People v. Atienza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Information alleged that on or about July 4, 2000, Aristeo E. Atienza (Municipal Mayor), Rodrigo D. Manongsong (Municipal Engineer), and Crispin M. Egarque (PNP Officer) conspired and confederated in destroying, demolishing, and dismantling the riprap/fence of the Hondura Beach Resort owned by Edmundo A. Evora, causing undue injury amounting to ₱8,000.00. The fence was constructed on July 3, 2000, destroyed on July 4, 2000, rebuilt on July 5, 2000, and destroyed again on July 6, 2000. Mercedita Atienza, the resort's caretaker, testified that Egarque admitted destroying the fence upon Mayor Atienza's order, and Manongsong admitted destroying it upon the mayor's order for lack of a municipal permit and because the land was intended for the fishermen's association. Mayor Atienza allegedly stated the fence was not good for Puerto Galera as it is a tourist destination and the land was for the fishermen's association. Alexander Singson corroborated the destruction by Manongsong and Egarque. Edmundo Evora testified that Manongsong responded "Sino ka para padalhan ng Abiso?" when asked why he was not notified of the demolition. Procedural History: After trial on the merits, respondents Aristeo E. Atienza and Rodrigo D. Manongsong filed a Demurrer to Evidence, arguing insufficiency of evidence. Crispin M. Egarque adopted the demurrer. On February 28, 2006, the Sandiganbayan granted the demurrer, dismissing the case for lack of sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, finding that the elements of manifest partiality and evident bad faith were not established. The Petition: The People of the Philippines filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the Sandiganbayan's Resolution, arguing denial of due process and grave error in deciding issues not raised in the demurrer and considering matters of defense. The People contended that evident bad faith and manifest partiality were sufficiently established.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in denying the People due process by resolving issues not raised in the demurrer to evidence, and whether it erred in considering matters of defense. Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in deciding a question of substance not in accordance with law or existing jurisprudence by granting the demurrer to evidence based on insufficient evidence of manifest partiality or evident bad faith. Whether the grant of the demurrer to evidence, which resulted in dismissal, is subject to review by certiorari, considering the principles of double jeopardy.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Resolution dated February 28, 2006, of the Sandiganbayan, in Criminal Case No. 26678, is affirmed. The dismissal of the case operates as an acquittal and is not appealable, but reviewable only via certiorari for grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of due process and considering matters of defense: The prosecution was not denied due process. The prosecution participated in all proceedings, filed pleadings, and had already rested its case when the demurrer was filed. The Sandiganbayan's resolution granting the demurrer was based on the insufficiency of evidence to establish the elements of the crime, particularly manifest partiality and evident bad faith, which are fundamental to the charge under Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The Sandiganbayan correctly assessed the evidence presented by the prosecution to determine if it was sufficient to sustain a conviction, which is the very purpose of a demurrer to evidence. The court's analysis of the evidence, including the testimonies regarding the reasons for the demolition (lack of permit, tourist spot, for fishermen's association), was within its purview when evaluating the demurrer. On the Sandiganbayan's grant of the Demurrer to Evidence: The Sandiganbayan correctly granted the demurrer to evidence. The essential elements of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 are: (1) the accused is a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions; (2) he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (3) his action caused undue injury or gave unwarranted benefits. While the first element was undisputed, the Sandiganbayan found that the second element was not sufficiently established. The testimonies indicated that the demolition was based on reasons such as lack of permit, the property being a tourist spot, and its intended use for a fishermen's association. These reasons, as presented by the prosecution's own witnesses, did not sufficiently demonstrate "manifest partiality" (favoring one person over another similarly situated) or "evident bad faith" (dishonest purpose, ill will, or self-interest). The court found no clear evidence of a dishonest purpose or conscious wrongdoing for perverse motive or ill will. On the reviewability of the dismissal via certiorari and double jeopardy: The grant of a demurrer to evidence in criminal cases operates as an acquittal and is generally final and unappealable. This is because to allow an appeal would place the accused in double jeopardy. However, such a dismissal is reviewable by certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court if the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court found no such grave abuse of discretion in this case, as the Sandiganbayan's decision was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence presented and the legal elements of the offense charged. The elements of double jeopardy are present: a valid information, jurisdiction, arraignment, plea, and dismissal without the express consent of the accused, which amounts to an acquittal.
Main Doctrine
The grant of a demurrer to evidence in criminal cases operates as an acquittal and is generally final and unappealable, barring a review through certiorari only in cases of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.