Republic of the Philippines

SANDIGANBAYAN

Quezon City

FOURTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

Grim. Case No. SB-17-CRM-2166

For; Violation of Section 3(e),R.A. No. 3019

-versus-

JAMES EXCELSIOR M.

TORRES, ET. AL.,Accused.

Present:

Quiroz, J., ChairpersonCruz, J.Jacinto, J.

Promulgated:

AOG 1 6 20191

QUIROZ, J:

RESOLUTION

The Court resolves the following:

(1) Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence^ datedApril 25, 2019 filed by accused James Excelsior M.Torres {Torres)-,

(2) Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence^ datedApril 29, 2019 filed by accused Eugenia TorrentoSayson {Sayson); and

(3) Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer toEvidence^ dated April 29, 2019 filed by accusedGeorge T. Tinguban [Tinguban).

1 Records, Volume (Vol.) II, pp. 339 -344.2 Id., pp. 353-3553 Id., pp. 376-A-376-D. Y

Resolution

Republic v. Torres et. al.Crim. Case No. SB-17-GRM-2166Page 2 of 8

Although couched differently in each of Torres, Sayson andTinguban's (collectively referred to hereinafter as "movants")respective motions, all three basically seek leave to file theirrespective demurrers in order to properly demonstrate how theprosecution allegedly failed to prove the existence of all of theelements of the crime of violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act(RA) No. 3019 otherwise known as the "Anti-Graft and CorruptPractices Act."

For its part, the prosecution avers in its ConsolidatedComment/Opposition'^ that the movants' respective motions shouldbe denied because it was able to present sufficient evidence toestablish all of the elements of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019.Furthermore, with respect to accused Sayson, the prosecutionpoints out that her motion suffers from a procedural infirmity forfailing to state the specific ground being relied upon by her motion,as required under Section 23 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court,thereby warranting its outright dismissal.

RULING OF THE COURT

A demurrer to evidence is basically a motion to dismiss on theground of insufficiency of evidence. It is a remedy available to thedefendant to test the sufficiency or insufficiency of the prosecution'sevidence against him/her.® Thus, in People v. Go,^ the High Courtexplained:

"Demurrer to the evidence is 'an objection by one of theparties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which hisadversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether trueor not, to make out a case or sustain the issue. The partydemurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence tosustain a verdict. The court, in passing upon the sufficiency ofthe evidence raised, in a demurrer, is merely required toascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence tosustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt, xxxSufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrerthereto is such evidence in character, weight or amount as willj^y justify the judicial or official action demanded accordingthe circumstances. To be considered sufficient therefore, the

evidence must prove: (a) the commission of the crime, and (b)the precise degree of participation therein by the accused.'Thus, when the accused files a demurrer, the court mustevaluate whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient enoughto warrant the conviction of the accused beyond reasonabledoubt."

Records, Vol. II, pp. 383-390.^Felipe v. MGM Motor Trading Corp., G.R. No. 191849, September 23 2015. t® G.R. No. 191015, August 6, 2014.

Resolution

Republic V. Torres et. al.Crim. Case No. SB-17-CRM-2166Page 3 of 8

Under the present rules, an accused has the right to file ademurrer to evidence after the prosecution has rested its case. If priorleave of court was obtained before filing the demurrer, the accusedcan still present evidence if his demurrer is denied.^ However, if hedemurs without prior leave of court, or after his motion for leave wasdenied, the accused waives his right to present evidence and submitsthe case for decision on the basis of the evidence for theprosecution.®

The purpose for obtaining leave of court is to determinewhether or not the defendant in a criminal case has filed the demurrermerely to stall the proceedings.® Thus, while judicial action to grantprior leave to file demurrer to evidence has been held to bediscretionary upon the trial court, it is clear that the reason behind forleaving it to the court's sound discretion is to determine whether theaccused is merely trying to stall the proceedings.''®

With respect to accused Sayson, We find no cogent reason togrant her motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence. Asaptly pointed out by the prosecution, without proffering any kind ofexplanation as to how she was able to arrive at such a conclusion,Sayson merely made a general allegation in her motion that theprosecution evidence miserably failed to prove her criminalculpability.''^ This is clearly contrary to the provisions of Section 23 ofRule 119 of the Rules of Court which specifically instructs that the

^ Sec. 23 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 23. Demurrer to evidence. — After the prosecution rests its case, the courtnnay dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiativeafter giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidencefiled by the accused with or without leave of court.

if the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accusedmay adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is filed withoutleave of court, the accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the case forjudgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution. (15a)

ThejnetitJnfor leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall specifically state itsgroyflds and shall be filed within a non-extendible period of five (5) days after the

.fifosecution rests its case. The prosecution may oppose the motion within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from its receipt.

If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to evidence within anon-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice. The prosecution may oppose thedemurrer to evidence within a similar period from its receipt.

The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or thedemurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment

®lbid.

® People V. Mahinay, G.R. No. 109613, July 17, 1995.Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119010, September 5 1997Records, Vol. II, p. 353. Y

Resolution

Republic v. Torres et. al.Crim. Case No. SB-17-CRM-2166Page 4 of 8

motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall specificallystate its grounds.

This Court, however, finds merit in the respective motions ofTorres and Tinguban.

To begin, a review of the records of the case shows that hereinmovants were charged with violating Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019''^for allegedly conspiring with each other in order to facilitate theMunicipality of Tigbauan's purchase of two defective second-handFord 8210 farm tractors from Grand Empire Truck and EquipmentCenter Corp. {Grand Empire), to wit:

"That on 22 May 2009, or sometime prior or subsequentthereto, in the Municipality of Tigbauan, Province of lloilo,Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,accused EXCELSIOR M. TORRES, a high-ranking publicofficer, being then the Municipal Mayor, EUGENIA T. SAYSONand GEORGE T. TINGUBAN, Municipal Agriculturist andMarket Supervisor II, respectively, all of the Municipality ofTigbauan, lloilo, while in the performance of their respectiveadministrative and/or official functions and committing the crimein relation to office, conspiring and confederating with oneanother, acting with evident bad faith, manifest partiality and/orgross inexcusable negligence, did then and there willfully,unlawfully and criminally cause[d] undue injury to thegovernment and give (sic) Grand Empire Truck and EquipmentCenter Corp. (Grand Empire) unwarranted benefits, advantageor preference in the amount of Phpl,873,928.58, more or less,by: (a) accomplishing and signing the Acceptance andInspection Report/s relative to the purchase of two (2) unitssecond-hand Ford 8210 farm tractors, without conductingreasonable inspection and testing which could have led to thetimely discovery of the equipment's defective hydraulic spoolvalves; (b) certifying on the same Acceptance and InspectionReport/s that the delivery was complete and that the saidtractors had been verified and found to be in good quality andthe specifications were in order as shown by the 'Ok' notation,despite their failure to conduct the inspection and testing; (c)signing the requisite vouchers and related documents; therebycausing or facilitating the payment to Grand Empire when it wasnot entitled thereto for delivering defective tractors, to thedamage and prejudice of the government.

CONTRARY TO LAW." (emphases in the original)

The elements of violation of Sec. 3 (e) of RA No. 3019 are asfollows:

^2 Rivera v. People, G.R. No. 163996, June 9, 2005. ^13 otherwise known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act." aI** Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1 - 2. / 7

Resolution

Republic V. Torres et, al.Crim. Case No. SB-17-CRM-2166Page 5 of 8

(a) That the accused must be a public officer dischargingadministrative, judicial, or official functions (or a privateindividual acting in conspiracy with such public officers);

(b) That he/she acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith,or inexcusable negligence; and

(c) That his/her action caused any undue injury to any party,including the government, or giving any private partyunwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in thedischarge of his functions.''®

The first element is an admitted fact in the case at bar.Regarding the second element, the following narration by theprosecution in its Consolidated Comment/Opposition essentiallysummarizes each of the movants' alleged role in the conspiracy topurchase two defective farm tractors from Grand Empire, to wit:

"13. Their collective culpability are shown by the followinguncontroverted facts:

b.

c.

a. The purchases of the 2 hand tractors was {sic) initiatedby accused Torres when the latter forwarded toaccused Sayson the pertinent PRs for her signature asthe representing party.Accused Sayson and Torres facilitated the purchase oftwo (2) units of farm tractor without implement bypreparing and executing Purchase Receipt Nos. 9088-A and 9089-A both dated 04 March 2009. AccusedSayson signed the said PRs in her capacity asMunicipal Agriculturist, and as the requestor. AccusedTorres gave his imprimatur to the procurement and thepurchase of the subject hand tractors by signing thesaid PRs signifying his approval thereto.Accused Torres likewise signed and approvedPurchase Order Nos. 09-105 and 09-106 both of evendate May 4, 2009 in favor of Grand Empire Truck andEquipment Center Corp for the purchase of two (2)units farm tractors without implement.Accused Tinguban 'inspected, verified and found OKas to quantity and specifications' the 2 tractorspurchased while accused Sayson accepted them as'complete' per Inspection and Acceptance Reportwithout conducting reasonable inspection and testingwhich could have led to the timely discovery of thedefective hydraulic spool valves.

e. Accused Torres directed accused Sayson to sign theAcceptance and Inspection Report in order not to delaythe payment of the subject equipment.

f. Accused Torres facilitated the payment of two (2)secondhand defective farm tractors when he approvedand signed the disbursement vouchers an checks infavor of Grand Empire Truck and Equipment CenterCorp in the aggregate amount of Phpl ,873,928.58.

d.

15 Consigna v. People, G.R, No. 175750, April 2, 2014. i

Resolution

Republic v. Torres et. al.Crim. Case No. SB-17-CRM-2166Page 6 of 8X

g. The farm tractors were not functional despite thesubsequent Installation of farm Implements.

h. For more than one year following their purchase, the 2second hand tractors were not used by the LGU, andthat necessary repairs In their hydraulic spool valveshad to be made In order for them to be operational.

I. Necessary repairs on the subject hand tractors had tobe made since their hydraulic spool valves weredefective.

j. Accused Sayson and TInguban did not test thehydraulic spool valves of the two second-handtractors."^® (citations omitted)

On the part of Torres, he alleged in his motion that all of theelements of the crime charged against him were not establishedconsidering that:

a. The evidence presented by the prosecution failed to provethat he conspired with TInguban and Sayson

b. There Is no evidence that he accomplished and signed theAcceptance and Inspection Reports relative to the purchaseof the two farm tractors and that he certified on theAcceptance and Inspection Reports that the delivery wascomplete and that the tractors were In good order;

c. There Is no evidence that he was In charge of the conductof Inspection and testing of the farm tractors;

d. There Is no evidence that the Inspection and testing of thetractors upon their delivery was not reasonable;

e. There Is no evidence that the tractors were defective at thetime of the delivery and Inspection;

f. There Is no proof that unwanted benefits, advantage andpreference were given to Grand Empire since the purchaseof the farm tractors was made after compliance with biddingrequirements and the budget therefor was dully approvedby the Sanggunlang Bayan."'^

For his part, Tinguban alleged in his motion that:

a. There Is no proof that he acted with manifest partiality,evident, bad faith or gross Inexcusable negligence when heconducted the Inspection of the two farm tractors upon theletter's delivery;T]T§.--Prosecutlon's Final Evaluation Report states that theprocedures required by R.A. No. 9184 and itsImplementing Rules and Regulations were strictly observedin the procurement of the subject tractors" hence it cannotbe said that there Is a showing of bad faith or malice on hispart;That no witness was presented by the prosecution who haspersonal knowledge or was present during the delivery ofthe farm tractors In order to support the claim of absence ofreasonable Inspection;

16 Records Vol. II, pp. 387-388.

i^d., pp. 341-343. i

Resolution

Republic v. Torres et. al.Crim. Case No. SB-17-CRM-2166Page 7 of 8

d. There is no proof prove that Grand Empire is not entitled topayment:

e. There is no proof that the farm tractors were defective upondelivery;

f. No evidence was presented which would eliminate thepossibility that ordinary wear and tear for a period of 7months (counting from the delivery of the farm tractors onMay 2009 to the discovery of the tractors' defects onDecember 2009 upon the delivery of the tractors' farmimplements/accessories) could not be the cause of farmtractors' defect.

g. No proof of payment was presented pertaining to the repairof the farm tractors;

h. There is no evidence of conspiracy between him, Torresand Sayson.''®

Having carefully delineated their respective grounds as to whythey believe the prosecution was unable to prove their guilt forviolating Sec. 3 .(b) of RA No. 3019, this Court finds that Torres andTinguban's respective motions are clearly not intended to merelydelay the proceedings in the case at bar. More importantly, it must beemphasized that the present charge against herein movants isessentially dependent on whether the two second-hand farm tractorsbought from Grand Empire were alreadv defective when the samewere brought to the municipality. A careful analysis, however, of theprosecution's formal offer of documentary exhibits'"® shows that noevidence was offered to sufficiently establish the alleged initialdefective condition of the two farm tractors upon delivery.

As mentioned earlier above, a demurrer to evidence is aremedy available to a defendant to test the sufficiency or insufficiencyof the prosecution's evidence against him/her. Considering that theprosecution appears to have failed in establishing a prima facie caseagainst the movants, it is but proper for the Court to grant Torres andTinguban's respective motions for leave to file demurrer to evidence.

ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Leave to File Demurrer toEvidence filed by accused James Excelsior M. Torres and the Motionfor Leave'of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence filed by accusedGeorge T. Tinguban are GRANTED. They are hereby ORDERED tofile their respective demurrers to evidence within a non-extendibleperiod^ten (I'O) calendar days upon receipt of this Resolution.

The Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence filed byaccused Eugenia Torrento Sayson is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

i8|d., pp. 376-B-376-C. /19 Id., pp. 177-186. (jf

Resolution

Republic v. Torres et. al.Crim. Case No. SB-17-GRi\/|-2166Page 8 of 8

WE CONCUR:

} JusAssociate Justice

REfNALt^P.CRUZ/ Associate Justice

4

-.-a

BAYANj^.^iACINTOAssociate Justice