In the Philippines, the right against double jeopardy is a cornerstone of the justice system. This means a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense if they have already been acquitted or convicted. The Supreme Court clarifies in this case that if a trial court grants a demurrer to evidence, effectively acquitting the accused, the prosecution cannot appeal unless there’s grave abuse of discretion. This protection ensures fairness and prevents the government from repeatedly trying someone until a conviction is obtained, safeguarding individual liberties.

Mabalacat-Clark Road Project: Can an Acquittal Be Appealed Without Violating Double Jeopardy?

The case revolves around Victorino A. Basco, Romeo S. David, and Rogelio L. Luis, who were charged with violating Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The accusation stemmed from their alleged involvement in anomalous contracts for the construction of the Mabalacat-Clark Spur Road and the Clark Perimeter Road. It was alleged that they entered into these contracts without public bidding and at inflated prices, causing undue injury to the government. After the prosecution presented its evidence, the respondents filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Sandiganbayan initially denied the demurrers but later reversed its decision and dismissed the cases against the accused. The anti-graft court cited the Court of Appeals’ ruling in a related administrative case, which upheld the legality and validity of the subject contracts, as a persuasive factor. Aggrieved, the prosecution, represented by the Office of the Ombudsman, filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, questioning the Sandiganbayan’s decision. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution could appeal the Sandiganbayan’s resolution granting the demurrer to evidence without violating the accused’s right against double jeopardy.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the right against double jeopardy is a fundamental constitutional right. Section 21 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution states:

No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.

Procedurally, the Court noted that the prosecution had availed itself of the wrong remedy. According to Section 1 of Rule 122, any party can appeal a judgment or final order unless it violates the accused’s right against double jeopardy. An appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, potentially placing the accused in double jeopardy if the prosecution appeals an acquittal. However, the rule against appealing a judgment of acquittal has exceptions: (1) when the prosecution is denied due process of law, and (2) when the trial court commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the case by granting the accused’s demurrer to evidence. These exceptions are addressed through a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.

In this case, the prosecution resorted to a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, arguing pure questions of law. The Supreme Court pointed out that this was an error, citing People v. Laguio:

By this time, it is settled that the appellate court may review dismissal orders of trial courts granting an accused’s demurrer to evidence. This may be done via the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 based on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Such dismissal order, being considered void judgment, does not result in jeopardy. Thus, when the order of dismissal is annulled or set aside by an appellate court in an original special civil action via certiorari, the right of the accused against double jeopardy is not violated.

The Court clarified that while a dismissal order based on a demurrer to evidence is not subject to appeal, it is reviewable via certiorari under Rule 65. In such a review, the factual findings of the trial court are conclusive, and the dismissal can only be reversed if the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due process. Here, the petitioner did not allege grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan, mistakenly believing it could challenge the resolution on purely legal questions.

The prosecution relied on People v. Villalon, which outlined three requisites for an appeal by the prosecution not to constitute double jeopardy: (1) the dismissal is made upon motion, or with the express consent, of the defendant; (2) the dismissal is not an acquittal or based upon consideration of the evidence or of the merits of the case; and (3) the question to be passed upon by the appellate court is purely legal. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that all three conditions must concur to avoid double jeopardy. A demurrer to evidence, filed after the prosecution rests its case, involves an appreciation of the prosecution’s evidence and its sufficiency to warrant conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. A resulting dismissal is equivalent to an acquittal on the merits.

The Court also addressed the issue of whether the dismissal of the administrative case should affect the criminal prosecution. While the dismissal of an administrative case does not necessarily bar a criminal prosecution for the same acts due to differences in the quantum of evidence required, the situation changes when the criminal case relies on the same facts and evidence already ruled upon in the administrative case. In such instances, requiring the accused to present controverting evidence would be a futile exercise if the prosecution fails to present sufficient and competent evidence.

In this specific case, the Sandiganbayan considered the Court of Appeals’ decision in the administrative case, which upheld the legality of the contracts, as a persuasive factor. This decision, coupled with the prosecution’s failure to establish overpricing convincingly, led the Sandiganbayan to grant the demurrer to evidence. Since the prosecution failed to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, emphasizing that a judgment of acquittal is final, even if seemingly erroneous.

FAQs

What is double jeopardy?	Double jeopardy is a constitutional right that protects individuals from being tried twice for the same offense after an acquittal or conviction.
What is a demurrer to evidence?	A demurrer to evidence is a motion filed by the accused after the prosecution has presented its evidence, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to warrant a conviction.
When can the prosecution appeal an acquittal?	Generally, the prosecution cannot appeal an acquittal. However, exceptions exist when the prosecution is denied due process or when the trial court commits grave abuse of discretion.
What is grave abuse of discretion?	Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
What is certiorari?	Certiorari is a special civil action used to review and correct errors of jurisdiction committed by a lower court.
How does an administrative case affect a criminal case?	The dismissal of an administrative case does not automatically bar a criminal prosecution for the same acts, but it can be considered if the criminal case relies on the same facts and evidence.
What was the main issue in this case?	The main issue was whether the prosecution could appeal the Sandiganbayan’s decision granting the demurrer to evidence without violating the accused’s right against double jeopardy.
What did the Court ultimately decide?	The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the prosecution could not appeal the Sandiganbayan’s resolution granting the demurrer to evidence because it would violate the accused’s right against double jeopardy.

This case underscores the importance of protecting the accused’s right against double jeopardy. While there are exceptions, the prosecution must demonstrate grave abuse of discretion by the trial court to overcome this constitutional safeguard. This ruling serves as a reminder that the government must present a strong case from the outset and cannot repeatedly attempt to prosecute an individual for the same offense.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 164577, July 05, 2010