Chapter 1 - PBRD

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT i
CHAPTER
I THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
Conceptual Framework
Statement of the Problem
Assumptions
Significance of the Study
Scope and Delimitations
Definition of Terms
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
III. METHODOLOGY OR RESEARCH DESIGN
IV. PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND

INTERPRETATION OF DATA
V. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1
2
ABSTRACT
Title: AN ANALYSIS OF RULE 9, SECTION 2 OF SANDIGANBAYAN REVISED

INTERNAL RULES IN RELATION TO PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
Researcher: Ms. Aldrissalyn E. Castro
Year: 2020
Course: Juris Doctor
Number of Pages:
Preliminary Statement
Sandiganbayan, as the trial court for graft and corrupt practices, directly
accepts the evidence, witnesses the trial and observes the circumstances
surrounding the case. It has the first hold with regard everything which is material to
the case. It has the advantage in determining on whether there is reasonable doubt
or none compared to other courts. In this regard, it is similar with regular trial courts
which, notably, also exercise limited jurisdiction with cases involving graft and
corrupt practices. However, these courts do not decide in a collegial way and do not
follow the rules of the Sandiganbayan in exercising such given limited jurisdiction. As
such, the cited provision cannot be applied upon someone being tried by regular trial
courts in their given limited jurisdiction. The only outcome within these courts is a
final or executory judgment, in case of acquittal, or a judgment on appeals taken, if
opted by the accused.
3
If doubts as regards the conviction of an accused originates at the
Sandiganbayan – believed to have the knowledge and experience in handling cases
of graft and corruption – and such are not resolved within said court having the
advantage of observing the trial and the demeanor of the witnesses, an unwarranted
burden on the part of the accused arises despite the presence of reasonable doubt
presented in the dissenting opinion. While it may be argued that an appeal may still
be made, it generally passes only on questions of law and not on questions of facts
– which may have been the bases of reasonable doubt – considering that the appeal
may only be made before the Supreme Court which is not a trier of facts and shall
only resolve questions of law as provided by Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
In view of the foregoing, this study seeks to analyze Rule 9, Section 2 of the
Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan in relation with the rule of proof beyond
reasonable doubt. In analyzing, this study first aims to determine how is the rule of
proof beyond reasonable doubt complied with as provided by the present rules and
the pronouncements of the Supreme Court considering the “special” nature of the
Sandiganbayan. Upon such determination, the study analyzes how the
Sandiganbayan complies with the rules and guidelines in order to establish the guilt
of an accused to be beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, the study looks on how the
present rules address the implications, as herein prior referred, of the Rule 9,
4
Section 2 of the internal rules of the Sandiganbayan in relation with complying with
the rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
C. Statement of the Problem
This study seeks to analyze Rule 9, Section 2 of the Internal Rules of the
Sandiganbayan in relation with the rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Research Questions
Particularly, this study seeks to answer the following questions:
1. How shall the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt be complied with
in accordance with the rules and with the pronouncements of the Supreme
Court?
a. Generally within regular trial courts
b. In consideration of the peculiarities of the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan
2. How does the Sandiganbayan observe the rule of proof beyond
reasonable doubt in its decision-making processes?
3. How do the present rules address the implications of the Rule 9, Section 3
of the internal rules of the Sandiganbayan with relation to proof beyond
reasonable doubt?
A. Summary of Findings
5
This study seeks to analyze the rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt in
relation with the decision-making process of the Sandiganbayan, as a special
collegiate trial court, and as provided under Rule 9, Section 2 of its Revised Internal
Rules.
1. The rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt is grounded on the right of the
accused to due process of law which emanates from the Constitutional
guarantee of presumption of innocence.
2. It is generally complied with by putting the burden of establishing the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt on the prosecution and
accordingly puts the latter duty-bound to establish the following:
a. the correct identification of the author of a crime, and
b. the actuality of the commission of the offense with the participation
of the accused.
3. The special nature of the Sandiganbayan consequently provides it the
authority to promulgate its own rules which should still be consistent with
the Rules of evidence particularly with the quantum of proof required in
criminal proceedings.
4. The Sandiganbayan, as a collegial court, produces a variety of opinions
where one justice may inevitably oppose with the majority. Rule 9, Section
2, which is supposed to address this conflict, ultimately results to certain

6
inconsistencies with the guidelines in complying with the rule of proving
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
5. The Internal Rules provide certain remedies that gives the Court a chance
to correct itself and to review its decision, however, the resolutions show
that the opinions favoring reasonable doubt are still not being dwelled
upon which raises questions and ultimately denies the accused of the
benefit of reasonable doubt.
7
Proposed Guidelines
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO.
SUPREME COURT CIRCULARS AND ORDERS
TO: ALL JUSTICES OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN
RE: RENDERING OF JUDGMENT IN CASES WHICH THE

SANDIGANBAYAN EXERCISES EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION
In the interest of the rights of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and to enable the Sandiganbayan to render a
judgment that would allow the accused to be fully informed of the bases of his or her
judgment, the Supreme Court has adopted the following rules governing the
rendering of judgment in connection with Section 2 and 4, Rule 9 of the 2018
Revised Internal Rules of Sandiganbayan:
(1) In cases where Section 2, Rule 9 of the 2018 Revised Internal

Rules of Sandiganbayan is applicable, upon consultation among the
members as required under Section 1 of the same rule and before the
writing of the Decision, all opinions must be weighed and considered in
accordance with the principles in proving a person’s guilt beyond
reasonable doubt,
(2) If the majority opinion favors the conviction of the accused, said
opinion shall discuss the matters opined in the dissenting opinion as to
explain why the reasonable doubt being showed in the latter was not
considered as to acquit the accused from his or her charge,
(3) In cases where Section 4, Rule 9 of the 2018 Revised Internal

Rules of the Sandiganbayan is applicable, the same guideline as
provided in number (1) and consequently the preceding guideline shall
be followed,
8
(4) The Resolutions for the Motion for Reconsideration, in case opted
by the accused, shall also include the discussion on why the supposed
reasonable doubt manifested in the dissenting opinion did not rule in
favor of his or her acquittal.
(5) The foregoing rules shall apply to all pending cases to which
Section 2 and 4, Rule 9 of the 2018 Revised Internal Rules of
Sandiganbayan are applicable.
(6) This Administrative Circular shall take effect immediately.
Manila, Philippines.
(Sgd.)
Chief Justice
9
10
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
A. Introduction
It is none other done the fundamental law of the land which guarantees the
right of a person charged with a criminal offense to be presumed innocent 1 and
consequently to have the right to due process of law 2. In recognition of these rights,
procedural laws including internal rules are promulgated by the courts trying,
particularly, criminal cases. As it is ruled, procedural law ensures the effective
enforcement of substantive rights by providing for a system that obviates
arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or whimsicality in the settlement of disputes 3.
The power to make these rules are vested upon the Supreme Court 4. Such
fact does not however preclude other courts from promulgating their own internal
rules governing their business and addressing certain peculiarities pursuant with
their mandate and their jurisdiction. One example of these courts is the
Sandiganbayan – the anti-graft court of the country 5 which was created in response
to a problem, the urgency of which cannot be denied, namely, dishonesty in the
1
Section 14(2), Article 3, 1987 Philippine Constitution
2
Ibid.
3
Sebastian v. Morales, 445 Phil. 595, 608 (2003) cited in the case of Mocaral Macawiag vs. Judge Rasad
Balindong and Soraida A. Macawiag, G.R. No. 159210, September 20, 2006
4
5
About the Sandiganbayan, retrieved from http://sb.judiciary.gov.ph/aboutsb.html
11
public service6 and which special nature and consequences are qualified as
reservation in favor of the Filipino citizens of the operation of public services or
utilities7.
Sandiganbayan is authorized by law to promulgate its internal rules that
would govern all the business and procedures it conducts 8. Presently, it is governed
by the 2018 Revised Internal Rules of Procedures in the Sandiganbayan 9. Being a
court which directly tries and hears criminal cases, among others, some rules are
still referred with the rules of criminal proceedings under the Rules of Court.
The Sandiganbayan acts by division and decides through a collegial body 10.
As such, it is but natural that in some cases, unanimous decision of the three (3)
justices, which is required by the rules 11, may not be derived. As a recourse, its
Internal Rules provide under Rule 9, Section 2 that:
“…In the event a unanimous vote is not obtained, the

Presiding Justice shall designate by raffle, on rotation
basis, two (2) Justices from all the other members of
the Sandiganbayan to sit temporarily with them, forming
a Special Division of five (5) Justices, and the vote of a
majority of such Special Division shall be necessary for
the rendition of a judgment or final order.”
6
Rufino V. Nuñez, vs. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. L-50581-50617, January 30, 1982
7
Ibid. citing the case of Co Chiong vs Cuaderno (1949)
8
Section 5, Republic Act No. 1606, Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486 Creating A Special Court To Be
Known As "Sandiganbayan" And For Other Purposes, December 10, 1978.
9
A.M. No. 13-7-05-SB, effective November, 16, 2018.
10
11
Section 2, Rule 9, Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan, A.M. No. 13-7-05-SB, effective November, 16, 2018.
12
As stated, in case a unanimous vote cannot be reached, two (2) other justices
shall be designated by raffle to sit with the division-in-charge temporarily and the
opinion which will gain the vote of the majority will be the rendered decision. This
rule naturally results in a situation where the majority decision favors the conviction
of the accused and the two remaining opinions opposes with such and will present
noteworthy considerations showing the presence of reasonable doubt. In effect, it
creates a thought that conviction still lies despite the presence of doubt which was
presented by the opposing justices. This runs contrary with the established rule that
the slightest presence of doubt shall be ruled in favor of the accused 12 which rule is
grounded and based on the right of a person charged to be presumed innocent 13.
Arguably, it can be said that since there is presence of reasonable doubt, as seen by
the other justices, the resort should only be in favor of the acquittal.
Sandiganbayan, as the trial court for graft and corrupt practices, directly
accepts the evidence, witnesses the trial and observes the circumstances
surrounding the case. It has the first hold with regard everything which is material to
the case. It has the advantage in determining on whether there is reasonable doubt
or none compared to other courts. In this regard, it is similar with regular trial courts
12
People Of The Philippines vs.Jayson Cruz y Tecson, G.R. No. 194234, June 18, 2014.
13
Re: Request Radio-Tv Coverage of the Trial of in The Sandiganbayan of The Plunder Cases Against The
Former President Joseph E. Estrada - Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez, Kapisanan Ng Mga Brodkaster Ng
Pilipinas, Cesar Sarino, Renato Cayetano And Atty. Ricardo Romulo Vs. Joseph E. Estrada And Integrated Bar Of
The Philippines, A.M. No. 01-4-03-S.C., June 29, 2001.
13
which, notably, also exercise limited jurisdiction with cases involving graft and
corrupt practices14. However, these courts do not decide in a collegial way and do
not follow the rules of the Sandiganbayan in exercising such given limited
jurisdiction. As such, the cited provision cannot be applied upon someone being tried
by regular trial courts in their given limited jurisdiction. The only outcome within
these courts is a final or executory judgment, in case of acquittal 15, or a judgment on
appeals taken, if opted by the accused.
If doubts as regards the conviction of an accused originates at the
Sandiganbayan – believed to have the knowledge and experience in handling cases
of graft and corruption16 – and such are not resolved within said court having the
advantage of observing the trial and the demeanor of the witnesses, an unwarranted
burden on the part of the accused arises despite the presence of reasonable doubt
presented in the dissenting opinion. While it may be argued that an appeal may still
be made, it generally passes only on questions of law and not on questions of facts
– which may have been the bases of reasonable doubt – considering that the appeal
14
Section 2 (amending Section 4 of RA 1606), Republic Act No. 10660, An Act Strengthening Further The
Functional And Structural Organization Of The Sandiganbayan, Further Amending Presidential Decree No.
1606, As Amended, And Appropriating Funds Therefor, April 16, 2015.
15
Office of the Ombudsman Office Circular No. 18, Series of 2018, September 4, 2018.
16
Matthew C. Stephenson, 2016, “Specialized anti-corruption courts: Philippines”, U4 Brief, 2016, p.3.
14
may only be made before the Supreme Court 17 which is not a trier of facts and shall
only resolve questions of law as provided by Rule 45 of the Rules of Court 18.
In view of the foregoing, this study seeks to analyze the collegial way of
deciding by the Sandiganbayan as provided by its creating statute and the Internal
Rules as provided under Rule 9 in relation with the rule of proof beyond reasonable
doubt. In analyzing, this study first aims to determine how is the rule of proof beyond
reasonable doubt complied with as provided by the present rules and the
pronouncements of the Supreme Court by regular trial courts. Upon such
determination, the study analyzes how the Sandiganbayan complies with the rules
and guidelines in order to establish the guilt of an accused to be beyond reasonable
doubt. The study undermines the collegial nature of the Sandiganbayan from its
rationale to an evaluation of the effect of having a collegial way in making decisions.
Lastly, the study looks on how the present rules protect the right of an accused to be
presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
17
Section 5 (amending Section 7 of RA 1606), Republic Act No. 8249, An Act Further Defining The Jurisdiction
Of The Sandiganbayan, Amending For The Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended, Providing
Funds Therefor, And For Other Purposes, February 5, 1997.
18
Ibid. “Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbyan shall be appealable to the Supreme Court by petition
for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court…”
15
B. Conceptual Framework
Analysis of the collegial

Sandiganbayan nature of the
The rule of proof
and its Internal, Sandiganbayan and
beyond
Rules, and the evaluation as to whether
reasonable
rule of proof the collegial nature
doubt and its
beyond keeps up to the expected
requisites for
reasonable guarantee to which
compliance
doubt having such manner is
based
Recommendation in order to protect

the right of an accused to be Analysis as to how such
presumed innocent unless proven collegial nature protects
guilty beyond reasonable doubt the right to be presumed
considering all the observations of the innocent unless proven
Supreme Court upon reviewing the guilty beyond reasonable
Sandiganbayan decisions and the doubt together with the
amendment under RA 10660 all in amendment introduced by
relation with Sandiganbayan’s RA 10660
collegial way of deciding cases
Figure 1. Study Paradigm
The first box signifies the initial analysis of the rule of proof beyond
reasonable doubt and how can it be complied with as provided by the rules and the
Supreme Court pronouncements which serves as guidelines for compliance of the
same. The second box is a continuation in order to determine how may such rule be
16
complied with now considering the peculiarities present as regards the “special”
nature of the Sandiganbayan.
The third box is the analysis of the collegial nature of the Sandiganbayan. It
looks upon the from the history down to is rationale. This also includes the
evaluation of having a collegial manner of deciding cases in relation to its rationale.
The next box as directed by the arrow refers to an application of the foregoing
discussions with regard the collegiality of Sandiganbayan as to how it protects the
principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt hinged upon the right of an accused to
be presumed innocent. The last box signifies the summary of the outcome of the
prior analyses and the recommendation in order to ensure that the constitutional
guarantees are afforded by the Sandiganbayan and its collegial nature.
C. Statement of the Problem
This study seeks to analyze the collegial way of deciding by the
Sandiganbayan as provided by its creating statute and the Internal Rules as
provided under Rule 9 in relation with the rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Research Questions
Particularly, this study seeks to answer the following questions:
1. How is the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt complied by:
a. regular trial courts

17
b. the Sandiganbayan
2. How does the collegial nature of the Sandiganbayan observes the right to
be presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt
according to the Supreme Court?
3. How does the collegial nature afford protection to the principle of proof
beyond reasonable doubt based on its rules, pronouncements and
observations of the Supreme Court?
D. Assumptions of the study
1. This study assumes the importance of guilt beyond reasonable doubt being
grounded on the presumption of innocence of any accused.
2. This study believes that the principle of guilt beyond reasonable doubt shall
be equally observed in all kinds of criminal proceedings and all kinds of courts
to pursue the true objective in administering justice.
3. This study assumes that the rules of procedure, together with the courts’
internal rules are made after consideration of its structure and mandate.
18
E. Significance of the Study
The main purpose of this study is to analyze the concept of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt which is grounded on the fundamental principle and right of a
person to be presumed innocent. The study seeks to analyze the principle and
undermine the way it is reflected and applied in Philippine courts – regular or special
– despite the natural and circumstantial differences of the courts as well as the
contrast of the limits of their jurisdictions.
Considering such, this study is of significance to law students, lawyers or law
practitioners, legal analysts or future legal-topic interested researchers and the
Filipino citizens.
To law students, this study may serve as an additional knowledge and may
also serve as a guide in understanding the rules of procedure, specifically those that
govern criminal cases being covered by this study. Moreover, this study may help
them in learning more about the concept of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and its
required quantum of proof.
To lawyers or law practitioners, this study may apprise them of how is guilt
beyond reasonable doubt really contemplated and the consequential duty that
comes with it. Also, this research may also give them further in-depth knowledge
and analysis of the factors being considered in criminal proceedings.
19
To legal analysts or future legal-topic interested researchers, this may
enlighten them further as regards the principles of presumption of innocence and
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This may also guide them in understanding more
how are such principles being applied and why are they needed in criminal
proceedings.
Lastly, and most importantly, this is significant to the Filipino citizens who are
given the freedom regulated and limited by laws. This work may enlighten them of
the real meaning of their rights and how such rights may be applied or exercised by
them in case they will be charged of an offense and when they stand in front of both
an unprejudiced court and a hostile public.
F. Scope and Delimitation
This study is focused on the question on whether the rules of procedure of the
Sandiganbayan in deciding of cases under its exclusive original jurisdiction
consistent with the principle of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The study is mainly
an analysis of the said rules and does not include the rules of said court in deciding
cases in its appellate jurisdiction. The principle in this study solely refers to the
principle of guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The analysis on the principle of guilt beyond reasonable doubt in this study is
mainly pinned on how it is applied and how is it applicable with all the considerations
20
present in this country and on the particular cases being handled by both regular
and special court. The special court being referred in this study is the
Sandiganbayan and will not cover the rules of procedure of other special courts.
This research does not focus on analyzing rules on criminal proceedings in
the regular trial courts. Said rules are only used in this study as bases of comparison
in the analysis on how the principle is being uniformly observed or applied
regardless of the kind of court deciding a criminal case.
This study cites certain dissenting opinions from the decisions of
Sandiganbayan which are not used as basis of answering the research questions or
as basis for recommendations. They are cited only for purposes of showing how the
procedure in deciding cases in Sandiganbayan is done and of comparing it with the
regular trial courts.
This study uses cases originating from the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of
it exclusive and original jurisdiction, forwarded to the Supreme Court for review on
certiorari as provided by Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The cases are reviewed and
decided by the Supreme Court during the period of 2009-2019.
G. Definitions of Terms
The following terms are defined according to how they are used in this study:
21
Acquittal. A discharge after a trial, or an attempt to have one, upon its
merits19. The evidence does not show that his guilt is beyond reasonable doubt 20.
Burden of Proof. The duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in
issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence
required by law21.
Collegial Body. Members act on the basis of consensus or majority rule 22.
Dissenting Opinion. Opinion in which a judge announces his dissent from
the conclusions held by the majority of the court, and expounds his own views 23.
Graft and Corruption. Charges that are typically leveled at highly-placed
government officials, who are able to use public funds to improve their own
fortunes24.
Jurisdiction. Power or authority given by the law to a court or tribunal to hear
and determine certain controversies. Power of courts to hear and determine a
controversy involving rights which are demandable and enforceable. 25
Justice. Person duly commissioned to hold court sessions, to try and decide
controversies and administer justice26.

19
Clemente vs PAL. 42765-R. January 28, 1975
20
Republic vs Erum. SP-0587. April 30, 1985
21
Sec.1, Rule 131, Rules of Court
22
Assistant Special Prosecutor Iii Rohermia J. Jamsani-Rodriguez vs Justices Gregory S. Ong, Jose R. Hernandez,
And Rodolfo A. Ponferrada, Sandiganbayan. A.M. No. 08-19-SB-J. August 24, 2010
23
https://thelawdictionary.org/dissenting-opinion/
24
https://legalbeagle.com/6635615-meaning-graft-corruption.html
25
https://batasnatin.com/law-library/remedial-law/criminal-procedure/384-what-is-jurisdiction-venue.html
26
https://definitions.uslegal.com/j/justice/
22
Majority opinion. Majority opinion is a judicial opinion agreed to by more
than half of the members of a court. A majority opinion sets forth the decision of the
court and an explanation of the rationale behind the court's decision.
Moral Certainty. A certainty that ultimately appeals to a person's very
conscience27.
Quantum of Evidence. The amount of evidence needed that must be
presented before a Court before a fact can be said to exist or not exist 28.
Reasonable Doubt. That state of the case which, after the entire comparison
and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in such a condition
that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth
of the charge29.
27
Capistrano Daayata, Dexter Salisi, And Bregido Mala Cat, Jr. vs People of the Philippines. G.R. No. 205745.
March 8, 2017
28
Definition of Quantum of Evidence. Accessed on July 22, 2019. https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-
essays/criminal-law/criminal-or-civil-standard-of-proof-law-essays.php
29
People of the Philippines vs Carlito Claro. G.R. No. 199894. April 5, 2017
23
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
I. Related Literature
a. The Sandiganbayan
The Sandiganbayan is the oldest specialized anti-corruption court in the
world.30 It was first conceptualized during the administration of then President
Ferdinand Marcos and its creation was mandated by the 1973 Constitution, to wit:
“The National Assembly shall create a special

court, to be known as Sandiganbayan, which shall have
jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft
and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed
by public officers and employees, including those in
government-owned or controlled corporations, in relation
to their office as may be determined by law”31
It is created by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1486 issued by then
President Marcos by virtue of the emergency legislative power granted unto him
under Amendment No.6 of the 1976 Amendments to the 1973 Constitution 32. The
court began its operation in 197933.
30
Matthew C. Stephenson, 2016, “Specialized anti-corruption courts: Philippines”, U4 Brief, 2016.
31
Article 13, Section 5, 1973 Philippine Constitution, January 17, 1973.
32
Reynaldo Santos, Jr. “Get to know the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan”, retrieved from
https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/60572-know-sandiganbayan-graft-plunder.
33
24
It was initially set on the same level as what were known as Courts of First
Instance34, now referred as Regional Trial Courts, but was shortly elevated to that
with the Court of Appeals.35 Despite this fact, however, it functions mainly as a trial
court36. It directly hears and tries criminal and civil cases over which it exercises
exclusive and original jurisdiction.
The Sandiganbayan exercises appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,
resolutions or orders of the RTC whether in the exercise of their original or appellate
jurisdiction over crimes and civil cases falling within the original exclusive jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan but which were committed by public officers below Salary
Grade 2737.
a. The Amendment of Section 4, PD 1606: when referred
to regular trial courts
The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is originally provided by Section 4 of
Presidential Decree No. 160638. Said decree is issued by then President Marcos in
34
Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1486, Creating A Special Court To Be Known As "Sandiganbayan" And For
Other Purposes, June 11, 1978.
35
36
37
38
Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486 Creating a Special Court to be Known as “Sandiganbayan” and for
Other Purposes
25
order to revise PD 148639 – the decree which created Sandiganbayan. The first law
amending the court’s jurisdiction is Republic Act 8249 40. Seven years later, the said
section is amended again by Republic Act No. 10660 41.
Under PD 1606, there is no rule providing which confers the regular courts of
any jurisdiction originally mandated for the Sandiganbayan.
The jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan may be considered to be the most
amended provision from the 1973 Constitution to RA 8249 of 1997 42. In the case of
Inding vs Sandiganbayan43, the application of the special court’s jurisdiction over the
officials that may be tried before it was put into issue.
Petitioner Inding moved to dismiss the case being charged against him and
for the case to be referred with either the Regional Trial Court or the Municipal Trial
Court. The primary basis of such motion is allegedly lack of jurisdiction over him or
the public official being charged. He asserted that under Republic Act No. 7975,
which amended Presidential Decree No. 1606, the Sandiganbayan exercises
original jurisdiction to try cases involving crimes committed by officials of local
government units only if such officials occupy positions with SG 27 or higher, based
39
Creating a Special Court to be known as "Sandiganbayan" and for other purposes, June 11, 1978
40
An Act further defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, amending for the purpose Presidential Decree
No. 1606, as amended, providing funds therefor, and for other purposes, February 5, 1997
41
An Act Strengthening Further the Functional and Structural Organization of the Sandiganbayan, Further
Amending Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended, And Appropriating Funds Therefor, July 28, 2014
42
Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, retrieved from http://sb.judiciary.gov.ph/aboutsb.html
43
Ricardo S. Inding vs The Honorable Sandiganbayan and The People of the Philippines, G.R. NO. 143047 : July
14, 2004
26
on Rep. Act No. 6758, otherwise known as the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989. He contended that under Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as
amended by Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975, the RTC, not the Sandiganbayan, has
original jurisdiction over the crime charged against him.
Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying the petitioners omnibus motion.
According to the court, the Information alleged that the petitioner has a salary grade
of 27. Furthermore, Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975, which amended Section 4 of
P.D. No. 1606, provides that the petitioner, as a member of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Dapitan City, has a salary grade of 27.
The petitioner filed a Supplemental Motion to his omnibus motion, citing Rep.
Act No. 8294 and the ruling of this Court in Organo v. Sandiganbayan, where it was
declared that Rep. Act No. 8249, the latest amendment to the law creating the
Sandiganbayan, collated the provisions on the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, and that the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as a trial
court was made to depend not on the penalty imposed by law on the crimes and
offenses within its jurisdiction but on the rank and salary grade of accused
government officials and employees.
The main issue raised and resolved in this case is whether the
Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over the petitioner, a member of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dapitan City, who was charged with violation of Section
27
3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act.
The Court ruled in the affirmative and first discussed the reckoning point in
determining which law shall govern the rule on jurisdiction. The crime charged in this
case was committed when RA 7975 was still the applicable law. The said law
specifically included a list of public officers regardless of their salary grades,
including members of Sangguniang Panglungsod, to be tried originally at the
Sandiganbayan in cases of violation of RA 3019. The Court, in elaborating the
reason behind the said inclusion, cited the sponsorship speech of Senator Raul
Roco for Senatorial Bill No. 844 which was adopted and eventually became RA
8249, to wit:
“ To speed up trial in the Sandiganbayan, Republic Act

No. 7975 was enacted for that Court to concentrate on the
larger fish and leave the small fry to the lower
courts.This law became effective on May 6, 1995 and it
provided a two-pronged solution to the clogging of the
dockets of that court, to wit:
It divested the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over
public officials whose salary grades were at Grade 26 or
lower, devolving thereby these cases to the lower courts,
and retaining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan only over
public officials whose salary grades were at Grade 27 or
higher and over other specific public officials holding
important positions in government regardless of salary grade
26.”
28
The Court further emphasized that said inclusion was deemed appropriate by
the legislature since those public officers enumerated therein are considered by
them as big fish and their positions important and for them to avoid using their
influences in the trials of their cases.
b. Sandiganbayan as a specialized anti-corruption court
Sandiganbayan has general jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving
graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public officers and
employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, in
relation to their office as may be determined by law. 44 Its creation is relatively
connected with the anti-graft statute 45 passed in 1955. The necessity in formally
creating instruments as handle corruption is validated by the court in a 1968
decision46, viz:
"Nothing can be clearer therefore than that the

AntiGraft Act of 1960 like the earlier statute was precisely
aimed at curtailing and minimizing the opportunities for
official corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty
in the public service. It is intended to further promote
morality in public administration. A public office must
indeed be a public trust. Nobody can cavil at its objective;
the goal to be pursued commands the assent of all. The
44
Article 13, Section 5, 1973 Philippine Constitution, January 17, 1973.
45
Republic Act No. 1379, An Act Declaring Forfeiture In Favor Of The State Any Property Found To Have Been
Unlawfully Acquired By Any Public Officer Or Employee And Providing For The Proceedings Therefor., June 17,
1955.
46
Morfe vs Mutuc, G.R. No. L-20387, January 31, 1968.
29
conditions then prevailing called for norms of such
character. The times demanded such a remedial device."
As stated in its creating statute, “the New Constitution declares that a public
office is a public trust and ordains that public officers and employees shall serve with
the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and shall remain
at all times accountable to the people;” 47 and thus, the necessity of creating the
Sandiganbayan is realized as to attain the highest norms of official conduct required
of public officers and employees.48 Sandiganbayan was created to maintain integrity,
honesty and efficiency in the bureaucracy and weed out misfits and undesirables in
government service (1973 Constitution (Art. XIII, sec. 5) and 1987 Constitution (Art.
XI, sec. 4)) and ultimately, in order to continue the combat against the evils of graft
and corruption.
b.1. Sandiganbayan’s authority to promulgate its rules
The authority to promulgate rules that may be applied in courts is vested upon
the Supreme Court49. Such power includes the making of rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, among all others. Such power is
limited to provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition
of cases and such rules must not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights 50.
47
Republic Act No. 1606, Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486 Creating A Special Court To Be Known As
"Sandiganbayan" And For Other Purposes, December 10, 1978.
48
Ibid.
49
Article 8, Section 5(5), 1987 Philippine Constitution, October 12, 1986.
50
Justice Antonio E. B. Nachura, 2015, Outline Reviewer in Political Law, (Quezon City: VJ Graphic Arts, Inc.), p.
389.
30
In order to meet the particularities of its special jurisdiction, it is authorized by
law51 to promulgate its own rules to govern its procedures in handling such cases as
well as for its internal operations. This authority is conferred as follows:
Section 9. Rule-making Power. The Sandiganbayan

shall have the power to promulgate its own rules of
procedure and, pending such promulgation, the Rules of
Court shall govern its proceedings.
Section 10. Authority over internal affairs. The

Sandiganbayan shall administer its own internal affairs and
may adopt such rules governing the constitution of its
divisions, the allocation of cases among them, the rotation of
justices and other matters relating to its business.
This authority was, however, amended by Section 4 of RA 7975 52 which rule
still presently stands. The amendment provides that:
Section 4. Section 9 of the same Decree is hereby

amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 9. Rules of Procedure. - The Rules of Court

promulgated by the Supreme Court shall apply to all cases
and proceedings filed with the Sandiganbayan. The
Sandiganbayan shall have no power to promulgate its
own rules of procedure, except to adopt internal rules
governing the allotment of cases among the divisions,
the rotation of justices among them, and other matters
relating to the internal operations of the court which shall
be inforced until repealed or modified by the Supreme
Court."
51
Republic Act No. 1606, Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486 Creating A Special Court To Be Known As
"Sandiganbayan" And For Other Purposes, December 10, 1978.
52
An Act To Strengthen The Functional And Structural Organization Of The Sandiganbayan, Amending For That
Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended, March 30, 1995.
31
This authority to promulgate internal rules is presumed to be as limited as that
of the authority of the Supreme Court in promulgating rules: to provide a simplified
and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases and such rules must
not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.
b.1.a. The Constitutional Rights of an accused
1. The right to due process of law
Due process is enshrined in the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights
providing therein that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without
due process of law.”53 It is defined as “A law which hears before it condemns, which
proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.”54 “Responsiveness to
the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice” 55 and the “…
embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play.” 56
Due process of law has two general aspects: Substantive and Procedural.
The first signifies restriction on government’s law-and rule-making powers. The latter
53
Article 3, Section 1, 1987 Philippine Constitution, October 12, 1986.
54
Darmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheaton 518.
55
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association vs City of Manila, G.R. No. L-24693, July 20, 1967.
56
Justice Antonio E. B. Nachura, 2015, Outline Reviewer in Political Law, (Quezon City: VJ Graphic Arts, Inc.), p.
124.
32
refers to restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of the
government.57 Under procedural due process, the following are required:
1. An impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and
determine the matter before it;
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant
and over the property which is the subject matter of the proceeding;
3. The defendant must be given the chance to be heard; and
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
Due process, in criminal cases, guarantees the accused a presumption of
innocence until the contrary is proved.58 It commands that no man shall lose his
liberty unless the Government has borne the burden of ... convincing the factfinder of
his guilt.' To this end, the reasonable-doubt standard is indispensable, for it
'impresses on the trier of fact the necessity of reaching a subjective state of certitude
of the facts in issue.59
Due process guarantees the accused a presumption of innocence until the
contrary is proved in a trial that is not lifted above its individual settings nor made an
object of public's attention and where the conclusions reached are induced not by
57
Ibid. at 126.
58
Republic of the Philippines vs Fe Roa Gimenez and Ignacio B. Gimenez, G.R. No. 174673, January 11, 2016.
59
Dorsen & Rezneck, In Re Gault and the Future of Juvenile Law, 1 Family Law Quarterly, No. 4, pp. 1, 26
(1967).
33
any outside force or influence but only by evidence and argument given in open
court, where fitting dignity and calm ambiance is demanded. 60
2. The right to be presumed innocent before proven guilty beyond
reasonable doubt
Together with other democratic countries, the Philippines adopted the
doctrine of presumption of innocence in its Constitution, viz:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be

presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall
enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial,
to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided,
that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.”61
The presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal case is a basic
constitutional principle62. The fundamental nature of this right is supported by Article
14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 63.
60
Re: Request Radio-Tv Coverage Of The Trial Of In The Sandiganbayan Of The Plunder Cases Against The
Former President Joseph E. Estrada. Secretary Of Justice Hernando Perez, Kapisanan Ng Mga Brodkaster Ng
The Philippines, A.M. No. 01-4-03-S.C., June 29, 2001
61
62
63
“Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law.”
34
This right of an accused has been established way before and features
prominently in the legal systems of most modern liberal democracies. Its evident
significance is manifested by the adoption of countries, especially the democratic
ones, of this doctrine in their very own constitutions. In the case of Coffin vs United
States64, it is established that “the principle that there is a presumption of innocence
in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its
enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.” 65
This right is guaranteed by due process until the contrary is proven in a trial,
not lifted above its individual settings nor made an object of public's attention and
where the conclusions reached are induced not by any outside force or influence but
only by evidence and argument given in open court, where fitting dignity and calm
ambiance is demanded66.
The Human Rights Committee67 has defined the presumption of innocence to
mean that the “burden of proof is on the prosecution and the accused has the benefit
64
156 U.S. 432 (1895) cited in the case of People of the Philippines vs Carlito Claro, G.R. No. 199894, April 5,
2017
65
Ibid.
66
Re: Request Radio-Tv Coverage Of The Trial Of In The Sandiganbayan Of The Plunder Cases Against The
Former President Joseph E. Estrada. Secretary Of Justice Hernando Perez, Kapisanan Ng Mga Brodkaster Ng
The Philippines, A.M. No. 01-4-03-S.C., June 29, 2001
67
The Human Rights Committee is an authoritative body. See United States vs Bakeas, 987 F. Supp. 44, 46 n.4
(D. Mass 1997) - “The HRC has the ultimate authority to decide whether parties’ clarifications or reservations
have any effect”
35
of the doubt”.68 Aside from such, the panel, jury or judge must approach the case
without negative predisposition drawn from the accused 69 or in other words they are
expected to have unprejudiced minds. The right to be presumed innocent serves a
two-fold purpose: first is to protect the accused or individual charged of a criminal
offense; and second is to maintain public confidence in ensuring integrity and
security of the legal system70.
It is regarded that it is not only the accused who benefits from the
presumption of innocence but the community as a whole. This is because the
community has an interest to protect its criminal justice system by maintaining the
reasonable doubt standard since it serves to protect its members form activity which
injures them without justifiable cause.71 By maintaining said standard, there can be
no residue of reasonable doubt and it will utmost ensure the avoidance of the
reasonable possibility that an innocent person may end up being punished of a
crime he did not commit. It is further opined that if conviction is allowed
68
See General Comment (See Maria vs McElroy 68 F. Supp. 2d 206, 232 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) – General Comments
and decisions in individual cases are recognized as major source for interpretation of the ICCPR and are
“authoritative”)
13, supra note 20, at par. 7 retrieved from http//www1.umn.edu/humnrts/gencomm.
See Maria vs McElroy 68 F. Supp. 2d 206, 232 (E.D.N.Y. 1999)
69
The presumption of innocence “cautions the jury to put away from their minds all the suspicion that arises
from the arrest, indictment, and arraignment, and to reach their conclusion solely from legal evidence
adduced.”, 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence (3rd edition) retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40708017?read-
now=1&seq=15#page_scan_tab_contents
70
Ibid.
71
The Burden of Proof in Criminal Justice, Michael Hor, SING. ACAD. L.J. 267,268 (1992) retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40708017?read-now=1&seq=15#page_scan_tab_contents
36
notwithstanding reasonable doubt, “right thinking members of the community would
then, justifiably, withdraw their trust and confidence in the criminal law”.72
2.1. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt under the Rules of Court
and the interpretations of the Supreme Court of the Philippines
In consonance with the constitutional provision providing presumption of
innocence, the burden of proof rests upon the prosecution 73 and the accused must
then be acquitted and set free should the prosecution not overcome such
presumption.74 Conversely, in convicting the accused all the elements of the crime
charged must be proven beyond reasonable doubt 75 viz:
Sec. 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - x x x Proof

beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree
of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces
absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that
degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.76
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as,
excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is
72
Ibid at 268.
73
People v. Patentes, 726 Phil. 590, 606 (2014)
74
People v. Cruz, 736 Phil. 564, 580 (2014).
75
Ngo v. People, 478 Phil. 676, 680 (2004).
76
Rule 133, Rules of Court.
37
required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced
mind.77
The requirement of establishing the guilt of the accused in every criminal
proceeding beyond reasonable doubt has a long history that even pre-dates our
Constitutions. As summed up by jurisprudence of American origin:
The requirement that guilt of a criminal charge be

established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt dates at
least from our early years as a Nation. The 'demand for a
higher degree of persuasion in criminal cases was
recurrently expressed from ancient times, (though) its
crystallization into the formula 'beyond a reasonable
doubt' seems to have occurred as late as 1798. It is now
accepted in common law jurisdictions as the measure of
persuasion by which the prosecution must convince the
trier of all the essential elements of guilt. 78
The requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has this vital role in our
criminal procedure for cogent reasons. The accused during a criminal prosecution
has at stake interest of immense importance, both because of the possibility that he
may lose his liberty upon conviction and because of the certainty that he would be
stigmatized by the conviction. Accordingly, a society that values the good name and
freedom of every individual should not condemn a man for commission of a crime
when there is reasonable doubt about his guilt. 79

77
Capistrano Daayata, Dexter Salisi, And Bregido Mala Cat, Jr., Vs People Of The Philippines, G.R. No. 205745,
March 8, 2017.
78
C. McCormick, Evidence 321, pp. 681-682 (1954); see also 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence, 2497 (3d ed.1940).
79
People Of The Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, Vs. Carlito Claro, G.R. No. 199894, April 5, 2017
38
The Court, citing the case of Speiser v. Randall80 emphasized that:
There is always in litigation a margin of error,

representing error in factfinding, which both parties must
take into account. Where one party has at stake an
interest of transcending value-as a criminal defendant his
liberty-this margin of error is reduced as to him by the
process of placing on the other party the burden of . . .
persuading the factfinder at the conclusion of the trial of
his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Moreover, use of the reasonable-doubt standard is indispensable to
command the respect and confidence of the community in applications of the
criminal law. It is critical that the moral force of the criminal law not be diluted by a
standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether innocent men are being
condemned. It is also important in our free society that every individual going about
his ordinary affairs have confidence that his government cannot adjudge him guilty
of a criminal offense without convincing a proper factfinder of his guilt with utmost
certainty.81
b.1.b. The Public Officers and their rights while being tried in a
criminal case before the Sandiganbayan
Public Officers being tried before the Sandiganbayan as accused are entitled
to the rights provided by the Constitution which include, among others, the right to
be presumed innocent before proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the right to
80
357 U.S. 513, June 30, 1958
81
People Of The Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, Vs. Carlito Claro, G.R. No. 199894, April 5, 2017.
39
due process of law and the right to a fair and impartial trial 82. In the case Re:
Request Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial of in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder
Cases against the Former President Joseph E. Estrada 83, the court emphasized the
rationale on favoring the application of the rights of an accused. In preferring the
latter, it ruled that:
“With the possibility of losing not only the precious

liberty but also the very life of an accused, it behooves all
to make absolutely certain that an accused receives a
verdict solely on the basis of a just and dispassionate
judgment, a verdict that would come only after the
presentation of credible evidence testified to by unbiased
witnesses unswayed by any kind of pressure, whether
open or subtle, in proceedings that are devoid of
histrionics that might detract from its basic aim to ferret
veritable facts free from improper influence, 8 and decreed
by a judge with an unprejudiced mind, unbridled by
running emotions or passions.”
In case of clash as of the rights of the public, which in said case concerns
information of public concern, and the rights of the accused, the latter shall prevail.
This is all in accord as the administration of justice goes by the saying that “ It is
better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent to suffer. 84”
Absent any distinction provided by law, public officers are treated alike with
regular persons before the courts in cases of being charged of criminal offenses.
82
Article 3, Section 14(2), 1987 Philippine Constitution, October 12, 1986.
83
A.M. No. 01-4-03-S.C., June 29, 2001.
84
Blackstone’s Ratio, William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England.
40
Rights of an accused do not only apply to normal or regular persons but also to
those who are in public office.
Further, the said case dealt with the weighing of the fundamental rights of the
accused with another constitutional guarantee of the right to public information 85.
The court ruled therein that when such rights race against one another, earlier
decisions tell that the right of the accused must be preferred to win.
In said Resolution, the Court cited the case of Estes vs Texas86 which settled
the issue as regards the television coverage of judicial proceedings. The United
States Supreme Court ruled therein that such coverage results to the prejudice and
the inherent denial of due process right of an accused. In reliance with such ruling,
the Court discussed the balancing of interest of the accused, the general public and
the court, viz:
The courts recognize the constitutionally embodied

freedom of the press and the right to public information. It
also approves of media's exalted power to provide the
most accurate and comprehensive means of conveying
the proceedings to the public and in acquainting the
public with the judicial process in action; nevertheless,
within the courthouse, the overriding consideration
is still the paramount right of the accused to due
process which must never be allowed to suffer
diminution in its constitutional proportions. Justice
Clark thusly pronounced, "while a maximum freedom
must be allowed the press in carrying out the important
function of informing the public in a democratic society,
85
Article 3, Section 7, 1987 Philippine Constitution.
86
381 U.S. 532 (1965).
41
its exercise must necessarily be subject to the
maintenance of absolute fairness in the judicial
process."
c. Sandiganbayan’s Decision Making process
Sandiganbayan is a collegial court. It conducts its business and hears cases
in a collegial way and by divisions respectively. It is initially created composing of a
Presiding Justice and of eight (8) Associate Justices appointed by the President 87.
Said justices sit in three (3) divisions and was amended to have five (5) divisions 88.
Upon the promulgation of RA 8249, the number of associate justices rose from eight
(8) to fourteen (14)89 who still sits in five (5) divisions. The recent legislative
amendments to the Sandiganbayan law increased the number of divisions from
five (5) to seven (7), expanding the total size of the court from fifteen (15) to
twenty-one (21) judges90.
Justice Barredo91 in his concurring opinion in the case of Nunez mentioned
that he believes that the accused has a better guarantee of a real and full
87
88
Section 1 (amending Section 3 of RA 1606), Republic Act No. 7975, An Act To Strengthen The Functional And
Structural Organization Of The Sandiganbayan, Amending For That Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, As
Amended, March 30, 1995.
89
Section 1 (amending Section 1 of RA 1606), Republic Act No. 8249, An Act Further Defining The Jurisdiction
Of The Sandiganbayan, Amending For The Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended, Providing
Funds Therefor, And For Other Purposes, February 5, 1997
90
1606, As Amended, And Appropriating Funds Therefor, April 16, 2015
91
Associate Justice Antonio P. Barredo. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines from
December 17, 1968 to October 4, 1982.
42
consideration of evidence and determination of facts when there are three justices
actually seeing and observing the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses. 92 Part of
the thinking is that, having Sandiganbayan Justices sit in panels was the idea that it
would be harder to improperly influence multiple judges. 93
No person shall be appointed Presiding Justice or Associate Justice of the
Sandiganbayan; unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, at least 40
years of age and for at least ten years has been a judge of a court of record or been
engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines or has held office requiring
admission to the bar as a pre-requisite for a like period. 94 There are no special
qualification requirements, nor does the Judicial and Bar Council focus on
experience in handling corruption cases when vetting candidates. Although
Sandiganbayan judges have access to judicial training through the Philippine
Judicial Academy and other programs, they do not receive any special training
focused specifically on corruption. The fact that Sandiganbayan judges hear only
corruption cases helps them gain expertise on the job. 95
92
Justice Barredo Concurring Opinion, Rufino V. Nuñez Petitioner, Vs.Sandiganbayan And People Of The
Philippines, G.R. Nos. L-50581-50617, January 30, 1982.
93
94
95
43
During its first businesses by virtue of PD 1606, three (3) Justices constituted
a quorum for session in division. 96 This was amended only by RA 10660 providing
that two (2) members shall constitute a quorum for sessions in divisions. The rule
that when the required quorum cannot be had due to the legal disqualification or
temporary disability of a Justice or of a vacancy occurring therein, the President
shall, upon recommendation of the Presiding Justice, designate any Justice of the
Court of Appeals or Judge of the Court of First Instance or of the Circuit Criminal
Court of the judicial district concerned to sit temporarily therein is also amended by
the latter law which now provides that when the required quorum for the particular
division cannot be had due to the legal disqualification or temporary incapacity of a
member or a vacancy therein, the Presiding Justice may designate a member of
another division to be determined by strict rotation on the basis of the reverse order
of precedence, to sit as a special member of said division with all the rights and
prerogatives of a regular member of said division in the trial and determination of a
case or cases assigned thereto.97
Under RA 1606, it provides that unanimous vote of the three justices in a
division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a judgment. In the event that
96
97
44
the three justices do not reach a unanimous vote, the Presiding Judge shall
designate two other justices from among the members of the Court to sit temporarily
with them, forming a division of five justices, and the concurrence of a majority of
such division shall be necessary for rendering judgment. 98 This has been the
continued rule until the promulgation of RA 10660 which now provides that all three
(3) members of a division shall deliberate on all matters submitted for judgment,
decision, final order, or resolution.
The concurrence of a majority or two (2) of the members of a division shall be
necessary to render a judgment, decision, or final order, or to resolve interlocutory or
incidental motions.99
As remedies, its revised rules provide for the filing for Motions for New Trial or
Reconsideration which shall be acted upon by the ponente and the other members
of the division who participated in the decision or resolution sought to be considered,
irrespective of whether or not such members are already in other divisions at the
time the said motions were filed. They shall be deemed constituted as a Special
98
99
45
Division of the Division to which the ponente belonged at the time of the
promulgation of the decision or resolution. 100
If the ponente is no longer a member of the Sandiganbayan or is disqualified
or has inhibited form acting on the motion, his or her replacement shall be chosen by
raffle from among the remaining members of the Division who participated and
concurred in the decision or resolution. If only one (1) member of the Division who
participated and concurred in the decision or resolution remains, such member shall
be the ponente.101
In case the ponente and all members of the Division that rendered the
decision or resolution are no longer members of the Sandiganbayan, the new
Chairperson may assign the case to any member of the Division who shall act upon
the motion with the participation of the other members of the Division. 102
The Motion for Reconsideration shall be resolved by a Division by unanimous
vote of its members, and in case of a Special Division of five (5), by the concurrence
of at least three (3) of its members unless the offense is committed after the
effectivity of RA 10660.103
100
Section 2(a), Rule 10, Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan, A.M. No. 13-7-05-SB, effective November, 16,
2018.
101
Section 2(b), Rule 10, Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan, A.M. No. 13-7-05-SB, effective November, 16,
2018.
102
Section 2(e), Rule 10, Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan, A.M. No. 13-7-05-SB, effective November, 16,
2018.
103
Section 2(f), Rule 10, Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan, A.M. No. 13-7-05-SB, effective November, 16,
2018.
46
II. Related Studies
A study entitled “Presumed Guilty: Balancing Competing Rights and Interests
in Combating Economic Crimes”104 examines the juridical basis of the right of an
accused in a corruption action to be presumed by the prosecution and the rationale
of fixing this right, which is guaranteed to all accused persons, by shifting the burden
to the accused to disprove his guilt in order to advance an overriding public
interest.105
It particularly intends to find out whether in official corruption proceedings, the
right of an accused to be presumed innocent of the crime he is charged is an
absolute right that is not subject to any derogation, or whether the presumption of
innocence simply enjoys preeminence among all other individual rights such that any
derogation from it in the context of global war against corruption is permissible. 106
The study finds that while it remains the primary responsibility of the
prosecution to prove the guilt of an accused, reasonable deviations will be allowed
from the strict application of this principle so long as there is a rational link between
the presumed fact and the proved fact and the presumption is a proportional
response to the social problem being addressed such as drug trafficking, corruption
104
Kofele-Kale, N. (2006). Presumed Guilty: Balancing Competing Rights and Interests in Combating Economic
Crimes. The International Lawyer, 40(4), 909-944. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/40708017
105
Ibid. at 914.
106
Ibid. at 914.
47
or money-laundering107; that restrictions on the presumption of innocence in the war
of corruption will be justified provided that they pursue a legitimate goal and are
proportionate to that goal 108; that in illicit enrichment cases, the accused is likely to
enjoy considerable advantages in terms of access to relevant information, which
creates an imbalance to the detriment of the prosecution in breach of the equality-of-
arms principle109; and that the unusual long time it takes to resolve these corruption
cases probably accounts for demands in some jurisdictions to do away with the
presumption of innocence in this cases110.
In light with the discussions in the study, it holds that corruption wreaks
unspeakable havoc on victim states and their populations. Persons in positions of
public trust who engage in such activity should not be allowed to take shelter behind
the principle of presumption of innocence. Where wider public interests are
implicated, it says that the society should be prepared to accept certain limitations
on individual rights. Limitations must be a proportional response to the social
problem being addressed, should go no further than is reasonably necessary to
safeguard the targeted public interest and should operate in re-establishing parity of
arms between the state and the accused official 111.
107
Ibid. at 932.
108
Ibid. at 933.
109
Ibid. at 940.
110
Ibid. at 941.
111
Ibid. at 944.
48
The study recommends that in corruption proceedings, where the evidence
required to establish a crime is within the control of the accused, courts should
require that this party bear the initial burden of production 112 and that the accused
public official should be made to assume a significant burden in going forward with
evidence while allowing the state to be able to prove its case on the less stringent
balance of probabilities standard. 113 Lastly, it emphasized that the burden of coming
forward with explanations on how they came about with their stupendous wealth
ought to be placed on such officials and not on the state. 114
III. Synthesis
Concepts, procedure and specific information presented in the Related
Literature provided the researcher aid in understanding the topic. Discussions of the
authors of these helped the researcher to further understand the background of
certain rights of the accused which bear importance in this study.
Similar discussions described the kind, procedure and history of the rule of
proof beyond reasonable doubt that increases the knowledge of the researcher
about the topic.
The study herein included provided the researcher a background of the
importance of the rights of the accused and the relative importance of public interest
112
Ibid. at 936.
113
Ibid. at 940.
114
Ibid. at 944.
49
which was made used by the researcher to further understand the rationale of the
factors involved in this study.
The related literature was used by the researcher to present an overview of
the Sandiganbayan, its rules of procedure in relation with its peculiarities which
bears importance as regards the integrity of the court and its duty to administer
justice in order to promote public trust. Likewise, it presents the rights of the accused
more particularly their right to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.
50
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY OR RESEARCH DESIGN
This part presents the methods of research. It aims to give description to the
data and references, data-gathering techniques, and analytical treatment of data.
A. Methods of Research
The study used descriptive method of research which primarily describes
“what is”. It is fact-finding with adequate interpretation wherein the data collected are
studied from the point of view of its objectives and assumptions in order to determine
the true meaning of the data collected.
This study also adopts the qualitative method or research which involves a
rich collection of data from various sources to gain a deeper understanding of
individual participants, including their opinions, perspectives, and attitudes. This
often involves an inductive exploration of the data to identify recurring themes,
patterns, or concepts and then describing and interpreting those categories. 115
These methods attempt to describe, explain and interpret the procedure of
the Sandiganbayan in its decision-making capacity in relation with the required
quantum of evidence which is proof beyond reasonable doubt. The data gathered
will be used as bases to have an in depth appreciation and analysis of said
procedure and quantum of evidence in order to fill in some gaps and to harmonize
115
Nassaji, Hossein. (2015). Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis. Language
Teaching Research. 19. 129-132. 10.1177/1362168815572747.
51
each other in compliance with the rights mandated in favor of an accused by the
Constitution and with other legal principles related therewith.
B. Data and Reference Sources
Data and information are gathered and collected from extensive research
of pertinent procedural laws particularly the Rules of Court and the present Revised
Rules of the Sandiganbayan. It also includes certain studies relative to the present
study that were found in books, journals, theses or studies and electronic resources.
It includes Sandiganbayan decisions and resolutions from the year 2009 to year
2019 decided by a special division created under Rule 9, Section 2 of the Revised
Rules of the Sandiganbayan and related jurisprudence from the same period relating
with cases under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and with discussions of proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
C. Collection Techniques
The researcher acquired these sources by visiting libraries of the
university and of other government offices. The researcher tried to locate all the
relevant books, journals including articles posted in internet websites.
Most sources are provided by the official websites of the Sandiganbayan
and of the Supreme Court for the relevant decisions and resolutions.
D. Analytical Treatment of Data

52
The data gathered by the researcher were sorted and examined according
to their relevance in the subject matter of the study. From these data, researcher
came up with the interpretations backed up by provisions of our laws and existing
jurisprudence. Thereafter, inferences were drawn and connected to one another for
the drawing of truthful conclusions.
53
CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter presents the data which address the questions posed in Chapter
I with the object of analyzing the rule provided under Rule 9, Section 2 of the
Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan 116, creating a special division consisting of five
(5) justices in deciding a criminal action, whether it is in accordance with the rule of
proof beyond reasonable doubt. As earlier discussed, the natural consequence of
such rule is having a variation and conflicting opinions at the first level of
determination. This study focuses on this implication particularly in having a majority
opinion favoring conviction despite the presence of reasonable doubt found by the
dissenting justices.
I. The rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt as provided by the Rules
of Court and discussed in Court decisions
a. Compliance of the rule in regular trial courts
First, this study deals with the analysis on the determination on when is the
rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt considered complied with generally by trial
courts as given by the rules and by the pronouncements of the Supreme Court. Rule
133, Section 2 of the Rules of Court introduces this weight of evidence, to wit:
Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a

criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal,
116
Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan, A.M. No. 13-7-05-SB, effective November, 16, 2018.
54
unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof
beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree
of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute
certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that degree
of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced
mind.
A reasonable doubt of guilt "is a doubt growing reasonably out of evidence or
the lack of it. It is not a captious doubt; not a doubt engendered merely by sympathy
for the unfortunate position of the defendant, or a dislike to accept the responsibility
of convicting a fellow man…”117 It should not however be understood as proof to a
mathematical demonstration. It is not proof beyond the possibility of mistake. 118
While not impelling such a degree of proof as to establish absolutely
impervious certainty, the quantum of proof required in criminal cases nevertheless
charges the prosecution with the immense responsibility of establishing moral
certainty – a certainty that ultimately appeals to a person's very conscience 119, that
which convinces and directs the understanding and satisfies the reason and
judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it 120.
The rule also mentioned that proof beyond reasonable doubt refers to such
degree that would produce conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The rule is silent,
however, on how such degree is measured – how to determine that it has reached
117
Guilbemer Franco vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No.191185, February 1, 2016.
118
Ibid.
119
Capistrano Daayata, Dexter Salisi and Bregido Malacat vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 205745, March
8, 2017.
120
People of the Philippines vs Carlito Mahinay, G.R. No. 199894, April 5, 2017.
55
such extent that would induce an unprejudiced mind. It only implies that it depends
on a case-to-case basis but must all lead to the satisfaction of the conscience that
the accused is responsible for the offense charged. 121
In order to ease the burden in determining the guilt, the elements of the
crimes and the exact prohibited acts are provided by the Revised Penal Code and
expressly, by the various special penal laws. As such, the admissibility and
consequently the guilt are determined by depending on these elements provided by
the Code or the penal laws. As the Court has pronounced, “The determination of the
guilt of an accused hinges on how a court appreciates evidentiary matters in relation
to the requisites of an offense. Determination of guilt is, thus, a fundamentally
factual issue.122” The principles serving as guidelines in determining an accused’
guilt are given by the Court and in Guilbemer Franco vs People123, it discussed that:
“It must be emphasized that "[c]ourts must judge

the guilt or innocence of the accused based on facts and
not on mere conjectures, presumptions, or suspicions." …
the Court has, time and again, declared that if the
inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or
more interpretations, one of which being consistent with
the innocence of the accused and the other or others
consistent with his guilt, then the evidence in view of the
constitutional presumption of innocence has not fulfilled
121
Capistrano Daayata, Dexter Salisi and Bregido Malacat vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 205745, March
8, 2017.
122
People of the Philippines vs Willington Rodriguez y Hermosa, G.R. No.211721, September 20, 2017.
123
People of the Philippines vs Gilbert Reyes Wagas, G.R. No. 157943, September 4, 2013.
56
the test of moral certainty and is thus insufficient to
support a conviction.”
Concisely, moral certainty is based on the evidence submitted to the court
and appreciated by it. The determination on when such certainty, as to produce
conviction, may be obtained solely depends wholly in the totality of those evidence
and facts surrounding the case. Noteworthy is that the Court also included above the
Equipoise Rule. With this rule, as indicated above, if the evidence admitted are so
balanced as to have two or more interpretations – one for innocence and one for
guilt – it is considered equal to reasonable doubt and shall result to acquittal 124. The
inclusion of this rule and other rules like “in dubio pro reo”125 implies that these rules
are also required to be observed and considered in the appreciation of evidence and
the facts surrounding the case, consequently on whether there will be moral
certainty as to warrant conviction.
On the other hand, in the case of People vs Rodriguez126, the Court laid the
following discussion:
“…Reasonable doubt does not refer to any doubt or a

mere possible doubt … It is that state of the case which,
after a comparison of all the evidence, does not lead the
judge to have in his mind a moral certainty of the truth of
the charge...”
124
People of the Philippines vs Juvy D. Amarela and Junard G. Racho, G.R. No. 225642-43, January 17, 2018.
125
People of the Philippines vs Roberto Esperanza Jesalva, G.R. No. 227306, June 19, 2017.
126
People Of The Philippines, vs. Willington Rodriguez Y Hermosa, G.R. No. 211721, September 20, 2017.
57
In addition and in connection therewith, the Court discussed in the case of People vs
Mahinay127 that:
“It is that state of the case which, after the entire

comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves
the minds of jurors in such a condition that they cannot
say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty,
of the truth of the charge… a certainty that convinces and
directs the understanding and satisfies the reason and
judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously
upon it.”
From the foregoing, it implies that when the law mentions unprejudiced mind, it
refers to the conscience or the mind of the judge, the reason and understanding of
those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it – referring also to judges trying
and hearing the criminal case.
To further the compliance with the rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the
prosecution, in behalf of the State, has the burden of showing evidence that will
establish the guilt of the accused based on the required weight of evidence. 128 This is
a consequence of the tenet ei incumbit probation, qui dicit, non qui negat, which
means that he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove and as a means of
respecting the presumption of innocence in favor of the man or woman on the dock
for a crime129.
127
128
Nilo Macayan, Jr. y Malana vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 175842, March 18, 2015.
129
58
The Court once emphasized that the rule as regards proof beyond reasonable
doubt is not only in relation to the elements of the offense, but also in relation to the
identity of the offender. If the Prosecution fails to discharge its heavy burden, then it
is not only the right of the accused to be freed, it becomes the Court’s constitutional
duty to acquit him.130 The first duty of the Prosecution is not to prove the crime but to
prove the identity of the criminal. For even if the commission of the crime can be
established, without competent proof of the identity of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, there can be no conviction.131
Accordingly, the State has the burden of proof to show: (1) the correct
identification of the author of a crime, and (2) the actuality of the commission of the
offense with the participation of the accused. All these facts must be proved by the
State beyond reasonable doubt on the strength of its evidence and without solace
from the weakness of the defense. That the defense the accused puts up may be
weak is inconsequential if, in the first place, the State has failed to discharge the
onus of his identity and culpability.132
b. Compliance with the rule in consideration of the “special” nature

of the Sandiganbayan
130
Ibid.
131
Guilbemer Franco vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No.191185, February 1, 2016.
132
59
Having settled on how shall proof beyond reasonable doubt is complied with
and manifested generally in trial courts, in accordance with the rules and
jurisprudence, the question will now be as regards how it should be manifested in
special courts particularly the Sandiganbayan.
The fact is settled that the Sandiganbayan is a special trial court exercising
original and exclusive jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases arising from graft and
corrupt practices of certain public officers. In order to meet the particularities of its
special jurisdiction, it is authorized by law 133 to promulgate its own rules to govern its
procedures in handling such cases as well as for its internal operations. This
authority is conferred as follows:
Section 9. Rule-making Power. The Sandiganbayan

shall have the power to promulgate its own rules of
procedure and, pending such promulgation, the Rules of
Court shall govern its proceedings.
Section 10. Authority over internal affairs. The

Sandiganbayan shall administer its own internal affairs and
may adopt such rules governing the constitution of its
divisions, the allocation of cases among them, the rotation of
justices and other matters relating to its business.
This authority was amended by Section 4 of RA 7975 134 which rule still
presently stands. The amendment provides that:

133
134
Republic Act No. 7975, An Act To Strengthen The Functional And Structural Organization Of The
Sandiganbayan, Amending For That Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended, March 30, 1995.
60
Section 4. Section 9 of the same Decree is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 9. Rules of Procedure. - The Rules of Court
promulgated by the Supreme Court shall apply to all cases
and proceedings filed with the Sandiganbayan. The
Sandiganbayan shall have no power to promulgate its own
rules of procedure, except to adopt internal rules governing
the allotment of cases among the divisions, the rotation of
justices among them, and other matters relating to the
internal operations of the court which shall be inforced until
repealed or modified by the Supreme Court."
A reading of the foregoing provisions shows that Sandiganbayan was
originally authorized to promulgate its own rules of procedure, apart from the rules
intended for its internal affairs. The amendment, however, divested such authority
from the Sandiganbayan. As such, the Sandiganbayan does not have the authority
to promulgate its own rules of procedure like its own rules on the admissibility and
competency of evidence that may be submitted to them. In this regard, it is similar
with regular trial courts as it shall follow the Rules of Evidence provided by the Rules
of Court and is consequently bound to comply with the rule of proof beyond
reasonable doubt in deciding criminal cases. This implies that the principles of the
rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt as discussed earlier are to be used in order to
manifest the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt.
It is earlier emphasized that there is a need to establish moral certainty to the
unprejudiced minds of the judge or justices from the evidentiary matter in relation to
61
the requisites of the offense being charged 135 for, as pointed above, determination of
guilt is fundamentally a factual issue 136. This duty of establishing moral certainty
rests upon the prosecution and such duty shall come with it compliance with the
rules of procedures provided by the Rules of Court and Sandiganbayan’s Internal
Rules in consideration of the peculiarities present within said court 137. The moral
certainty as to produce conviction shall not only refer to the commission of the crime
but also with the identity of the accused and the latter’s participation in such
commission138.
The Sandiganbayan, in contrast to regular trial courts where decisions are
made by one judge, is a collegial body comprised of divisions, generally consisting
of three members each139. How does this collegial nature of Sandiganbayan fair and
meet the definition of unprejudiced mind?
Referring back from how unprejudiced mind is defined, it refers to the
conscience or the mind of the judge, the reason and understanding of those who are
bound to act conscientiously upon it – referring also to judges trying and hearing the
criminal case. What may be noticed in this pronouncement is that it refers to the
reason and understanding of those bound to act upon the case. There is no rule as
135
136
People of the Philippines vs Willington Rodriguez y Hermosa, G.R. No.211721, September 20, 2017.
137
Nilo Macayan, Jr. y Malana vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 175842, March 18, 2015.
138
139
Section 1, Republic Act No. 10660, July 28, 2014 amending Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1606
62
limiting the number of minds to determine and to appreciate the submitted evidence
of a certain case. As such, having three judges sitting in court to try a case does not
defy the rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt when it mentions “unprejudiced
mind”.
In addition, this collegial nature of the Sandiganbayan is mentioned in the
landmark case of Nuñez vs Sandiganbayan140. In this case, the Court resolved the
raised allegations of unconstitutionality regarding, PD 1606, the law which created
the Sandiganbayan. The Court, speaking through Justice Fernando said: “the
Constitution specifically makes mention of the creation of a special court, the
Sandiganbayan precisely in response to a problem, the urgency of which cannot be
denied, namely, dishonesty in the public service”. Justice Barredo, in his concurring
opinion, opined the essence of the collegial nature of the Sandiganbayan, to wit:
“… the accused has a better guarantee of a real and

full consideration of the evidence and the determination of
the facts where there are three judges actually seeing and
observing the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses. It is
Our constant jurisprudence that the appellate courts should
rely on the evaluation of the evidence by the trial judges,
except in cases where pivotal points are shown to have been
overlooked by them. With more reason should this rule apply
to the review of the decision of a collegiate trial court. xxx”
140
Rufino V. Nuñez Petitioner, Vs.Sandiganbayan And People Of The Philippines, G.R. Nos. L-50581-50617,
January 30, 1982.
63
Sandiganbayan is a special court particularly exercising jurisdiction over
criminal offenses of public officers and as mentioned, the urgency to be met by its
justices is the implications of dishonesty in the public service 141. In this regard, the
Sandiganbayan, in deciding through a collegial body is justified to have a better
guarantee of a real and full consideration of the evidence and the determination of
the facts in the presence of three judges actually seeing and observing the
demeanor and conduct of the witnesses. This is also to make sure that the
evaluation of evidence will be appropriate and sufficient enough to be relied upon by
the Supreme Courts in case the accused, convicted in the Sandiganbayan, will
resort to an appeal.
Aside from the rules, crimes that are tried under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan are noticeably bearing reverse onus probandi provisions like the
crime of malversation of public funds 142. In this criminal offense, if the prosecution
successfully shows that a demand for liquidation has been made to the accountable
officer and that the latter failed to provide such, it is a prima facie evidence that said
officer has used the public funds for personal use. In this instance, the burden to go
forward with evidence now rests on the defendant to disprove or rebut the
presumption against him or her.143
141
Ibid.
142
Article 217, Revised Penal Code.
143
Legrama vs Sandiganbayan, et al.,G.R. No. 178626, June 13, 2012.
64
II. Pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan and
the rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt
The rule of proving a person’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt is grounded
on the right of an accused to be presumed innocent mandated by the Constitution.
Corollary, this shall be implied in the rules that governs the Sandiganbayan and shall
be manifested and showed in its proceedings.
The preceding discussion showed the justification of the collegial nature in
the conduct of deciding cases at the Sandiganbayan. But as initially introduced, a
unanimous decision cannot always be resorted to. In such case, the Internal Rules
provides:
“Sec. 2. Votes Required to Decide. – The unanimous

vote of three (3) justices in a decision shall be necessary for
the rendition of a judgment or final order. In the event a
unanimous vote is not obtained, the Presiding Justice shall
designate by raffle, on rotation basis, two (2) Justices from
all the other members of the Sandiganbayan to sit
temporarily with them forming a Special Division of five (5)
Justices, and the vote of a majority of such Special Division
shall be necessary for the rendition of a judgment or final
order.”
This rule may be inferred as to provide a remedy to address the mentioned
situation. Two additional justices will be chosen by draw lots to sit with them and
only a majority vote is required to have a decision. As primarily discussed and
65
opined, this naturally results to a variation of opinions, which are often contradicting
– majority for conviction, minority for acquittal or the reverse. This is a natural
consequence in a collegial body consisting of persons with different perspective and
understanding and is also observed in other higher courts also deciding through a
collegial body. However, it must be emphasized that the Sandiganbayan, in cases
where it exercises exclusive and original jurisdiction, serves as the first level court, a
trial court having the advantage of observing the demeanor of the parties during the
trial144 compared to the higher courts which, generally, only refer with the factual
findings of the former.
One case decided by the Sandiganbayan, which applied the abovementioned
rule, is the case of Entienza vs Sandiganbayan.145 In this case, the accused was
charged and convicted for Falsification of Public Document penalized under
paragraph 4, Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Entienza was, at the
time of the commission of the crime, the incumbent Municipal Mayor of Calauag,
Quezon. The charge against him sprung from the complaint of one Adriano Marana
who claimed of having been given of a falsified document – a certification of
employment stating that a certain Annaliza De Torres Prudente is a municipal
employee when in fact, after careful scrutiny of Marana, is not. Prudente happens to
be the former live-in partner of Mayor Entienza with whom he had two (2) children.
144
People Of The Philippines vs. Joel Abat, G.R. No. 202704, April 2, 2014.
145
People of the Philippines vs Eric N. Entienza, Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0115, September 7, 2016.
66
The said certification was allegedly signed and issued by the accused as testified in
court by Marana and through a video recording by Prudente. The signature was
allegedly that of the accused as testified by one Alpuerto who worked in accused’
office during the period of 2002-2006.
This instant case was decided in accordance with Rule 9, Section 2 of the
Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan. The majority opinion convicted the accused of
the offense charged against him based on the following findings:
b. The Certificate of Employment is a public document as defined
under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court and with
reference to Black’s Law Dictionary;
c. It was issued by Entienza, the incumbent Mayor then and
authorized to issue such Certification. This determination is after
the failure of Entienza to prove his allegation that his signature was
forged; and
d. The facts stated therein are all false as proven by the testimony of
the HR representative.
However, the dissenting opinion voting to acquit the accused, written by
Justice Samuel Martires146, presented the following observations:
146
Associate Justice of Sandiganbayan from 2005 to 2017.
67
a. The Certificate of Employment was not offered in accordance with
the provision of the Rules of Court – there is no public record and
no corroboration from a legal custodian. Moreover, the municipal
administrator, in charge with all the documents that shall bear the
signature of the accused, testified that the document does not bear
her initials which means, as per standard office procedures, it did
not come from their office or was not issued by the accused;
b. No one among the prosecution witnesses actually saw the
accused committing the acts constituting the offense charged
against him; and
c. The document came into the possession of Marana in a very
irregular and unverifiable way and this was testified by him but was
not corroborated;
It is noticed from the foregoing that the major point is the public document
subject of the case which refers to the Certificate of Employment. As pointed by
Associate Justice Martires, though the document in question squarely fits the
definition of public document as provided under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court and Black’s Law Dictionary, it shall still be offered in accordance with the
manner provided under Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules 147 which the prosecution
147
Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of
Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy
68
failed to comply with. The case, in turn, lacks a proof of official record signifying that
the document was issued in an official capacity. As such, the certification may not be
considered as a public document and assuming that the signature thereon is that of
the accused, the first element is still not present considering that the document
cannot be said to be issued by virtue of an official capacity or at the very least, is not
intended to serve as a public document. As discussed earlier, in order to manifest
compliance with rule of proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the moral
certainty must rest from evidentiary matters presented by the prosecution in
compliance with the rules of proceedings.
Arguably, it may be opined that rules of procedures cannot prevail over the
substantial merits of the case148. However, as mentioned earlier, moral certainty shall
not only refer upon the commission of the crime but also upon the accused and his
participation in the offense. One thing emphasized in the dissenting opinion is the
manner of how Marana obtained such document. According to the facts of the case
and as admitted by Marana, it was merely handed to him by an unknown person
when he was about to leave the office of the accused and without actually
attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record
is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the
record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation,
consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.
148
Dr. Joseph L. Malixi, Dr. Emelita Q. Firmacion, Iviarietta Mendoza, Aurora Agustin, Nora Aguilar, Ma.
Theresa M. Befetel, and Myrna Nisay vs. Dr. Glory V. Baltazar, G.R. No. 208224, November 22, 2017.
69
witnessing the signing of such. Alpuerto merely said that it was given to her by
Prudente for safekeeping but she did not, likewise, witnessed the signing of the
document.
A reading of the decision shows that the main basis of Entienza’s conviction
is the failure to prove his allegation of forgery. As mentioned in the decision, is that
once the accused invokes the defense of forgery, the burden of proof will now be
upon him to prove that the questioned signature is not his. While this contention is
plausible as this is considered as a reverse onus probandi provision, the fact there is
no official record presented, the document may not be considered as a public
document which is the first element in the offense charged.
Also, the ponencia focused in answering the issue on whether it is the Human
Resource Department or the Office of the Mayor has the authority to issue such
document. Justice Martires, opined that the issue is not whether the Office of the
Mayor is authorized to issue such certificate but is whether the document is really
issued by the accused in a manner as to consider it as a public document. Failing to
address this issue and the fact that no one among the prosecution witnesses saw
the accused signing the subject document amounts to a reasonable doubt on the
guilt of the accused.
From this foregoing discussion, what may be observed is that despite the fact
that the prosecution was able to show the elements of the crime, it cannot be denied
70
that the facts surrounding the case which are discussed in the dissenting opinion are
worthy of discussion for they show reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused –
which should have acquitted the accused. Noteworthy is that this dissent is not
discussed nor mentioned in the ponencia in order to compare the contradicting
appreciation of facts and evidence.
In the case of Republic vs Dumaluan149, Doloreich Dumaluan was the
incumbent Mayor of Panglao, Bohol during the period of the commission of the
crime. The case involves an alleged violation of Section3(f) of Republic Act 3019. As
found by the court, Bohol Resort and Development Incorporation (BRDI) was
applying for a building permit for the construction of additional establishments within
its property, Bohol Beach Club. One of the requirements to obtain such permit is the
locational clearance allegedly being issued by the accused Dumaluan. Lagumbay,
BBC’s officer in charge with transactions relating with real estates, went to the
accused three times regarding the clearance application. First, he was told by the
accused that the latter will first check the area. After this meeting Dumaluan ordered
one of the defense witness to checked the area being applied for and it was then
that he knew that it was the lot he has a claim with. On the second meeting, the
accused told him that the latter has an adverse claim over the lot upon where the
establishments are to be constructed. The accused has a pending case against
149
People of the Philippines vs Doloreich Dumaluan, Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0029, October 27, 2016.
71
BBC, PENRO and the Register of Deeds of the Province of Bohol regarding the
ownership of the subject lot. Such case was filed before the third appointment
between the accused and BBC on October 2005. The locational clearance was
already drafted in May 2005 by the Municipal Engineering, even before the
completion of the requirements in September 2005. However, it was only issued in
December 2005 when the accused was suspended and the Vice Mayor, holding
office that time, was the one who attested such.
Dumaluan’s conviction was based by majority of the justices on the following:
a. The elements for violation of Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019
are present:
i. Evidence provided that the accused is a public officer; that in
the mind of the majority of justices, there is no sufficient
justification as regards the refusal of the accused to do what
was demanded or requested from him to be done; that
reasonable time has lapsed from the demand; and the
refusal was for obtaining from a person interested as to such
any pecuniary or material benefit
b. The pending civil case filed by the accused against BBC, PENRO
and the Register of Deeds did not amount to sufficient justification
considering the Torrens title presented by BBC covering the subject

72
property. The court followed the principle of indefeasibility of the
title unless nullified by the court and further stated that adverse
claim cannot negate the legal effects of such title.
Two justices dissented the ponencia, namely Justice Musngi and Justice
Samuel Martires. Justice Martires shared his opinion and contrary perception as
follows:
a. There is sufficient justification as to the refusal of Dumaluan
because the right to acquire and own a property is a right not
prohibited by the Constitution
b. Such right is not lost by assuming public office and property rights
of a public official should not be subservient to that of a private
individual for that will be tantamount to a punishment of public office
c. The Local Government Code is silent as to who shall issue
locational clearance or certifications. It only mentions the duty of
the Mayor to direct the formulation of the municipal development
plan; and
d. According to existing laws particularly related in issuing locational
clearances, the mayor does not have authority to issue such
contrary to what was claimed prosecutor witness Asilo.
73
The decision of conviction is focally based on the reason that majority
concurred in finding that there is no sufficient justification for the refusal issuing the
locational clearance or certification or that the reason posed by the accused for his
refusal was not considered to be a sufficient justification.
On the issue of authority, the court solely based its discussion on the
testimonies of prosecutor witness Asilo. In deciding the issue as regards the adverse
claim of Dumaluan over the subject lot, the court maintained that considering that a
Torrens title in the name of BBC covers the subject lot, it is indefeasible. As such,
relying solely on the indefeasibility of said title, in the minds of majority of the
justices, it is just right to issue the locational clearance or certification.
However, what may be noticed in the ponencia, as compared to the
dissenting opinion, the former failed to resort to legal authorities in justifying their
reasons in convicting the accused. As mentioned, they solely referred on the
testimonies of prosecutor witness Asilo regarding on who has authority to issue the
locational clearance or certification and when shall it be issued. In the dissenting
opinion, Justice Martires provided the pertinent provisions of the Local Government
Code in showing that it is silent as to who shall issue locational clearance and
certification. He also provided the issuance of HLURB and then President Fidel V.
Ramos showing that the authority to issue said instruments are not lodged with the
municipal mayor. The discussion regarding the claim over the subject property was
74
countered by considering the rights of a person over his property as provided by the
Constitution which the ponencia did not dwell upon. As such, it can be considered
that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the justification given by the accused
is sufficient or not which determination is warranted as to fully justify his conviction.
The foregoing analysis of the two cases, decided in accordance with Rule 9,
Section 2 of the Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan, shows how the decisions of
Sandiganbayan do not manifest compliance with the rule of reasonable doubt. The
first case manifests questions on the admissibility of the evidence and also the
irregular way such document was given to the prosecutor’s witness. These matters
were, however, not mentioned and dwelled upon in the ponencia as to answer the
doubts arising from the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. The latter
case shows that the ponencia fails to resort to the provisions of relevant laws which
should also be relied other than to solely rely on the testimony of the witness. The
rights mentioned in the dissenting opinions are not just statutory but are provided by
the Constitution and as such it should have been addressed by the majority opinion
as well.
III. The present rules applicable to the Sandiganbayan in order to
address the implications of Rule 9, Section 2 of its internal rules
75
A party unsatisfied with the decision of the Sandiganbayan, is entitled to the
remedies of Motion for Reconsideration or New Trial under Rule 10 of its Internal
Rules.
Rule 10, Section 2 provides the rules on who shall decide or act upon the motion for
reconsideration. The first rule provides that the motion shall be acted upon by the
ponente and the other members of the Division who participated in the decision or
resolution sought to be reconsidered, irrespective of whether or not such members
are already in other Divisions at the time the said motions were filed 150. This is
anchored on the reason that a Motion for Reconsideration is an opportunity for the
court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by re-examination of the
legal and factual circumstances of the case 151. And by saying “court”, it should be the
very same judges or justices who tried and decided the case, originally.
The case of People vs Dumaluan was moved to be reconsidered. The motion
was acted upon by the same set of justices who tried and heard the same. However,
in the Resolution152, it is noticed that the Court merely maintained its prior position.
This is primarily because the accused did not produce any additional evidence.
Nonetheless, such motion could have been a good opportunity to discuss the case
further by incorporating the dissenting opinion penned by Justice Martires but it was
150
Section 2(a), Rule 10, Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan, A.M. No. 13-7-05-SB, effective November, 16,
2018.
151
Republic vs Abdulwahab A. Bayao, et. al, G.R. No. 179492, June 5, 2013.
152
People of the Philippines vs Doloreich Dumaluan, Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0029.
76
not done – the dissenting opinion was reiterated in the Resolution still invoking the
contrary position based on the right of the accused over his alleged property.
The case of Entienza was also moved to be reconsidered, however, only the
chairperson of the division, the ponente, remained from the original special division
who tried and heard the case153. The other members were replaced following the
rules provided under Rule 10, Section 2(b) 154. In its Resolution155, Justice Cabotaje-
Tang reiterated the discussion prior made and presented in the ponencia. The
resolution addressed the point made by Justice Martires as regards the
inadmissibility of the video recordings by emphasizing that the such video recordings
were not considered in deciding the case. However, the Resolution still failed to
discuss the matter regarding the non-compliance with Rule 132, Section 24 of the
Rules of Court concerning the manner on how the public document should be
offered in the case as well as the fact that there was no record, as well as the legal
custodian’s testimony that it was not issued from the office of the accused.
What may be implied from the foregoing is that despite having the
opportunity, both granted to the losing party as well as the court, a complete
discussion as to address all matters surrounding the case and to justify that the
accused is indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt is not done. This is despite
153
People of the Philippines vs Eric N. Entienza, Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0115, March 29, 2017.
154
“If only one (1) member of the Division who participated and concurred in the decision or resolution
remains, such member shall be the ponente.”
155
People of the Philippines vs Eric N. Entienza, Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0115, March 29, 2017.
77
having reconsidered the decision and reviewing the original decision together with all
the records of the case in accordance with the applicable rules provided.
The next resort that the aggrieved party may pursue is to appeal the decision
to the Supreme Court in the manner provided under Rule 11, Section 1 of the
Internal Rules. Though it may be said that the review with the Supreme Court may
touch upon the contradicting points giving rise to reasonable doubts, it cannot be
used as a constant resort of the losing accused which may result to congestion of
cases with the Supreme Court. Moreover, it will negate the essence of having the
Sandiganbayan as a special court intended to try cases involving graft and corrupt
practices if at the end, the finality of resolving the issues would still be relayed with
the Supreme Court.
a. The Rcules and Republic Act No.10660156 which further

amended Republic Act No. 1606157
Another consideration for this study is Section 3 of RA 10660 which amended
the rule of having a Special Division consisting of five (5) justices. Under the second
paragraph of said Section, it is stated that "The concurrence of a majority of the
members of a division shall be necessary to render a judgment, decision, or final
156
An Act Strengthening Further The Functional And Structural Organization Of The Sandiganbayan, Further
Amending Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended, And Appropriating Funds Therefor, April 16, 2015.
157
Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486 Creating A Special Court To Be Known As "Sandiganbayan" And For
Other Purposes, December 10, 1978.
78
order, or to resolve interlocutory or incidental motions." Such amendment is reflected
in the Internal rules under Rule 9, Section 4:
Sec. 4. Voting Requirement for Cases Arising

from the Offenses Committed after the Effectivity of
R.A. No. 10660. – The above notwithstanding, for cases
arising from offenses after the effectivity of RA No.
10660, the concurrence of a majority of the members of
the Division shall be necessary to render judgment or
final order.(emphasis supplied)
Based on the foregoing provision, upon the effectivity of RA 10660, the concurrence
of majority of the three justices in a Division will suffice the requirement in rendering
judgment. It is also applicable to those cases pending with the Sandiganbayan upon
its effectivity.
Such amendment, despite deleting the prior rule of having five (5) justices in
case a unanimous decision is not reached, does not necessarily mean that it will
have a different outcome or implication of having a dissenting opinion which in
certain cases would negate a judgment of conviction by showing presence of
reasonable doubt. It implies further that in case a dissent arises among the three
justices in a Division, it will not be subject to further review and discussion with other
justices unlike the prior rule. The remedies of the accused will only be relied upon
filing a motion for reconsideration or new trial and appeal in appropriate instances.
79
But as discussed, these remedies do not dwell upon the dissenting points of the
other justices who impose questions favoring the presence of reasonable doubt.
80
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the synthesis of the discussion in the immediately
preceding chapter. Out of such synthesis, several conclusions and
recommendations were drawn.
B. Summary of Findings
This study seeks to analyze the rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt in
relation with the decision-making process of the Sandiganbayan, as a special
collegiate trial court, and as provided under Rule 9, Section 2 of its Revised Internal
Rules.
1. The rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt is grounded on the right of the
accused to due process of law which emanates from the Constitutional
guarantee of presumption of innocence.
2. It is generally complied with by putting the burden of establishing the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt on the prosecution and
accordingly puts the latter duty-bound to establish the following:
a. the correct identification of the author of a crime, and
b. the actuality of the commission of the offense with the
participation of the accused.
81
3. The Sandiganbayan, as a collegial court, produces a variety of opinions
where one justice may inevitably oppose with the majority. Rule 9, Section
2, which is supposed to address this conflict, ultimately results to certain
inconsistencies with the guidelines in complying with the rule of proving
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
4. The number of affirmed decisions show that when the proceedings go
through the scrutiny of three justices, there is no need of further reviewing
the factual determinations - it’s decisions mostly do not fall on any of the
exceptions. The record shows that approximately, in every four decisions,
one enters as an exception and the Court finds the need of reviewing the
factual findings of the Sandiganbayan.
5. The errors of judgment committed by the Sandiganbayan, as viewed by
the Supreme Court, results from lapses in certain internal rules, haste
evaluation of evidence and overlooked requirement of expertise in
handling corruption cases.
82
C. Conclusions
Based on the findings this study has provided, the proponent concludes the
following:
1. The special nature of the Sandiganbayan does not exclude compliance
with the general rules of proceedings provided by the Rules of Court and
the Rules on Evidence which includes the quantum of evidence – proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
2. The general rules as provided by the Rules of Court and as interpreted by
the Supreme Court shall also be applied by the Sandiganbayan
particularly in consideration of the constitutional guarantees in favor of the
accused.
3. Rule 9, Section 2 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan
results to inconsistencies from the principles laid in order to comply with
the rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Upon review before the Supreme Court, most of the decisions of the
Sandiganbayan together with their factual findings are affirmed. However,
certain reversible errors are observed which negates the guarantee the
collegial court is supposed to give.
5. In order to afford and ensure protection of the constitutional right and
compliance with proof beyond reasonable doubt, measures shall be taken

83
in order to utmost avoid the errors of judgment by focusing on the
intellectual competence and expertise of justices handling corruption
cases.
84
D. Recommendations
From these findings and conclusions, the proponent submits the following
recommendations:
1. The amendment provided by RA 10660 as regards the majority of the
justices should be disregarded and turn it back to what it was previously –
proceed with all the justices of the division. The amendment as regards
majority vote for the decisions and judgment should be maintained so long
as it is based from a deliberation consisting of the three justices who
proceeded the trial.
2. To have an annual evaluation of the cases decided by the Sandiganbayan
together with the observations made by the Supreme Court over the
former’s decision reviewed by the latter.
3. Further researches to utmost avoid the errors of judgment which should
be avoided the most such as those that will defy constitutional guarantees
in favor of the accused.
85
Proposed Guidelines
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO.
SUPREME COURT CIRCULARS AND ORDERS
TO: ALL JUSTICES OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN
RE: EVALUATION OF THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS AS

OBSERVED BY THE SUPREME COURT
In the interest of the rights of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and to enable the Sandiganbayan to render a
judgment that would show consistency with the pronouncements upon review of
their decisions, the Supreme Court has adopted the following guidelines:
(1) Decisions rendered by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its

original and exclusive jurisdiction shall undergo an annual evaluation,
(2) The evaluation to be conducted must include referral to previous

pronouncements and observations made by the Supreme Court in
reviewing its decisions,
(3) Similar and relevant issues should be collated and there shall be a
record of all the pronouncements and observations made by the Court
over those issues,
(4) The results of the evaluation shall be included in the agenda of the
Sandiganbayan en banc where the they may decide as to what
measures they will take meet the resulting consequences.
(5) This Administrative Circular shall take effect immediately.
Manila, Philippines.
(Sgd.)
Chief Justice
86
87

Chapter 1 - PBRD

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Chapter 1 - PBRD

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Statement of the Problem

Significance of the Study

Scope and Delimitations

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

III. METHODOLOGY OR RESEARCH DESIGN

IV. PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND

V. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS

Title: AN ANALYSIS OF RULE 9, SECTION 2 OF SANDIGANBAYAN REVISED

Researcher: Ms. Aldrissalyn E. Castro

Course: Juris Doctor

final or executory judgment, in case of acquittal, or a judgment on appeals taken, if

opted by the accused.

Sandiganbayan – believed to have the knowledge and experience in handling cases

only resolve questions of law as provided by Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Sandiganbayan. Upon such determination, the study analyzes how the

the rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

C. Statement of the Problem

Sandiganbayan in relation with the rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Particularly, this study seeks to answer the following questions:

a. Generally within regular trial courts

b. In consideration of the peculiarities of the jurisdiction of the

2. How does the Sandiganbayan observe the rule of proof beyond

reasonable doubt in its decision-making processes?

of the internal rules of the Sandiganbayan with relation to proof beyond

relation with the decision-making process of the Sandiganbayan, as a special

accused to due process of law which emanates from the Constitutional

guarantee of presumption of innocence.

2. It is generally complied with by putting the burden of establishing the guilt

of the accused beyond reasonable doubt on the prosecution and

accordingly puts the latter duty-bound to establish the following:

a. the correct identification of the author of a crime, and

b. the actuality of the commission of the offense with the participation

3. The special nature of the Sandiganbayan consequently provides it the

the Rules of evidence particularly with the quantum of proof required in

4. The Sandiganbayan, as a collegial court, produces a variety of opinions

2, which is supposed to address this conflict, ultimately results to certain

guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

benefit of reasonable doubt.

ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO.

SUPREME COURT CIRCULARS AND ORDERS

TO: ALL JUSTICES OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN

RE: RENDERING OF JUDGMENT IN CASES WHICH THE

(1) In cases where Section 2, Rule 9 of the 2018 Revised Internal

(3) In cases where Section 4, Rule 9 of the 2018 Revised Internal

(6) This Administrative Circular shall take effect immediately.

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

right of a person charged with a criminal offense to be presumed innocent 1 and

particularly, criminal cases. As it is ruled, procedural law ensures the effective

enforcement of substantive rights by providing for a system that obviates

arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or whimsicality in the settlement of disputes 3.

to a problem, the urgency of which cannot be denied, namely, dishonesty in the

reservation in favor of the Filipino citizens of the operation of public services or

Sandiganbayan is authorized by law to promulgate its internal rules that

by the 2018 Revised Internal Rules of Procedures in the Sandiganbayan 9. Being a

Internal Rules provide under Rule 9, Section 2 that:

“…In the event a unanimous vote is not obtained, the

noteworthy considerations showing the presence of reasonable doubt. In effect, it

these courts is a final or executory judgment, in case of acquittal 15, or a judgment on

appeals taken, if opted by the accused.

If doubts as regards the conviction of an accused originates at the

Sandiganbayan – believed to have the knowledge and experience in handling cases

pronouncements of the Supreme Court by regular trial courts. Upon such