SECOND DIVISION
G.R. Nos. 228494-96, March 21, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION) AND CAMILO LOYOLA SABIO, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, JR., J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Certiorari1 under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Court instituted by People of the Philippines (petitioner), represented by the Office of the Ombudsman, assailing the Decision2 dated April 20, 2016 and Resolution3 dated October 18, 2016 of the Sandiganbayan acquitting private respondent Camilo Loyola Sabio (Sabio), for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, thereby denying petitioner's right to due process.
Upon arraignment on January 12, 2012, Sabio entered a 'plea of not guilty on all the three charges filed against him.10CRIMINAL CASE NO. SB-11-CRM-0276
(For Violation of Sec. 3 (e), R.A. No. 3019, as amended)
"That on or about the period from February 14, 2006 to October 3, 2006 or for sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused. [SABIO], a high ranking public officer being then the Chairman of the [PCGG] with a Salary Grade of 30 and committing the offense in relation to and/or taking advantage of his official position, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to the government through evident bad faith by appropriating, misappropriating, and converting to his own personal use and benefit, the following remittances of Mid-Pasig Land Development Corporation (MPLDC) from , the proceeds of the sale of A. Soriano Corporation shares which form part of the ill-gotten wealth of Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and his cronies in the amount of TEN MILLION THREE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Pl0,350,000.00) consisting of:
Voucher No. Check No. Date Amounta. Unnumbered 56626 02/14/2006 P 500,000.00b. 03-45 56643 03/08/2006 1,000,000.00c. 03-46 56644 03/13/2006 2,000,000.00d. 04-57 56659 04/21/2006 500,000.00e. 05-86 56688 05/03/2006 700,000.00f. 05-94 56696 05/11/2006 350,000.00g. 05-100 56702 05/25/2006 1,300,000.00h. 06-125 56722 06/30/2006 1,000,000.00i. 08-147 56744 08/18/2006 500,000.00j. 09-150 56747 09/07/2006 1,000,000.00k. 10-164 56761 10/03/2006 1,500,000.00TOTAL P10,350,000.00
which amount although he received as cash advances was supposed to be remitted to the Bureau of Treasury (BOT) as part of the CARP Fund, thereby causing damage and prejudjce to the Philippine Government in the aforementioned amount."7CRIMINAL CASE NO. SB-11-CRM-0277
(For Malversation of Public Funds under Sec. 217 of the Revised Penal Code)
"That on or about the period from February 14, 2006 to October 3, 2006 or for sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City ofMandaluyong, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, [SABIO], a high ranking public officer being then the Chairman of the [PCGG] with a Salary Grade of 30 and as such is accountable for the public funds or property collected and received by reason of his office, committing the offense in relation to and/or taking advantage, of his official position, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and with grave abuse of confidence, appropriate, misappropriate, misapply, embezzle and convert to his own personal use and benefit the following remittances of Mid-Pasig Land Development Corporation (MPLDC) from the proceeds of sale of A. Soriano Corporation shares which form part of the ill-gotten wealth of Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and his cronies in the amount of TEN MILLION THREE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P10,350,000.00), consisting of:
Voucher No. Check No. Date Amounta. Unnumbered 56626 02/14/2006 P 500,000.00b. 03-45 56643 03/08/2006 1,000,000.00c. 03-46 56644 03/13/2006 2,000,000.00d. 04-57 56659 04/21/2006 500,000.00e. 05-86 56688 05/03/2006 700,000.00f. 05-94 56696 05/11/2006 350,000.00g. 05-100 56702 05/25/2006 1,300,000.00h. 06-125 56722 06/30/2006 1,000,000.00i. 08-147 56744 08/18/2006 500,000.00j. 09-150 56747 09/07/2006 1,000,000.00k. 10-164 56761 10/03/2006 1,500,000.00TOTAL P10,350,000.00
which amount although he received as cash advances was supposed to be remitted to the Bureau of Treasury (BOT) as part of the CARP Fund, thereby causing damage and prejudice to the Philippine Government in the aforementioned arnount."8CRIMINAL CASE NO. SB-11-CRM-02789
(For Malversation of Public Funds under Sec. 217 of the Revised Penal Code)
"That on or about the period from May 30, 2007 to August 14, 2008, or for sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, [SABIO], a high ranking public officer being then the Chairman of the [PCGG] with a Salary Grade of 30 and as such, accountable for the public funds and property collected and received by reason of his office, committing the offense in relation to and/or taking advantage, of his official position, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and with grave abuse of confidence, appropriate, misapp opriate, misapply, embezzle and convert to his own personal use and benefit the following cash advances from the [PCGG] to defray expenses in connection with litigation, accommodation and contingency fund in his trip to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in the total amount of ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY-FIVE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO PESOS AND THREE CENTAVOS (P1,555,862.03), consisting of:
Date Nature / Purpose Disbursement Voucher No. Amounta. 05/30/2007 Emergency / Miscellaneous, etc. 2007-05-0617 P 500,000.00b. 08/16/2007 Litigation and other related expenses 2007-08-0972 P 450,000.00c. 09/30/2007 Litigation and other related expenses 2007-09-1122 P 500,000.00d. 04/17/2008 Plane fare, per diem hotel accommodation, contingency fund re: trip to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 2008-04-0358 P 55,862.03e. 08/14/2008 Litigation and other related expenses 2008-08-0795 P 50,000.00TOTAL P1,555,862.03
WHEREFORE, premises considered, and for insufficiency of evidence engendering reasonable doubt, judgment is hereby rendered Acquitting herein accused [Sabio] from the charge of Violation of Sec. 3(e), RA 3019 in Crim. Case No. SB-11-CRM-0276 and Malversation in Crim. Cases Nos. SB-11-CRM-0277 and SB-11-CRM-0278.The petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution20 dated October 18, 2016. Thus:
SO ORDERED.19
Acting on the prosecution's MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Re: Decision dated April 20, 2016) dated May 5, 2016, this Court must emphasize that it had already acquitted the accused after trial on the merits. The rule against double jeopardy proscribes a reconsideration or reversal of a judgment of acquittal on the merits. It is well-settled that acquittal in a criminal case is final and executory upon its promulgation, and that accordingly, the State may not seek its review without placing the accused in double jeopardy.Hence, this petition.
Accordingly, the subject motion for reconsideration is DENIED.21
In his Comment23 on the petition, Sabio refuted the arguments of the petitioner and emphasized on his constitutional right against double jeopardy. In addition, Sabio disproved grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan when the latter acquitted him due to insufficiency of evidence engendering reasonable doubt.A.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION) COMMITTED ORAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK AND/OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT CAPRJCIOUSLY AND WANTONLY RULED THAT THE PARTIAL REMITTANCES SUBJECT OF CRJMINAL CASES NOS. SB-11-CRM-0276 AND SB-11-CRM-0277 WERE USED AND ISSUED TO THE PCGG AS CASH ADVANCESB.
SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION) ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURJSDICTION OR WITH ORAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION EFFECTIVELY DENYING PETITIONER OF ITS RJGHT TO DUE PROCESS WHEN IT CONCLUDED IN CRJMINAL CASE SB-11-CRM-0276 AND SB-11-CRM-0277 THAT THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT SABIO MISAPPROPRIATED OR CONVERTED THE FUNDS INVOLVEDC.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION) ORAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK AND/OR EXCESS OF ITS JURJSDICTION WHEN IT RULED IN ALL THE CASES THAT THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT SABIO MISAPPROPRIATED OR CONVERTED THE FUNDS INVOLVED.22
Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.This right was further embodied in Section 7 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure, to wit:
Sec. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. - When an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information. x x x.Generally, a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory.25 The prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal lest the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy be violated.26 However, the rule admits of two exceptional grounds that can be challenged in a certiorari proceeding under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court: (1) in a judgment of acquittal rendered with grave abuse of discretion by the court; and (2) where the prosecution had been deprived of due process.27
Any error committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error of judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari. An error of judgment is one in which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors by the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties, and its conclusions anchored on the said findings and its conclusions of law. Since no error of jurisdiction can be attributed to fgublic respondent in her assessment of the evidence, certiorari will not lie.29 (Citations omitted)In this case, the prosecution was given adequate opportunity to present several witnesses and all necessary documentary evidence to prove the guilt of Sabio. However, Sandiganbayan warranted the acquittal of Sabio due to insufficiency of evidence engendering reasonable doubt on whether Sabio committed the offenses charged.
The fundamental philosophy highlighting the finality of an acquittal by the trial court cuts deep into "the humanity of the laws and in a jealous watchfulness over the rights of the citizen, when brought in unequal contest with the State x x x." Thus Green expressed the concern that "(t)he underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent, he may be found guilty."WHEREFORE, petition is DISMISSED.
It is axiomatic that on the basis of humanity, fairness and justice, an acquitted defendant is entitled to the right of repose as a direct consequence of the finality of his acquittal. The philosophy underlying this rule establishing the absolute nature of acquittals is "part of the paramount importance criminal justice system attaches to the protection of the innocent against wrongful conviction." The interest in the finality-of-acquittal rule, confined exclusively to verdicts of not guilty, is easy to understand: it is a need for "repose," a desire to know the exact extent of one's liability. With this right of repose, the criminal justice system has built in a protection to insure that the innocent, even those whose innocence rests upon a jury's leniency, will not be found guilty in a subsequent proceeding.40 (Citations omitted)
Endnotes:
* Designated as Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018.
1Rollo, pp. 3-25.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Maria Cristina J. Cornejo, with Associate Justices Jose R. Hernandez, Rodolfo A. Ponferrada and Michael Frederick L. Musngi, concurring and with Associate Justice Alex L. Quiroz, dissenting; id. at 28-66.
3 Rendered by Associate Justices Jose R. Hernandez, Rodolfo A. Ponferrada, Alex L. Quiroz, Michael Frederick L. Musngi and Zaldy V. Trespeses (sitting as Special Member in lieu of Associate Justice Maria Cristina J. Cornejo per Administrative Order No. 274-2016 dated September 21, 2016); id. at 67-68.
4Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
5 Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property Presumption of malversation. - Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property x x x.
6Rollo, pp. 1-2.
7 Id. at 28-29.
8 Id. at 29-30.
9 Id. at 30-31.
10 Id. at 31-32.
11 Id. at 32.
12 Id. at 32-49.
13 Id. at 33-36.
14 Id. at 36, 40-41.
15 Id. at 41-45.
16 Id. at 47.
17 Id. at 50-52.
18 Id. at 63.
19 Id.
20 Id. at 67-68.
21 Id. at 67.
22 Id. at 10-11.
23 Id. at 90-122.
24 Id. at 139-148.
25Morillo v. People, et al., 775 Phil. 192, 211 (2015).
26People, et al. v. CA, et al., 755 Phil. 80, 97 (2015).
27Ysidoro v. Justice Leonardo-De Castro, et al., 681 Phil. 1, 16 (2012).
28 502 Phil. 31 (2005).
29 Id. at 38-39.
30Rollo, p. 55.
31 Id. at 56-57.
32 Id. at 60-61.
33Bangayan v. Bangayan, 675 Phil. 656, 668-669 (2011).
34 Id. at 669.
35People v. Sandiganbayan (2nd Division), et al., 765 Phil. 845, 858 (2015).
36Ysidoro v. Justice Leonardo-De Castro, et al., supra note 27, at 16.
37 Id. at 17.
38People v. Sandiganbayan (2nd Division), et al., supra note 35, at 864.
39 394 Phil. 517 (2000).
40 Id. at 555-556.