PEOPLE v.

ATIENZA o the evidence adduced did not show that the respondents favored
G.R. No. 171671, June 18, 2012 other persons who were similarly situated with the private complainant.
Digest Author: Camille Barredo
CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER:
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines The Sandiganbayan should have resolved the Demurrer to Evidence based
RESPONDENTS: Aristeo E. Atienza, Rodrigo D. Manongsong, Crispin M. Egarque, on the argument of the respondent questioning the credibility of
and the Honorable Sandiganbayan (Third Division) petitioners witnesses and the admissibility of their testimonies in evidence,
not upon an issue which petitioner was not given an opportunity to be
DOCTRINE: The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases is filed after the heard, thus, effectively denying the prosecution due process of law.
prosecution had rested its case, and when the same is granted, it calls for an Contrary to the conclusion of the court a quo, there was evident bad faith
appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and its sufficiency on the part of the respondents.
to warrant conviction beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a dismissal of the o The act itself of demolishing a fence erected upon private property
case on the merits, tantamount to an acquittal of the accused. Such dismissal without giving notice of the intended demolition, and without giving the
of a criminal case by the grant of demurrer to evidence may not be owner of the same the opportunity to be heard or to rectify matters, is
appealed, for to do so would be to place the accused in double jeopardy. evident bad faith.
The verdict being one of acquittal, the case ends there. o The element of manifest partiality was sufficiently established when the
fence was destroyed on the rationale that they do not have a permit to
TOPIC: Trial Demurrer to Evidence erect the fence; the place was intended for the benefit of fishermen;
and it was a tourist spot
FACTS: o The demolition was allegedly done in the guise of official business when
Respondents Atienza (Municipal Mayor of Puerto Galera, Oriental the fence was demolished on the basis of the above-stated purpose.
Mindoro), Engr. Manongsong (Municipal Engineer of Puerto Galera) and The constitutional proscription on double jeopardy does not apply in the
Egarque (police officer stationed in Puerto Galera) were charged present case.
with violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act). CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS:
The Information alleged that the accused conspired to destroy, demolish, The Sandiganbayan was correct in granting the Demurrer to Evidence and
and dismantle the rfence of the new Hondura Beach Resort owned by dismissing the case.
complainant Evora located at Hondura, Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro, The prosecution was not denied due process of law as the prosecution was
causing undue injury to complainant. given every opportunity to be heard. In fact, the assailed resolution was
Duly arraigned, respondents entered their respective pleas of not guilty to issued after the prosecution has rested its case.
the crime charged against them. After pre-trial, trial ensued. Their right against double jeopardy must be upheld.
The prosecution presented its witnesses who gave testimonies pointing to
the alleged acts of the accused. All the exhibits offered by the prosecution ISSUES:
were marked in evidence and were admitted. 1. Whether the prosecution was not afforded due process when the
Mayor Atienza and Engr. Manongsong filed a Motion to Acquit by Way of Sandiganbayan granted the Demurrer to Evidence based on the ground
Demurrer to Evidence anchored on the credibility of the witnesses for the that the prosecution failed to establish bad faith on the part of the
prosecution. Respondents maintain that the evidence presented were not respondents. NO.
sufficient to hold them guilty of the offense charged. 2. Whether jeopardy has set in. YES.
The court a quo issued a Resolution which granted the motion.
Belatedly, Egarque filed a Manifestation that he was adopting the RULING + RATIO:
Demurrer to Evidence filed by his co-accused.
The Sandiganbayan (Third Division) issued the assailed Resolution which, 1. The prosecution was not deprived of due process.
among other things, granted the Demurrer to Evidence and dismissed the
case. Respondents are charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, which has
o not all the elements of the crime charged were established by the the following essential elements:
prosecution, particularly the element of manifest partiality on the part i. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative,
of respondents judicial or official functions;
 ii. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or 1. the complaint or information was sufficient in form and substance to
gross inexcusable negligence; and sustain a conviction
iii. His action caused any undue injury to any party, including the The Information filed before the Sandiganbayan in the criminal case
government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, against respondents were sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. conviction.

In the case at bar, the Sandiganbayan granted the Demurrer to Evidence on 2. the court had jurisdiction
the ground that the prosecution failed to establish the second element of The Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the criminal case.
violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019.
3. the accused had been arraigned and had pleaded
The second element provides the different modes by which the crime may be Respondents were arraigned and entered their respective pleas of not
committed, that is, through "manifest partiality," "evident bad faith," or "gross guilty.
inexcusable negligence." In Uriarte v. People, the Court explained that Section
3 (e) of RA 3019 may be committed either by dolo, as when the accused 4. the accused was convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed
acted with evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or by culpa, as when the without his express consent
accused committed gross inexcusable negligence. There is "manifest The Sandiganbayan dismissed the criminal case on a Demurrer to
partiality" when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection Evidence on the ground that not all the elements of the offense as
to favor one side or person rather than another. "Evident bad faith" connotes charge exist in the case at bar; this amounts to an acquittal from which
not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and no appeal can be had.
dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some
perverse motive or ill will. "Evident bad faith" contemplates a state of mind In People v. Sandiganbayan, the Court elucidated the general rule that the
affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest grant of a demurrer to evidence operates as an acquittal and is, thus, final
or ill will or for ulterior purposes. "Gross inexcusable negligence" refers to and unappealable. Verily, in criminal cases, the grant of demurrer is
negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or tantamount to an acquittal and the dismissal order may not be appealed
omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently because this would place the accused in double jeopardy. Although the
but willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences dismissal order is not subject to appeal, it is still reviewable but only
insofar as other persons may be affected. through certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. For the writ to issue, the
trial court must be shown to have acted with grave abuse of discretion
The second element of the crime as charged was not sufficiently established amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction such as where the prosecution was
by the prosecution. Manifest partiality was not present in this case. The denied the opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a sham, thus,
evidence adduced did not show that the accused favored other persons rendering the assailed judgment void. The burden is on the petitioner to
who were similarly situated with the private complainant. Considering that the clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly abused its authority to a point
second element was not present, the Court deemed it proper not to discuss so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice.
the third element.
In the present case, no such circumstances exist to warrant a departure from
Moreover, contrary to petitioners contention, the prosecution was not denied the general rule and reverse the findings of the Sandiganbayan.
due process. The prosecution participated in all the proceedings before the
court a quo and has filed numerous pleadings and oppositions to the motions Petition denied.
filed by respondent. In fact, the prosecution has already rested its case and
submitted its evidence when the demurrer was filed. Where the opportunity to
be heard, either through verbal arguments or pleadings, is accorded, and the
party can present its side or defend its interests in due course, there is no
denial of procedural due process. What is repugnant to due process is the
denial of the opportunity to be heard, which is not present here.

2. Double Jeopardy has set in.

The elements of double jeopardy are all attendant in the present case: