ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 142735. May 9, 2001]

NAZARENO & NARTATEZ vs. SANDIGANBAYAN & PEOPLE

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 9, 2001.

G.R. No. 142735(Cesar P. Nazareno and Everlino P. Nartatez, petitioners vs. Sandiganbayan [Fifth Division] and People of the Philippine, respondents.)

Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus assailing the Resolutions dated November 3, 1999 and March 9, 2000 of the Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division) denying petitioners' demurrer to evidence in Criminal Case No. 23030, "People of the Philippines versus Cesar P. Nazareno, Everlino P. Nartatez and Nicasio Ma. S. Custodio," for violation of Sec. 3(g) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).

The undisputed facts as aptly narrated by the Office of the Special Prosecutor in its comment 1 Rollo, pp. 91-94.on this petition are:

"On November 10, 1995 an Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 23030 for violation of Section 3 (g) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, was filed against Nicasio Ma. S. Custodio, petitioners Cesar P. Nazareno and Everlino A. (sic) Nartatez. The Information reads:

'That on or abut (sic) January 1, 1991 and May 29, 1992, and for sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused Cesar P. Nazareno, then Director General, Philippine National Police (PNP) and Everlino A. Nartatez and Nicasio Ma. S. Custodio, then Directors of the PNP Logistics Support Command, successively while in the performance of their official functions, taking advantage of their positions and committing the crimes in relation to their offices, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally conspiring with one another, enter in behalf of the said PNP contract/document with Beltra Industries, Inc., a private enterprise located at Philand Bldg., Javier cor. Santillan Sts., Makati for the supply of Five Thousand Six Hundred Eighty One (5, 681) units of caliber .45 pistol in the amount of One Hundred Five Million Three Hundred Eighty Four Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Four Pesos and Seventy Centavos (P105, 384, 254.70), under terms and conditions manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government.

CONTRARY TO LAW.'

"The Pre-trial Conference was held on July 22, 1997 and August 27, 1997. Trial on the merits were held on February 19, 1998, May 4, 1998, July 9, 1998, July 10, 1998, January 5, 1999 and January 6, 1999.

"The prosecution presented the following witnesses: Commission on Audit (COA) State Auditors Vivencio C. Quiambao, Divina Gracia General and Marilou Carag.

"The facts as culled from the testimonies of both prosecution witnesses are as follows:

"The Philippine National Police represented by then Director General Cesar P. Nazareno entered into three (3) separate contracts denominated as Supply Contract/Agreement (Exhibits F, M, P) with B�ltra Industries, Inc., represented by Carlito B. Castrillo, for the purchase of 1,617, 1,242 and 2,822 units of 'Caliber .45; Thompson Brand; Government Model 1911A1; Semi Automatic, single action, 7-shot magazine, 5 inch barrel, weighs 39 oz., 8.5" length; made of high-grade, 4140 steel, specially designed for police/law enforcement; complete with wrap-around rubberized grip, blade front sight, and adjustable rear for windage; Non-glare, blued and/or parkerized finish; all parts interchangeable with all other 1911A1 Government models of cal. 45 pistols; Brand new, with one (1) spare/extra magazine for each unit; made in the USA by AUTO-ORDINANCE CORP., maker of the famous Thompson submachine gun' in the total amount of P29,995,835.10, P23,039,472.60 and P52,348,947.00, respectively. The contract price was to be paid by the PNP through an Irrevocable and Confirmed Domestic Letter of Credit (ICDLC) with the Philippine National Bank.

"On August 6, 1992 and pursuant to a COA Assignment Order No. 92-1550 (Exhibit A), a team composed of State Auditors Divina Gracia General as team leader and Lydia de Joya, Michael Racelis and Vivencio Quiambao as team members of the Special Audit Office (SAO) of the COA was constituted to conduct a comprehensive audit of the Philippine National Police (PNP), Camp Crame, Quezon City. However, Lina Macaraeg pursuant to COA Assignment Order No. 92-1550-A replaced team member Michael Racelis. Thereafter, another COA Assignment Order No. 92-1550-B (Exhibit A-2) was issued which added Justiniano Domingo, Jr. and Cheryl Apalisoc, as members.

"The team informed the PNP management of their purpose. They went to the PNP Auditing Unit under Resident Auditor Atty. Roberto Rabulan. They were provided with the disbursement vouchers and other documents supporting the purchases.

"The team examined Disbursement Voucher dated April 4, 1991 (Exhibit X) pertaining to the purchase of 2,822 units of Brand New Thompson Caliber 45 pistol with Gov't Model 1911A1 and covered by PNP Purchase Order No. 0-081190-654 (Exhibit 0) in favor of Beltra Industries, Inc. (Beltra, for brevity) in the total amount of P52,348,947.00 or P18,550.30 per unit, This was paid to Beltra under Check No. 575270.

"Another Disbursement Voucher dated August 31, 1992 (Exhibit Y) for the purchase of 1,617 units of the same firearm from Beltra, which was covered by PNP Purchase Order No. 0-240492-145 (Exhibit C) in the total amount of P29, 995,835.10, was paid under Check No. 673303 to Beltra.

"Another Disbursement Voucher dated July 7, 1992 (Exhibit Z) for the purchase of 1,242 units also of the same firearm from Beltra that was covered by PNP Purchase Order No. 0-050592-1 53 (Exhibit K) in the total amount of P23,039,472.60, was also paid under Check No. 673304 to Beltra.

"The team requested information from the Philippine Navy of the cost of the same specification of the .45 caliber pistol and they were furnished a Supply Issuance dated October 5, 1992 (Exhibit AA) that indicated the unit cost of the same type of firearm purchased by the PNP. By comparing the unit cost of the firearm purchased by the PNP at P18,550.30 from the unit cost of the same firearm as stated in the Supply Issuance made by the logistic command of the Philippine Navy at P10,578.25, they found out that there was a big difference between the unit cost of the firearm purchased by the PNP and that of the Philippine Navy.

"The findings of the audit team were embodied in SAO Report No. 92-156 (Exhibit EE) and submitted to the COA Chairman in a Memorandum dated February 15, 1994 (Exhibit W-1).

"On October 6, 1995, Beltra refunded the amount of P29,995,835.10 and P67,492.20 representing the payment for the 1,617 units of .45 caliber pistol and the interest income derived from Letter of Credit No, L-920725, respectively, as evidenced by Official Receipt Nos. 4581141 H (Exhibit DD) and 4581142 H (Exhibit DD-1)."

Thereafter, the prosecution rested its case. Claiming that the prosecution failed to present evidence sufficient to prove that the accused augmented the price of the .45 caliber pistols subject of the contract, they filed their demurrer to evidence. 2 Ibid., pp. 42-54.Accused Custodio likewise filed his separate demurrer to evidence.

In its assailed Resolution promulgated on November 3, 1999, the Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division) denied the motions filed by the accused. 3 Annex "A" of the petition, ibid., pp. 23-24.The Sandiganbayan likewise denied in its Resolution dated March 9, 2000 their motions for reconsideration. 4 Annex "B" of the petition, ibid., pp. 26-27.

Petitioners Cesar Nazareno and Everlino Nartatez are now before us imputing upon public respondent Sandiganbayan grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction:

"I. In not finding that the prosecution's evidence is not sufficient to secure the conviction of the Accused (herein Petitioners);

"II. In requiring Petitioners to prove that the PNP acquisition price is reasonable, when the prosecution admitted that the lower acquisition price of the Philippine Navy is not applicable to the PNP and failed to present evidence that the subject pistols were available elsewhere;

"III, in not dismissing the case insofar as Petitioner Nartatez is concerned, there being no evidence to show that he was a signatory or a participant in the questioned transactions."

In the main, petitioners insist that the case filed against them should have been dismissed by public respondent Sandiganbayan as the prosecution has no evidence to sustain the charge that their acquisition of the subject .45 caliber pistols is grossly disadvantageous to the Philippine Government.

Petitioners contend that the prosecution's only evidence to prove the alleged overpricing of the subject pistols is the Supply Issuance of the Logistics Command of the Philippine Navy showing that the Philippine Navy purchased the same type of pistols at the lower price of P10,578.25 per unit. Petitioners maintain, however, that the Philippine Navy was able to procure the said pistols at such lower price by virtue of the Military Assistance Program between the United States and the Philippines which covers only the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). Since the PNP was no longer part of the AFP as of January 1, 1991, the acquisition price obtained by the Philippine Navy cannot be made the basis of the purchase price paid by the PNP. Clearly, there was no overpricing of the subject pistols. Public respondent Sandiganbayan, therefore, committed grave abuse of discretion in denying their demurrer to evidence.

The petition is bereft of merit.

Public respondent Sandiganbayan, in issuing the herein assailed Resolutions, held:

"In the appreciation of the Court, the prosecution's evidence - at this stage uncontroverted - has put the accused at peril of conviction if such evidence is not refuted with countervailing evidence sufificient (sic) to overcome the same." 5 Rollo, p. 24.thus shifting the burden of evidence to the petitioners.

Such is this Court's ruling in Bautista vs. Sarmiento, 6 138 SCRA 587 (1985).thus:

"There is no denying that in a criminal case, unless the guilt of the accused is established by proof beyond reasonable doubt, he is entitled to an acquittal. But when the trial court denies petitioners' motion to dismiss by way of demurrer to evidence on the ground that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against them, they assume a definite burden. It becomes incumbent upon petitioners to adduce evidence to meet and nullify, if not overthrow, the prima facie case against them. This is due to the shift in the burden of evidence, and not of the burden of proof as petitioners would seem to believe."

Moreover, this instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, is not the proper remedy to assail an order denying a motion to dismiss by way of demurrer to evidence in a criminal case, the same being interlocutory in nature. Petitioners should have interposed an appeal. In People vs. Court of Appeals, 7 119 SCRA 162 (1982).this Court ruled:

"1. The only question submitted to the respondent court in the certiorari petition filed by respondents-accused was whether or not the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying their demurrer to evidence and motion to dismiss - which was filed therein in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Such a petition was doomed to failure in view of the long settled rule that certiorari does not lie to challenge the trial court's interlocutory order finding in the exercise of its sound judgment and discretion that the prosecution's evidence has established a prima facie case and denying the accused's motion to dismiss, since as reaffirmed in Joseph vs. Villaluz (89 SCRA 324, April 10, 1979, which controlling case was expressly noted by respondent court in the course of the hearing of July 10, 1979) that the appellate courts cannot and will not review in such special civil actions the prosecution's evidence and decide here and now in advance that it has or has not established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused and hence 'this Court will not annul an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss a criminal case. Appeal is the proper remedy of the {accused} in order to have the findings of fact of the respondent judge reviewed by a superior court.' Such special civil actions questioning the trial court's interlocutory order denying the accused's motion to dismiss the criminal case by way of demurrer to evidence, should he given short shrift, since the orderly procedure prescribed by the Rules of Court is for the accused to present their evidence after which the trial court, on its evaluation of the evidence, submitted by both the prosecution and the defense, may then properly render its judgment of conviction or acquittal."

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com