15.

People vs. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division) 559 SCRA 449 , July 23, 2008
Case Title : PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION)
and ALEJANDRO A. VILLAPANDO, respondents
Case Nature : PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Sandiganbayan
(Fourth Division).
Syllabi Class : Criminal Law ; Double Jeopardy ;
Division: SECOND DIVISION

Docket Number: G.R. No. 164185

Counsel: The Solicitor General

Ponente: QUISUMBING

Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 20, 2004 of the Sandiganbayan,
Fourth Division, in Criminal Case No. 27465, granting private respondent Alejandro A. Villapando’s
Demurrer to Evidence and acquitting him of the crime of unlawful appointment under Article 244 of
the Revised Penal Code is hereby declared NULL and VOID. Let the records of this case be remanded
to the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, for further proceedings.

Citation Ref:
308 SCRA 687
Criminal Law; Unlawful Appointments; Local Government Code; Words and Phrases; Legal disqualification in Article 244 of the
Revised Penal Code simply means disqualification under the law—there is no basis for the interpretation that there is no
violation should a person suffering from temporary disqualification be appointed so long as the appointee possesses all the
qualifications stated in the law; Clearly, Section 6, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution and Section 94(b) of the Local Government
Code of 1991 prohibits losing candidates within one year after such election to be appointed to any office in the government or
any government-owned or controlled corporations or in any of their subsidiaries.—The Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division held
that the qualifications for a position are provided by law and that it may well be that one who possesses the required legal
qualification for a position may be temporarily disqualified for appointment to a public position by reason of the one-year
prohibition imposed on losing candidates. However, there is no violation of Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code should a
person suffering from temporary disqualification be appointed so long as the appointee possesses all the qualifications stated
in the law. There is no basis in law or jurisprudence for this interpretation. On the contrary, legal disqualification in Article 244
of the Revised Penal Code simply means disqualification under the law. Clearly, Section 6, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution
and Section 94(b) of the Local Government Code of 1991 prohibits losing candidates within one year after such election to be
appointed to any office in the government or any government-owned or controlled corporations or in any of their subsidiaries.

Same; Same; Statutory Construction; Grave Abuse of Discretion; In this case, the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, in disregarding
basic rules of statutory construction, acted with grave abuse of discretion—its interpretation of the term legal disqualification in
Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code defies legal cogency; Legal disqualification cannot be read as excluding temporary
disqualification in order to exempt therefrom the legal prohibitions under the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government
Code of 1991.—Although this Court held in the case of People v. Sandiganbayan, 376 SCRA 74 (2002), that once a court grants
the demurrer to evidence, such order amounts to an acquittal and any further prosecution of the accused would violate the
constitutional proscription on double jeopardy, this Court held in the same case that such ruling on the matter shall not be
disturbed in the absence of a grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion defies exact definition, but it generally refers
to capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent
and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in
contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.
In this case, the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, in disregarding basic rules of statutory construction, acted with grave abuse of
discretion. Its interpretation of the term legal disqualification in Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code defies legal cogency.
Legal disqualification cannot be read as excluding temporary disqualification in order to exempt therefrom the legal
prohibitions under the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code of 1991. We reiterate the legal maxim ubi lex non
distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus. Basic is the rule in statutory construction that where the law does not distinguish, the
courts should not distinguish. There should be no distinction in the application of a law where none is indicated.

Same; Double Jeopardy; A judgment rendered with grave abuse of discretion or without due process is void, does not exist in
legal contemplation and, thus, cannot be the source of an acquittal.—A judgment rendered with grave abuse of discretion or
without due process is void, does not exist in legal contemplation and, thus, cannot be the source of an acquittal. The
Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division having acted with grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the basic rules of statutory
construction resulting in its decision granting Villapando’s Demurrer to Evidence and acquitting the latter, we can do no less but
declare its decision null and void.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division)