SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 193996. August 23, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ANDREA D. DOMINGO, MAYNARDO S. MARIÑAS, ARTHUR P. SOLITO III, AND ELMER E. NAPILOT, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated23 August 2017which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 193996 (People of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, Andrea D. Domingo, Maynardo S. Mariñas, Arthur P. Solito III, and Elmer E. Napilot)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition for failure of petitioner to sufficiently show that the Sandiganbayan (SB) committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering its August 26, 2010 Resolution 1 in Criminal Case No. SB08-CRM-0038, granting respondents Andrea D. Domingo, Maynardo S. Mariñas, Arthur P. Solito III, and Elmer E. Napilot's (respondents) demurrer to evidence and dismissing the case against them.
As correctly ruled by the SB, respondents cannot be held liable for the crime of Arbitrary Detention for failure to establish their criminal intent to commit the offense. Records show that the mission order issued by respondent Andrea D. Domingo, then Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID; Commissioner Domingo), was prompted by the BID's finding that there was probable cause for Alfred Lehnert's (Lehnert) undesirability in the deportation proceedings, charging him with adultery and violation of Immigration Laws, 2 and that upon verification and investigation, it was found that Lehnert had no valid visa as his last visa extension was dubious, having been granted after it had expired. 3 Thus, the intent to deprive Lehnert of his liberty was not for some malicious purpose but merely to implement the immigration laws in good faith. Good faith is a valid defense in a prosecution for an intentional felony, 4 as in this case, because it negates the criminal intent to support a finding of liability for the crime. Accordingly, no error, much less grave abuse of discretion, can be imputed on the part of the SB granting respondents' demurrer to evidence. To note, jurisprudence provides that "[t]he prosecution cannot appeal from a ruling granting the demurrer to evidence of the accused as it is equivalent to an acquittal, unless the prosecution can sufficiently prove that the court's action is attended with grave abuse of discretion [which is not the case here]. Otherwise, the constitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy will be violated." 5 CAIHTE
SO ORDERED. CAGUIOA, J., on leave."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 62-78. Penned by Acting Presiding Justice and Chairman Edilberto G. Sandoval with Associate Justices Teresita V. Diaz-Baldos and Samuel R. Martires (now a Member of this Court) concurring.
2.Id. at 72. See also id. at 124.
3. In such a case, warrantless arrest may be effected through a mission order, there being a probable cause, and the person sought to be arrested is found in flagrante violation of immigration laws pursuant to Section 1 of Executive Order No. 287, entitled "Establishing New Operational Guidelines for the Commissioner of Immigration in the Interest of National Security, Public Safety, Public Health and/or National Interests" (September 4, 2000).
4. See Manuel v. People, 512 Phil. 818, 835 (2005).
5.People v. Sandiganbayan (1st Div.), 637 Phil. 147, 152 (2010).