G.R. No. 174504 - People vs. Sandiganbayan

On May 21, 2004, Manuel G. Barcenas, a high-ranking public officer and Vice-Mayor of Toledo City, was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1445.
The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 27990 and raffled to the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan.
Barcenas was arraigned on October 20, 2004, where he pleaded not guilty.

The Information alleged that on or about December 19, 1995, and at nearby periods, Barcenas secured cash advances amounting to ₱61,765.00 from the City Government of Toledo.
It was further alleged that, having received the cash advances by virtue of his office, he was obligated to liquidate them within the period established by law.
Despite the legal requirement and subsequent demands, Barcenas allegedly failed to liquidate the cash advances in a timely manner, thus causing damage or potential damage to the government.

The prosecution presented its sole witness, City Auditor Manolo Tulibao Villad, who testified regarding the liquidation report (Exhibit "D") that confirmed the liquidation of the cash advances.
The prosecution, after presenting its evidence and resting its case, failed to establish the element of government damage due to the eventual liquidation of the cash advances.

On April 20, 2006, Barcenas filed a motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence.
The Sandiganbayan issued a resolution on June 16, 2006, granting the motion, and Barcenas subsequently filed his formal demurrer to evidence on June 30, 2006.
On July 26, 2006, the Sandiganbayan promulgated an order dismissing the case on the ground that the demurrer to evidence was well taken, noting that the prosecution’s evidence—even if accepted—failed to prove that the government sustained any damage.

The prosecution established all essential elements of the offense under Section 89 of P.D. No. 1445, including the existence and subsequent settlement of the cash advance.
Settlement of the cash advance should not exonerate Barcenas, as damage is not an essential element of the offense; instead, it should only mitigate liability.
Even if an error occurred in granting the demurrer, it should be reviewable given the grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The grant of the demurrer to evidence is equivalent to an acquittal, and any attempt to appeal would trigger the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
Even if the ruling were error-prone, it constituted an error of judgment rather than an error of jurisdiction, precluding review by certiorari.

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting the demurrer to evidence.
Whether the dismissal order, being tantamount to an acquittal, is appealable or reviewable under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Whether allowing an appeal of the dismissal order would effectively place the accused in double jeopardy since the dismissal is equivalent to an acquittal.

Whether actual damage to the government is an essential element of the offense charged under Section 89 of P.D. No. 1445, especially in light of the eventual liquidation of the cash advance by Barcenas.