People VS. Sandiganbayan-Lauro Baja, GR No. 233437, April 26, 2021

Doctrine:      Once a demurrer to evidence has been granted in a criminal case, the grant    amounts to an acquittal. Any further prosecution for the same offense would violate the accused's constitutional right against double jeopardy.

 

FACTS: 

On March 12, 2008, Jaime D. Jacob (Jacob), a representative of the Philippine Anti-Graft Commission, filed a Complaint-Affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman against Baja. He accused Baja of violating Republic Act No. 3019, and Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. He argued that:

LAURO L. BAJA, JR., holding then the position of Philippine Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Chief of Mission I, Department of Foreign Affairs, who by reason of his office and while in the exercise and discharge of his functions, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, and committing the offense in relation to office, when his reimbursement for non-existent or fictitious representation expenses in the total amounts of TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED THIRTY FOUR DOLLARS, United States Currency (US$28,934.96), thereby causing undue injury to the Government in the said amount.

Baja filed his Demurrer to Evidence which stated that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain the Information. Among others, he argued that the expenses for which reimbursement claims had been made were not proven to be "non-existent or fictitious."  That Baja improperly documented the expenses, he said, did not mean that these expenses did not exist. He also argued that the prosecution failed to prove his bad faith, or that there was "undue injury, unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions."

The Sandiganbayan issued its Resolution granting Baja's Demurrer to Evidence.

ISSUE:         Whether or not the Petition for Certiorari is barred by respondent Lauro L. Baja, Jr.'s right against jeopardy?

HELD:          Under Article III, Section 21 of the Constitution, all persons have the right not to be placed in double jeopardy of punishment for one offense. This Court has held that once a demurrer to evidence has been granted in a criminal case, the grant amounts to an acquittal, and any further prosecution for the same offense would violate Article III, Section 21 of the Constitution.

Under Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, the trial court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence upon a demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court. Thus, in resolving the accused's demurrer to evidence, the court is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or support a verdict of guilt.

The grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a grave abuse of discretion. Significantly, once the court grants the demurrer, such order amounts to an acquittal; and any further prosecution of the accused would violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy.

In the case of accused Baja, the prosecution failed to establish sufficient evidence that accused Baja caused the reimbursement of non­-existent or fictitious representation expenses. The prosecution bore the burden to prove the allegations in the Information. If its evidence was insufficient to establish the elements of the offense charged, respondent Baja's guilt could not have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The grant of the Demurrer to Evidence was proper.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. The Sandiganbayan Resolution are AFFIRMED.

Angelito Magno, (petitioner) VS. Ombudsman (respondent), GR. NO. 230575, March 14, 2018

 DOCTRINE:  The right of the accused to a speedy trial and to a speedy disposition of the case against him was designed to prevent the oppression of the citizen by holding criminal prosecution suspended over him for an indefinite time, and to prevent delays in the administration of justice by mandating the courts to proceed with reasonable dispatch in the trial of criminal cases.

FACTS:

On May 14, 2003, an Information was filed before the RTC charging petitioner Angelito Magno with Multiple Frustrated Murder and Double Attempted Murder. In the course of the prosecution's presentation of witnesses, the RTC sustained a petitioner's objection on the admissibility of one of the witness's testimonies, prompting the prosecution to elevate the matter to the Sandiganbayan. The SANDIGANBAYAN issued a sixty (60)-day TRO enjoining the RTC from proceeding with Crim. Case No. DU-10123. In a Decision dated February 12, 2007, the SANDIGANBAYAN dismissed the Objection.

Meanwhile and after the expiration of the TRO in the Objection Case, petitioner filed on March 16, 2006 a Motion to Set Case for Continuous Hearing before the RTC, invoking his right to speedy trial. In an Order dated June 16, 2006, the RTC granted petitioner's motion, and accordingly, set the hearing on September 1, 2006. The prosecution moved for reconsideration but the same was denied in an Order dated August 18, 2006. On September 1, 2006. Such presentation continued all the way until June 7, 2007 when the prosecution requested to reset the hearing to August 16, 2007 due to the handling prosecutor's illness.

However, it appears that from such postponement until around early 2010, no hearings were conducted in the case. Hence, the petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of violation of his right to speedy trial which the trial court granted. But the Sandiganbayan set aside the trial’ court ruling and reinstituted the criminal action against the petitioner

ISSUE:  Whether or not petitioner Angelito Magno’s right to speedy disposition of       his    has                been violated?  

HELD:   The petition is meritorious. An accused's right to "have a speedy, impartial, and public trial" is guaranteed in criminal cases by Section 14 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

In Tan v. People, the Court ruled that the right of the accused to a speedy trial and to a speedy disposition of the case against him was designed to prevent the oppression of the citizen by holding criminal prosecution suspended over him for an indefinite time, and to prevent delays in the administration of justice by mandating the courts to proceed with reasonable dispatch in the trial of criminal cases. 

In this case, the Court ruled that the numerous delays and postponements that occurred during the First Period were excusable. Under this case, the Supreme Court highlighted the essential elements of the right to speedy trial. These are the: Length of delay; Reason for the delay; Failure to assert the right of the accused; Prejudice caused by the delay. The Supreme Court also emphasized that a violation of this right should be accompanied by the following; vexatious, capricious, and oppressive to the defendant.

Thus, in view of the unjustified length of time miring the resolution of Criminal action as well as the concomitant prejudice that the delay in this case has caused, the Court concludes that petitioner's right to speedy trial had been violated.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Sandiganbayan in SANDIGANBAYAN are hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.