G.R. No.
140183 July 10, 2003
TEODORO K. KATIGBAK and BIENVENIDO E. MERELOS, petitioners, vs. THE
SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS:
 The National Housing Authority entered into a contract for the land
development of the Pahanocoy Sites & Services in Bacolod City with
Arceo Cruz of A.C. Cruz Construction.
 Before it could be completed, the NHA rescinded the contract and
engaged the services of Jose Cruz of Triad Construction &
Development Corporation for the unfinished portion.
 Arceo Cruz lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman. An information
was filed with the Sandiganbayan charging the petitioners and their
co-accused with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, as amended.
 Petitioners and their co-accused were indicted for having allegedly
conspired, through evident bad faith and manifest partiality, in
unilaterally rescinding the contract and awarding the same, without
public bidding and at an exorbitant rate, to private respondent, Jose
Cruz.
 Upon arraignment, they entered a plea of not guilty. Pre-trial was
waived by the parties. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. The
petitioners’ filed their demurrer to evidence. The prosecution filed an
opposition to the demurrer. The Sandiganbayan denied the demurrer
to evidence of all the accused.
 Petitioners filed a MR which was denied. Hence, this petition. They
claim that respondent court gravely abused its discretion when it
denied their demurrer to evidence despite the fact that the
prosecution failed to establish their participation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of
discretion when it denied petitioners' demurrer to evidence.
RULING:
Yes. A demurrer to evidence is an objection by one of the parties in an action
to the effect that the evidence his adversary produced is insufficient in point
of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue. The
party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain
a verdict. The court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in
a demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or
sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.
A careful scrutiny of the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution
does not support the charge of violation of Section 3, paragraph (e) of RA
3019, as amended, in the instant information against the petitioners.
Significantly, the said pieces of documentary evidence were offered only for
the purpose of establishing the participation and liability of their co-accused,
Robert Balao. In this connection, the rule is explicit that courts should
consider the evidence only for the purpose for which it is offered.
The prosecution relies heavily on NHA Board Resolution No. 2453 to establish
the alleged conspiracy between the petitioners and their co-accused. This
resolution purportedly approved the cancellation on the ground of "mutual
termination" and the award of the contract to Jose Cruz. However, the Court
is bothered by the unexplained failure of the prosecution to include in its
formal offer of exhibits such a very vital piece of evidence in proving the
existence of the alleged conspiracy.
We emphasize that any evidence a party desires to submit for the
consideration of the court must formally be offered by him. Such a formal
offer is necessary because it is the duty of the judge to rest his findings of fact
and his judgment strictly on the evidence offered by the parties at the trial;
and no finding of fact can be sustained if not supported by such evidence.
Documents not regularly received in evidence during the trial will not be
considered in disposing of the issues in an action.
In view of the complete absence of evidence, both testimonial and
documentary, the petitioners satisfactorily demonstrated that the
prosecution had failed to prove the crime charged against them,
respondent Sandiganbayan's denial of their motion to dismiss the instant
criminal case on demurrer to evidence constituted grave abuse of
discretion. The denial was a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.