The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the 2017 Sandiganbayan decision that dismissed the graft case filed against former Philippines Permanent Representative to the United Nations Lauro L. Baja Jr. through a demurrer to evidence.

“The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. To reverse its grant of the Demurrer to Evidence and dismissal of the case would be to violate respondent Baja's right against double jeopardy,” the SC ruled.

A demurrer to evidence is a plea filed by an accused in a criminal case to dismiss the charges on alleged weakness of the prosecution’s evidence. If granted, the accused is acquitted. If denied, the accused has to present his evidence during the trial.

The SC decision, written by Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, also stated:

“Once a demurrer to evidence has been granted in a criminal case, the grant amounts to an acquittal. Any further prosecution for the same offense would violate the accused's constitutional right against double jeopardy.”

On March 12, 2008, Baja was charged before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) with graft for allegedly causing undue injury to the government in the reimbursements of “non-existent or fictitious representation expenses” amounting to $28,934.96 when he was the country’s UN permanent representative in 2003, 2004, and 2005.

After the OMB prosecutors have finished their presentation of evidence, Baja, on July 27, 2016, filed a demurrer to evidence and told the Sandiganbayan the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain the charges.

Baja said the reimbursement claims he filed for expenses incurred were not proven to be "non-existent or fictitious."

On March 20, 2017, the Sandiganbayan granted Baja’s demurrer to evidence as it ruled that the prosecution was unable to establish that Baja's reimbursements were fictitious, owing to the improper documentation by the audit team and the fact-finding team.

The anti-graft court faulted OMB prosecutors for failing to present corroborating evidence, such as statements from persons with personal knowledge of the alleged nonpayment, to show that the expenses did not exist, and failure to sufficiently inquire if the expenses reimbursed were indeed made.

When the OMB’s motion to reconsider the decision was denied, it appealed the ruling before the SC.

In resolving the OMB’s petition which was dismissed, the SC said:

“A review of the Sandiganbayan's March 20, 2017 and Jun 27, 2017 Resolutions shows that the Sandiganbayan did not commit a gross misapprehension of the facts in the case. Its findings were based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.

“As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, while the prosecution proved that respondent Baja's expenses were improperly documented, it failed to present enough evidence that would lead to a conclusion that these expenses were completely fictitious or non-existent.

“The Information (criminal charge sheet) specifically charged respondent Baja with claiming and receiving reimbursement for non-existent or fictitious representation expenses, and not for merely submitting incomplete documents to support his claims.

“As the Sandiganbayan noted, the irregularities in the supporting documents are insufficient positive proof of the alleged nonpayment. The prosecution bore the burden to prove the allegations in the Information. If its evidence was insufficient to establish the elements of the offense charged, respondent Baja's guilt could not have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

“The grant of the Demurrer to Evidence was proper. Petitioner (OMB) was unable to show that the Sandiganbayan, in granting the Demurrer, blatantly abused its authority as to deprive itself of ‘its very power to dispense justice.’

“WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. Th March 20, 2017 and June 27, 2017 Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan Special Fourth Division in SB-11-CRM-0031 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.”