G.R. No. 233437 - People vs. Sandiganbayan

Lauro L. Baja, Jr. served as Philippine Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Chief of Mission I, Department of Foreign Affairs from April 9, 2003 to February 2007.
He incurred and advanced representation expenses during his tenure and submitted reimbursement claims, all of which were initially allowed.

Commission on Audit Office Order No. 2006-130 (May 25, 2006) led to an audit (July 17–28, 2006) covering April 25, 2002 to July 17, 2006. Audit Observation Memorandum (July 27, 2006) noted $9,689.96 in 2005 reimbursements improperly documented (computerized receipts not pre-numbered or indicating establishment, lack of official receipts, photocopied checks without payee or bank endorsement).
A fact-finding team (April–August 2007) validated COA findings and uncovered additional questionable expenses: US$8,145.00 for 2003 and US$11,100.00 for 2004. Originals of checks amounting to US$13,656.00 (2003–2004) were not produced; interviews (e.g., manager of “Azure” establishment) cast doubt on authenticity of receipts.

Complaint-Affidavit filed March 12, 2008 before the Office of the Ombudsman accused Baja of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 by claiming reimbursement for non-existent or fictitious expenses totaling US$28,934.96 (2003–2005). An Information was subsequently filed in Sandiganbayan.
Prosecution witnesses included audit and fact-finding team members; testimonies showed improper documentation but lacked direct proof of non-payment. Evidence offer and oppositions ensued. Baja moved for leave to file a demurrer to evidence (May 27, 2016); eventually filed the demurrer (July 27, 2016) arguing insufficiency to prove fictitious expenses, lack of bad faith, and absence of undue injury.

March 20, 2017 Resolution granted Baja’s demurrer to evidence, finding prosecution failed to prove elements of Section 3(e): manifest partiality/bad faith/negligence and undue injury or unwarranted benefit. Irregular documentation alone did not establish non-existent transactions; absence of corroborative proof was fatal.
June 27, 2017 Resolution denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration.

Petition filed September 14, 2017 under Rule 65 assailed both Sandiganbayan resolutions, alleging grave abuse of discretion and misapprehension of facts in finding insufficient evidence of fictitious expenses.
Baja filed comment (January 17, 2018) invoking his right against double jeopardy, contending the grant of demurrer amounted to acquittal and that factual questions are not reviewable under certiorari.

Whether the Petition for Certiorari is barred by respondent Baja’s constitutional right against double jeopardy following the Sandiganbayan’s grant of demurrer to evidence.
Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Baja’s reimbursement expenses were non-existent or fictitious, and that he acted with bad faith or caused undue injury under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.