Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
_______________
*SECONDDIVISION.
452
452 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
453
VOL.706,SEPTEMBER30,2013 453
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
454
454 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
SPECIALCIVILACTIONintheSupremeCourt.Certiorari.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
UranzaandAssociatesforpetitioner.
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralforrespondents.
DELCASTILLO,J.:
ThegrantordenialofaDemurrertoEvidenceislefttothesound
discretion of the court, and its ruling on the matter shall not be
disturbedintheabsenceofagraveabuseofsuchdiscretion.
ThisPetitionforCertiorariAdCautelam1seekstosetasidethe
August5,2010Resolution2oftheSandiganbayaninCriminalCase
Nos. 2629726305, denying petitioner Gregorio Singian, Jr.s
Demurrer to Evidence3 and the November 18, 2010 Resolution4
denyingreconsiderationthereof.
Antecedents
ThecriminalcasesinvolvedinthepresentPetitionhavebeenthe
subjectofapreviousdispositionoftheCourt,specificallySingian,
Jr. v. Sandiganbayan.5 In said case, the Court made the following
recitaloffacts:
_______________
1Rollo,pp.348.
2Id.,atpp.5067pennedbyAssociateJusticeAlexL.Quirozandconcurredinby
AssociateJusticesFranciscoH.Villaruz,Jr.andSamuelR.Martires.
3Id.,atpp.74105.
4Id.,atpp.6872.
5514Phil.536478SCRA348(2005).
455
VOL.706,SEPTEMBER30,2013 455
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
456
456 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
2.P1,000,000.00on18January1973asexportadvance
3.P1,500,000.00on21March1973asexportadvance
4.P600,000.00on06March1974ascreditline
5.P2,500,000.00renewedon15December1976
6.P5,000,000.00on19November1978asexportadvance
7.P1,500,000.00on04August1980asexportadvanceand
8.P7,000,000.00on15December1980alsoasanexportadvance.
The Committee found that the loans extended to ISI bore
characteristics of behest loans specifically for not having been secured
withsufficientcollateralsandobtainedwithunduehaste.
As a result, Atty. Orlando Salvador filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman a sworn complaint dated 20 March 1996, for violation of
Section3,paragraphs(e)and(g),ofRepublicActNo.3019,asamended,
against the following: Panfilo Domingo, former PNB President,
Constantino Bautista, former PNB Senior Vice[]President, Domingo
Ingco,formermemberofthePNBBoardofDirectors,JohnDoes,former
membersofthePNBBoardofDirectors,FranciscoTeodoro,Presidentof
ISI,LeticiaTeodoro,Vice[]PresidentofISI,MarfinaSingian,Incorporator
ofISI,TomasTeodoro,GeneralManagerofISI,andGregorioSingian,Jr.,
ExecutiveVice[]PresidentofISI.Thecomplaint,docketedasOMB096
0967,wasassignedtoGraftInvestigationOfficerIAtty.EdgarR.Navales
(Investigator Navales) of the Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation
Bureau(EPIB)forinvestigation.
xxxx
Hence, the corresponding eighteen (18) Informations against
petitionerandhiscoaccusedforviolationofSection3(e)and(g)ofRep.
ActNo.3019,docketedasCriminalCasesNo.26297toNo.26314,were
filedbeforetheSandiganbayanandwereraffledtotheThirdDivi
457
VOL.706,SEPTEMBER30,2013 457
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
sionthereof.Theeighteen(18)Informationscorrespondtothenine
(9)loanaccommodationsgrantedtoISI,eachloanbeingthesubject
of two informations alleging violations of both paragraphs of
Section3ofRep.ActNo.3019.6
Thus,hereinpetitionerwaschargedwithninecountsofviolation
of Section 3(e),7 and another nine counts of violation of Section
3(g),8 of Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019), or the AntiGraft and
Corrupt Practices Act. Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 26297
26314,thecasesinvolvedthepurportedgrantingofbehestloansby
the governments Philippine National Bank (PNB) to Integrated
Shoes, Inc. (ISI), in various amounts and on different dates as
aboveenumerated.
_______________
6Id.,atpp.539543.
7 Section3.Corrupt practices of public officers.In addition to acts or
omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall
constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be
unlawful:
xxxx
(e)Causinganyundueinjurytoanyparty,includingtheGovernment,orgiving
anyprivatepartyanyunwarrantedbenefits,advantageorpreferenceinthedischargeof
his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident
bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and
employeesofofficesorgovernmentcorporationschargedwiththegrantoflicensesor
permitsorotherconcessions.
8 g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction
manifestlyandgrosslydisadvantageoustothesame,whetherornotthepublicofficer
profitedorwillprofitthereby.
9 Rollo, pp. 134136, 140142, 146148, 152154, 158160, 164166, 170172, 176
178,182184.
458
458 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
tions,conspiredwithprivateindividuals,specificallyofficersofISI,
including petitioner, who was ISIs Executive Vice President, in
willfully, unlawfully and criminally causing undue injury to the
government and giving unwarranted benefits, advantage and
preferencetoISIbyaccommodatingandgrantingseveralloansand
advances to the latter, despite knowing that it lacked sufficient
capitalization, or failed to give adequate collateral or raise its
workingcapitaltosecurethegovernmentsinterestincaseitfailed
topaysaidloans,asinfactitfailedtopaytheseloans.
On the other hand, the Informations10 covering Section 3(g)
chargedtheaboveindividuals,includingpetitioner,withconspiring,
confederating,andwillfully,unlawfullyandcriminallyenteringinto
the abovementioned loan transactions which are grossly and
manifestlydisadvantageoustothegovernment,forlackofsufficient
capitalizationoradequatecollateral,andforfailureofISItoraiseits
workingcapitaltosecurethegovernmentsinterestincaseitfailed
topaysaidloans,whichindeedISIfailedtopay.
OnJanuary27,2004,petitionerenteredapleaofnotguiltyonall
counts. All the other accused were arraigned as well, except for
Bautista,whopassedawaypriortohisscheduledarraignment.
OnApril29,2005,theSandiganbayandismissedCriminalCase
Nos.2630626314.11OnOctober6,2007,theaccusedIngcopassed
away as a result, the cases against him were dismissed as well.
AccusedDomingolikewisepassedawayonJune26,2008resulting
in an October 29, 2008 Resolution wherein the Sandiganbayan
droppedthecasesagainsthim.
Trial with respect to the remaining cases ensued. For its
testimonial evidence, the prosecution called to the stand nine
witnesses:
_______________
10Id., at pp. 131133, 137139, 143145, 149151, 155157, 161163, 167169, 173
175,179181.
11CoveringSection3(e)ofRepublicActNo.3019.
459
VOL.706,SEPTEMBER30,2013 459
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
_______________
12Rollo,pp.304309.
13Id.,atpp.5859.
14Id.,atp.60.
15Id.,atp.61.
16Id.,atpp.5657.
460
460 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
_______________
17Id.,atp.58.
18Id.,atp.55.
19Id.,atpp.5758.
20Id.,atpp.5960.
21Id.,atpp.295303.
22Id.,atp.62.
461
VOL.706,SEPTEMBER30,2013 461
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
_______________
23Id.,atpp.305309.
24Id.,atpp.295303.
25Id.,atpp.258268.
26Id.,atpp.286291.
27Id.,atpp.292293.
28SeeFormalOfferofExhibits,id.,atpp.197219,atp.200.
29Id.,atp.294.
462
462 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
_______________
30Id.,atpp.272285.
31Id.,atpp.197219.
32Id.,atpp.74105.
33Id.,atpp.7476.
463
VOL.706,SEPTEMBER30,2013 463
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
464
464 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
_______________
34Id.,atpp.525539.
35Id.,atp.531.
465
VOL.706,SEPTEMBER30,2013 465
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
PetitionersMotionforReconsideration37havingbeendeniedon
PetitionersMotionforReconsideration37havingbeendeniedon
November 18, 2010 by the respondent court, he filed the present
PetitionforCertiorari.
_______________
36Id.,atp.67.Emphasesintheoriginal.
37Id.,atpp.109130.
466
466 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
Issues
Petitionerraisesthefollowingissues:
_______________
38Id.,atpp.2223.
467
VOL.706,SEPTEMBER30,2013 467
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
PetitionersArguments
Essentially,petitionerreiteratesallhisargumentsinhisDemurrer
to Evidence and Motion for Reconsideration of the respondent
courtsdenialthereof.Heemphasizes,however,thathehadnothing
todowiththeapplicationandgrantofthequestionedloans,sincehe
was never a member of ISIs Board of Directors which, under the
lawandISIbylaws,hadthesolepowerandauthoritytoapproveand
obtain loans and give collaterals to secure the same nor is he a
stockholderofISI.Norhasitbeenshownfromthetestimonialand
documentary evidence that as Executive Vice President, he
participatedinISIsloanandcredittransactions,orthatheactively
participatedinthecommissionofthecrimesofwhichheischarged.
Withoutsuchproof,petitionerbelievesthathemaynotbecharged
withconspiracy.
Petitioner adds that no evidence was presented as well to show
that he had any participation in PNBs failure to verify and take
action against ISI to compel it to put up additional capital and
collaterals,orthathewasresponsibleforPNBsfailuretocollector
securefullpaymentoftheISIcredit.
Finally, petitioner justifies his resort to certiorari on the
argument that the collective acts of the prosecution and the
respondentcourtconstituteadenialofhisconstitutionalrighttodue
process, which gives ground for the availment of the extraordinary
remedy.39
RespondentsArguments
In its Comment,40 the prosecution asserts that the respondent
court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the
DemurrertoEvidencearguingthatinpetitioners
_______________
39CitingToledo,Jr.v.People,174Phil.58285SCRA355(1978).
40Rollo,pp.461497.
468
468 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
case, all the elements under Section 3(g) exist to hold petitioner
liable. It adds that petitioner was part of the conspiracy to defraud
the government, as evidenced by his participation and signature in
theDeedofUndertaking,thetermsofwhichISIviolatedandPNB
failedtoenforce.
On the other hand, the PCGG in its Comment41 adopts the
arguments of the prosecution and asserts that the respondent court
arrivedatitsconclusionaftercarefulexaminationoftherecordand
the evidence, which justify a finding sustaining petitioners
indictment.ItaddsthatalltheelementsofthecrimeunderSection
3(g) have been proved, which thus justifies a denial of petitioners
DemurrertoEvidence.
OurRuling
TheCourtdismissesthePetition.
Demurrertoevidence
Ademurrertotheevidenceisanobjectionbyoneoftheparties
in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary
producedisinsufficientinpointoflaw,whethertrueornot,tomake
out a case or sustain the issue. The party demurring challenges the
sufficiencyofthewholeevidencetosustainaverdict.Thecourt,in
passinguponthesufficiencyoftheevidenceraisedinademurrer,is
merelyrequiredtoascertainwhetherthereiscompetentorsufficient
evidencetosustaintheindictmentortosupportaverdictofguilt.42
Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrer
thereto is such evidence in character, weight or amount as will
legallyjustifythejudicialorofficialactiondemandedaccordingto
thecircumstances.Tobeconsideredsufficient
_______________
41Id.,atpp.549568.
42Soriquezv.Sandiganbayan(FifthDivision),510Phil.709,716474SCRA222,
228(2005).
469
VOL.706,SEPTEMBER30,2013 469
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
therefore,theevidencemustprove:(a)thecommissionofthecrime,
and(b)theprecisedegreeofparticipationthereinbytheaccused.43
ElementsofSection3(g),RA3019
ForonetobesuccessfullyprosecutedunderSection3(g)ofRA
3019, the following elements must be proven: 1) the accused is a
public officer 2) the public officer entered into a contract or
transaction on behalf of the government and 3) the contract or
transaction was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the
government.44 However, private persons may likewise be charged
withviolationofSection3(g)ofRA3019iftheyconspiredwiththe
publicofficer.Thus,ifthereisanallegationofconspiracy,aprivate
person may be held liable together with the public officer, in
consonance with the avowed policy of the AntiGraft and Corrupt
PracticesActwhichistorepresscertainactsofpublicofficersand
privatepersonsalikewhichmayconstitutegraftorcorruptpractices
orwhichmayleadthereto.45
TheSandiganbayanfoundcompetent
orsufficientevidencetosustainthe
indictmentortosupportaverdictof
guiltforviolationofSection3(g),
RA3019
The Sandiganbayan found that the prosecution presented
sufficient or competent evidence to establish the three material
elementsofSection3(g)ofRA3019.First,althoughpeti
_______________
43Gutibv.CourtofAppeals,371Phil.293,305312SCRA365,376(1999).
44Navav.Palattao,531Phil.345,372499SCRA745,771(2006).
45Gov.Sandiganbayan,G.R.No.172602,April16,2009,585SCRA404,405406.
470
470 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
tionerisaprivateperson,hewasshowntohaveconnivedwithhis
coaccused. Second, ISI and PNB entered into several loan
transactions and credit accommodations. Finally, the loan
transactionsproveddisadvantageoustothegovernment.
Thereisnograveabuseofdis
cretiononthepartoftheSandi
ganbayanindenyingpetitioners
DemurrertoEvidence
Attheoutset,weemphasizethat[t]heresolutionofademurrer
to evidence should be left to the exercise of sound judicial
discretion. A lower courts order of denial shall not be disturbed,
that is, the appellate courts will not review the prosecutions
evidence and precipitately decide whether such evidence has
established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt,
unlessaccusedhasestablishedthatsuchjudicialdiscretionhasbeen
gravely abused, thereby amounting to a lack or excess of
jurisdiction.Mereallegationsofsuchabusewillnotsuffice.46
Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment on the part of the public officer concerned
whichisequivalenttoanexcessorlackofjurisdiction.Theabuseof
discretionmustbesopatentandgrossastoamounttoanevasionof
apositivedutyoravirtualrefusaltoperformadutyenjoinedbylaw,
or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is
exercisedinanarbitraryanddespoticmannerbyreasonofpassion
orhostility.47
In this case, petitioner miserably failed to present an iota of
evidence to show that the Sandiganbayan abused, much more,
gravelyabused,itsdiscretionindenyingpetitioners
_______________
46Alarillav.Sandiganbayan,393Phil.143,154338SCRA485,494495(2000).
47Singian,Jr.v.Sandiganbayan,supranote5atpp.545546p.357.
471
VOL.706,SEPTEMBER30,2013 471
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
DemurrertoEvidence.WeagreewiththePCGGsobservationthat
the Sandiganbayan arrived at its conclusion after a careful and
deliberateexaminationandassessmentofalltheevidencesubmitted.
AcloserscrutinyoftheassailedResolutionswouldindeedshowthat
the Sandiganbayan meticulously discussed both testimonial and
documentary evidence presented by the prosecution.48 It was only
after a careful analysis of the facts and evidence presented did the
respondentcourtlaydownitsfindingsandconclusions.49
Based on the evidence presented, the Sandiganbayan was
convinced that all three elements of Section 3(g), RA 3019 were
satisfactorily established. It found that PNB and ISI entered into
several contracts or loan transactions. The Sandiganbayan also
assessedthatpetitionerconspiredwithhiscoaccusedindefrauding
the government considering (1) the frequency of the loans or
closenessofthedatesatwhichtheyweregranted(2)thequantityof
theloansgranted(3)thefailureofthebanktoverifyandtotakeany
action on the failure of ISI to put up additional capitalization and
additionalcollateralsand(4)theeventualabsenceofanyactionby
the Bank to collect full payment from ISI.50 The Sandiganbayan
ratiocinatedthat
xxxtheloanssubjectofthiscaserefertonotjustonebutseveral
loans.Thefirsttwoloansweregrantedinaspanoftwomonthsxxx
ThefirstloanwasintheamountofP16,287,500.00whenthecapital
stock of ISI amounted to only P1,000,000.00. This was followed by
twoadditionalloans[in]JanuaryandMarch1973xxxthenanother
loan x x x in the following year x x x. Two years later x x x ISI
obtained another loan x x x which was succeeded by an additional
loanxxx.Still,ISIwasgrantedtwomoreloansxxx.
_______________
48Rollo,pp.5562.
49Id.,atpp.6267.
50Id.,atp.63.
472
472 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
xxxx
However,allloanssubjectofthiscaseweregranteddespitefailure
ofISItoraiseitsworkingcapital,andtoputupadditionalcollateral.
The Certificate of Filing of Amended Articles of Incorporation and
the Amended Articles of Incorporation likewise show that ISI last
increased its authorized capital stock to P7,000,000.00 on April 27,
1973, when the indebtedness of the corporation was already
P16,360,000.00. Indeed, it would appear that inaction on the part of
the PNB to notify ISI to further increase its capital and the
corresponding inaction on the part of ISI to comply with its
undertakingindicateconspiracybetweentheaccused.
Accusedmovant further negates his liability by asserting that his
namedoesnotappearintheDeedofUndertaking,andneitherhashe
signed the same. A cursory examination of the Deed, however,
reveals otherwise. It also bears stressing at this point that as he has
never denied his position as Executive Vice[] President of ISI, he
would undeniably have participation in its transactions, especially
whereloanaccommodationsofthecorporationareconcerned.51
_______________
51Id.,atpp.6365.
473
VOL.706,SEPTEMBER30,2013 473
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
Similarly,wehavealsoruledthat:
_______________
52Resosov.Sandiganbayan,377Phil.249,257319SCRA238,245(1999).
53Soriquezv.Sandiganbayan(FifthDivision),supranote42atpp.718719p.230.
474
474 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
forthecourttoproceedwiththetrial,afterwhichtheaccusedmay
file an appeal from the judgment of the lower court rendered after
such trial. In the present case, we are not prepared to rule that the
Sandiganbayan has gravely abused its discretion when it denied
petitioners demurrer to evidence. Public respondent found that the
prosecutions evidence satisfactorily established the elements of the
crime charged. Correspondingly, there is nothing in the records of
this case nor in the pleadings of petitioner that would show
otherwise.54
_______________
54Alarillav.Sandiganbayan,supranote46atpp.154155p.495.
55SeeSingian,Jr.v.Sandiganbayan,supranote5atpp.544545pp.355356.
56Id.,atp.551pp.362363.
475
VOL.706,SEPTEMBER30,2013 475
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
Fifth.Itispetitionersviewthattheprosecutionfailedtoadduce
evidencethathetookpartinanyconspiracyrelativetothegrantofthe
loan transactions. Suffice it to state that the alleged absence of any
conspiracyamongtheaccusedisevidentiaryinnatureandisamatter
of defense, the truth of which can be best passed upon after a full
blowntrialonthemerits.58
Infine,weholdthatthepresenceorabsenceoftheelementsof
thecrimeisevidentiaryinnatureandisamatterofdefensethatmay
be passed upon after a fullblown trial on the merits, and the
validity and merits of a partys defense or accusation, as well as
admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated
during trial proper.59 Petitioners claims and defenses in his
Demurrer to Evidence can best be tackled during trial. In the
presentationofhisdefense,heshallhavetheopportunitytoexplain
orshowwhyheshouldnotbemadeliable.Forexample,ifthereis
anytruthtotheallegationinhisDemurrerofEvidencethattheDeed
of Undertaking was altered, or that the signature therein affixed is
not his own, such that there arise serious doubts as to his
participationintheexecutionofsaiddocument,thiscanberesolved
only upon proof presented during trial. Petitioner must present
evidence regarding such claim, the truth of which he can
demonstrateduringtrial.SincethisCourtisnotatrieroffacts,there
isnowaythatthisissuecanberesolvedbythisCourtatthisstageof
theproceedings.
_______________
57Id.,atp.550p.362.
58Id.,atpp.551552pp.363364.
59Andresv.JusticeSecretaryCuevas,499Phil.36,4950460SCRA38,5253
(2005)seealsoLeev.KBCBankN.V.,G.R.No.164673,January15,2010,610SCRA
117,129.
476
476 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Singian,Jr.vs.Sandiganbayan(3rdDivision)
Inlightoftheforegoing,theCourtfindsthattherespondentcourt
did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners
Demurrer to Evidence it was done in the proper exercise of its
jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE,thePetitionisDISMISSED.
SOORDERED.
Brion(Actg.Chairperson),Abad,**PerezandPerlasBernabe,
JJ.,concur.
Petitiondismissed.
_______________
**PerRaffledatedSeptember30,2013.
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.