Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 174504 March 21, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs.
HON. SANDIGANA!AN "Th#r$ $#%#&#o'( a'$ MANUEL G.
ARCENAS, Respondents.
D ! I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
The dis"issal order arisin# fro" the #rant of a de"urrer to evidence a"ounts to an
ac$uittal and cannot be appealed because it %ould place the accused in double
&eopard'. The order is revie%able onl' b' certiorari if it %as issued %ith #rave abuse of
discretion a"ountin# to lac( or e)cess of &urisdiction.
This is a Petition for Certiorari %hich see(s to nullif' the Sandi#anba'an*s +ul' ,-, ,..-
Resolution
/
%hich #ranted private respondent*s de"urrer to evidence.
Factual Antecedents
On Ma' ,/, ,..0, private respondent %as char#ed %ith violation of Section 12 of
Presidential Decree 3P.D.4 No. /005
,
before the Sandi#anba'an. The Infor"ation reads
6
That on or about Dece"ber /2, /225, and for so"eti"e prior or subse$uent thereto at
Toledo !it', Province of !ebu, Philippines, and %ithin the &urisdiction of this 7onorable
!ourt, the above8na"ed accused M9N:; <. =9R!N9S, a hi#h8ran(in# public
officer, bein# a Vice8Ma'or of Toledo !it', and co""ittin# the offense in relation to
office, havin# obtained cash advances fro" the !it' <overn"ent of Toledo in the total
a"ount of SI>T?8ON T7O:S9ND SVN 7:NDRD SI>T? FIV PSOS
3P-/,@-5...4, Philippine !urrenc', %hich he received b' reason of his office, for %hich
he is dut' bound to li$uidate the sa"e %ithin the period re$uired b' la%, %ith deliberate
intent and intent to #ain, did then and there, %illfull', unla%full' and cri"inall' fail to
li$uidate said cash advances of P-/,@-5..., Philippine !urrenc', despite de"ands to
the da"a#e and pre&udice of the #overn"ent in the aforesaid a"ount.
A
The case %as doc(eted as !ri"inal !ase No. ,@22. and raffled to the Third Division.
On October ,., ,..0, private respondent %as arrai#ned for %hich he pleaded not #uilt'.
The prosecution presented its lone %itness, Manolo Tulibao Villad, !o""ission on
9udit 3!O94 State 9uditor. Thereafter, the prosecution filed its for"al offer of evidence
and rested its case.
On 9pril ,., ,..-, private respondent filed a "otion
0
for leave to file de"urrer to
evidence. On +une /-, ,..-, the Sandi#anba'an issued a Resolution
5
#rantin# the
"otion. On +une A., ,..-, private respondent filed his de"urrer
-
to evidence.
Sandiganbayans Ruling
On +ul' ,- ,..-, the Sandi#anba'an pro"ul#ated the assailed Resolution, vizB
C find the de"urrer to evidence %ell ta(en.
The testi"on' of the prosecution*s lone %itness !it' 9uditor Manolo Tulibao confir"in#
his Report 3)hibit DDD4 that the accused had indeed li$uidated his cash advances did
not help the prosecution but rather %ea(ened its cause of action a#ainst the accused.
9t the ti"e this case %as filed in !ourt, the accused had alread' li$uidated his cash
advances sub&ect "atter hereof in the total a"ount of P-/,@-5.... 7ence, Ce find the
ele"ent of da"a#es %antin# in this case.
PRMISS !ONSIDRD, the De"urrer to vidence is hereb' #ranted and this case
is hereb' orderedDISMISSED.
@
I&&)*
Chether the Sandi#anba'an acted %ith #rave abuse of discretion a"ountin# to lac( or
e)cess of &urisdiction in #ivin# due course to and eventuall' #rantin# the de"urrer to
evidence.
1
Petitioners Arguments
Petitioner contends that the prosecution %as able to establish all the ele"ents of the
offense defined and penaliEed under Section 12 of P.D. No. /005B 3/4 the private
respondent, an accountable officer, received cash advances in the total a"ount
of P/,.,...... to defra' the e)penses of the Public 9ssistance !o""ittee and
1
!o""ittee on Police Matters coverin# the period +anuar'8March /22A, 3,4 the purpose
of the cash advance has been served, 3A4 the private respondent settled his cash
advances onl' in March /22-, 304 the cit' auditor sent a de"and letter to the private
respondent to settle the cash advance %ithin @, hours fro" receipt thereof, and 354 the
private respondent received said letter on Dece"ber ,,, /225 but failed to li$uidate the
sa"e %ithin the aforestated period.
9lthou#h it concedes that the private respondent eventuall' settled the sub&ect cash
advances so"eti"e in March /22-, petitioner theoriEes that da"a#e is not one of the
ele"ents of the offense char#ed. 7ence, the settle"ent of the cash advance %ould not
e)onerate the private respondent but onl' "iti#ate his cri"inal liabilit'. Other%ise, the
purpose of the la% %ould be rendered futile since accountable officers can easil' "a(e
cash advances and li$uidate the sa"e be'ond the period prescribed b' la% %ithout
bein# penaliEed for doin# so.
Finall', petitioner ar#ues that double &eopard' does not lie in this case because the
order of dis"issal %as issued %ith #rave abuse of discretion a"ountin# to lac( of
&urisdiction.
Private Respondents Arguments
Private respondent counters that the #rant of a de"urrer to evidence is e$uivalent to an
ac$uittal fro" %hich the prosecution cannot appeal as it %ould place the accused in
double &eopard'. Further, assu"in# that the Sandi#anba'an erroneousl' #ranted the
de"urrer, this %ould, at "ost, constitute an error of &ud#"ent and not an error of
&urisdiction. Thus, certiorari does not lie to correct the #rant of the de"urrer to evidence
b' the Sandi#anba'an.
O)r R)+#',
The petition lac(s "erit.
An order of dismissal arising from the grant of a demurrer to evidence has the effect of
an acquittal unless the order was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.
In cri"inal cases, the #rant of a de"urrer
2
is tanta"ount to an ac$uittal and the
dis"issal order "a' not be appealed because this %ould place the accused in double
&eopard'.
/.
9lthou#h the dis"issal order is not sub&ect to appeal, it is still revie%able but
onl' throu#h certiorari under Rule -5 of the Rules of !ourt.
//
For the %rit to issue, the
trial court "ust be sho%n to have acted %ith #rave abuse of discretion a"ountin# to
lac( or e)cess of &urisdiction such as %here the prosecution %as denied the opportunit'
to present its case or %here the trial %as a sha" thus renderin# the assailed &ud#"ent
void.
/,
The burden is on the petitioner to clearl' de"onstrate that the trial court blatantl'
abused its authorit' to a point so #rave as to deprive it of its ver' po%er to dispense
&ustice.
/A
In the case at bar, the Sandi#anba'an #ranted the de"urrer to evidence on the #round
that the prosecution failed to prove that the #overn"ent suffered an' da"a#e fro"
private respondent*s non8li$uidation of the sub&ect cash advance because it %as later
sho%n, as ad"itted b' the prosecution*s %itness, that private respondent li$uidated the
sa"e albeit belatedl'.
Sections 12 and /,1 of P.D. No. /005 provide6
S!TION 12. Limitations on Cash Advance. 6 No cash advance shall be #iven unless
for a le#all' authoriEed specific purpose. A ca&h a$%a'c* &ha++ -* r*.or/*$ o' a'$
+#0)#$a/*$ a& &oo' a& /h* .)r.o&* 1or 2h#ch #/ 2a& ,#%*' ha& -**' &*r%*$. No
additional cash advance shall be allo%ed to an' official or e"plo'ee unless the
previous cash advance #iven to hi" is first settled or a proper accountin# thereof is
"ade.
S!TION /,1. Penal Provision. 6 9n' violation of the provisions of Sections -@,
-1, 34, /.-, and /.1 of this !odeor a'5 r*,)+a/#o' #&&)*$ -5 /h* Co66#&&#o' 7o'
A)$#/8 #6.+*6*'/#', /h*&* &*c/#o'&, shall be punished b' a fine not e)ceedin# one
thousand pesos or b' i"prison"ent not e)ceedin# si) 3-4 "onths, or both such fine
and i"prison"ent in the discretion of the court. 3"phasis supplied.4
On the other hand, !O9 !ircular No. 2.8AA/
/0
or the DRules and Re#ulations on the
<rantin#, :tiliEation and ;i$uidation of !ash 9dvancesD %hich i"ple"ented Section 12
of P.D. No. /005 pertinentl' providedF
5. ;IG:ID9TION OF !9S7 9DV9N!S
5./ The 9O 39ccountable Officer4 shall li$uidate his cash advance as follo%sB
5././ Salaries, Ca#es, etc. 8 %ithin 5 da's after each /5 da'H end of the "onth pa'
period.
5./., Pett' Operatin# )penses and Field Operatin# )penses 8 %ithin ,. da's after
the end of the 'earI sub&ect to replenish"ent durin# the 'ear.
5./.A Forei#n Travel 8 %ithin -. da's after return to the Philippines.
2
Failure of the 9O to li$uidate his cash advance %ithin the prescribed period shall
constitute a valid cause for the %ithholdin# of his salar'.
) ) ) )
5.@ Chen a cash advance is no lon#er needed or has not been used for a period of t%o
3,4 "onths, it "ust be returned to or deposited i""ediatel' %ith the collectin# officer.
5.1 9ll cash advances shall be full' li$uidated at the end of each 'ear. )cept for pett'
cash fund, the 9O shall refund an' une)pended balance to the !ashierH!ollectin#
Officer %ho %ill issue the necessar' official receipt.
) ) ) )
2. D:TIS 9ND RSPONSI=I;ITIS OF T7 !O9 9:DITOR
) ) ) )
2.- :pon failure of the 9O to li$uidate his cash advance %ithin one "onth for 9Os
%ithin the station and three "onths for 9Os outside the station fro" date of #rant of the
cash advance, the 9uditor shall issue a letter de"andin# li$uidation or e)planation for
non8li$uidation.
2.@ If A. da's have elapsed after the de"and letter is served and no li$uidation or
e)planation is received, or the e)planation received is not satisfactor', the 9uditor shall
advise the head of the a#enc' to cause or order the %ithholdin# of the pa'"ent of an'
"one' due the 9O. The a"ount %ithheld shall be applied to his 39OJs4 accountabilit'.
The 9O shall li(e%ise be held cri"inall' liable for failure to settle his
accounts.
/5
3"phasis supplied.4
9s can be seen, contrar' to the findin#s of the Sandi#anba'an, actual da"a#e to the
#overn"ent arisin# fro" the non8li$uidation of the cash advance is not an essential
ele"ent of the offense punished under the second sentence of Section 12 of P.D. No.
/005 as i"ple"ented b' !O9 !ircular No. 2.8AA/. Instead, the "ere failure to ti"el'
li$uidate the cash advance is the #rava"en of the offense. Veril', the la% see(s to
co"pel the accountable officer, b' penal provision, to pro"ptl' render an account of the
funds %hich he has received b' reason of his office.
/-
Nonetheless, even if the Sandi#anba'an proceeded fro" an erroneous interpretation of
the la% and its i"ple"entin# rules, the error co""itted %as an error of &ud#"ent and
not of &urisdiction. Petitioner failed to establish that the dis"issal order %as tainted %ith
#rave abuse of discretion such as the denial of the prosecution*s ri#ht to due process or
the conduct of a sha" trial. In fine, the error co""itted b' the Sandi#anba'an is of
such a nature that can no lon#er be rectified on appeal b' the prosecution because it
%ould place the accused in double &eopard'.
/@
In United tates v. !ila"ko,
/1
the accused %as char#ed %ith a violation under Section
/, of the !hattel Mort#a#e ;a%
/2
%hich prohibited the "ort#a#or fro" sellin# the
"ort#a#ed propert' %ithout the consent of the "ort#a#ee %hile the debt secured
re"ained outstandin#. The accused %as arrai#ned for %hich he pleaded not #uilt'.
Thereafter, he "oved to dis"iss the Infor"ation. 9fter the prosecution and defense
entered into a stipulation of facts, the trial court dis"issed the case. On appeal b' the
prosecution to this !ourt, %e ac(no%led#ed that the trial court erred in interpretin#
Section /, %hen it ruled that the subse$uent pa'"ent of the secured debt e)tin#uished
the accused*s cri"inal liabilit' arisin# fro" the unla%ful sale of the "ort#a#ed propert'.
Nonetheless, %e ruled that the &ud#"ent dis"issin# the Infor"ation, althou#h based
upon an erroneous interpretation of the la%, %as in effect a &ud#"ent on the "erits fro"
%hich no appeal la' on the part of the prosecution as it %ould place the accused in
double &eopard'.
,.
#avv$hi#
In another case, Peo$le v. Cit" Court of ila",
,/
after the prosecution had presented its
evidence and rested its case, the accused filed a "otion to dis"iss for insufficienc' of
evidence. The trial court #ranted the "otion and dis"issed the case. On appeal b' the
prosecution to this !ourt, %e %ere of the vie% that the dis"issal order %as erroneous
and resulted to a "iscarria#e of &ustice. 7o%ever, %e ruled that such error cannot be
corrected because double &eopard' had alread' set inB
In the case of the herein respondents, ho%ever, the dis"issal of the char#e a#ainst
the" %as one on the "erits of the case %hich is to be distin#uished fro" other
dis"issals at the instance of the accused. 9ll the ele"ents of double &eopard' are here
present, to %itB 3/4 a valid infor"ation sufficient in for" and substance to sustain a
conviction of the cri"e char#ed, 3,4 a court of co"petent &urisdiction, and 3A4 an
unconditional dis"issal of the co"plaint after the prosecution had rested its case,
a"ountin# to the ac$uittal of the accused. The dis"issal bein# one on the "erits, the
doctrine of %aiver of the accused to a plea of double &eopard' cannot be invo(ed.
It is clear to :s that the dis"issal of the cri"inal case a#ainst the private respondents
%as erroneous.
9s correctl' stated in the !o""ent of the 9ctin# Solicitor <eneral, the accused %ere
not char#ed %ith substitution of #enuine Dtar&etasD %ith false ones. The basis for the
accusation %as that the accused entered false state"ents as to the %ei#ht of the su#ar
cane loaded in certain cane cars in Dtar&etasD %hich %ere sub"itted to the laborator'
section of the co"pan'. The act of "a(in# a false entr' in the Dtar&etasD is undoubtedl'
3
an act of falsification of a private docu"ent, the accused havin# "ade untruthful
state"ents in a narration of facts %hich the' %ere under obli#ation to acco"plish as
part of their duties 8 rnesto de la PaE, as overseer of 7da. Malisbo#, and the other
accused as scalers of the offended part', the 7a%aiian8Philippine !o"pan', thereb'
causin# da"a#e to the latter.
7o%ever erroneous the order of respondent !ourt is, and althou#h a "iscarria#e of
&ustice resulted fro" said order, to paraphrase +ustice 9le) Re'es in People vs. Nieto,
/.A Phil. //AA, such error cannot no% be ri#hted because of the ti"el' plea of double
&eopard'.
,,
9HEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
4