GR 198119; (September, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 198119 . September 27, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND JUAN ROBERTO L. ABLING, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Private respondent Juan Roberto L. Abling was the Executive Director of the Economic Support Fund Secretariat (ESFS) under the Office of the President during the Marcos administration. He was charged with malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly misappropriating P22 million from ESF proceeds for the period January 22 to February 4, 1986. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the prima facie presumption of malversation arising from Abling’s failure to account for the funds upon demand.
The Sandiganbayan acquitted Abling. It found that the prosecution failed to prove the crucial element that Abling was an accountable officer for the specific funds alleged to have been malversed. The court noted that the ESF funds were held in a Special Account in the Bureau of the Treasury, and disbursements required approval from higher authorities, including the President. The Sandiganbayan ruled that Abling, as Executive Director, was primarily an approving or recommending authority, not the accountable officer with direct custody of the cash. The People, through the Office of the Ombudsman, filed this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, arguing that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in acquitting Abling.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in acquitting private respondent Juan Roberto L. Abling of the crime of malversation.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s acquittal. The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing an acquittal is exceptionally restrictive and permissible only upon a clear showing that the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere errors in judgment or evaluation of evidence are not reviewable via certiorari.
The Court found no such grave abuse. The Sandiganbayan’s decision was based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence, concluding that the prosecution did not prove Abling’s accountability for the specific funds beyond reasonable doubt. The legal logic centered on the elements of malversation, particularly the requirement that the accused be a public officer accountable for public funds. The Sandiganbayan correctly determined that the evidence did not establish that Abling had direct custody or was the accountable officer for the cash value of the ESF funds, as these were held by the National Treasury. His role was administrative and recommendatory. Since the prima facie presumption under Article 217 applies only after accountability is proven, and the prosecution failed to prove this element, the acquittal was in order. The Supreme Court emphasized that it cannot re-examine the factual findings and evidence which the Sandiganbayan, as a trial court, had already passed upon, absent any jurisdictional error.