G.R. Nos. 182539-40 - ANTONIO Y. DE JESUS, SR., ANATOLIO A. ANG AND MARTINA S. APIGO, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN-FOURTH DIVISION AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the defense is hereby given a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice within which to file, if it so desires, a demurrer to evidence without prior leave of court. Should this Court fail to hear from the defense within the said period, it shall be understood to mean that the defense will forego the filing of the demurrer to evidence and will forthwith proceed with the presentation of its evidence on May 23, 2005 at 8:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. at the Palace of Justice, Cebu City, as previously scheduled. On receipt of the above, the accused local officials informed the court that they would file a demurrer to evidence even without leave of court. [8] The Sandiganbayan acknowledged the defense's manifestation and ordered the prosecution to comment on or oppose it. [9] Having denied the accused local officials' demurrer to evidence, the Sandiganbayan was justified in likewise denying their motion to be allowed to present evidence in their defense. The 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, particularly Section 23, Rule 119, provide: Section 23. Demurrer to evidence . x x x 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. The accused local officials contend that the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy among them. The Sandiganbayan itself, they say, did not believe prosecution witness Maria Fe Lakilak's testimony that she saw Ang and Apigo sign the Requests for Quotation for Hinundayan Lumber and Cuad Lumber. But the prosecution is not required to prove conspiracy by evidence that the three local officials sat down and came to an agreement to commit the crimes of which they were charged. Such conspiracy may be proved by a number of circumstances from which one may infer that the accused were animated by a common criminal purpose. [10] Here, the accused municipal treasurer certified by her signature that a canvass of suppliers was undertaken and that their quotations on the Requests for Quotations were correct. This obviously did not take place since the document lacked the required signatures of two supposed bidders. Besides, the Cuad Lumber's owner testified that he took no part in the canvass and that his business name was Cuad General Merchandise and not Cuad Lumber as stated in the Requests. During pre-trial the defense admitted that the accused local officials signed the Requests for Quotation and the Abstract of Proposal of Canvass despite the absence of bidders' signatures. [11] The accused local officials acted in concert. The Court also finds their signing in two capacities unusual or irregular. Normally, the roles of witnesses are performed by subordinates since superior officers assume the job of assessing the correctness of the transaction. This circumstance is