's findings and ordered the filing of the necessary Informations before the Sandiganbayan. 11
During the trial, after the prosecution rested its case, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence (Motion for Leave) dated October 23, 2018. He essentially posited that the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish the offenses charged against him. 12
Dispositions of the Sandiganbayan
By Resolution 13 dated November 8, 2018 in SB-13-CRM-0605-0606, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's Motion, thus:
The motion/s for leave to file demurrer/s to evidence filed by accused Genuino, Figueroa, Benedicto, and Francisco, through counsel/s, are DENIED for lack of merit. This is without prejudice to the said accused filing such demurrer/s to evidence without prior leave of court, but subject to the legal consequence provided under Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, that is, they shall waive their right to present evidence and submit these cases for judgment on the bases of evidence adduced by the prosecution.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 14
Petitioner sought reconsideration which was denied under Resolution dated December 13, 2018. 15
The Present Petition
Petitioner now seeks affirmative relief from the dispositions of the Sandiganbayan. He essentially argues that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion when it outrightly denied his Motion for Leave despite lack of factual and legal basis as well as sufficient evidence to establish his guilt. 16
Further, there was allegedly nothing irregular or illegal in the disbursement of P26,700,000.00 for the purchase of the "Baler" movie tickets since it was duly approved by the PAGCOR Board. 17 At any rate, the funds used for said purchase were sourced from PAGCOR's OPEX funds and not from the government's share. Hence, there was no damage, much less, undue injury caused to the government by this transaction. 18
Ruling
Section 23 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly prohibits the filing of a certiorari petition against the denial of leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence until judgment has been rendered in the main case, thus:
Section 23. Demurrer to evidence. — After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court.
If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution. (15a)
The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall specifically state its grounds and shall be filed within a non-extendible period of five (5) days after the prosecution rests its case. The prosecution may oppose the motion within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from its receipt.
If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to evidence within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice. The prosecution may oppose the demurrer to evidence within a similar period from its receipt.
The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment. (Emphasis added)
Clearly, petitioner availed of an improper remedy when he prematurely filed a petition for certiorari with the Court, that is, before the Sandiganbayan could even hand down its final verdict in SB-13-CRM-0605 to 0606. DETACa
At any rate, the issuance of a writ of certiorari requires that there be no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available to correct the alleged error in jurisdiction. 19 As it was, there was such remedy available on the part of petitioner. In fact, the Sandiganbayan explicitly pronounced that the denial of his Motion for Leave was "without prejudice to the said accused filing such demurrer/s to evidence without prior leave of court, but subject to the legal consequence provided under Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure." Should petitioner opt to forego of this remedy, he may, in the alternative, proceed to trial and present evidence in his defense.
So must it be.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp- 9-10.
2.Id. at 10.
3.Id.
4.Id. at 87.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 212-235.
7. Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. (ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT, Republic Act No. 3019, Approved on August 17, 1960).
8.Id. at 13.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 48.
11.Id. at 11.
12.Id. at 20.
13.Id. at 60.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 62.
16.Id. at 26-27.
17.Id. at 41.
18.Id. at 45.
19. See Cruz, et al. v. People, 812 Phil. 166, 171 (2017).