Sillona v. Sandiganbayan [Third Division]

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 243770. January 28, 2019.]

ANTONIO V. SILLONA, petitioner,vs. SANDIGANBAYAN [THIRD DIVISION] AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 28 January 2019 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 243770 (Antonio V. Sillona v. Sandiganbayan [Third Division] and the People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman)

After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 for failure of petitioner Antonio V. Sillona (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the Sandiganbayan (SB) committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying his Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence 2 (Motion) in its September 28, 2018 3 and November 13, 2018 4 Resolutions (Assailed Resolutions) in SB-16-CRM-0270.

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 certiorari before judgment. 5 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 excess of jurisdiction which necessitated the Court's exercise of its judicial power of review, 6 which is not the case here. It is settled that the power to grant leave to the accused to file a demurrer is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, 7 and wide latitude is given to it in exercising such discretion. 8 Lastly, it should be noted that the Assailed Resolutions did not violate Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution as this provision does not apply to interlocutory orders, 9 as in this case.

SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)

Very truly yours,

MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Titled Petition for Certiorari (With Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction). Rollo, pp. 3-22.

2. Dated September 19, 2018. Id. at 28-31.

3.Id. at 39-40. Given in open court by Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang with Associate Justices Bernelito R. Fernandez and Sarah Jane T. Fernandez.

4.Id. at 56.

5. Section 23, Rule 119 of the REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE provides:

   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.

xxx xxx xxx

   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.

6. See Macapagal-Arroyo v. People, G.R. Nos. 220598 and 220953, April 18, 2017, 823 SCRA 370, 388.

7.Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, 344 Phil. 335, 346 (1997).

8. See Reyes v. SB, 694 Phil. 206, 222 (2012).

9.Ola v. People, 774 Phil. 80, 90 (2015).