REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated July 18, 2022 which reads as follows:

"G.R. Nos. 257848 and 257872-906 (Efraim C. Genuino v.

Sandiganbayan, Third Division, and the People of the Philippines). -

This Petition for Certiorari assails the Resolutions 1 dated July 9, 2021
and September 1, 2021 2 of the Sandiganbayan in SB-13-CRM-0608-0643
which respectively denied the Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence
of petitioner Efraim C. Genuino (Genuino) and his subsequent Motion for
Reconsideration.

Genuino was the Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer of the

Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) from 2004 to
2009. PAGCOR is a government-owned and controlled corporation with an
original charter under Presidential Decree No. 1869. Among the conditions of
PAGCOR's franchise are: (1) the payment of franchise tax which is 5% of its
aggregate gross earnings; and (2) the remittance of 50% of its aggregate gross
earnings to the Government, after the franchise tax deduction. 3

For the years 2004 to 2009, PAGCOR granted several financial

assistances to different private entities, including Batang ]was Droga
Foundation, Inc. (BID.A Foundation) and Batang !was Droga Production
(BID.A Production), as part of its Corporate Social Responsibility Projects.4

For these disbursements, Genuino, as Chairperson and Chief Executive

Officer of the P AGCOR, together with other P AGCOR executives was
charged in SB- 13-CRM-0608-0643 5 with 18 counts of violation of Section

1
Rollo, p. 101. Penned by Presiding Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang and concurred in by Assoc iate
Justices Bernelito R. Fernandez and Ronald B. Moreno.
2
ld.atl03 .
3
Id. at 7.
4
Id. at 8.
5
/d.at l O.

(222)URES - more -
Resolution 2 G.R. Nos. 257848 and 257872-906

3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 and another 18 counts malversation.6
The details are summarized below.7

Information Alleged Date Subject Matter Amount

violation
SB-13-CRM- Sec. 3 (e), RA September Donations and P5,402,000.00
0608 3019 15,2009 disbursement to
SB-13-CRM- Malversation BIDA to cover
0609 promotional
expenses
SB-13-CRM- Sec. 3 (e), RA March 16, Disbursement to ?63,104,595.64
0610 3019 2009 BIDA to cover
SB- 13-CRM- Malversation advertisement
0611 expenses 111 tri-
media
SB-13-CRM- Sec. 3 (e), RA May 5, 2009 Donations and P6,946,22 l .50
0612 3019 disbursement to
SB-13-CRM- Malversation BIDA to cover
0613 promotional
expenses
SB-13-CRM- Sec. 3 (e), RA May 29, 2009 Donations and P3,000,000.00
0614 3019 disbursement to
SB-13-CRM- Malversation BIDA to cover
0615 promotional
expenses
SB-13-CRM- Sec. 3 (e), RA June 23, 2009 Donations and P4,000,000.00
06 16 3019 disbursement to
SB-13-CRM- Malversation BIDA to cover
0617 promotional
expenses
SB-13-CRM- Sec. 3 (e), RA May 18, 2009 Disbursement to P 158,827.50
0618 3019 Pilot Consulting to
SB-13-CRM- Malversation cover radio
0619 commercial for
project BIDA
SB-13-CRM- Sec. 3 (e), RA April 28, Disbursement to P l ,807,104.00
0620 30 19 2009 BIDA to cover TV
SB-13-CRM- Malversation commercial and
0621 broadsheet print ad
SB-13-CRM- Sec. 3 (e), RA August 18, Donations and P5,470,5 16.55
0622 3019 2009 disbursement to
SB-13-CRM- Malversation BIDA to cover
0623 promotional
expenses
SB-13-CRM- Sec. 3 (e), RA September Donations and P4,065 ,000.00
0624 30 19 28,2009 disbursement to
SB-13-CRM- Malversation BIDA to cover
0625 promotional
expenses
SB-1 3-CRM- Sec. 3 (e), RA November Donations and P4,500,000.00
0626 3019 26,2009 disbursement to

6
Id.
7
Id. at I 0- 13 .

(222)URES - more -
Resolution 3 G.R. Nos. 257848 and 257872-906

SB-1 3-CRM- Malversation BIDA to cover

0627 promotional
expenses
SB-13-CRM- Sec. 3 (e), RA October 22, Donations and P3,500,251.55
0628 3019 2009 disbursement to
SB-13-CRM- Malversation BIDA to cover
0629 promotional
expenses
SB-1 3-CRM- Sec. 3 (e), RA November Disbursement to P2,000,000.00
0630 3019 25,2009 Coolex Apparel
SB-13-CRM- Malversation Merchandise to
0631 cover promotional
expenses for BIDA
SB-13-CRM- Sec. 3 (e), RA October 26, Disbursements 111 P6,500,000.00
0632 3019 2005 favor of BIDA
SB-13-CRM- Malversation Production 111
0633 relation to
"Maligayang
Barangay,
Maagang Pasko
2005" Project
SB-13-CRM- Sec. 3 (e), RA September Disbursements 111 P7,650,000.00
0634 3019 19,2006 favor of BIDA
SB-13-CRM- Malversation Production 111
0635 relation to
"P inakamali gayang
Barangay 2006"
Project
SB-13-CRM- Sec. 3 (e), RA March 11, Disbursement 111 P2,407,719.00
0636 3019 2008 favor of BIDA
SB-13-CRM- Malversation Production m
0637 relation to the
BIDA Comics
SB-13-CRM- Sec. 3 (e), RA June 2, 2008 Disbursements m Pl2,250,000.00
0638 3019 favor of BIDA
SB-13-CRM- Malversation Production 111
0639 relation to the
BIDA Caravan
project, including
expenses for BIDA
ID cards and pins
SB-13-CRM- Sec. 3 (e), RA March 16, Disbursements m P2 l ,240,930.00
0640 3019 2009 favor of BIDA
SB-13-CRM- Malversation Production 111
0641 relation to the
"2009 Grand BIDA
March" Project
SB-13-CRM- Sec. 3 (e), RA April 16, Donations and P3,200,000.00
0642 3019 2009 disbursement to
SB- 13-CRM- Malversation BIDA to cover
0643 promotional
expenses

(222)URES - more -
Resolution 4 G.R. Nos. 257848 and 257872-906

After the prosecution's presentation of evidence, petitioner filed a

Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence with attached Demurrer to
Evidence, both dated June 23, 2 021 .8

Dispositions of the Sandiganbayan

By Resolution9 dated July 9, 2021 in SB- 13-CRM-0608-0643, the

Sandiganbayan denied the Motion, thus:

The motion/s for leave of court to file demurrer/s to evidence

filed by accused Efraim C. Genuino, Rene C. Figueroa, and Rafael
A. Francisco, through counsel/s, are DENIED for lack of merit. This
is without prejudice to the said accused filing such demurrer/s to
evidence without prior leave of court, but subject to the legal
consequence provided under Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, that is, they shall waive
their right to present evidence and submit these cases for judgment
on the cases of evidence adduced by the prosecution.

XXX

. SO ORDERED.

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied under

Resolution dated September 1, 2021 . 10

The Present Petition

Petitioner now seeks affirmative relief against the dispositions of the

Sandiganbayan. He posits that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its
discretion when it outrightly denied his Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to
Evidence despite lack of sufficient evidence to establish his guilt. For his
constitutional rights to due process and presumption of innocence are deemed
to have been violated. 11 It cannot be denied that all the transactions subject of
the criminal cases were duly approved by the P AGCOR Board as a collegial
body. 12

Our Ruling

Section 23 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly

prohibits the filing of a certiorari petition against the denial of one's motion

8
Rollo, p. 28.
9
Id at 10 1-102.
10
Id. at I 03.
11
Id. at 29- 30.
12
Id. at 50.

(222)URES - more -
/,,/4
Resolution 5 G.R. Nos. 257848 and 257872-906

for leave of court to file a demun-er to evidence until j udgment shall have been
rendered in the main case, thus:

Section 23. Demurrer to evidence. - After the prosecution rests its

case, the court may dismiss the action on the grow1d of insufficiency
of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the
opp01iunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by
the accused with or without leave of comi.

If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court,
the accused may adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer
to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused waives the
right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the
basis of the evidence for the prosecution. (15a)

The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall

specifically state its grounds and shall be filed within a non-
extendible period of five (5) days after the prosecution rests its case.
The prosecution may oppose the motion within a non-extendible
period of five (5) days from its receipt.

If leave of comi is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to

evidence within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from
notice. The prosecution may oppose the demurrer to evidence within
a similar period from its receipt.

The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer
to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by
appeal or by certiorari before judgment. (emphases added)

Espinosa, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, et al. 13 is in point. In that case, the

Court, through the scholarly ponencia of Senior Associate Justice Marvic
Mario Victor F. Leonen, dismissed the consolidated petitions for certiorari of
Espinosa, et al. against a similar denial of their Demurrers to Evidence and
Motions for Reconsideration, thus:

XXX
The special civil action for certiorari will not operate to
review the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence. This rule is
echoed in Joseph v. Villaluz, where this Court dismissed a petition
for ce1iiorari assailing the denial of the accused's demurrer to
evidence:

The Court cannot decide in this special civil action whether

or not the evidence adduced by the prosecution has established
beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the petitioners. It is now
petitioners' duty to neutralize the evidence of the State in order to
maintain the presumption of their innocence of the crime of which
they are charged.

13
G.R. Nos. 191834, 191900, 191951, March 4, 2020.

(222)URES - more -
Resolution 6 G.R. Nos. 257848 and 2S7872-906

In the absence of a clear showing that the respondent Judge

has committed a grave abuse of discretion or acted in excess of
jurisdiction, this Court will not amrnl an interlocutory order denying
a motion to dismiss a criminal case. Appeal is the proper remedy of
the petitioners in order to have the findings of fact of the respondent
judge reviewed by a superior court.

XXX

Degamo v. Office of the Ombudsman, citing Jason v. Office

of the Ombudsman, provides the standard for grave abuse of
discretion:

An allegation of grave abuse of discretion must be

substantiated before this Court can exercise its power of judicial
review. As held in Tetangco v. Ombudsman:

It is well-settled that the Court will not ordinarily interfere

with the Ombudsman's determination of whether or not probable
cause exists except when it commits grave abuse of discretion. Grave
abuse of discretion exists where a power is exercised in an arbitrary,
capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion or
personal hostility so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of
positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by, or in
contemplation of law.

Philippine National Bank v. Gregorio also detailed what

must be established in claiming relief under the extraordinary writ
of ce1tiorari:

As the petition is filed under Rule 65, it must raise not errors
of judgment but the acts and circumstances showing grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse
of discretion is defined as "an act too patent and gross as to amount
to an evasion of a duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty
enjoined or act in contemplation of law" or that the tribunal, board
or officer with judicial or quasi-judicial powers "exercised its power
in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
hostility."

XXX

So must it be.

Verily, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion,

amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in rendering its assailed
Resolutions dated July 9, 2021 and September 1, 2021 in SB- 13-CRM-0608-
0643 .

FOR THESE REASONS, therefore, the petition is DISMISSED.

(222)URES - more -
Resolution 7 G.R. Nos. 257848 and 257872-906

SO ORDERED."

lerk of Court 18 12/r,

0 6 DEC 2022

ESGUERRA & BLANCO (reg)

Counsel for Petitioner Genuine
4 th "nd5th Floors, s & L Building
Dela Rosa corner Esteban Streets
Legaspi Village, Makati City

SANDIGANBAYAN (reg)
Third Division
5/F Sandiganbayan Centennial Building
COA Compound, Commonwealth A venue ATTY. BERNARDO CALDERON (reg)
Cor. Batasan Road, 1126 Quezon City Counsel for Edward King
SB-13-CRM-0608-0643 . 78 Valero Tower, Valero St.
Salcedo Village, Makati City
JAVIER SANTlAGO TORRES & PANG HULAN
LAW OFFICES (reg) OFFICE OF THE SPEClAL PROSECUTOR (reg)
Counsel for Figueroa 4 th Floor, Ombudsman Building
Suite 206, Strata 2000 Building Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City
Ortigas Center, Pasig City ·
JUDGMENT DIVISION (x)
ROXAS & ROXAS LAW OFFICE (reg) Supreme Court, Manila
Counsel for Francisco
Roxas & Roxas Law Offices PUBLIC lNFORMATION OFFICE (x)
Unit 2009, Strata 100 Building LIBRARY SERVICES (x)
Emerald A venue Ortigas Center [For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. 12-7-SC]
Pasig City
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ATTORNEY (x)
BELTRAN ESGUERRA SANTILLAN PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY (x)
LAW OFFICE (reg) Supreme Court, Manila
Counsel for Custodio
Unit 2B, Cluster 5 San Fran_cisco Gardens Please notify the Court of any change in your address.
No. 708 Bonifacio Avenue corner Sacrepante Street GR257848&257872-906. 07/18/2022(222)URES
1550 Mandaluyong City

(222)URES