Republic of the Philippines SANDIGANBAYAN Quezon City SECOND DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE CRIM. CASE NO. SB-12- PHILIPPINES, CRM-0175 to 0177 Plaintiff, For: Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, Violation of Section 3(9) of R.A. No. 3019, Violation of Article 220 of the -versus- Revised Penal Code Present: Herrera, Jr., J. Chairperson Musngi, J. & GWENDOLYN F. GARCIA, _Pahimna, J. ETAL., Accused, Promulgated: guak 2.8 a014g RESOLUTION PAHIMNA, J.: For resolution of the Court are the following: 1. Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence! filed by accused Gwendolyn F. Garcia (“Garcia”), through counsel, on May 28, 2019; 2. Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence? filed by accused Juan V. Bolo (“Bolo”), through counsel, on May 28, 2019; 3. Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence? sent through registered mail on June 4, 2019 by accused Emme T. Gingoyon (“Gingoyon”), through counsel; a 1 Records, Vol. 12, pp. 6966-6985 21d, pp. 6986-6993 31d, Vol. 13, pp. 7013-7026 \Resolution PP vs. Gwendolyn Garcia, et al. Crim. Case No. SB-12-CRM-0175 to 0177 Page 2 of 8 4. Leave of Court Motion to File Demurrer to Evidence (Sec. 23, Rule 119, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure}: sent through registered mail on June 4, 2019 by accused Romeo J. Balili (“R. Balili”), through counsel; 5. Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence (Sec. 23, Rule 119, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure) sent through registered mail on June 10, 2019 by accused Anthony D. Sususco (*Sususco”), Roy G. Salubre (‘Salubre”) and Eulogio B. Pelayre (“Pelayre”), through counsel; 6. Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence’ sent through registered mail on June 10, 2019 by accused Amparo G. Balili (“A. Balili”); 7. Consolidated Comment/Opposition (To The Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence filed by accused Gwendolyn F. Garcia, Juan V. Bolo, Anthony D. Sususco, Roy G. Salubre and Eulogio B. Pelayre)’ filed by the plaintiff on June 18, 2019; and 8. Consolidated Comment/Opposition (Re: Motions for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence filed by accused Emme T. Gingoyon, Romeo J. Balili and Amparo G. Balili, respectivelyp filed by the plaintiff on July 1, 2019. Accused-movants are charged with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 and violation of Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. After the presentation of prosecution evidence, the plaintiff filed its Formal Offer of Exhibits? on April 15, 2019, and the Court resolved to admit Exhibits “A” to “Z”, “AA” to “ZZ-2”, “AAA” to “ZZZ”, “A*” to “C4”, “D4” to to “D™, “S” to “U, “Fo to <0", «US and “Wo",M7") “N?” to “x7”, “Z7” and “Z7-1", “A®” to ed 41d, pp. 7028-703 5 7073-7079 yp. 7144-7147, 71d, pp. 7081-7106 814, pp. 7149-7157 91d, Vol. 12, pp. 6685-6747 i,Resolution PP vs. Gwendolyn Garcia, et al. Crim. Case No. SB-12-CRM-0175 to 0177 Page 3 of 8 = 1) UE TRE? Ci ME, NEP Toy QUEST IL, FA he) FAAS, COE” tia) SFE Seem One Zao lay eeACOe a Ope ACOr | Pema C1 Og tome 7 01 gmat mL) “Wil”, “O12”, “O15” to “15-5”, “O16” to “O16-32”, “P16” to “T16-3”, inclusive of thier submarkings and submarked documents.!° Accused Garcia’s Motion In her Motion, accused Garcia asserted that the prosecution’s case suffered from the following fatal infirmities: 1) the evidence of the prosecution reveals that ten (10) out of the eleven (11) parcels of land purchased by the Province of Cebu were covered by clean Torrens certificates of title, and one parcel by a tax declaration, thereby establishing that the subject properties are alienable and disposable lands within the commerce of man; 2) the prosecution’s own witness admitted that there is no reversion case filed or pending against the purchased properties; 3) the authorizations issued by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (Exhibits “NN” to “NN-2” and “PP” to “PP-1”) disprove any allegation that the purchase of the properties was grossly overpriced; 4) the necessary processes were performed, and the required approvals were secured before accused Garcia signed the Deed of Absolute Sale for the purchase of the properties; 5) the prosecution failed to overcome the doctrine laid down in Arias vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 81563, December 19, 1989), i.e., all head of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinates and on the good faith of those who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations; 6) the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving that accused Garcia had any direct involvement in the purchase of the properties apart from signing the Deed of Sale after receiving the authorizations of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Accused Bolo’s Motion Accused Bolo argued that there is no evidence that supports the conclusion that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence in the exercise of his functions. His participation was limited to requesting the Cebu Provincial Appraisal Committee (CPAC) to determine the fair market value of the subject properties, and sponsoring Resolution No. 187-2008. He was not aware that the property is submerged in seawater, and he could not have ~Resolution PP vs. Gwendolyn Garcia, et al. Crim. Case No. SB-12-CRM-0175 to 0177 Page 4 of & x disclosed what he does not know or is aware of. Accused Bolo also emphasized that the properties were registered in the names of the Balili’s, and subsequently transferred to the Province of Cebu. Although the prosecution claims that these titles were allegedly obtained fraudulently, there is no pending action questioning their validity. Finally, accused Bolo posited that the prosecution failed to present evidence to prove the existence of conspiracy. Accused Gingoyon’s Motion In his Motion, Accused Gingoyon advanced that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt on three (3) principal grounds, as follows: 1) the alleged irregularities in the processing of the obligation requests and, consequently, the supposed absence of funds for the purchase of the Balili lots were never established with moral certainty; 2) no proof beyond reasonable doubt has been adduced that accused Gingoyon took advantage of his position as Provincial Budget Officer, acted with manifest partiality and bad faith, and caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the processing of the obligation requests; and 3) the alleged conspiracy between accused Gingoyon and the other accused in this case was never proven with moral certainty. Accused R. Balili’s Motion Accused R. Balili prays for leave of court to file his demurrer to evidence based on the following grounds: 1) the prosecution failed to present evidence to prove that accused conspired and confederated with anyone of his co-accused public officials; 2) the allegation in the information that “a large portion of the said parcels of land or about 196,696 square meters are submerged in seawater” remains a mere allegata without probata; 3) without the predicate petition for reversion by the Solicitor General under Section 101 of Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141, as amended, the instant case was prematurely filed; 4) the Court, acting as the criminal court, is not the proper court to decide whether “a large portion of the said parcels of land or about 196,696 square meters are submerged in seawater’ but the pee \Resolution PP vs. Gwendolyn Garcia, et al. Crim. Case No. SB-12-CRM-0175 to 0177 Page 5 of 8 ae Regional Trial Court upon a complaint for reversion filed pursuant to C.A. No. 141, as amended. Accused Sususco, Salubre and Pelayre’s Motion In their motion, accused Sususco, Salubre and Pelayre averred that the properties purchased by the Province of Cebu were clothed with clean certificates of title, and are classified as alienable and disposable lands. They further averred that the Court, acting as criminal court, is not the proper court to decide whether a large portion of the properties is submerged in seawater. Moreover, there was no reversion case filed by the Office of the Solicitor General in relation to the properties. Accused Sususco, Salubre and Pelayre maintained that the appraisal of the CPAC was accurate and in order as confirmed by prosecution witnesses Michelle Languido and Annette Vero. ‘The same was also supported by Opinion Values from various sources. Accused also advanced that there is no proof that they conspired with one another and with the other accused. Accused A. Balili’s Motion In her motion, accused A. Balili insisted that the evidence presented by the prosecution established that she never transacted with the Province of Cebu, directly or even indirectly, as the sale was coursed through real estate agent Lumen Durado. Accused A. Balili also adopted the grounds relied upon by co-accused Garcia, thus: 1) the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to establish that there were irregularities committed in the sale of parcels of land to the Cebu provincial government owned by the Estate of Luis Balili; 2) the parcels of land subject of the sale were titled under the Torrens system, hence, enjoyed legal presumptions concerning their integrity, such as, but not limited to, being alienable and disposable; 3) the land was not overpriced, as in fact, from the initial price of Four Hundred Thirty Four Pesos (Php434.00), the Province of Cebu bought it at a lower price of Four Hundred Pesos (Php400.00). Plaintiff's Consolidated Comment/ Opposition In its Consolidated Comment/Opposition dated June 17, 2019 and June 28, 2019, the plaintiff vehemently opposed the separate Motions and insisted that it had sufficienth | MResolution PP vs. Gwendolyn Garcia, et al. Crim. Case No. SB-12-CRM-0175 to 0177 Page 6 of 8 me established a strong case against the accused taking into account the documentary exhibits offered which have been duly admitted by the Court, as well as the testimonies in open court of the witnesses. The plaintiff also stressed that the confluence of all the actions of the accused led towards the accomplishment of the crimes charged against them. THE COURT’S RULING After carefully examining the arguments of the accused in their respective Motions vis-a-vis the documentary and testimonial evidence offered by the prosecution, the Court resolves to grant all the Motions filed by the accused. Section 23, Rule 119 of the 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. 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 reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment IResolution PP vs. Gwendolyn Garcia, et al Crim. Case No. SB-12-CRM-0175 to 0177 Page 7 of 8 = A demurrer to evidence is a motion filed by the accused, on the ground that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is insufficient for conviction. It is filed by the accused after the prosecution rests its case.!! “Essentially, the party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain a verdict. The court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt. x x x Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrer thereto is such evidence in character, weight or amount as will legally justify the judicial or official action demanded according to the circumstances. To be considered sufficient therefore, the evidence must prove: (a) the commission of the crime, and (b) the precise degree of participation therein by the accused. Thus, when the accused files a demurrer, the court must evaluate whether the prosecution’s evidence is sufficient enough to warrant the conviction of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”!2 Moreover, the rule is settled that “the judicial action on the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself is left to the exercise of the court’s sound judicial discretion.”"° The purpose is to determine whether the accused, in filing his or her demurrer, is merely stalling the proceedings.'# Here, the Court does not find the Motions filed by the accused dilatory. Instead, the Court finds merit in the arguments raised by the accused, which may be discussed extensively in their respective demurrer to evidence. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to GRANT the Motions for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence filed by all accused. They are hereby given a non- extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt hereof to file their respective demurrers to evidence. The plaintiff, on the other hand, may file its comment/opposition within a non- extendible period of ten (10) days counted from date of receipt of the demurrer to evidence. SO ORDERED. 11 Section 23, Rule 119, Rules of Court. 1 People of the Philippines vs. Jose C. Go, et @)., G.R. No. 191015, August 6, 2014 48 People of the Philippines vs. Vilma Almendras, et al., G.R, No. 145915, April 24, 2003 “Paz T. Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals, G-R. No. 119010, September 5, 1997 \\Resolution PP vs. Gwendolyn Garcia, et al. Crim. Case No. SB-12-CRM-0175 to 0177 Page 8 of 8 a we LORIFEL LACAP PAHIMNA ee nL aS i icc————T—=~__ We concur: OSCAI IERKERA, JR. MICHAEL FREDE) . MUSNGI chAfrperson Associate Justice Associate Justice