CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

A. Introduction

It is none other done the fundamental law of the land which guarantees the right

of a person charged with a criminal offense to be presumed innocent 1 and to have a just

and speedy disposition of his case 2. In recognition of these rights, procedural laws

including internal rules are promulgated by the courts trying, particularly, criminal cases.

As it is ruled, procedural law ensures the effective enforcement of substantive rights by

providing for a system that obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or whimsicality in

the settlement of disputes3.

The power to make these rules are vested upon the Supreme Court 4. Such fact

does not however preclude other courts from promulgating their own internal rules

governing their business and addressing certain peculiarities pursuant with their

mandate and their jurisdiction. One example of these courts is the Sandiganbayan – the

anti-graft court of the country5.

Sandiganbayan is authorized by law to promulgate its internal rules that would

govern all the business and procedures it conducts 6. Presently, it is governed by the

2018 Revised Internal Rules of Procedures in the Sandiganbayan 7. Being a court which

3
Sebastian v. Morales, 445 Phil. 595, 608 (2003) cited in the case of Mocaral Macawiag vs. Judge Rasad Balindong
and Soraida A. Macawiag, G.R. No. 159210, September 20, 2006
4

7
directly tries and hears criminal cases8, among others, some rules are still referred with

the rules of criminal proceedings under the Rules of Court. The Sandiganbayan acts by

division and decides through a collegial body 9. As such, it is but natural that in some

cases, unanimous decision of the three (3) justices may not be derived. As a recourse,

its Internal Rules provide under Rule 9, Section 2 that:

“…In the event a unanimous vote is not obtained, the

Presiding Justice shall designate by raffle, on rotation basis,
two (2) Justices from all the other members of
the Sandiganbayan to sit temporarily with them, forming a
Special Division of five (5) Justices, and the vote of a
majority of such Special Division shall be necessary for the
rendition of a judgment or final order.”

As stated, in case a unanimous vote cannot be reached, two (2) other justices

shall be designated by raffle to sit with the division-in-charge temporarily and the

opinion which will gain the vote of the majority will be the rendered decision. This rule

naturally results in a situation where the majority decision favors the conviction of the

accused and the two remaining opinions opposes with such and will present noteworthy

considerations showing the presence of reasonable doubt. In effect, it creates a thought

that conviction still lies despite the presence of doubt which was presented by the

opposing justices. This runs contrarily with the established rule that the slightest

presence of doubt shall be ruled in favor of the accused 10 which rule is grounded and

based on the right of a person charged to be presumed innocent 11. Arguably, it can be

said that since there is presence of reasonable doubt, as seen by the other justices, the

resort should only be in favor of the acquittal.

10

11
 Sandiganbayan, as the trial court for graft and corrupt practices, directly accepts

the evidence, witnesses the trial and observes the circumstances surrounding the case.

It has the first hold with regard everything which is material to the case. It has the

advantage in determining on whether there is reasonable doubt or none compared to

other courts. In this regard, it is similar with regular trial courts which, notably, also

exercise limited jurisdiction with cases involving graft and corrupt practices 12. However,

these courts do not decide in a collegial way and do not follow the rules of the

Sandiganbayan in exercising such given limited jurisdiction. As such, the cited provision

cannot be applied upon someone being tried by regular trial courts in their given limited

jurisdiction. The only outcome within these courts is a final or executory judgment, in

case of acquittal13, or a judgment on appeals taken, if opted by the accused.

If doubts as regard the conviction of an accused originates at the Sandiganbayan

– believed to have the knowledge and experience in handling cases of graft and

corruption14 – a settlement of such case even on appeal may not really put a “rest” on

the case. While it may be argued that an appeal may still be made, it generally passes

only on questions of law and not on questions of facts which may have been the bases

of reasonable doubt. Moreover, this option is not very well-taken 15 as it prolongs the

disposition of the case and adds to the congestion of the Supreme Court’s dockets 16.

Further, it implies that it is easier and faster to have a final disposition of cases in

regular trial courts where only one judge decides and there is no variation of opinions.

This is despite the fact that both are trial courts handling similar graft and corruption

12

13

14

15

16
cases, which are similar crimes, and their jurisdiction only differs regarding the person

and the amount involved.

In view of the foregoing, this study seeks to analyze Rule 9, Section 2 of the

Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan in relation with the rule of proof beyond reasonable

doubt. In analyzing, this study first aims to determine how the said court observe the

principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt in its decision-making processes. Upon such

determination, the study analyzes how the said principle shall be complied with in

accordance with the rules and with the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in

consideration of the peculiarities of the Sandiganbayan. Lastly, the study looks on how

the present rules address the implications of the Rule 9, Section 2 of the internal rules

of the Sandiganbayan with relation to the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

B. Conceptual Framework

Analysis as to how Analysis of the

the rule of proof internal rules of
beyond reasonable Sandiganbayan in
doubt should be deciding criminal
applied following cases in relation
pertinent rules and with proof beyond
Supreme Court reasonable doubt
interpretations

Figure 1. Study Paradigm

 The first two box entails the concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The two

immediate boxes beside it show how the said concept is applied on the procedures

being applied on criminal cases filed on both regular courts and the Sandiganbayan.

The consequent box refers to the comparison of the rules applied in the

mentioned courts. It deals with their similarities and differences and the bases or

justification of such.

The next variable refers on an overall analysis on whether the rules in deciding

cases under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and the conferred

limited jurisdiction under sec.4 of RA 10660 in favor of regular courts together with the

justifications of said procedures are consistent with the concept of proof beyond

reasonable doubt as analyzed. The analysis would determine the consistency of the

rules together with their bases with the concept and significance of proof beyond

reasonable doubt.

The last box refers to the proposed guidelines in order to have rules in deciding

said cases which are consistent with the concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt and

with the considerations affecting the jurisdiction of the courts.

C. Statement of the Problem

This study seeks to analyze Rule 9, Section 2 of the Internal Rules of the

Sandiganbayan in relation with the rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Research Questions

Particularly, this study seeks to answer the following questions:

 1. How shall the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt be complied with in

accordance with the rules and with the pronouncements of the Supreme

Court?

a. Generally within regular trial courts

b. In consideration of the peculiarities of the jurisdiction of the

Sandiganbayan

2. How does the Sandiganbayan observe the rule of proof beyond reasonable

doubt in its decision-making processes?

3. How do the present rules address the implications of the Rule 9, Section 3 of

the internal rules of the Sandiganbayan with relation to proof beyond

reasonable doubt?

D. Assumptions of the study

1. This study assumes the importance of guilt beyond reasonable doubt being

grounded on the presumption of innocence of any accused.

2. This study believes that the principle of guilt beyond reasonable doubt shall be

equally observed in all kinds of criminal proceedings and all kinds of courts to

pursue the true objective in administering justice.

3. This study assumes that the rules of procedure, together with the courts’ internal

rules are made after consideration of its structure and mandate.

4. This study believes that there are certain rules which implications result to a

deviation from the rationale of the rule and ultimately on the right for which it

seeks to pursue..
E. Significance of the Study

The main purpose of this study is to analyze the concept of guilt beyond

reasonable doubt which is grounded on the fundamental principle and right of a person

to be presumed innocent. The study seeks to analyze the principle and undermine the

way it is reflected and applied in Philippine courts – regular or special – despite the

natural and circumstantial differences of the courts as well as the contrast of the limits of

their jurisdictions.

Considering such, this study is of significance to law students, lawyers or law

practitioners, legal analysts or future legal-topic interested researchers and the Filipino

citizens.

To law students, this study may serve as an additional knowledge and may also

serve as a guide in understanding the rules of procedure, specifically those that govern

criminal cases being covered by this study. Moreover, this study may help them in

learning more about the concept of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and its required

quantum of proof.

To lawyers or law practitioners, this study may apprise them of how is guilt

beyond reasonable doubt really contemplated and the consequential duty that comes

with it. Also, this research may also give them further in-depth knowledge and analysis

of the factors being considered in criminal proceedings.

To legal analysts or future legal-topic interested researchers, this may enlighten

them further as regards the principles of presumption of innocence and guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. This may also guide them in understanding more how are such

principles being applied and why are they needed in criminal proceedings.

Lastly, and most importantly, this is significant to the Filipino citizens who are

given the freedom regulated and limited by laws. This work may enlighten them of the

real meaning of their rights and how such rights may be applied or exercised by them in

case they will be charged of an offense and when they stand in front of both an

unprejudiced court and a hostile public.

F. Scope and Delimitation

This study is focused on the question on whether the rules of procedure of the

Sandiganbayan in deciding of cases under its exclusive original jurisdiction consistent

with the principle of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The study is mainly an analysis of

the said rules and does not include the rules of said court in deciding cases in its

appellate jurisdiction. The principle in this study solely refers to the principle of guilty

beyond reasonable doubt.

The analysis on the principle of guilt beyond reasonable doubt in this study is

mainly pinned on how it is applied and how is it applicable with all the considerations

present in this country and on the particular cases being handled by both regular and

special court. The special court being referred in this study is the Sandiganbayan and

will not cover the rules of procedure of other special courts.

This research does not focus on analyzing rules on criminal proceedings in the

regular trial courts. Said rules are only used in this study as bases of comparison in the
analysis on how the principle is being uniformly observed or applied regardless of the

kind of court deciding a criminal case.

This study cites certain dissenting opinions from the decisions of Sandiganbayan

which are not used as basis of answering the research questions or as basis for

recommendations. They are cited only for purposes of showing how the procedure in

deciding cases in Sandiganbayan is done and of comparing it with the regular trial

courts.

G. Definitions of Terms

The following terms are defined according to how they are used in this study:

Acquittal. A discharge after a trial, or an attempt to have one, upon its merits 17.

The evidence does not show that his guilt is beyond reasonable doubt 18.

Burden of Proof. The duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue

necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by

law19.

Collegial Body. Members act on the basis of consensus or majority rule 20.

Dissenting Opinion. Opinion in which a judge announces his dissent from the

conclusions held by the majority of the court, and expounds his own views 21.

Graft and Corruption. Charges that are typically leveled at highly-placed

government officials, who are able to use public funds to improve their own fortunes 22.

17
Clemente vs PAL. 42765-R. January 28, 1975
18
Republic vs Erum. SP-0587. April 30, 1985
19
Sec.1, Rule 131, Rules of Court
20
Assistant Special Prosecutor Iii Rohermia J. Jamsani-Rodriguez vs Justices Gregory S. Ong, Jose R. Hernandez, And
Rodolfo A. Ponferrada, Sandiganbayan. A.M. No. 08-19-SB-J. August 24, 2010
21
https://thelawdictionary.org/dissenting-opinion/
22
https://legalbeagle.com/6635615-meaning-graft-corruption.html
 Jurisdiction. Power or authority given by the law to a court or tribunal to hear

and determine certain controversies. Power of courts to hear and determine a

controversy involving rights which are demandable and enforceable. 23

Justice. Person duly commissioned to hold court sessions, to try and decide

controversies and administer justice24.

Majority opinion. Majority opinion is a judicial opinion agreed to by more than

half of the members of a court. A majority opinion sets forth the decision of the court

and an explanation of the rationale behind the court's decision.

Moral Certainty. A certainty that ultimately appeals to a person's very

conscience25.

Quantum of Evidence. The amount of evidence needed that must be presented

before a Court before a fact can be said to exist or not exist 26.

Reasonable Doubt. That state of the case which, after the entire comparison

and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in such a condition that

they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the

charge27.

23
https://batasnatin.com/law-library/remedial-law/criminal-procedure/384-what-is-jurisdiction-venue.html
24
https://definitions.uslegal.com/j/justice/
25
Capistrano Daayata, Dexter Salisi, And Bregido Mala Cat, Jr. vs People of the Philippines. G.R. No. 205745. March
8, 2017
26
Definition of Quantum of Evidence. Accessed on July 22, 2019. https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-
essays/criminal-law/criminal-or-civil-standard-of-proof-law-essays.php
27
People of the Philippines vs Carlito Claro. G.R. No. 199894. April 5, 2017