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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 233437)

Facts: Overseas posting, reimbursements, and COA audit

From April 2003 to February 2007, Baja served as Philippine Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Chief of Mission I in New York. He incurred representation expenses, some advanced by him and later reimbursed by the DFA; those claims were initially allowed. COA issued Office Order No. 2006-130 and assigned Audit Team 1 to audit foreign‑based government agencies in New York. Between July 17 and 28, 2006, the audit team examined cash, accounts, disbursements, and measures for the Mission for the period April 25, 2002 to July 17, 2006. The audit flagged representation expenses for calendar year 2005 totaling US$9,689.96 as not properly documented under P.D. No. 1445 Section 4(6) and DFA Section 231.

Audit observations and fact‑finding validation

The Audit Observation Memorandum noted that certain reimbursements were supported only by computerized receipts and photocopies of checks without indication of payee receipt or bank payment; computerized receipts were not pre‑numbered and lacked establishment names; cancelled/paid checks were not submitted as required. The DFA fact‑finding team, authorized to validate COA’s findings, confirmed the COA’s observations and identified additional questionable representation expenses (US$8,145.00 for 2003 and US$11,100.00 for 2004). The fact‑finding team found originals of checks from 2003–2004 (amounting to US$13,656.00) were not presented and attempts to secure bank account information were unsuccessful because of bank privacy laws. An interview with Mr. Sung of Azure raised doubts about certain receipts: he called handwriting irregular, amounts unusually high, and did not recall the Mission as a customer.

Administrative and criminal referral, charges filed

A Complaint‑Affidavit was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman alleging violations of RA 9184, RA 3019 (Section 3[e]), and Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. The subsequent Information charged Baja with, among other things, willfully claiming and receiving reimbursement for non‑existent or fictitious representation expenses for calendar years 2003–2005 in aggregated amounts (US$28,934.96), alleging manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, and causing undue injury to the government in violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.

Prosecution’s case and offered evidence

The prosecution presented several witnesses including Relacion (fact‑finding team member), state auditor Balerite (who identified documents), Cordera (prepared the tabulation and signed Audit Observation Memorandum), and others whose testimonies were either dispensed with or not called for corroboration. The prosecution offered documentary exhibits identified during audit and investigation. Cordera acknowledged that no notice of disallowance was issued because the audit was suspended pending submission of other documents, and that she was not aware of any disallowance order by COA or DFA.

Defense, demurrer to evidence, and procedural posture in Sandiganbayan

Baja moved for leave then filed a demurrer to evidence asserting insufficiency of evidence to sustain the Information. He argued that improper documentation does not equate to non‑existence of expenses, that failure to issue a notice of disallowance meant administrative remedies had not been exhausted or established as proof of fictitiousness, and that the prosecution failed to prove bad faith or undue injury. The Sandiganbayan granted the demurrer to evidence on March 20, 2017, finding that while elements one (public officer) and two (act in discharge of official functions) of Section 3(e) were satisfied, the prosecution failed to establish manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence (element three), and failed to establish undue injury or unwarranted benefits (element four). It emphasized lack of corroborative evidence proving the reimbursements were fictitious and noted investigative shortcomings.

Sandiganbayan’s legal reasoning on sufficiency of evidence

The Sandiganbayan described the evidentiary deficiency: the mere presence of irregular or incomplete supporting documents (computerized receipts not pre‑numbered, photocopies of checks lacking proof of negotiation) does not, without corroboration, establish that the transactions were non‑existent or fictitious. The court stressed the prosecution’s obligation to present evidence proving the checks were not negotiated or that payees did not receive payment—such proof could include statements from individuals with personal knowledge, bank records, or documentary proof showing nonpayment. The court found that the auditors’ and fact‑finders’ inquiries were insufficiently exhaustive and that evidence presented, including Mr. Sung’s statements, cast doubt but did not establish fictitiousness beyond reasonable doubt.

Petition for certiorari, petitioner’s arguments on appeal

The People filed a certiorari petition contending the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion by misapprehending facts and by failing to find that the irregular documentation established fictitious claims. The prosecution argued that Baja, an experienced lawyer, should have known computerized receipts lacking pre‑numbering and establishment names were not valid official receipts, and that presenting such spurious documents constituted defraudation under Section 3(e). The petitioner also invoked the doctrine that the burden may shift to the accused when the claim can readily be disproved by documents within the accused’s control.

Supreme Court’s double jeopardy analysis and standard for relief

The Supreme Court applied Article III, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution: the grant of a demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal, and further prosecution for the same offense is constitutionally barred unless the trial court’s grant was a result of grave abuse of discretion so extreme as to deprive the prosecution of due process. The Court reiterated the Rule 119, Section 23 principle that the trial court, when resolving a demurrer, must determine whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain an indictment; if the demurrer is granted, it normally constitutes an acquittal. The Court explained th

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 233437)

Procedural Posture

Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 filed by the People of the Philippines (Office of the Ombudsman through the Office of the Special Prosecutor) challenging the Sandiganbayan Special Fourth Division Resolutions of March 20, 2017 and June 27, 2017 in SB-11-CRM-0031.
The Sandiganbayan had granted the accused Lauro L. Baja, Jr.’s Demurrer to Evidence and dismissed the Information charging him with violation of Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
The petition alleges grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan in finding insufficient evidence that Baja claimed reimbursements for fictitious transactions.
Respondent Baja moved to dismiss the Petition on the basis that the grant of the demurrer resulted in an acquittal and that further prosecution would violate his constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
Supreme Court entertains two key issues: (1) whether the Petition is barred by Baja’s double jeopardy right, and (2) whether the Sandiganbayan correctly found lack of proof of fictitious/non-existent reimbursement expenses.

Title, Parties, and Court Composition

Case title as presented: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION), AND LAURO L. BAJA, RESPONDENTS.
Decision authored by Justice Leonen; concurrence by Justices Hernando, Inting, Delos Santos, and J. Lopez.
Sandiganbayan Special Fourth Division Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Geraldine Faith A. Econg, concurred in by Associate Justices Alex B. Quiroz and Reynaldo P. Cruz.

Factual Background — Baja’s Office and Reimbursements

From April 9, 2003 to February 2007, Lauro L. Baja, Jr. served as Philippine Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Chief of Mission I, Department of Foreign Affairs, at the Philippine Mission to the United Nations in New York City.
During his tenure, Baja incurred representation expenses; some he advanced personally and later submitted claims for reimbursement. All such reimbursement claims were allowed at the time.
Specific years and amounts later scrutinized by auditors: Calendar Year 2003 (US$8,145.00 identified as questionable), 2004 (US$11,100.00 identified as questionable), and 2005 (US$9,689.96 identified as improperly documented by COA), giving a cumulative figure referenced in the Information of US$28,934.96.

Commission on Audit (COA) Audit and Observations

On May 25, 2006, COA Chairperson Guillermo N. Carague issued Office Order No. 2006-130 assigning personnel to audit foreign-based government agencies in New York City.
Audit Team 1 conducted an audit of the Philippine Mission to the United Nations and the Philippine Consulate; Audit Team 1 members included Director Roberto T. Marquez (director-in-charge), Auditor Manalo C. Sy (team leader), and Auditors Merenisa B. Cordera and Teresita D. Braga.
The audit examined cash, accounts, disbursements and measures adopted by the Mission for the period April 25, 2002 to July 17, 2006 (fieldwork conducted July 17–28, 2006).
Audit Observation Memorandum (prepared July 27, 2006 by Sy and Cordera) set forth detailed observations about improper documentation of certain 2005 reimbursements totaling US$9,689.96, including:
- Reimbursements supported only by computerized receipts and photocopies of checks, with the purpose of expense not indicated in voucher or receipt.
- Computerized receipts were not pre-numbered and did not contain the names of establishments; considered temporary receipts not within Section 231 of DFA Regulations.
- Photocopies of checks did not show any indication of receipt by payees or subsequent payment by the bank.
- Cancelled/paid checks should have been submitted in lieu of official receipts to avoid suspension/disallowance pursuant to P.D. No. 1445.
Cordera prepared and attached to the memorandum a tabulation detailing Baja’s representation expenses and claims.

Transmission, Requests for Comment, and Fact-Finding by DFA

Copy of the Audit Observation Memorandum was sent to Baja on July 28, 2006 for comment.
On January 15, 2007, Marquez sent Secretary Alberto G. Romulo a Management Letter on the Audit of the Philippine Mission to the United Nations, with annexes including the Audit Observation Memorandum and Report of Cash Examination.
Acting Assistant Secretary Crescente R. Relacion (Office of Fiscal Management, DFA) sent a memorandum on February 8, 2007 requesting the Mission to comment on the audit findings and recommendations.
Ambassador Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (Permanent Representative) sent a Confidential Memorandum to Secretary Romulo requesting Baja be required to comment, comply with recommendations, and submit supporting documents.
Relacion on March 23, 2007 sent an urgent and confidential memorandum requesting audit documents be submitted to Baja for clarifications and justifications.
Secretary Romulo issued Travel Authority No. 351-07 on April 26, 2007 to a DFA fact-finding team (Relacion and Senior Special Assistant Mario De Leon, Jr.) to visit New York and validate COA findings.

Fact-Finding Team Findings and Attempts at Bank Verification

Fact-finding team validated the audit findings on August 2, 2007 and reported that COA audited representation expenses for 2005 and identified exceptions amounting to US$9,689.96.
The fact-finding team reviewed Mission books for 2003 and 2004 and identified additional questionable representation expenses: US$8,145.00 for 2003 and US$11,100.00 for 2004.
The team observed that only photocopies of checks from Chemical Bank (Jericho Quadrangle branch) were presented as proof of payment; original checks amounting to US$13,656.00 for 2003–2004 were not presented.
The fact-finding team attempted to secure Baja’s bank account information but was prevented by bank privacy laws; they did not obtain bank statements showing negotiation/payment of the checks.
The team interviewed Mr. Sung (manager of Azure, one establishment from which expenses were claimed). Sung:
- Stated the receipts were genuine but he did not recognize the handwriting as his or staff’s.
- Described the amounts as “unusually high” and said he did not recall the Mission as a customer.
- Noted Azure’s usual charge: US$10.00 per head plus US$6.00 for drinks, whereas the receipts showed US$40.00 per head with service charges — contrary to Azure’s practice.

Filing of Complaint-Affidavit and Information

On March 12, 2008, Jaime D. Jacob, representative of the Philippine Anti-Graft Commission, filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman against Baja charging violations of RA No. 9184, RA No. 3019, and Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Office of the Ombudsman pursued charges under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 alleging Baja caused “undue injury to the government” through “gross negligence and/or evident bad faith” in reimbursing certain expenses without proper documentation.
The