Professional Documents
Culture Documents
02 People v. Sandiganbayan (2011)
02 People v. Sandiganbayan (2011)
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 174504 March 21, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs.
HON. SANDIGANA!AN "Th#r$ $#%#&#o'( a'$ MANUEL G.
ARCENAS, Respondents.
D ! I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
The dis"issal order arisin# fro" the #rant of a de"urrer to evidence a"ounts to an
ac$uittal and cannot be appealed because it %ould place the accused in double
&eopard'. The order is revie%able onl' b' certiorari if it %as issued %ith #rave abuse of
discretion a"ountin# to lac( or e)cess of &urisdiction.
This is a Petition for Certiorari %hich see(s to nullif' the Sandi#anba'an*s +ul' ,-, ,..-
Resolution
/
%hich #ranted private respondent*s de"urrer to evidence.
Factual Antecedents
On Ma' ,/, ,..0, private respondent %as char#ed %ith violation of Section 12 of
Presidential Decree 3P.D.4 No. /005
,
before the Sandi#anba'an. The Infor"ation reads
6
That on or about Dece"ber /2, /225, and for so"eti"e prior or subse$uent thereto at
Toledo !it', Province of !ebu, Philippines, and %ithin the &urisdiction of this 7onorable
!ourt, the above8na"ed accused M9N:; <. =9R!N9S, a hi#h8ran(in# public
officer, bein# a Vice8Ma'or of Toledo !it', and co""ittin# the offense in relation to
office, havin# obtained cash advances fro" the !it' <overn"ent of Toledo in the total
a"ount of SI>T?8ON T7O:S9ND SVN 7:NDRD SI>T? FIV PSOS
3P-/,@-5...4, Philippine !urrenc', %hich he received b' reason of his office, for %hich
he is dut' bound to li$uidate the sa"e %ithin the period re$uired b' la%, %ith deliberate
intent and intent to #ain, did then and there, %illfull', unla%full' and cri"inall' fail to
li$uidate said cash advances of P-/,@-5..., Philippine !urrenc', despite de"ands to
the da"a#e and pre&udice of the #overn"ent in the aforesaid a"ount.
A
The case %as doc(eted as !ri"inal !ase No. ,@22. and raffled to the Third Division.
On October ,., ,..0, private respondent %as arrai#ned for %hich he pleaded not #uilt'.
The prosecution presented its lone %itness, Manolo Tulibao Villad, !o""ission on
9udit 3!O94 State 9uditor. Thereafter, the prosecution filed its for"al offer of evidence
and rested its case.
On 9pril ,., ,..-, private respondent filed a "otion
0
for leave to file de"urrer to
evidence. On +une /-, ,..-, the Sandi#anba'an issued a Resolution
5
#rantin# the
"otion. On +une A., ,..-, private respondent filed his de"urrer
-
to evidence.
Sandiganbayans Ruling
On +ul' ,- ,..-, the Sandi#anba'an pro"ul#ated the assailed Resolution, vizB
C find the de"urrer to evidence %ell ta(en.
The testi"on' of the prosecution*s lone %itness !it' 9uditor Manolo Tulibao confir"in#
his Report 3)hibit DDD4 that the accused had indeed li$uidated his cash advances did
not help the prosecution but rather %ea(ened its cause of action a#ainst the accused.
9t the ti"e this case %as filed in !ourt, the accused had alread' li$uidated his cash
advances sub&ect "atter hereof in the total a"ount of P-/,@-5.... 7ence, Ce find the
ele"ent of da"a#es %antin# in this case.
PRMISS !ONSIDRD, the De"urrer to vidence is hereb' #ranted and this case
is hereb' orderedDISMISSED.
@
I&&)*
Chether the Sandi#anba'an acted %ith #rave abuse of discretion a"ountin# to lac( or
e)cess of &urisdiction in #ivin# due course to and eventuall' #rantin# the de"urrer to
evidence.
1
Petitioners Arguments
Petitioner contends that the prosecution %as able to establish all the ele"ents of the
offense defined and penaliEed under Section 12 of P.D. No. /005B 3/4 the private
respondent, an accountable officer, received cash advances in the total a"ount
of P/,.,...... to defra' the e)penses of the Public 9ssistance !o""ittee and
1
!o""ittee on Police Matters coverin# the period +anuar'8March /22A, 3,4 the purpose
of the cash advance has been served, 3A4 the private respondent settled his cash
advances onl' in March /22-, 304 the cit' auditor sent a de"and letter to the private
respondent to settle the cash advance %ithin @, hours fro" receipt thereof, and 354 the
private respondent received said letter on Dece"ber ,,, /225 but failed to li$uidate the
sa"e %ithin the aforestated period.
9lthou#h it concedes that the private respondent eventuall' settled the sub&ect cash
advances so"eti"e in March /22-, petitioner theoriEes that da"a#e is not one of the
ele"ents of the offense char#ed. 7ence, the settle"ent of the cash advance %ould not
e)onerate the private respondent but onl' "iti#ate his cri"inal liabilit'. Other%ise, the
purpose of the la% %ould be rendered futile since accountable officers can easil' "a(e
cash advances and li$uidate the sa"e be'ond the period prescribed b' la% %ithout
bein# penaliEed for doin# so.
Finall', petitioner ar#ues that double &eopard' does not lie in this case because the
order of dis"issal %as issued %ith #rave abuse of discretion a"ountin# to lac( of
&urisdiction.
Private Respondents Arguments
Private respondent counters that the #rant of a de"urrer to evidence is e$uivalent to an
ac$uittal fro" %hich the prosecution cannot appeal as it %ould place the accused in
double &eopard'. Further, assu"in# that the Sandi#anba'an erroneousl' #ranted the
de"urrer, this %ould, at "ost, constitute an error of &ud#"ent and not an error of
&urisdiction. Thus, certiorari does not lie to correct the #rant of the de"urrer to evidence
b' the Sandi#anba'an.
O)r R)+#',
The petition lac(s "erit.
An order of dismissal arising from the grant of a demurrer to evidence has the effect of
an acquittal unless the order was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.
In cri"inal cases, the #rant of a de"urrer
2
is tanta"ount to an ac$uittal and the
dis"issal order "a' not be appealed because this %ould place the accused in double
&eopard'.
/.
9lthou#h the dis"issal order is not sub&ect to appeal, it is still revie%able but
onl' throu#h certiorari under Rule -5 of the Rules of !ourt.
//
For the %rit to issue, the
trial court "ust be sho%n to have acted %ith #rave abuse of discretion a"ountin# to
lac( or e)cess of &urisdiction such as %here the prosecution %as denied the opportunit'
to present its case or %here the trial %as a sha" thus renderin# the assailed &ud#"ent
void.
/,
The burden is on the petitioner to clearl' de"onstrate that the trial court blatantl'
abused its authorit' to a point so #rave as to deprive it of its ver' po%er to dispense
&ustice.
/A
In the case at bar, the Sandi#anba'an #ranted the de"urrer to evidence on the #round
that the prosecution failed to prove that the #overn"ent suffered an' da"a#e fro"
private respondent*s non8li$uidation of the sub&ect cash advance because it %as later
sho%n, as ad"itted b' the prosecution*s %itness, that private respondent li$uidated the
sa"e albeit belatedl'.
Sections 12 and /,1 of P.D. No. /005 provide6
S!TION 12. Limitations on Cash Advance. 6 No cash advance shall be #iven unless
for a le#all' authoriEed specific purpose. A ca&h a$%a'c* &ha++ -* r*.or/*$ o' a'$
+#0)#$a/*$ a& &oo' a& /h* .)r.o&* 1or 2h#ch #/ 2a& ,#%*' ha& -**' &*r%*$. No
additional cash advance shall be allo%ed to an' official or e"plo'ee unless the
previous cash advance #iven to hi" is first settled or a proper accountin# thereof is
"ade.
S!TION /,1. Penal Provision. 6 9n' violation of the provisions of Sections -@,
-1, 34, /.-, and /.1 of this !odeor a'5 r*,)+a/#o' #&&)*$ -5 /h* Co66#&&#o' 7o'
A)$#/8 #6.+*6*'/#', /h*&* &*c/#o'&, shall be punished b' a fine not e)ceedin# one
thousand pesos or b' i"prison"ent not e)ceedin# si) 3-4 "onths, or both such fine
and i"prison"ent in the discretion of the court. 3"phasis supplied.4
On the other hand, !O9 !ircular No. 2.8AA/
/0
or the DRules and Re#ulations on the
<rantin#, :tiliEation and ;i$uidation of !ash 9dvancesD %hich i"ple"ented Section 12
of P.D. No. /005 pertinentl' providedF
5. ;IG:ID9TION OF !9S7 9DV9N!S
5./ The 9O 39ccountable Officer4 shall li$uidate his cash advance as follo%sB
5././ Salaries, Ca#es, etc. 8 %ithin 5 da's after each /5 da'H end of the "onth pa'
period.
5./., Pett' Operatin# )penses and Field Operatin# )penses 8 %ithin ,. da's after
the end of the 'earI sub&ect to replenish"ent durin# the 'ear.
5./.A Forei#n Travel 8 %ithin -. da's after return to the Philippines.
2
Failure of the 9O to li$uidate his cash advance %ithin the prescribed period shall
constitute a valid cause for the %ithholdin# of his salar'.
) ) ) )
5.@ Chen a cash advance is no lon#er needed or has not been used for a period of t%o
3,4 "onths, it "ust be returned to or deposited i""ediatel' %ith the collectin# officer.
5.1 9ll cash advances shall be full' li$uidated at the end of each 'ear. )cept for pett'
cash fund, the 9O shall refund an' une)pended balance to the !ashierH!ollectin#
Officer %ho %ill issue the necessar' official receipt.
) ) ) )
2. D:TIS 9ND RSPONSI=I;ITIS OF T7 !O9 9:DITOR
) ) ) )
2.- :pon failure of the 9O to li$uidate his cash advance %ithin one "onth for 9Os
%ithin the station and three "onths for 9Os outside the station fro" date of #rant of the
cash advance, the 9uditor shall issue a letter de"andin# li$uidation or e)planation for
non8li$uidation.
2.@ If A. da's have elapsed after the de"and letter is served and no li$uidation or
e)planation is received, or the e)planation received is not satisfactor', the 9uditor shall
advise the head of the a#enc' to cause or order the %ithholdin# of the pa'"ent of an'
"one' due the 9O. The a"ount %ithheld shall be applied to his 39OJs4 accountabilit'.
The 9O shall li(e%ise be held cri"inall' liable for failure to settle his
accounts.
/5
3"phasis supplied.4
9s can be seen, contrar' to the findin#s of the Sandi#anba'an, actual da"a#e to the
#overn"ent arisin# fro" the non8li$uidation of the cash advance is not an essential
ele"ent of the offense punished under the second sentence of Section 12 of P.D. No.
/005 as i"ple"ented b' !O9 !ircular No. 2.8AA/. Instead, the "ere failure to ti"el'
li$uidate the cash advance is the #rava"en of the offense. Veril', the la% see(s to
co"pel the accountable officer, b' penal provision, to pro"ptl' render an account of the
funds %hich he has received b' reason of his office.
/-
Nonetheless, even if the Sandi#anba'an proceeded fro" an erroneous interpretation of
the la% and its i"ple"entin# rules, the error co""itted %as an error of &ud#"ent and
not of &urisdiction. Petitioner failed to establish that the dis"issal order %as tainted %ith
#rave abuse of discretion such as the denial of the prosecution*s ri#ht to due process or
the conduct of a sha" trial. In fine, the error co""itted b' the Sandi#anba'an is of
such a nature that can no lon#er be rectified on appeal b' the prosecution because it
%ould place the accused in double &eopard'.
/@
In United tates v. !ila"ko,
/1
the accused %as char#ed %ith a violation under Section
/, of the !hattel Mort#a#e ;a%
/2
%hich prohibited the "ort#a#or fro" sellin# the
"ort#a#ed propert' %ithout the consent of the "ort#a#ee %hile the debt secured
re"ained outstandin#. The accused %as arrai#ned for %hich he pleaded not #uilt'.
Thereafter, he "oved to dis"iss the Infor"ation. 9fter the prosecution and defense
entered into a stipulation of facts, the trial court dis"issed the case. On appeal b' the
prosecution to this !ourt, %e ac(no%led#ed that the trial court erred in interpretin#
Section /, %hen it ruled that the subse$uent pa'"ent of the secured debt e)tin#uished
the accused*s cri"inal liabilit' arisin# fro" the unla%ful sale of the "ort#a#ed propert'.
Nonetheless, %e ruled that the &ud#"ent dis"issin# the Infor"ation, althou#h based
upon an erroneous interpretation of the la%, %as in effect a &ud#"ent on the "erits fro"
%hich no appeal la' on the part of the prosecution as it %ould place the accused in
double &eopard'.
,.
#avv$hi#
In another case, Peo$le v. Cit" Court of ila",
,/
after the prosecution had presented its
evidence and rested its case, the accused filed a "otion to dis"iss for insufficienc' of
evidence. The trial court #ranted the "otion and dis"issed the case. On appeal b' the
prosecution to this !ourt, %e %ere of the vie% that the dis"issal order %as erroneous
and resulted to a "iscarria#e of &ustice. 7o%ever, %e ruled that such error cannot be
corrected because double &eopard' had alread' set inB
In the case of the herein respondents, ho%ever, the dis"issal of the char#e a#ainst
the" %as one on the "erits of the case %hich is to be distin#uished fro" other
dis"issals at the instance of the accused. 9ll the ele"ents of double &eopard' are here
present, to %itB 3/4 a valid infor"ation sufficient in for" and substance to sustain a
conviction of the cri"e char#ed, 3,4 a court of co"petent &urisdiction, and 3A4 an
unconditional dis"issal of the co"plaint after the prosecution had rested its case,
a"ountin# to the ac$uittal of the accused. The dis"issal bein# one on the "erits, the
doctrine of %aiver of the accused to a plea of double &eopard' cannot be invo(ed.
It is clear to :s that the dis"issal of the cri"inal case a#ainst the private respondents
%as erroneous.
9s correctl' stated in the !o""ent of the 9ctin# Solicitor <eneral, the accused %ere
not char#ed %ith substitution of #enuine Dtar&etasD %ith false ones. The basis for the
accusation %as that the accused entered false state"ents as to the %ei#ht of the su#ar
cane loaded in certain cane cars in Dtar&etasD %hich %ere sub"itted to the laborator'
section of the co"pan'. The act of "a(in# a false entr' in the Dtar&etasD is undoubtedl'
3
an act of falsification of a private docu"ent, the accused havin# "ade untruthful
state"ents in a narration of facts %hich the' %ere under obli#ation to acco"plish as
part of their duties 8 rnesto de la PaE, as overseer of 7da. Malisbo#, and the other
accused as scalers of the offended part', the 7a%aiian8Philippine !o"pan', thereb'
causin# da"a#e to the latter.
7o%ever erroneous the order of respondent !ourt is, and althou#h a "iscarria#e of
&ustice resulted fro" said order, to paraphrase +ustice 9le) Re'es in People vs. Nieto,
/.A Phil. //AA, such error cannot no% be ri#hted because of the ti"el' plea of double
&eopard'.
,,
9HEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
4