People v. Basco
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Private respondents Victorino A. Basco, Romeo S. David, and Rogelio L. Luis, public officers holding high positions in the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA), Clark Development Corporation/Clark International Airport (CDC/CIAC), and Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) respectively, were charged with violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Information alleged that between November 15, 1996, and May 7, 1998, they conspired to enter into contracts for the construction of the Mabalacat-Clark Spur Road and the Clark Perimeter Road without public bidding and at prices significantly higher than typical construction costs, thereby causing undue injury to the government and giving unwarranted benefits to preferred private contractors. 2. Procedural History: The case originated with the filing of an Information before the Sandiganbayan. After the respondents pleaded not guilty, the Sandiganbayan issued a Pre-trial Order outlining the issues. The prosecution presented its lone witness, and then rested its case. Instead of presenting their own evidence, the respondents filed motions for leave to file demurrers to evidence, arguing that the prosecution witness lacked personal knowledge, failed to prove overpricing, and that a prior Court of Appeals ruling in an administrative case established the law of the case. The Sandiganbayan initially denied these demurrers but later granted the respondents' motions for reconsideration, dismissing the case due to insufficient evidence and citing the Court of Appeals' decision in the administrative case as persuasive. 3. The Petition: The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Ombudsman, filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Sandiganbayan's resolution that granted the respondents' demurrers to evidence. The petitioner raises two issues: whether the negotiated contracts were in accordance with P.D. 1594, and whether the Sandiganbayan could adopt the Court of Appeals' findings in an administrative case. The respondents questioned the propriety of the petition, arguing it violates their right against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court found the petition dismissible, holding that a Rule 45 petition is the wrong remedy to assail a judgment of acquittal; such challenges must be brought via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 on grounds of grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan can adopt the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals in an administrative case when the case before the Sandiganbayan is criminal in nature; and whether the issues raised are purely legal. Whether the prosecution can appeal a dismissal order granting a demurrer to evidence via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 without violating the accused's right against double jeopardy.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution resorted to the wrong remedy by filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. An appeal from a judgment of acquittal, which includes a dismissal based on a demurrer to evidence, places the accused in double jeopardy. Such dismissal orders are reviewable only through a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court also noted that the issues raised were not purely legal, as they would require a re-evaluation of evidence, which is beyond the scope of Rule 45.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Sandiganbayan adopting findings of fact and the nature of issues raised: The Court found that the issues presented by the petitioner were not purely legal. Determining whether the Sandiganbayan could adopt the CA's findings and whether the contracts were entered into in accordance with P.D. 1594 would necessitate a re-examination of the evidence presented and the factual underpinnings of the CA's ruling, which is not within the purview of a Rule 45 petition. While acknowledging the general principle that the dismissal of an administrative case does not necessarily bar a criminal prosecution, the Court noted that the Sandiganbayan's shift in stance was due to the CA's ruling in the administrative case upholding the validity of the contracts. The Sandiganbayan considered the CA's decision as a persuasive ruling on the same issues, subject matter, and parties. The Court clarified that while distinct, if the criminal case is prosecuted based on the same facts and evidence as the administrative case, and the latter has squarely ruled on the absence of sufficient facts, then proceeding with the criminal case might be a futile exercise. However, the primary reason for dismissal was the procedural defect in the petition. On the propriety of the remedy and double jeopardy: The Court reiterated that an appeal by the prosecution from a judgment of acquittal, including a dismissal based on a demurrer to evidence, is barred by the constitutional right against double jeopardy. Such a dismissal is considered an acquittal and throws the whole case open for review, which would place the accused in jeopardy for a second time. The proper remedy to assail such a dismissal, if tainted with grave abuse of discretion, is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, not an appeal under Rule 45. The Court emphasized that certiorari and appeal are mutually exclusive remedies. Resorting to Rule 45 was a procedural misstep that rendered the petition dismissible outright. The Court cited People v. Laguio and Madrigal to support this procedural bar.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution cannot appeal from a ruling granting the demurrer to evidence of the accused as it is equivalent to an acquittal, unless the prosecution can sufficiently prove that the court’s action is attended with grave abuse of discretion. Otherwise, the constitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy will be violated. Such review must be through a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65, not a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.