Case Digest (G.R. No. 233280-92)
Facts:
People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 233280-92, September 18, 2019, the Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. The petition under Rule 65 was filed by the State seeking to annul the Sandiganbayan (Second Division) Resolutions that granted respondent’s motions for reconsideration and acquitted her of graft charges.The respondent is Felicidad B. Zurbano, then Provincial Director of TESDA–Cavite, who was indicted before the Sandiganbayan for thirteen counts of violating Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019. The Informations differed only by Purchase Order number and date. A Joint Stipulation of Facts established, among others, that Zurbano assumed office on January 2, 2003; CDZ Enterprises was owned by her sister Nieves B. Cabigan; TESDA–Cavite had at least thirteen purchase orders from CDZ; Arnold S. Campos (the driver) and BAC members participated in procurement tasks; and a fire in 2005 destroyed office records.
At trial the prosecution presented witnesses including Arnold Campos, who described the canvass procedure, testified that respondent signed canvass forms and retained one canvass form that later contained CDZ’s lowest quotations, that he used the TESDA service vehicle to deliver supplies from CDZ, and that he collected and turned over CDZ’s checks to respondent. BAC member Julita Osia testified the abstract of canvass and related documents were prepared and merely presented to the BAC for signature. After the prosecution rested, respondent filed a demurrer to evidence which was denied by the Sandiganbayan (Resolution dated January 12, 2011). Zurbano testified in her defense, denying financial interest in CDZ, describing her limited procurement role, and explaining delivery and accreditation of CDZ during her incumbency. The prosecution did not offer rebuttal evidence.
On April 12, 2016, the Sandiganbayan rendered a Decision finding Zurbano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the thirteen counts under Sec. 3(h), sentencing her to imprisonment and disqualification from public office. Zurbano filed motions for reconsideration and a supplemental motion; in a Resolution dated February 21, 2017 the Sandiganbayan granted reconsideration and reversed the conviction, acquitting her on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove she had a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in CDZ’s contracts — kinship alone did not establish pecuniary interest and the evidence did not show she received financial benefit. The prosecution’s Very Urgent Motion for Reconsideration was denied on June 15, 2017, prompting this petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
The petitioner argued the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion by acquitting despite evidence of respondent’s active intervention (retention of canvass form, delivery of supplies using government vehicle, directing driver to follow up and turn over checks). The prosecution invoked precedents Republic v. Tuvera and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction such that this Court may review and annul its acquittal of Felicidad B. Zurbano?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zurbano had a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the thirteen contracts in violation of Sec...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)