SECOND DIVISION G.R. Nos.

195011-19 September 30, 2013

GREGORIO SINGIAN, JR., Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (3RD DI ISION!, "#E $EO$%E O& "#E $#I%I$$INES, '() "#E $RESIDEN"IA% *O++ISSIONON GOOD GO ERN+EN", Respondents. DECISION DE% *AS"I%%O, J.: The grant or denial of a Demurrer to Eviden e is left to the sound dis retion of the ourt, and its ruling on the matter shall not !e distur!ed in the a!sen e of a grave a!use of su h dis retion. This Petition for Certiorari "d Cautelam# see$s to set aside the "ugust %, &'#' Resolution& of the Sandigan!a(an in Criminal Case Nos. &)&*+,&)-'%,den(ing petitioner .regorio Singian, /r.0s Demurrer to Eviden e - and the Novem!er #1, &'#' Resolution2 den(ing re onsideration thereof. "nte edents The riminal ases involved in the present Petition have !een the su!3e t of a previous disposition of the Court, spe ifi all( Singian, /r. v. Sandigan!a(an.% In said ase, the Court made the follo4ing re ital of fa ts5 "tt(. Orlando 6. Salvador 4as Presidential Commission On .ood .overnment Consultant on detail 4ith the Presidential "d 7o Committee on 8ehest 6oans 9Committee:. 7e 4as also the oordinator of the Te hni al ;or$ing .roup omposed of offi ers and emplo(ees of government finan ing institutions to e<amine and stud( the reports and re ommendations of the "sset Privati=ation Trust relating to loan a ounts in all government finan ing institutions. "mong the a ounts a ted upon !( the Committee 4ere the loans granted to Integrated Shoe, In . 9ISI: !( the Philippine National 8an$ 9PN8:. It 4ould appear that on #1 /anuar( #*+&, ISI applied for a five,(ear onfirmed irrevo a!le deferred letter of redit amounting to >S?&,%'','''.'' 9P#),&1+,%''.'': to finan e its pur hase of a omplete line of ma hiner( and e@uipment. The letter of redit 4as re ommended to the PN8 8oard of Dire tors !( then Senior Vi eA,BPresident, Cr. Constantino 8autista. On &+ /anuar( #*+&, the PN8 approved the loan, su!3e t to ertain stipulations. The said letter of redit 4as to !e se ured !( the follo4ing ollaterals5 a: a se ond mortgage on a #',-)+,s@uare meter lot under Transfer Certifi ate of Title No. &#1*** 4ith improvements, ma hiner( and e@uipmentD !: ma hiner( and e@uipment to !e imported under the su!3e t letter of reditD and : assignment of >S?'.%' per pair of shoes of ISIEs e<port sales. It 4as further su!3e ted to the follo4ing pertinent onditions5 a: that the letter of redit !e su!3e t to 3oint and several signatures of Cr. Fran is o /. Teodoro, Crs. 6eti ia T. Teodoro, Carfina T. Singian, Tomas Teodoro, and .regorio Singian, /r.D !: that ISI, 4hi h has a paid,up apital amounting to P#,'*1,+%'.'' as of /anuar(#*+&, shall in rease its authori=ed apital to P%,''','''.'', and in the event that ash re eipts do not ome up to the pro3e tions, or as ma( !e re@uired !( the !an$, ISI 4ill further in rease its apitali=ation and the present sto $holders 4ill su!s ri!e to their present holdingsD and : that ISI shall su!mit other ollaterals in ase the appraised value of the ne4 ma hiner( and e@uipment !e insuffi ient. ISI 4as further e<tended the follo4ing su!se@uent loan a ommodations5

#. P#,%'','''.'' on #' Fe!ruar( #*+& for the pur hase of ra4 materialsD

&. P#,''','''.'' on #1 /anuar( #*+- as e<port advan eD -. P#,%'','''.'' on &# Car h #*+- as e<port advan eD 2. P)'','''.'' on ') Car h #*+2 as redit lineD %. P&,%'','''.'' rene4ed on #% De em!er #*+)D ). P%,''','''.'' on #* Novem!er #*+1 as e<port advan eD +. P#,%'','''.'' on '2 "ugust #*1' as e<port advan eD and 1. P+,''','''.'' on #% De em!er #*1' also as an e<port advan e.
The Committee found that the loans e<tended to ISI !ore hara teristi s of !ehest loans spe ifi all( for not having !een se ured 4ith suffi ient ollaterals and o!tained 4ith undue haste. "s a result, "tt(. Orlando Salvador filed 4ith the Offi e of the Om!udsman a s4orn omplaint dated &' Car h #**), for violation of Se tion -, paragraphs 9e: and 9g:, of Repu!li " t No. -'#*, as amended, against the follo4ing5 Panfilo Domingo, former PN8 President, Constantino 8autista, former PN8 Senior Vi e,President, Domingo Ing o, former mem!er of the PN8 8oard of Dire tors, /ohn Does, former mem!ers of the PN8 8oard of Dire tors, Fran is o Teodoro, President of ISI, 6eti ia Teodoro, Vi e, President of ISI, Carfina Singian, In orporator of ISI, Tomas Teodoro, .eneral Canager of ISI, and .regorio Singian, /r., E<e utive Vi e,President of ISI. The omplaint, do $eted as OC8,',*),'*)+, 4as assigned to .raft Investigation Offi er I "tt(. Edgar R. Navales 9Investigator Navales: of the Evaluation and Preliminar( Investigation 8ureau 9EPI8: for investigation. <<<< 7en e, the orresponding eighteen 9#1: Informations against petitioner and his o,a used for violation of Se tion -9e: and 9g: of Rep. " t No. -'#*,do $eted as Criminal Cases No. &)&*+ to No. &)-#2, 4ere filed !efore the Sandigan!a(an and 4ere raffled to the Third Division thereof. The eighteen 9#1:Informations orrespond to the nine 9*: loan a ommodations granted to ISI, ea h loan !eing the su!3e t of t4o informations alleging violations of !oth paragraphs of Se tion - of Rep. " t No. -'#*. ) Thus, herein petitioner 4as harged 4ith nine ounts of violation of Se tion -9e:, + and another nine ounts of violation of Se tion -9g:,1 of Repu!li " t No.-'#* 9R" -'#*:, or the "nti,.raft and Corrupt Pra ti es " t. Do $eted as Criminal Case Nos. &)&*+,&)-#2, the ases involved the purported granting of !ehest loans !( the governmentEs Philippine National 8an$ 9PN8: to Integrated Shoes, In . 9ISI:, in various amounts and on different dates as a!ove,enumerated. The Informations* overing Se tion -9e: harged that Panfilo Domingo9Domingo:, then PN8 Dire torGPresidentGVi e,President 9Europe:D Domingo C. Ing o 9Ing o:, then PN8 Dire torD and Constantino 8autista 98autista:, then PN8 Senior E<e utive Vi e,President, 4hile in the performan e of their offi ial fun tions and ta$ing advantage of their offi ial positions, onspired 4ith private individuals, spe ifi all( offi ers of ISI, in luding petitioner, 4ho 4as ISIEs E<e utive Vi e,President, in 4illfull(, unla4full( and riminall( ausing undue in3ur( to the government and giving un4arranted !enefits, advantage and preferen e to ISI !( a ommodating and granting several loans and advan es to the latter, despite $no4ing that it la $ed suffi ient apitali=ation, or failed to give ade@uate ollateral or raise its 4or$ing apital to se ure the governmentEs interest in ase it failed to pa( said loans, as in fa t it failed to pa( these loans.

On the other hand, the Informations#' overing Se tion -9g: harged the a!ove individuals, in luding petitioner, 4ith onspiring, onfederating, and 4illfull(, unla4full( and riminall( entering into the a!ove, mentioned loan transa tions 4hi h are grossl( and manifestl( disadvantageous to the government, for la $ of suffi ient apitali=ation or ade@uate ollateral, and for failure of ISI to raise its 4or$ing apital to se ure the governmentEs interest in ase it failed to pa( said loans, 4hi h indeed ISI failed to pa(. On /anuar( &+, &''2, petitioner entered a plea of not guilt( on all ounts. "ll the other a used 4ere arraigned as 4ell, e< ept for 8autista, 4ho passed a4a( prior to his s heduled arraignment. On "pril &*, &''%, the Sandigan!a(an dismissed Criminal Case Nos.&)-'),&)-#2. ## On O to!er ), &''+, the a used Ing o passed a4a(D as a result, the ases against him 4ere dismissed as 4ell. " used Domingo li$e4ise passed a4a( on /une &), &''1 resulting in an O to!er &*, &''1 Resolution 4herein the Sandigan!a(an dropped the ases against him. Trial 4ith respe t to the remaining ases ensued. For its testimonial eviden e, the prose ution alled to the stand nine 4itnesses5

#. Dire tor Danilo R.V. Daniel, then Coordinator of the Te hni al ;or$ing .roup on 8ehest 6oans 9T;.: and Dire tor of the Resear h Division of the Presidential Commission on .ood .overnment 9PC..:, 4ho testified on the investigation ondu ted !( the T;. of the ISI a ount and on various do uments relative thereto, in luding the Fourteenth 9#2th: Report of Presidential "d 7o Fa t,Finding Committee on 8ehest 6oans #& 9"d 7o Committee: dated /ul(#%, #**- 4hi h he drafted, and 4hi h hara teri=ed the ISI a ount as a !ehest loanD #&. "tt(. Reginald 8a olor from the 6egal Department, Privati=ation Canagement Offi e of the "sset Privati=ation Trust 9"PT:, 4ho testified on the deeds, do uments and titles overing the fore losed properties offered as ollaterals in the ISI a ount and thereafter sold !( the government through the "PTD#2 -. "tt(. Ed4in Flor V. 8arroga, then Deput( Registrar of Deeds of 8inangonan, Ri=al, 4ho testified on the propert( offered as ollateral !( ISI, 4hi h 4as the su!3e t of a prior en um!ran e to the .overnment Servi e Insuran e S(stem 9.SIS:D#% 2. "tt(. Cinderella 8enite=, Se urities Counsel II of the Se urities and E< hange Commission 9SEC:, 4ho testified on ISIEs SEC do uments, spe ifi all( its apitali=ation and finan ial status. She identified ertified opies of ISIEs "rti les of In orporation, 8(,6a4s, "mended "rti les of In orporation, Certifi ates of In rease of Capital Sto $, et .D #) %. "tt(. Car( "nn 8. Corales, SEC Se urities Counsel III from its Registration and Conitoring Department, 4ho li$e4ise testified on ISIEs SEC do uments. She identified ISIEs .eneral Information Sheets, S hedule of Sto $holders, Su!s ri!ed and Paid,>p Capital, Certifi ate of Corporate FilingGInformation, et . She testified, among others, that as of #*+-, ISIEs su!s ri!ed apital sto $ 4as onl( P#.) million, 4hile its paid,up apital 4as merel(P#,&*1,+%'.''D#+ ). Cesar 6uis Pargas, of the Privati=ation Canagement Offi e, "PT, ustodian of ISIEs loan do uments, 4ho testified on and !rought 4ith him the loan do uments, deeds, titles, notes, et . overing the ISI a ountD #1 +. Claro 8ernardino, Senior Canager of PN8Es 7uman Resour e .roup, 4ho !rought the personnel re ordsG ertifi ates of emplo(ment of the a used Domingo and Ing oD #*

1. Ramon hito 8ustamante, Canager of the 6oans and Implementing Servi es Division of PN8, e<pert 4itness on !an$ing poli ( and PN8Es loan poli ies, as 4ell as ISIEs loan dataD and&' *. Stephen Tan huling, Chief "dministrative Offi er of the Re ords Division of the Resear h Department of the PC.., ustodian of do uments turned over to PC.. !( the "d 7o Committee. 7e testified that his fun tion 4as to authenti ate do uments in his ustod(, 4hi h onsisted of re ords transmitted to the "d 7o Committee !( different government agen ies. 7e identified as 4ell the E<e utive Summar( &# of the ISI a ountD the Fourteenth 9#2th: Report of Presidential "d 7o Fa t,Finding Committee on 8ehest 6oans dated /ul( #%, #**-D the E<e utive Summar( of the "d 7o Committee FindingsD and other relevant do uments.&&
For its do umentar( eviden e, the prose ution presented the follo4ing, among others5

#: Photo op( of the Fourteenth 9#2th: Report of Presidential "d 7o Fa t,Finding Committee on 8ehest 6oans&-4hi h listed ISI as among the orporations 4ith loans o!tained from the government or government !an$s 9in this ase, PN8:4hi h 4ere found to possess the hara teristi s of a !ehest loanD &: Photo op( of an E<e utive Summar( of Findings of the "d 7o Committee, &2 detailing the parti ulars of the ISI a ountD -: Photo op( of the ertified true op( of the /anuar( #', #*+& Cemorandum &% from 8autista to the PN8 8oard of Dire tors, detailing 8autistaEs findings and re ommendations regarding ISIEs appli ation for a ?&.% million9P#),&1+,%''.'': letter of redit for the purpose of pur hasing ma hiner( and e@uipment for a ne4 shoe fa tor( then !eing !uilt in 8ataan. 2: Certified photo op( of a Deed of >nderta$ing and Conformit( to 8an$ Conditions &) 9Deed of >nderta$ing: dated Car h &2, #*+& e<e uted !( ISI in favor of PN8D %: Certified photo op( of a Deed of "ssignment &+ dated Car h &2, #*+&,assigning ?'.%' per pair of shoes of all e<port sales of ISI in favor of PN8D ): Certified photo op( of Chattel Cortgage 4ith Po4er of "ttorne( &1 e<e uted !( ISI in favor of PN8D +: Certified true op( of Certifi ate of Filing of Certifi ate of In rease of Capital Sto $ &* issued !( the SEC dated Fe!ruar( ), #*+2, sho4ing that ISI in reased its authori=ed apital sto $ from P- million to P+ millionD and 1: Certified true op( of the 8(,6a4s of Integrated Pa ifi , In . 9ISIEs prede essor orporation:.-'
"fter the presentation of its testimonial and do umentar( eviden e, the prose ution rested its ase and filed its Formal Offer of E<hi!its.-# The respondent ourt admitted in toto the StateEs do umentar( e<hi!its. PetitionerEs Demurrer to Eviden e On Fe!ruar( #+, &'#', petitioner, 4ith prior leave, filed a Demurrer to Eviden e -& an hored on the follo4ing grounds5 9#: la $ of proof of onspira ( 4ith an( PN8 offi ialD 9&: the ontra ts 4ith PN8

ontained provisions that are !enefi ial, and not manifestl( and grossl( disadvantageous, to the governmentD 9-:the loans ould not !e hara teri=ed as !ehest loans !e ause the( 4ere se ured !( suffi ient ollaterals and ISI in reased its apitali=ationD and 92: assuming the loans are !ehest loans, petitioner ould not !e held lia!le for la $ of an( parti ipation. -In parti ular, petitioner laimed that the prose ution failed to addu e eviden e of onspira ( to defraud the government !e ause his o,a used from PN8 had no po4er to approve the alleged !ehest loansD that if a theor( of onspira ( 4ere to !e pursued, then all the mem!ers of the PN8Es 8oard of Dire tors at the time the loans and redit a ommodations to ISI 4ere approved, and not onl( Domingo and Ing o, should have !een impleaded as the( 4ere the ones 4ho dire ted PN8Es affairsD that the prose ution failed to sho4 that he e<er ised an( $ind of influen e over PN8Es 8oard of Dire tors in order to ensure the grant of the loans and a ommodations applied forD and for failure to present eviden e that the a used olluded 4ith ea h other in entering into the loan agreements and a ommodations. Petitioner ontended further that the ontra ts and agreements entered into !( and !et4een PN8 and ISI 4ere standard ontra ts used !( PN8 in its dealings 4ith its lientsD that the terms thereof 4ere ou hed in 4ords and fashioned in a manner that favored the !an$D that the agreements guaranteed repa(ment of the loan and the putting up of suffi ient ollateral, and provided for interest and penalties in the event of !rea h, and thus 4ere not grossl( and manifestl( disadvantageous to the government. Ne<t, petitioner argued that the su!3e t loans 4ere not under ollaterali=edD that ISI 4as not under apitali=ed as the orresponding in rease in its authori=ed apital sto $ and paid,up apital 4as timel( madeD and that the loans ould not have !een hara teri=ed as !ehest loans onsidering the follo4ing stipulations5 a: the assets intended for a @uisition through the letter of redit 4ould serve as the ollateral thereforD !: the offi ers and ma3orit( sto $holders of ISI 4ere made 3ointl( and severall( lia!le for its o!ligationsD : ISI ma( not de lare dividends 4hile the loans are su!sistingD d: PN8 is given the right to designate its Comptroller in ISID and e: even if it is assumed for the sa$e of argument that the su!3e t loans 4ere under ollaterali=ed, this fa t H standing alone H does not ma$e for a !ehest loan, as the presen e of at least t4o 9&: riteria out of the eight enumerated in Presidential Cemorandum Order No. )# dated Novem!er *, #**&is re@uired to hara teri=e the loans as !ehest loans. "ssuming that the loan agreements are !ehest loans, petitioner laimed that he ma( not !e held lia!le !e ause his indi tment 4as !ased solel( on the Deed of >nderta$ing 4hi h 4as altered su h that his name 4as stri $en out and instead the name I.regorio T. TeodoroI 4as insertedD that the a ountee, mortgagor,assignor under said deed 4as ISID that the o!ligations 4ere assumed !( ISID that ISI had alread( full( omplied 4ith all its o!ligations under the deedD and that he 4as not a mem!er of ISIEs 8oard of Dire tors, 4hi h alone 4as tas$ed H as ISIEs governing !od( H 4ith the o!servan e of the o!ligations set forth under the deedD nor ma( he see$ to ompel a tion thereon at a sto $holdersE meeting, as he is not a shareholder of ISI either. Finall(, petitioner laimed that the "d 7o Committee do uments H spe ifi all( the E<e utive Summar( and Fourteenth 9#2th: Report of Presidential "d 7o Fa t,Finding Committee on 8ehest 6oans H are inadmissi!le for not !eing photo opies of the originals, !ut mere opies of photo opies in the ustod( of the PC..D and that the( 4ere prepared and issued !( individuals 4ho have no personal $no4ledge of the fa ts and ir umstan es 4hi h transpired during the pro eedings adverted to. Petitioner thus pra(ed that as against him, Criminal Case Nos. &)&*+,&)-'% !e dismissed for insuffi ien ( of eviden e. Prose utionEs Opposition In its Opposition,-2 the prose ution insisted that onspira ( ma( !e inferred from the follo4ing pattern of events5

a. The fre@uen ( of the loans or loseness of the dates at 4hi h the( 4ere grantedD !. The @uantit( of the loans grantedD . The failure of PN8 to verif( and to ta$e an( a tion on ISIEs failure to put up additional apitali=ation and additional ollateralsD and d. The eventual a!sen e of an( a tion !( PN8 to olle t full pa(ment from ISI.-%
The prose ution noted that 4ithout ISI putting up additional apitali=ation or ollateral, PN8 $ept granting loans to it, su h that in #*+-, its in de!tedness alread( rose to P#),-)','''.'' 4hile its apital sto $ stood at onl( P+ millionD that petitioner is intimatel( onne ted 4ith the in orporators and offi ers of ISI H 6eti ia Teodoro is his mother,in,la4, 4hile Fran is o Teodoro is his father,in,la4D and Carfina Teodoro, Singian is his 4ifeD that as of #*1-, ISIEs de!t to PN8 amounted toP+#,12+,&#+.'', as a result of the under apitali=ed and under ollaterali=ed loans e<tended to itD and that as signator( to the Deed of >nderta$ing, petitioner assumed the o!ligations of a suret(. Finall(, the prose ution noted that petitionerEs arguments in his Demurrer to Eviden e onstitute matters of defense 4hi h should !e passed upon onl( after trial on the merits. Ruling of the Sandigan!a(an On "ugust %, &'#', the Sandigan!a(an issued the first assailed Resolution, 4hi h de reed as follo4s5 ;7EREFORE, onsidering all the foregoing, this Court DENIES the Demurrer to Eviden e filed !( a used .regorio Singian, /r. as the eviden e for the prose ution suffi ientl( esta!lished the essential elements of the offense harged and over ame the presumption of inno en e in favor of said a used. SO ORDERED.-) PetitionerEs Cotion for Re onsideration-+ having !een denied on Novem!er #1, &'#' !( the respondent ourt, he filed the present Petition for Certiorari. Issues Petitioner raises the follo4ing issues5

T7E RESPONDENT S"NDI."N8"J"N "CTED ;IT7 .R"VE "8>SEOF DISCRETION "CO>NTIN. TO 6"CK OR ELCESS OF/>RISDICTION ;7EN IT ISS>ED T7E "SS"I6ED RESO6>TIONS LL L CONSIDERIN. T7"T5 I. T7E FIRST E6ECENT OF SECTION -9.: OF R.". -'#* IS NOT PRESENT8EC">SE T7E ELISTENCE OF CONSPIR"CJ IS NE."TED 8J T7EF"CT T7"T T7E P>86IC OFFICERS ;7O ;ERE RESPONSI86E FOR .R"NTIN. T7E 6O"NS IN M>ESTION ;ERE NEVER C7"R.ED, "CC>SED OR INC6>DED IN T7E INFORC"TIONS S>8/ECT OFT7ESE C"SES. II. EVEN IF IT IS PRES>CED, P>RE6J IN .R"TI" "R.>CENT IS, T7"T "CONSPIR"CJ "TTENDED T7E .R"NT OF T7E M>ESTIONED 6O"NSTO ISI, T7ERE IS, NEVERT7E6ESS,

NO OVERT "CT "TTRI8>T"86ETO T7E PETITIONER T7"T EVEN RECOTE6J />STIFIES 7ISINC6>SION IN T7E PROSEC>TIONES CONSPIR"CJ DR".NET. III. T7E PROSEC>TIONES EL7I8ITS ICI 9"6SO C"RKED "S EL7I8ITIRRI: "ND IMMI ;7IC7 T7E PROSEC>TION FOISTED TO C"KE IT"PPE"R T7"T T7E CREDIT "CCOCCOD"TIONS S>8/ECT OF T7ECRICIN"6 C"SES 8E6O; "RE 8E7EST 6O"NS, DO NOT 7"VE "NJPRO8"TIVE V"6>E "ND "RE COCP6ETE6J IN"DCISSI86E8EC">SE T7EJ "RE >NDISP>T"86J "ND 86"T"NT6J7E"RS"J.-1
PetitionerEs "rguments Essentiall(, petitioner reiterates all his arguments in his Demurrer to Eviden e and Cotion for Re onsideration of the respondent ourtEs denial thereof. 7e emphasi=es, ho4ever, that he had nothing to do 4ith the appli ation and grant of the @uestioned loans, sin e he 4as never a mem!er of ISIEs 8oard of Dire tors 4hi h, under the la4 and ISI !(,la4s, had the sole po4er and authorit( to approve and o!tain loans and give ollaterals to se ure the sameD nor is he a sto $holder of ISI. Nor has it !een sho4n from the testimonial and do umentar( eviden e that as E<e utive Vi e,President, he parti ipated in ISIEs loan and redit transa tions, or that he a tivel( parti ipated in the ommission of the rimes of 4hi h he is harged. ;ithout su h proof, petitioner !elieves that he ma( not !e harged 4ith onspira (. Petitioner adds that no eviden e 4as presented as 4ell to sho4 that he had an( parti ipation in PN8Es failure to verif( and ta$e a tion against ISI to ompel it to put up additional apital and ollaterals, or that he 4as responsi!le for PN8Es failure to olle t or se ure full pa(ment of the ISI redit. Finall(, petitioner 3ustifies his resort to ertiorari on the argument that the olle tive a ts of the prose ution and the respondent ourt onstitute a denial of his onstitutional right to due pro ess, 4hi h gives ground for the availment of the e<traordinar( remed(.-* RespondentsE "rguments In its Comment,2' the prose ution asserts that the respondent ourt did not ommit grave a!use of dis retion in den(ing the Demurrer to Eviden e arguing that in petitionerEs ase, all the elements under Se tion -9g: e<ist to hold petitioner lia!le. It adds that petitioner 4as part of the onspira ( to defraud the government, as eviden ed !( his parti ipation and signature in the Deed of >nderta$ing, the terms of 4hi h ISI violated and PN8 failed to enfor e. On the other hand, the PC.. in its Comment2# adopts the arguments of the prose ution and asserts that the respondent ourt arrived at its on lusion after areful e<amination of the re ord and the eviden e, 4hi h 3ustif( a finding sustaining petitionerEs indi tment. It adds that all the elements of the rime under Se tion -9g: have !een proved, 4hi h thus 3ustifies a denial of petitionerEs Demurrer to Eviden e. Our Ruling The Court dismisses the Petition. Demurrer to eviden e I" demurrer to the eviden e is an o!3e tion !( one of the parties in an a tion, to the effe t that the eviden e 4hi h his adversar( produ ed is in suffi ient in point of la4, 4hether true or not, to ma$e out a ase or sustain the issue. The part( demurring hallenges the suffi ien ( of the 4hole eviden e to sustain a verdi t. The ourt, in passing upon the suffi ien ( of the eviden e raised in a demurrer, is merel(

re@uired to as ertain 4hether there is ompetent or suffi ient eviden e to sustain the indi tment or to support a verdi t of guilt.I2& ISuffi ient eviden e for purposes of frustrating a demurrer thereto is su h eviden e in hara ter, 4eight or amount as 4ill legall( 3ustif( the 3udi ial or offi ial a tion demanded a ording to the ir umstan es. To !e onsidered suffi ient therefore, the eviden e must prove5 9a: the ommission of the rime, and 9!: the pre ise degree of parti ipation therein !( the a used.I 2Elements of Se tion -9g:, R" -'#* For one to !e su essfull( prose uted under Se tion -9g: of R" -'#*, the follo4ing elements must !e proven5 I#: the a used is a pu!li offi erD &: the pu!li offi er entered into a ontra t or transa tion on !ehalf of the governmentD and -: the ontra t or transa tion 4as grossl( and manifestl( disadvantageous to the government.I22 7o4ever, private persons ma( li$e4ise !e harged 4ith violation of Se tion -9g: of R" -'#* if the( onspired 4ith the pu!li offi er. Thus, Iif there is an allegation of onspira (, a private person ma( !e held lia!le together 4ith the pu!li offi er, in onsonan e 4ith the avo4ed poli ( of the "nti,.raft and Corrupt Pra ti es " t 4hi h is Nto repress ertain a ts of pu!li offi ers and private persons ali$e 4hi h ma( onstitute graft or orrupt pra ti es or 4hi h ma( lead thereto.EI 2% The Sandigan!a(an found ompetent or suffi ient eviden e to sustain the indi tment or to support a verdi t of guilt for violation of Se tion -9g:, R" -'#* The Sandigan!a(an found that the prose ution presented suffi ient or ompetent eviden e to esta!lish the three material elements of Se tion -9g: of R"-'#*. First, although petitioner is a private person, he 4as sho4n to have onnived 4ith his o,a used. Se ond, ISI and PN8 entered into several loan transa tions and redit a ommodations. Finall(, the loan transa tions proved disadvantageous to the government. There is no grave a!use of dis retion on the part of the Sandigan!a(an in den(ing petitionerEs Demurrer to Eviden e "t the outset, 4e emphasi=e that Ithe resolution of a demurrer to eviden e should !e left to the e<er ise of sound 3udi ial dis retion. " lo4er ourtEs order of denial shall not !e distur!ed, that is, the appellate ourts 4ill not revie4 the prose utionEs eviden e and pre ipitatel( de ide 4hether su h eviden e has esta!lished the guilt of the a used !e(ond a reasona!le dou!t, unless a used has esta!lished that su h 3udi ial dis retion has !een gravel( a!used, there !( amounting to a la $ or e< ess of 3urisdi tion. Cere allegations of su h a!use 4ill not suffi e.I2) I.rave a!use of dis retion is the apri ious and 4himsi al e<er ise of 3udgment on the part of the pu!li offi er on erned 4hi h is e@uivalent to an e< ess or la $ of 3urisdi tion. The a!use of dis retion must !e so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive dut( or a virtual refusal to perform a dut( en3oined !( la4, or to a t at all in ontemplation of la4 as 4here the po4er is e<er ised in an ar!itrar( and despoti manner !( reason of passion or hostilit(.I2+ In this ase, petitioner misera!l( failed to present an iota of eviden e to sho4 that the Sandigan!a(an a!used, mu h more, gravel( a!used, its dis retion in den(ing petitionerEs Demurrer to Eviden e. ;e agree 4ith the PC..Es o!servation that the Sandigan!a(an arrived at its on lusion after a areful and deli!erate e<amination and assessment of all the eviden e su!mitted. " loser s rutin( of the assailed Resolutions 4ould indeed sho4 that the Sandigan!a(an meti ulousl( dis ussed !oth testimonial and

do umentar( eviden e presented !( the prose ution. 21 It 4as onl( after a areful anal(sis of the fa ts and eviden e presented did the respondent ourt la( do4n its findings and on lusions. 2* 8ased on the eviden e presented, the Sandigan!a(an 4as onvin ed that all three elements of Se tion -9g:, R" -'#* 4ere satisfa toril( esta!lished. It found that PN8 and ISI entered into several ontra ts or loan transa tions. The Sandigan!a(an also assessed that petitioner onspired 4ith his o,a used in defrauding the government onsidering I9#: the fre@uen ( of the loans or loseness of the dates at 4hi h the( 4ere grantedD 9&: the @uantit( of the loans grantedD 9-: the failure of the !an$ to verif( and to ta$e an( a tion on the failure of ISI to put up additional apitali=ation and additional ollateralsD and 92: the eventual a!sen e of an( a tion !( the 8an$ to olle t full pa(ment from ISI.I %' The Sandigan!a(an ratio inated that H < < < the loans su!3e t of this ase refer to not 3ust one !ut several loans. The first t4o loans 4ere granted in a span of t4o months < < < The first loan 4as in the amount of P#),&1+,%''.'' 4hen the apital sto $ of ISI amounted to onl(P#,''','''.''. This 4as follo4ed !( t4o additional loans in /anuar( and Car h #*+- < < < then another loan < < < in the follo4ing (ear < < <. T4o (ears later < < < ISI o!tained another loan < < < 4hi h 4as su eeded !( an additional loan < < <. Still, ISI 4as granted t4o more loans < < <. <<<< 7o4ever, all loans su!3e t of this ase 4ere granted despite failure of ISI to raise its 4or$ing apital, and to put up additional ollateral. The Certifi ate of Filing of "mended "rti les of In orporation and the "mended "rti les of In orporation li$e4ise sho4 that ISI last in reased its authori=ed apital sto $ toP+,''','''.'' on "pril &+, #*+-, 4hen the inde!tedness of the orporation 4as alread( P#),-)','''.''. Indeed, it 4ould appear that ina tion on the part of the PN8 to notif( ISI to further in rease its apital and the orresponding ina tion on the part of ISI to ompl( 4ith its underta$ing indi ate onspira ( !et4een the a used. " used,movant further negates his lia!ilit( !( asserting that his name does not appear in the Deed of >nderta$ing, and neither has he signed the same. " ursor( e<amination of the Deed, ho4ever, reveals other4ise. It also !ears stressing at this point that as he has never denied his position as E<e utive Vi e, President of ISI, he 4ould undenia!l( have parti ipation in its transa tions, espe iall( 4here loan a ommodations of the orporation are on erned. %# The Sandigan!a(an also found that the loan transa tions 4ere grossl( and manifestl( disadvantageous to the government. 8ased on the do umentar( eviden e presented !( the prose ution, it noted that ISI 4as under apitali=ed 4hile the loans 4ere under ollaterali=ed. It also noted that the government 4as onl( a!le to fore lose properties amounting to P- million 4hereas ISIEs inde!tedness stood at more than P+# million. 8ased on the foregoing, 4e find no sho4ing that Ithe on lusions made !( the Sandigan!a(an on the suffi ien ( of the eviden e of the prose ution at the time the prose ution rested its ase, 4ere manifestl( mista$en.I%& The Sandigan!a(an did not e<er ise its 3udgment in a 4himsi al or apri ious manner. "s 4e aptl( held5
1wphi1

.iven the suffi ien ( of the testimonial and do umentar( eviden e against petitioner, it 4ould, therefore, !e premature at this stage of the pro eedings to on lude that the prose utionEs eviden e failed to esta!lish petitionerEs parti ipation in the alleged onspira ( to ommit the rime. 6i$e4ise, the Court annot, at this point, ma$e a ategori al pronoun ement that the guilt of the petitioner has not !een proven !e(ond reasona!le dou!t. "s there is ompetent and suffi ient eviden e to sustain the indi tment for the rime harged, it !ehooves petitioner to addu e eviden e on his !ehalf to ontrovert the asseverations of the prose ution. ;ithal, respondent ourt did not gravel( a!use its dis retion 4hen it found that there 4as a prima fa ie ase against petitioner 4arranting his having to go for4ard 4ith his defensive eviden e.

The determination of the suffi ien ( or insuffi ien ( of the eviden e presented !( the prose ution as to esta!lish a prima fa ie ase against an a used is left to the e<er ise of sound 3udi ial dis retion. >nless there is a lear sho4ing of a grave a!use of dis retion amounting to la $ or e< ess of 3urisdi tion, the trial ourtEs denial of a motion to dismiss or a demurrer to eviden e ma( not !e distur!ed. %Similarl(, 4e have also ruled that5 ;hen there is no sho4ing of su h grave a!use, ertiorari is not the proper remed(. Rather, the appropriate re ourse from an order den(ing a demurrer to eviden e is for the ourt to pro eed 4ith the trial, after 4hi h the a used ma( file an appeal from the 3udgment of the lo4er ourt rendered after su h trial. In the present ase, 4e are not prepared to rule that the Sandigan!a(an has gravel( a!used its dis retion 4hen it denied petitionerEs demurrer to eviden e. Pu!li respondent found that the prose utionEs eviden e satisfa toril( esta!lished the elements of the rime harged. Correspondingl(, there is nothing in the re ords of this ase nor in the pleadings of petitioner that 4ould sho4 other4ise. %2 "t this 3un ture, it is 4orth mentioning that the issues raised herein are almost the same as those raised !( petitioner !efore the Court 4hen he @uestioned the Sandigan!a(anEs denial of his Cotion for Re, determination of E<isten e of Pro!a!le Cause.%% In resolving petitionerEs ontention that he should not !e made lia!le for ISIEs failure to put up additional apitali=ation and ollaterals !e ause he is not a mem!er of the 8oard of Dire tors, the Court de lared that5 True, the po4er to in rease apitali=ation and to offer or give ollateral to se ure inde!tedness are lodged 4ith the orporationEs 8oard of Dire tors. 7o4ever, this does not mean that the offi ers of the orporation other than the 8oard of Dire tors annot !e made riminall( lia!le for their riminal a ts if it an !e proven that the( parti ipated therein. In the instant ase, there is eviden e that petitioners parti ipated in the loan transa tions 4hen he signed the underta$ing. < < <%) "nent the issue regarding the suffi ien ( of ISIEs ollateral, 4e also de lared the same to !e Ia matter of defense 4hi h should !e !est ventilated in a full,!lo4n trial.I %+ Coreover, 4e de lared that H Fifth. It is petitioner0s vie4 that the prose ution failed to addu e eviden e that he too$ part in an( onspira ( relative to the grant of the loan transa tions. Suffi e it to state that the alleged a!sen e of an( onspira ( among the a used is evidentiar( in nature and is a matter of defense, the truth of 4hi h an !e !est passed upon after a full,!lo4n trial on the merits. %1 In fine, 4e hold that Ithe presen e or a!sen e of the elements of the rime is evidentiar( in nature and is a matter of defense that ma( !e passed upon after a full,!lo4n trial on the merits,I and Ithe validit( and merits of a part(0s defense or a usation, as 4ell as admissi!ilit( of testimonies and eviden e, are !etter ventilated during trial proper.I%* Petitioner0s laims and defenses in his Demurrer to Eviden e an !est !e ta $led during trial. In the presentation of his defense, he shall have the opportunit( to e<plain or sho4 4h( he should not !e made lia!le. For e<ample, if there is an( truth to the allegation in his Demurrer of Eviden e that the Deed of >nderta$ing 4as altered, or that the signature therein affi<ed is not his o4n, su h that there arise serious dou!ts as to his parti ipation in the e<e ution of said do ument, this an !e resolved onl( upon proof presented during trial. Petitioner must present eviden e regarding su h laim, the truth of 4hi h he an demonstrate during trial. Sin e this Court is not a trier of fa ts, there is no 4a( that this issue an !e resolved !( this Court at this stage of he pro eedings. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the respondent ourt did not ommit grave a!use of dis retion in den(ing petitioner0s Demurrer to Eviden eD it 4as done in the proper e<er ise of its 3urisdi tion. ;7EREFORE, the Petition is DISCISSED. SO ORDERED.

+ARIANO *. DE% *AS"I%%O "sso iate /usti e ;E CONC>R5 AR",RO D. BRION "sso iate /usti e " ting Chairperson

ROBER"O A. ABADO "sso iate /usti e

JOSE $OR",GA% $ERE"sso iate /usti e

ES"E%A +. $ER%AS-BERNABE "sso iate /usti e "TTEST"TION I attest that the on lusions in the a!ove De ision had !een rea hed in onsultation !efore the ase 4as assigned to the 4riter of the opinion of the Court0s Division. AR",RO D. BRION "sso iate /usti e " ting Chairperson CERTIFIC"TION Pursuant to Se tion #-, "rti le VIII of the Constitution and the Division " ting Chairperson0s "ttestation, I ertif( that the on lusions in the a!ove De ision had !een rea hed in onsultation !efore the ase 4as assigned to the 4riter of the opinion of the Court0s Division. +ARIA %O,RDES $. A. SERENO Chief /usti e