People v. Abling
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Juan Roberto L. Abling, as Executive Director of the Economic Support Fund Secretariat (ESFS), was charged with malversation of public funds amounting to P22,000,000.00. This amount represented the unliquidated balance of P35,000,000.00 in cash advances made to him from January to February 1986 for the payment of miscellaneous expenses, as allegedly instructed by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos. While Abling refunded P13,000,000.00, the remaining P22,000,000.00 was not sufficiently accounted for, leading to the charge. 2. Procedural History: The case originated from an Information filed by the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan, charging Abling with malversation. During the trial, Abling testified that he delivered P22,000,000.00 of the withdrawn funds to President Marcos and presented three undated ESFS memoranda, purportedly signed by Marcos, as proof. The Sandiganbayan, in a Decision dated June 16, 2011, acquitted Abling, finding that his testimony and the memoranda rebutted the prima facie presumption of malversation by showing the funds were not appropriated for personal use. The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, then filed the present Petition for Certiorari. 3. The Petition: The People of the Philippines filed this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Sandiganbayan's Decision acquitting Abling. The petitioner argues that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion by accepting Abling's defense and the three undated memoranda as sufficient to overturn the legal presumption of malversation. The petitioner contends that these documents were not strong or convincing proof and that Abling failed to adequately explain the deficit, thus falling short of overcoming the presumption. The petition also notes the failure to attach crucial documents to the petition as a procedural defect.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in acquitting private respondent Juan Roberto L. Abling, specifically regarding its appreciation of evidence. Whether private respondent Abling's testimony and the three ESFS memoranda sufficiently rebutted the presumption of malversation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for lack of merit. The Court held that a petition for certiorari assailing a judgment of acquittal is allowed only on narrow grounds of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, not for errors of judgment in the appreciation of evidence. The Court found that the petitioner failed to establish grave abuse of discretion, as the issues raised pertained to the Sandiganbayan's evaluation of evidence, which is beyond the scope of certiorari. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to attach crucial documents, specifically the three memoranda, to the petition, rendering it impossible for the Court to review the evidence and substantiate the claims of grave abuse of discretion. Consequently, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Sandiganbayan within its jurisdiction was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the Sandiganbayan's appreciation of evidence: The Supreme Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy for errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. While a judgment of acquittal can be assailed via certiorari, it must be on the ground of grave abuse of discretion that is so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty imposed by law. The petitioner's argument that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in accepting Abling's defense and the three memoranda as sufficient to overturn the presumption of malversation directly questions the Sandiganbayan's appreciation and evaluation of evidence. Such an act, even if erroneous, constitutes an error of judgment, which is not correctable by certiorari. The Court emphasized that it will not re-examine the facts and weigh the probative value of the evidence presented before the Sandiganbayan in a certiorari proceeding, as doing so would circumvent the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Sandiganbayan acted with bias, partiality, or bad faith, or that the trial was a sham, which are essential grounds for a successful petition for certiorari assailing an acquittal. On the sufficiency of Abling's defense to rebut the presumption of malversation: The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner's claim that Abling's defense was insufficient to overcome the presumption of malversation is a matter of evidence appreciation. The Sandiganbayan, as the trier of facts, found Abling's testimony, corroborated by the three ESFS memoranda, to be sufficient to create reasonable doubt. The Court stated that even if the Sandiganbayan committed an error in its review of the evidence or application of the law, these are merely errors of judgment. The extraordinary writ of certiorari may only correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. Therefore, the Court cannot delve into the correctness of the Sandiganbayan's factual findings regarding the delivery of the funds to President Marcos. The petitioner's failure to attach the very documents at the center of its argument, the three memoranda, further prevented the Court from making a complete evaluation of the issue.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari assailing a judgment of acquittal must allege grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, not merely errors of judgment in the appreciation of evidence. Failure to attach relevant documents to the petition is also a ground for dismissal.