gregorio singian, jr vs sandiganbayan

8/13/2019 Gregorio Singian, Jr vs Sandiganbayan

1/11

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. Nos.195011-19 September 30, 2013

GREGORIO SINGIAN, JR.,Petitioner,vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN (3RD DIISION!, "#E $EO$%E O& "#E $#I%I$$INES, ') "#E $RESIDEN"IA%*O++ISSIONON GOOD GOERN+EN",Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

DE% *AS"I%%O, J.:

The grant or denial of a Demurrer to Evidene is left to the sound disretion of the ourt, and its ruling onthe matter shall not !e distur!ed in the a!sene of a grave a!use of suh disretion. This Petition forCertiorari "d Cautelam#see$s to set aside the "ugust %, &'#' Resolution&of the Sandigan!a(an inCriminal Case Nos. &)&*+&)-'%,den(ing petitioner regorio Singian, /r.0s Demurrer to Evidene-andthe Novem!er #1, &'#' Resolution2den(ing reonsideration thereof.

"nteedents

The riminal ases involved in the present Petition have !een the su!3et of a previous disposition of theCourt, speifiall( Singian, /r. v. Sandigan!a(an.%In said ase, the Court made the follo4ing reital offats5

"tt(. Orlando 6. Salvador 4as Presidential Commission On ood overnment Consultant on detail 4iththe Presidential "d 7o Committee on 8ehest 6oans 9Committee:. 7e 4as also the oordinator of theTehnial ;or$ing roup omposed of offiers and emplo(ees of government finaning institutions toeS?&,%'','''.'' 9P#),&1+,%''.'': to finane its purhase of a omplete line ofmahiner( and e@uipment. The letter of redit 4as reommended to the PN8 8oard of Diretors !( thenSenior VieABPresident, r. Constantino 8autista.

On &+ /anuar( #*+&, the PN8 approved the loan, su!3et to ertain stipulations. The said letter of redit4as to !e seured !( the follo4ing ollaterals5 a: a seond mortgage on a #',-)+s@uare meter lot underTransfer Certifiate of Title No. *** 4ith improvements, mahiner( and e@uipment !: mahiner( ande@uipment to !e imported under the su!3et letter of redit and : assignment of >S?'.%' per pair ofshoes of ISIs e


2/11

&. P#,''','''.'' on #1 /anuar( #*+- as e


3/11

On the other hand, the Informations#'overing Setion -9g: harged the a!ove individuals, inludingpetitioner, 4ith onspiring, onfederating, and 4illfull(, unla4full( and riminall( entering into the a!ovementioned loan transations 4hih are grossl( and manifestl( disadvantageous to the government, forla$ of suffiient apitali=ation or ade@uate ollateral, and for failure of ISI to raise its 4or$ing apital toseure the governments interest in ase it failed to pa( said loans, 4hih indeed ISI failed to pa(.

On /anuar( &+, &''2, petitioner entered a plea of not guilt( on all ounts. "ll the other aused 4erearraigned as 4ell, e


4/11

1. Ramonhito 8ustamante, anager of the 6oans and Implementing Servies Division ofPN8, enderta$ing and Conformit( to 8an$ Conditions&)9Deedof >nderta$ing: dated arh &2, #*+& e


5/11

ontained provisions that are !enefiial, and not manifestl( and grossl( disadvantageous, to thegovernment 9-:the loans ould not !e harateri=ed as !ehest loans !eause the( 4ere seured !(suffiient ollaterals and ISI inreased its apitali=ation and 92: assuming the loans are !ehest loans,petitioner ould not !e held lia!le for la$ of an( partiipation.--

In partiular, petitioner laimed that the proseution failed to addue evidene of onspira( to defraud

the government !eause his oaused from PN8 had no po4er to approve the alleged !ehest loansthat if a theor( of onspira( 4ere to !e pursued, then all the mem!ers of the PN8s 8oard of Diretors atthe time the loans and redit aommodations to ISI 4ere approved, and not onl( Domingo and Ingo,should have !een impleaded as the( 4ere the ones 4ho direted PN8s affairs that the proseutionfailed to sho4 that he e


6/11

a. The fre@uen( of the loans or loseness of the dates at 4hih the( 4ere granted

!. The @uantit( of the loans granted

. The failure of PN8 to verif( and to ta$e an( ation on ISIs failure to put up additionalapitali=ation and additional ollaterals and d. The eventual a!sene of an( ation !( PN8

to ollet full pa(ment from ISI.-%

The proseution noted that 4ithout ISI putting up additional apitali=ation or ollateral, PN8 $ept grantingloans to it, suh that in #*+-, its in de!tedness alread( rose to P#),-)','''.'' 4hile its apital sto$stood at onl( P+ million that petitioner is intimatel( onneted 4ith the inorporators and offiers of ISI H6etiia Teodoro is his motherinla4, 4hile Franiso Teodoro is his fatherinla4 and arfina TeodoroSingian is his 4ife that as of #*1-, ISIs de!t to PN8 amounted toP+#,12+,+.'', as a result of theunderapitali=ed and underollaterali=ed loans enderta$ing, petitioner assumed the o!ligations of a suret(.

Finall(, the proseution noted that petitioners arguments in his Demurrer to Evidene onstitute mattersof defense 4hih should !e passed upon onl( after trial on the merits.

Ruling of the Sandigan!a(an

On "ugust %, &'#', the Sandigan!a(an issued the first assailed Resolution, 4hih dereed as follo4s5

;7EREFORE, onsidering all the foregoing, this Court DENIES the Demurrer to Evidene filed !(aused regorio Singian, /r. as the evidene for the proseution suffiientl( esta!lished the essentialelements of the offense harged and overame the presumption of innoene in favor of said aused.

SO ORDERED.-)

Petitioners otion for Reonsideration-+having !een denied on Novem!er #1, &'#' !( the respondentourt, he filed the present Petition for Certiorari.

Issues

Petitioner raises the follo4ing issues5

T7E RESPONDENT S"NDI"N8"J"N "CTED ;IT7 R"VE "8>SEOF DISCRETION"O>NTIN TO 6"CK OR ELCESS OF/>RISDICTION ;7EN IT ISS>ED T7E "SS"I6EDRESO6>TIONS LL L CONSIDERIN T7"T5

I.

T7E FIRST E6EENT OF SECTION -9: OF R.". -'#* IS NOT PRESENT8EC">SE T7E

ELISTENCE OF CONSPIR"CJ IS NE"TED 8J T7EF"CT T7"T T7E P>86IC OFFICERS ;7O;ERE RESPONSI86E FOR R"NTIN T7E 6O"NS IN M>ESTION ;ERE NEVER C7"RED,

"CC>SED OR INC6>DED IN T7E INFOR"TIONS S>8/ECT OFT7ESE C"SES.

II.

EVEN IF IT IS PRES>ED, P>RE6J IN R"TI" "R>ENT IS, T7"T "CONSPIR"CJ"TTENDED T7E R"NT OF T7E M>ESTIONED 6O"NSTO ISI, T7ERE IS, NEVERT7E6ESS,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/sep2013/gr_195011_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/sep2013/gr_195011_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/sep2013/gr_195011_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/sep2013/gr_195011_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/sep2013/gr_195011_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/sep2013/gr_195011_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/sep2013/gr_195011_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/sep2013/gr_195011_2013.html#fnt37


7/11

NO OVERT "CT "TTRI8>T"86ETO T7E PETITIONER T7"T EVEN REOTE6J />STIFIES7ISINC6>SION IN T7E PROSEC>TIONS CONSPIR"CJ DR"NET.

III.

T7E PROSEC>TIONS EL7I8ITS C 9"6SO "RKED "S EL7I8ITRR: "ND MM ;7IC7 T7E

PROSEC>TION FOISTED TO "KE IT"PPE"R T7"T T7E CREDIT "CCOOD"TIONSS>8/ECT OF T7ECRIIN"6 C"SES 8E6O; "RE 8E7EST 6O"NS, DO NOT 7"VE

"NJPRO8"TIVE V"6>E "ND "RE COP6ETE6J IN"DISSI86E8EC">SE T7EJ "RE>NDISP>T"86J "ND 86"T"NT6J7E"RS"J.-1

Petitioners "rguments

Essentiall(, petitioner reiterates all his arguments in his Demurrer to Evidene and otion forReonsideration of the respondent ourts denial thereof. 7e emphasi=es, ho4ever, that he had nothingto do 4ith the appliation and grant of the @uestioned loans, sine he 4as never a mem!er of ISIs 8oardof Diretors 4hih, under the la4 and ISI !(la4s, had the sole po4er and authorit( to approve and o!tainloans and give ollaterals to seure the same nor is he a sto$holder of ISI. Nor has it !een sho4n fromthe testimonial and doumentar( evidene that as E


8/11

re@uired to asertain 4hether there is ompetent or suffiient evidene to sustain the inditment or tosupport a verdit of guilt.2&

Suffiient evidene for purposes of frustrating a demurrer thereto is suh evidene in harater, 4eight oramount as 4ill legall( 3ustif( the 3udiial or offiial ation demanded aording to the irumstanes. To !eonsidered suffiient therefore, the evidene must prove5 9a: the ommission of the rime, and 9!: the

preise degree of partiipation therein !( the aused.2-

Elements of Setion -9g:, R" -'#*

For one to !e suessfull( proseuted under Setion -9g: of R" -'#*, the follo4ing elements must !eproven5 #: the aused is a pu!li offier &: the pu!li offier entered into a ontrat or transation on!ehalf of the government and -: the ontrat or transation 4as grossl( and manifestl( disadvantageousto the government.227o4ever, private persons ma( li$e4ise !e harged 4ith violation of Setion -9g: ofR" -'#* if the( onspired 4ith the pu!li offier. Thus, if there is an allegation of onspira(, a privateperson ma( !e held lia!le together 4ith the pu!li offier, in onsonane 4ith the avo4ed poli( of the

"ntiraft and Corrupt Praties "t 4hih is to repress ertain ats of pu!li offiers and private personsali$e 4hih ma( onstitute graft or orrupt praties or 4hih ma( lead thereto.2%

The Sandigan!a(an found ompetentor suffiient evidene to sustain theinditment or to support a verdit ofguilt for violation of Setion -9g:, R" -'#*

The Sandigan!a(an found that the proseution presented suffiient or ompetent evidene to esta!lishthe three material elements of Setion -9g: of R"-'#*. First, although petitioner is a private person, he4as sho4n to have onnived 4ith his oaused. Seond, ISI and PN8 entered into several loantransations and redit aommodations. Finall(, the loan transations proved disadvantageous to thegovernment.

There is no grave a!use of disretion onthe part of the Sandigan!a(an in

den(ing petitioners Demurrer toEvidene

"t the outset, 4e emphasi=e that the resolution of a demurrer to evidene should !e left to the e


9/11

doumentar( evidene presented !( the proseution.21It 4as onl( after a areful anal(sis of the fats andevidene presented did the respondent ourt la( do4n its findings and onlusions.2*

8ased on the evidene presented, the Sandigan!a(an 4as onvined that all three elements of Setion-9g:, R" -'#* 4ere satisfatoril( esta!lished. It found that PN8 and ISI entered into several ontrats orloan transations. The Sandigan!a(an also assessed that petitioner onspired 4ith his oaused in

defrauding the government onsidering 9#: the fre@uen( of the loans or loseness of the dates at 4hihthe( 4ere granted 9&: the @uantit( of the loans granted 9-: the failure of the !an$ to verif( and to ta$ean( ation on the failure of ISI to put up additional apitali=ation and additional ollaterals and 92: theeventual a!sene of an( ation !( the 8an$ to ollet full pa(ment from ISI.%'The Sandigan!a(anratioinated that H

< < < the loans su!3et of this ase refer to not 3ust one !ut several loans. The first t4o loans 4ere grantedin a span of t4o months < < < The first loan 4as in the amount of P#),&1+,%''.'' 4hen the apital sto$of ISI amounted to onl(P#,''','''.''. This 4as follo4ed !( t4o additional loans in /anuar( and arh#*+- < < < then another loan < < < in the follo4ing (ear < < nderta$ing, and neither has he signed the same. " ursor( e


10/11

The determination of the suffiien( or insuffiien( of the evidene presented !( the proseution as toesta!lish a prima faie ase against an aused is left to the enlessthere is a lear sho4ing of a grave a!use of disretion amounting to la$ or e


11/11

+ARIANO *. DE% *AS"I%%O"ssoiate /ustie

;E CONC>R5

AR"RO D. BRION

"ssoiate /ustie"ting Chairperson

ROBER"O A. ABAD

"ssoiate /ustieJOSE $OR"GA% $ERE

"ssoiate /ustie

ES"E%A +. $ER%AS-BERNABE"ssoiate /ustie

" T T E S T " T I O N

I attest that the onlusions in the a!ove Deision had !een reahed in onsultation !efore the ase 4as

assigned to the 4riter of the opinion of the Court0s Division.

AR"RO D. BRION"ssoiate /ustie"ting Chairperson

C E R T I F I C " T I O N

Pursuant to Setion #-, "rtile VIII of the Constitution and the Division "ting Chairperson0s "ttestation, Iertif( that the onlusions in the a!ove Deision had !een reahed in onsultation !efore the ase 4asassigned to the 4riter of the opinion of the Court0s Division.

+ARIA %ORDES $. A. SERENO

Chief /ustie

gregorio singian, jr vs sandiganbayan

Documents