THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 240021-24. December 7, 2020.]
EDITHA QUINTE AND LUCIA PALANG, petitioners, vs.THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, SEVENTH [7TH] DIVISION, AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 7, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. Nos. 240021-24 (Editha Quinte and Lucia Palang vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan, Seventh [7th] Division, and People of the Philippines). — Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari1 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioners Editha Quinte and Lucia Palang (petitioners) seeking to annul, reverse, and set aside the Resolution 2 dated January 5, 2018 and the Resolution 3 dated April 5, 2018 in Criminal Case Nos. SB-10-CRM-0144 to 0147 by co-respondent Sandiganbayan, Seventh Division (Sandiganbayan) which denied petitioners' Motions for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence and Demurrer to Evidence.
The Facts
In Criminal Case Nos. SB-10-CRM-0144 and SB-10-CRM-0146, petitioners along with George T. Hofer (Hofer) were charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 for allegedly causing undue injury to the Government through evident bad faith by collecting and appropriating the amounts of P100,000.00, claimed under Disbursement Voucher (DV) No. 101-0109-523 and received under Check No. 59623 dated September 10, 2001, and P25,000.00, claimed under DV No. 101-0110-1645 and received under Check No. 68445 dated October 30, 2001. Petitioners allegedly made it appear in the documents supporting the disbursement vouchers that the said amounts were paid to the beneficiaries of the "Aid to the Poor Program" when in truth the beneficiaries of the program were fictitious. 4 Arising out of the same transactions, Criminal Case Nos. SB-10-CRM-0145 and SB-10-CRM-0147 charged petitioners and Hofer with Malversation through Falsification of Public Documents.
At the time of the filing of the indictments, the complex crime of Malversation through Falsification of Public Documents was considered as a non-bailable offense. Hence, petitioners filed an Application for Bail. After hearing petitioners' Application for Bail, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution dated January 27, 2012 which granted petitioners' Application for Bail. 5 Meanwhile, on November 12, 2012, accused Hofer was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. Hofer's trial then ensued on March 19, 2013. During Hofer's trial, Atty. Bernardo Sumicad (Atty. Sumicad) was presented by the prosecution. Atty. Sumicad of the Commission on Audit testified on the details concerning the transactions subject of the indictments. 6 CAIHTE
On December 26, 2013, Regional Trial Court Judge Ester M. Veloso directed the release of petitioners upon posting their respective bail bonds. On January 21, 2014, the Sandiganbayan issued an Order setting the arraignment of petitioners on February 17, 2014. On April 7, 2014, the Sandiganbayan issued a Pre-Trial Order. The prosecution then manifested that it will be "adopting the documentary exhibits, list of witnesses, stipulations, and issues as embodied in the Pre-Trial Order dated 12 November 2012 concerning accused Hofer." 7 The prosecution then continued with the presentation of its evidence. On April 4, 2017, upon completion of the testimonies of its final witnesses, the prosecution was given a period of 30 days within which to file its formal offer of evidence. Subsequently, the cases against petitioners were transferred from the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division to the Seventh Division. On June 19, 2017, the prosecution filed its Consolidated Formal Offer of Evidence. On November 29, 2017, petitioners filed Motions for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence and Demurrer to Evidence dated November 16, 2017. 8
In petitioners' Demurrer to Evidence, petitioners 9 cited the Resolution dated January 27, 2012 of the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division which purportedly pronounced that there could have been no malversation of public funds as the funds involved were Hofer's personal funds, hence, private. Petitioners contended that the prosecution presented no evidence of appropriation. On the charge of Falsification as a means to commit Malversation, petitioners contended that mere evidence that the beneficiaries could not be located did not mean that they were non-existent. Petitioners also contended that the prosecution failed to prove the third and fourth elements of Violation of Section 3 (c) of Republic Act No. 3019. There was no evidence of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and gross inexcusable negligence. 10
In its Comment, the prosecution maintained that it was able to sufficiently prove the crimes charged and it was now up to the accused to prove their defense. 11
The Assailed Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan
In a Resolution 12 dated January 5, 2018, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioners' Motions for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence and Demurrer to Evidence. The Sandiganbayan ruled that there is no basis to grant leave to petitioners to file the Demurrer to Evidence. The Sandiganbayan likewise ruled that the Demurrer to Evidence does not specifically state the grounds in support thereof and merely alleges that it was based on the Court's Resolution granting the bail. Additionally, the Sandiganbayan held that Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court unequivocally requires that the motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence shall specifically state its grounds. Furthermore, the Sandiganbayan declared that the prosecution evidence is replete with documents showing the disbursement of public funds. 13
The dispositive portion of the Sandiganbayan Resolution provides:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, accused Hofer, Quinte and Palang's Motions for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to the Evidence and the attached Demurrer to Evidence are DENIED for lack of merit.
The parties are reminded of the setting on February 20, 2018 for the presentation of defense evidence. Per Resolution of this Court dated November 20, 2017, Atty. Esguerra committed to be ready with the presentation of evidence for accused Castillo.
SO ORDERED. 14
In a Resolution 15 dated April 5, 2018, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioners' 16 Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioners then filed the present Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court.
The Issue
Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction when it issued the assailed Resolutions against petitioners.
The Court's Ruling
We dismiss the Petition.
Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 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.
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. (Emphases supplied)
At the outset, it bears stressing that an order denying the motion for leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence is not reviewable by appeal or by petition for certiorari before judgment. While there have been instances when certiorari was allowed to question such a denial, the circumstances therein were clearly tainted by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction which necessitated the Court's exercise of its judicial power of review, 17 which is not the case here. Moreover, in Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, 18 the Court held that the power to grant leave to the accused to file a demurrer to evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and wide latitude is given to it in exercising such discretion. 19 Undoubtedly, Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court clearly provides that the order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by certiorari before judgment. DETACa
In their Motion for Leave to Admit Demurrer to Evidence, petitioners anchor their claim for the dismissal of their case on the previous findings of the Sandiganbayan in its Resolution dated January 27, 2012 which granted petitioners' Application for Bail. According to petitioners, the finding of the Sandiganbayan that evidence of guilt was not strong in granting their Application for Bail, coupled with the prosecution's failure to establish the four crimes charged, is sufficient to grant their Demurrer to Evidence. The pertinent portion or their Motion for Leave to Admit Demurrer to Evidence provides:
The motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence is based on the crucial fact given the Honorable Court's conclusion and factual findings contained in its Resolution dated January 27, 2012 that the evidence of guilt of the accused is not strong thereby granting their application for bail, with the very significant exclusion of prosecution Exhibits x x x, and the sum total of evidence presented where the prosecution failed to establish and prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of the essential elements of the crime, much more the guilt of the accused, in all four (4) of the crimes/offenses charged. 20
Upon review of petitioners' Motion for Leave to Admit Demurrer to Evidence and applying the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court, the Court finds that the general allegations contained in petitioners' Motion do not comply with the requirement of Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court in that the said Motion for Leave to Admit Demurrer to Evidence should specifically state the specific portions/parts of the prosecution's body of evidence. In addition, petitioners' reliance on the January 27, 2012 Bail Resolution is misplaced. In determining the propriety of Applications for Bail, the courts only resolve the issue of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong for purposes of granting temporary liberty. Notably, during the course of the trial, the prosecution had then presented its evidence-in-chief consisting of sufficient evidence for purposes of defeating a demurrer to evidence. In fact, the Sandiganbayan, in its January 5, 2018 Resolution, clarified this in its pronouncement, to wit:
In their Demurrer to Evidence, the accused advert to this Court's Resolution dated February 7, 2012, wherein this Court, through the Fifth Division, purportedly pronounced that there could have been no malversation as the funds involved were accused Hofer's personal funds and not public funds.
This Court made no such pronouncement.
The pertinent portions of such Resolution reads:
Besides, during the 16 November 2011 testimony of Atty. Sumicad, it was revealed that the "Aid to the Poor Program" funds initially came from the funds of the governor and he was trying to reimburse the funds purportedly advanced by him to the intended beneficiaries. It was the prosecution's theory therefore that Hofer is not entitled to said reimbursement which led to the filing of these Informations.
Considering the admission of Atty. Sumicad that the funds in question are personal funds, to the effect that the personal funds of the governor was advanced, this Court cannot therefore conclude that the evidence of guilt is strong so as to deny the accused's application for bail.
Suffice it to say that Prosecution evidence is replete with documents showing the disbursement of public funds. That accused Hofer initially advanced his personal funds does not erase the obvious fact that ultimately, public funds were used to pay the purported beneficiaries of the Aid to the Poor Program, by way of Reimbursement Expense Receipts. Hence, although private funds were used at the outset under the pretext that financial assistance was given, reimbursements were sought thereafter from public funds supposedly allotted for the Aid to the Poor Program. There should be no question then on the use of public funds. 21
The Sandiganbayan did not commit
Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. aDSIHc
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is intended only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. Its principal office is only to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. 22 A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. Such cannot be used for any other purpose, as its function is limited to keeping the inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction. 23
For a petition for certiorari to prosper, the essential requisites that have to concur are: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess or jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 24
The phrase "without jurisdiction" means that the court acted with absolute lack of authority 25 or want of legal power, right or authority to hear and determine a cause or causes, considered either in general or with reference to a particular matter. It means lack of power to exercise authority. 26 "Excess of jurisdiction" occurs when the court transcends its power or acts without any statutory authority; 27 or results when an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer (to do) is not authorized, and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting. 28
In the present case, the Sandiganbayan acted within its jurisdiction when it denied petitioners' Motions for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence and Demurrer to Evidence. The records clearly show that the Sandiganbayan considered all the allegations of petitioners in their Motions with a cursory examination of the evidence on record. Such act was done in the exercise of the court's jurisdiction and was within the court's lawful discretion. Petitioners' insistence on grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan is, thus, convincingly without merit. Notably, the assailed Resolutions by the Sandiganbayan remain valid.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The January 5, 2018 and April 5, 2018 Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. SB-10-CRM-0144 to 0147 are hereby AFFIRMED. Let the Sandiganbayan continue with the hearing and resolution of the case with dispatch. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-30.
2.Id. at 32-39.
3.Id. at 41-43.
4.Id. at 6.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 69.
7.Id. at 69.
8.Id. at 70.
9. Hofer was included in the filing of the Motions for Leave of Court to File a Demurrer to Evidence and Demurrer to Evidence, but, however, is not a party in the present petition before the Court.
10.Rollo, p. 33.
11.Id.
12.Supra note 2.
13.Rollo, pp. 33-34.
14.Id. at 38.
15.Supra note 3.
16. Hofer who is not a party to the present petition also joined petitioners in the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration before the Sandiganbayan.
17. See Macapagal-Arroyo v. People, 808 Phil. 1042, 1052-1053 (2017).
18. 344 Phil. 335 (2000).
19.Id. at 346.
20.Rollo, p. 73.
21.Id. at 34-35.
22.People of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 468 Phil. 1, 10 (2004).
23.Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 456 Phil. 755, 784 (2003); Rivera v. Hon. Espiritu, 425 Phil. 169, 179-180 (2002); Barangay Blue Ridge "A" of Quezon City v. Court of Appeals, 377 Phil. 49, 53 (1999); Silverio v. Court of Appeals, 225 Phil. 459, 473 (1986).
24.Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, id. at 784-785; Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 155, 179 (1997).
25.Alafriz v Nable, 72 Phil. 278, 280 (1941); see also Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, supra note 23, at 785.
26.Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, id.
27.Madrigal Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corp., 479 Phil. 768, 779 (2004).
28.Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, supra.