G.R. No. 191834 - EspiNo. vs. Sandiganbayan

The case involves allegations that National Housing Authority (NHA) officials gave unwarranted benefits to Triad Construction and Development Corporation for work on the Pahanocoy Sites and Services Project in Bacolod City.
Charges were filed against several NHA officials—Robert P. Balao, Josephine C. Angsico, Virgilio V. Dacalos, Felicisimo F. Lazarte, Jr., Josephine Espinosa, and Noel H. Lobrido—for violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
The Information alleged that the officials facilitated the payment of P1,280,964.20 to Triad Construction, despite the work allegedly being worth only P330,075.76, as revealed by a special audit.

Trial commenced on June 14, 2004, with the prosecution presenting its witnesses, including project engineer Candido Montesa Fajutag, who detailed:

His assignment to monitor construction activities, verify contractor billings, and oversee progress payments.
The lack of an official project plan for the fourth progress billing and the subsequent reliance on his own inventory of work accomplishments.
His discovery that the work executed by Triad Construction exceeded what was justified, as the billing resulted in an amount exceeding 30% of the contract price.

Additional evidence and testimonies were brought forth by state auditors such as Atty. Sheila Uy-Villa and Rosalie Molo Sales:

Their investigation through core drilling, soil testing, and review of financial and project documents uncovered discrepancies in billing amounts and inconsistencies in the purported work variations.
Evidence indicated that additional items, supposedly not part of the original contract, were billed, and supporting documents were either incomplete or missing.

The prosecution relied on two sets of billing figures: an initial billing of P330,075.76 and a subsequent, significantly higher amount of P1,280,964.20.
The absence of an actual “Final Quantification” document was highlighted by the defense, though the prosecution maintained that it represented a process rather than a tangible record.

After the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence, the NHA officials filed motions for demurrers to evidence, arguing that:

The prosecution failed to produce key evidence (i.e., the Final Quantification) to support the charges.
There was no sufficient proof of conspiracy, as the alleged evidence—such as signatures on draft documents—could not alone establish criminal intent.

The Sandiganbayan granted the officials’ motion for leave and proceeded to deny these demurrers in its January 29, 2008 Resolution and the February 18, 2010 Resolution.
All accused (except for Balao, who was deceased) filed separate Petitions for Certiorari arguing that:

The Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion by ordering the defendants to present contravening evidence despite the unresolved evidentiary issues, particularly regarding the alleged nonexistence of the Final Quantification.
Such proceedings violated their substantial right to be informed of the charges and prejudiced their right to a fair trial.

The petitions were consolidated by this Court following its direction and a recommendation by the Division Clerk of Court.
The petitions included submissions by petitioners Espinosa, Lobrido, Lazarte, Angsico, and Dacalos, with separate arguments emphasizing the fatal evidentiary gap and purported lack of conspiracy.

Asserted that the absence of the Final Quantification, considered critical and constitutive of an essential element of the offense, rendered the charges baseless.
Contended that reliance on other documentary and testimonial evidence created a “variance” that prejudiced their rights and violated the rules of evidence.
Insisted that their mere signing of incomplete or draft documents could not legally establish their participation in the alleged wrongdoing.

Respondents’ (Office of the Special Prosecutor and the Solicitor General) Arguments:

Maintained that the Final Quantification was merely a process and that sufficient, alternative evidence existed to prove that Triad Construction received an amount far in excess of what was due.
Argued that the Sandiganbayan’s order to proceed to trial was supported by a sound evaluation of the totality of evidence and within its jurisdiction.
Emphasized that issues of evidentiary sufficiency belong to trial and appeal, and not to a petition for certiorari.

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion or acted in excess of its jurisdiction by:

Denying the demurrers to evidence and ordering the accused to present additional evidence.
Proceeding to trial despite the alleged absence of the Final Quantification document, which petitioners claim is essential to foundation of the charges.

Whether the petitioners’ reliance on the absence of a singular piece of evidentiary support (the Final Quantification) suffices to dismiss the criminal case.
Whether a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to challenge the denial of demurrers to evidence in a criminal prosecution where alternative evidence is present.