March 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. Nos. 153304-05 : March 20, 2012]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL. RESPONDENTS.
"G.R. Nos. 153304-05 - People of the Philippines, petitioner v. Sandiganbayan, et al. respondents.
Before the Court is the People of the Philippines' (petitioner's) motion for reconsideration of the Court's February 7, 2012 Decision, dismissing the petitioner's petition for certiorari. The petitioner maintains that the ruling in the cases of Merciales v. Court of Appeals[1] and Valencia v. Sandiganbayan[2] applies in the present case due to similarity and comparability in factual circumstances, as follows:
- The public prosecutor rested the case knowing fully well that the evidence adduced was insufficient;
- The refusal of the public prosecutor to present other witnesses available to take the stand;
- The knowledge of the trial court of the insufficiency of the prosecution's evidence when the demurrer was filed before it;
- The trial court's failure to require the presentation of additional evidence before it acted on the demurrer to evidence; and
- Sufficient showing that the prosecutor haphazardly handled the prosecution.[3]
The petitioner reiterates the factual bases cited in its Memorandum, illustrating the prosecutor's "lack of zeal" in handling its case.
The petitioner claims that "even assuming that the special prosecutor xxx exercised reasonable diligence"[4] in performing her duties, the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion when it granted the demurrers to evidence with knowledge that the petitioner "was deprived of its day in court on account of the nonfeasance of the prosecutor."[5] The Sandiganbayan should have called additional witnesses or asked for documentary evidence before resolving the demurrers to evidence.
The petitioner's motion lacks merit.
The Court's point-by-point presentation of the factual premises of the petition amply negates its alleged similarity with the factual circumstances in Valencia and Merciales. A re-discussion of those factual premises and its legal consequence when considered together need not be repeated here.
It is worth emphasizing, however, that at no point has the petitioner made any representation whatsoever of the availability of, and its intent to present, the evidence (i.e., the testimonies of the three University of Life officers and the final audit report), which the special prosecutor failed to present. In Merciales, the Court found that the court a quo had shared, together with the prosecutor, in the commission of serious nonfeasance, warranting a reversal of the judgment of acquittal. Merciales, however, did not deal with any issue of availability or completeness of evidence at the prosecutor's disposal which accounts for the culpability of the court therein in allowing the prosecutor to "bungle" the case.[6]
A special prosecutor's "lack of zeal," while deplorable, is not one of the few instances where the petitioner may be allowed to disown the act or acts of its agent, unless the "lack of zeal" has amounted to gross negligence. Describing the special prosecutor's act or acts as "haphazard" without clear factual support does not establish the case for the petitioner.cralaw
WHEREFORE, we DENY the motion for lack of merit.
We further CONSIDER as SERVED the Notice of Judgment dated February 7, 2012 addressed to Atty. Raul E. Espinosa, counsel for Rafael G. Zagala, 1911 Leon Guinto St., Malate, 1004 Manila, which Notice of Judgment was returned unserved with notation on the Return of Service 'Addressee Unknown.'"
Leonardo-De Castro, J., no part.
Del Castillo, J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] G.R. No. 124171, March 18, 2002, 379 SCRA 345.[2] G.R. No. 165996, October 17, 2005, 473 SCRA 279.
[3] Rollo, pp. 797-798.
[4] Id. at 800.
[5] Ibid.
[6] See Dissenting Opinion of ponente in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., et al., G.R. Nos. 166859, 169203, and 180702, April 12, 2011.