Genuino v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 257848 and 257872-906. July 18, 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, Second Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 18, 2022which reads as follows:

"G.R. Nos. 257848 and 257872-906 (Efraim C. Genuino v. Sandiganbayan, Third Division, and the People of the Philippines). —

This Petition for Certiorari assails the Resolutions 1 dated July 9, 2021 and September 1, 2021 2 of the Sandiganbayan in SB-13-CRM-0608-0643 which respectively denied the Motion for Leave to file Demurrer to Evidence of petitioner Efraim C. Genuino (Genuino) and his subsequent Motion for Reconsideration.

Genuino was the Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) from 2004 to 2009. PAGCOR is a government-owned and controlled corporation with an original charter under Presidential Decree No. 1869. Among the conditions of PAGCOR's franchise are: (1) the payment of franchise tax which is 5% of its aggregate gross earnings; and (2) the remittance of 50% of its aggregate gross earnings to the Government, after the franchise tax deduction. 3

For the years 2004 to 2009, PAGCOR granted several financial assistances to different private entities, including Batang Iwas Droga Foundation, Inc. (BIDA Foundation) and Batang Iwas Droga Production (BIDA Production), as part of its Corporate Social Responsibility Projects. 4 AScHCD

For these disbursements, Genuino, as Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer of the PAGCOR, together with other PAGCOR executives was charged in SB-13-CRM-0608-0643 5 with 18 counts of violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 and another 18 counts malversation. 6 The details are summarized below. 7

Information	Alleged violation	Date	Subject Matter	Amount
SB-13-CRM-0608	Sec. 3 (e), RA 3019	September 15, 2009	Donations and disbursement to BIDA to cover promotional expenses	P5,402,000.00
SB-13-CRM-0609	Malversation
SB-13-CRM-0610	Sec. 3 (e), RA 3019	March 16, 2009	Disbursement to BIDA to cover advertisement expenses in tri-media	P63,104,595.64
SB-13-CRM-0611	Malversation
SB-13-CRM-0612	Sec. 3 (e), RA 3019	May 5, 2009	Donations and disbursement to BIDA to cover promotional expenses	P6,946,221.50
SB-13-CRM-0613	Malversation
SB-13-CRM-0614	Sec. 3 (e), RA 3019	May 29, 2009	Donations and disbursement to BIDA to cover promotional expenses	P3,000,000.00
SB-13-CRM-0015	Malversation
SB-13-CRM-0616	Sec. 3 (e), RA 3019	June 23, 2009	Donations and disbursement to BIDA to cover promotional expenses	P4,000,000.00
SB-13-CRM-0617	Malversation
SB-13-CRM-0618	Sec. 3 (e), RA 3019	May 18, 2009	Disbursement to Pilot Consulting to cover radio commercial for project BIDA	P158,827.50
SB-13-CRM-0619	Malversation
SB-13-CRM-0620	Sec. 3 (e), RA 3019	April 28, 2009	Disbursement to BIDA to cover TV commercial and broadsheet print ad	P1,807,104.00
SB-13-CRM-0621	Malversation
SB-13-CRM-0622	Sec. 3 (e), RA 3019	August 18, 2009	Donations and disbursement to BIDA to cover promotional expenses	P5,470,516.55
SB-13-CRM-0623	Malversation
SB-13-CRM-0624	Sec. 3 (e), RA 3019	September 28, 2009	Donations and disbursement to BIDA to cover promotional expenses	P4,065,000.00
SB-13-CRM-0625	Malversation
SB-13-CRM-0626	Sec. 3 (e), RA 3019	November 26, 2009	Donations and disbursement to BIDA to cover promotional expenses	P4,500,000.00
SB-13-CRM-0627	Malversation
SB-13-CRM-0628	Sec. 3 (e), RA 3019	October 22, 2009	Donations and disbursement to BIDA to cover promotional expenses	P3,500,251.55
SB-13-CRM-0629	Malversation
SB-13-CRM-0630	Sec. 3 (e), RA 3019	November 25, 2009	Disbursement to Coolex Apparel Merchandise to cover promotional expenses for BIDA	P2,000,000.00
SB-13-CRM-0631	Malversation
SB-13-CRM-0632	Sec. 3 (e), RA 3019	October 26, 2005	Disbursements in favor of BIDA Production in relation to "Maligayang Barangay, Maagang Pasko 2005" Project	P6,500,000.00
SB-13-CRM-0633	Malversation
SB-13-CRM-0634	Sec. 3 (e), RA 3019	September 19, 2006	Disbursements in favor of BIDA Production in relation to "Pinakamaligayang Barangay 2006" Project	P7,650,000.00
SB-13-CRM-0635	Malversation
SB-13-CRM-0636	Sec. 3 (e), RA 3019	March 11, 2008	Disbursement in favor of BIDA Production in relation to the BIDA Comics	P2,407,719.00
SB-13-CRM-0637	Malversation
SB-13-CRM-0638	Sec. 3 (e), RA 3019	June 2, 2008	Disbursements in favor of BIDA Production in relation to the BIDA Caravan project, including expenses for BIDA ID cards and pins	P12,250,000.00
SB-13-CRM-0639	Malversation
SB-13-CRM-0640	Sec. 3 (e), RA 3019	March 16, 2009	Disbursements in favor of BIDA Production in relation to the "2009 Grand BIDA March" Project	P21,240,930.00
SB-13-CRM-0641	Malversation
SB-13-CRM-0642	Sec. 3 (e), RA 3019	April 16, 2009	Donations and disbursement to BIDA to cover promotional expenses	P3,200,000.00
SB-13-CRM-0643	Malversation

After the prosecution's presentation of evidence, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence with attached Demurrer to Evidence, both dated June 23, 2021. 8 HESIcT

Dispositions of the Sandiganbayan

By Resolution9 dated July 9, 2021 in SB-13-CRM-0608-0643, the Sandiganbayan denied the Motion, thus:

The motion/s for leave of court to file demurrer/s to evidence filed by accused Efraim C. Genuino, Rene C. Figueroa, and Rafael A. 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 cases of evidence adduced by the prosecution.

xxx xxx xxx

SO ORDERED.

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied under Resolution dated September 1, 2021. 10

The Present Petition

Petitioner now seeks affirmative relief against the dispositions of the Sandiganbayan. He posits that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion when it outrightly denied his Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence despite lack of sufficient evidence to establish his guilt. For his constitutional rights to due process and presumption of innocence are deemed to have been violated. 11 It cannot be denied that all the transactions subject of the criminal cases were duly approved by the PAGCOR Board as a collegial body. 12

Our Ruling

Section 23 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly prohibits the filing of a certiorari petition against the denial of one's motion for leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence until judgment shall have 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.

It 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. (emphases added)

Espinosa, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, et al.13 is in point. In that case, the Court, through the scholarly ponencia of Senior Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen, dismissed the consolidated petitions for certiorari of Espinosa, et al., against a similar denial of their Demurrers to Evidence and Motions for Reconsideration, thus:

xxx xxx xxx

The special civil action for certiorari will not operate to review the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence. This rule is echoed in Joseph v. Villaluz, where this Court dismissed a petition for certiorari assailing the denial of the accused's demurrer to evidence: caITAC

The Court cannot decide in this special civil action whether or not the evidence adduced by the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the petitioners. It is now petitioners' duty to neutralize the evidence of the State in order to maintain the presumption of their innocence of the crime of which they are charged.

In the absence of a clear showing that the respondent Judge has committed a grave abuse of discretion or acted in excess of jurisdiction, this Court will not annul an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss a criminal case. Appeal is the proper remedy of the petitioners in order to have the findings of fact of the respondent judge reviewed by a superior court.

xxx xxx xxx

Degamo v. Office of the Ombudsman, citingJoson v. Office of the Ombudsman, provides the standard for grave abuse of discretion:

An allegation of grave abuse of discretion must be substantiated before this Court can exercise its power of judicial review. As held in Tetangco v. Ombudsman:

It is well-settled that the Court will not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's determination of whether or not probable cause exists except when it commits grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion exists where a power is exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by, or in contemplation of law.

Philippine National Bank v. Gregorio also detailed what must be established in claiming relief under the extraordinary writ of certiorari:

As the petition is filed under Rule 65, it must raise not errors of judgment but the acts and circumstances showing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion is defined as "an act too patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or act in contemplation of law" or that the tribunal, board or officer with judicial or quasi-judicial powers "exercised its power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility."

xxx xxx xxx

So must it be.

Verily, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion, amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in rendering its assailed Resolutions dated July 9, 2021 and September 1, 2021 in SB-13-CRM-0608-0643.

FOR THESE REASONS, therefore, the petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Rollo, p. 101. Penned by Presiding Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang and concurred in by Associate Justices Bernelito R. Fernandez and Ronald B. Moreno.

2.Id. at 103.

3.Id. at 7.

4.Id. at 8.

5.Id. at 10.

6.Id.

7.Id. at 10-13.

8.Rollo, p. 28.

9.Id. at 101-102.

10.Id. at 103.

11.Id. at 29-30.

12.Id. at 50.

13. G.R. Nos. 191834, 191900, 191951, March 4, 2020.