THE Sandiganbayan has denied the motion for reconsideration filed by government prosecutors assailing the grant of the demurrers to evidence of former senator Juan Ponce Enrile, his former chief of staff Jessica Lucila “Gigi” Reyes, and businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles in October 2024 and acquitting them of plunder.
In its May 29, 2025 resolution, the anti-graft court’s Special Third Division held that the government’s appeal is a prohibited motion since the grant of the demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal, hence protected by the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy.
Associate Justice Ronald B. Moreno penned the 14-page resolution, while Associate Justices Bernelito R. Fernandez and Michael Frederick L. Musngi concurred.
They explained that the only time an appeal to an acquittal can be admitted without violating the defendant’s right against double jeopardy is if it can be shown that the trial court gravely abused its discretion, in violation of the prosecution’s right to present its case.
“In the present case, there is no showing that this court, in granting the demurrers of evidence of accused Enrile and Napoles, blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice. Accordingly, the dismissal of the case against them stands,” the anti-graft court declared.
The plunder case, filed in 2013, involved allegations that the defendants defrauded the government in the sum of P172.8 million from Enrile’s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel allocations.
Prosecutors and state auditors said the release of the money from the implementing agencies was facilitated by instructions from the accused public officials before the cash was funneled into a bogus private foundation put up by Napoles.
But the court held that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to prove with moral certainty that Napoles gave kickbacks or commission to Enrile or Reyes, and that the accused amassed or accumulated ill-gotten wealth over the plunder threshold of P50 million.
The Sandiganbayan likewise pointed out that the government’s motion was filed out of time and, under the rules of court, may no longer be considered.
Since the assailed decision was promulgated on October 4, 2024, the court said the prosecution had 15 days or until October 19, 2024 to file its appeal. But since October 19, 2024 fell on a Saturday, the prosecution had until Monday, October 21, 2024 to challenge the court ruling.
“Since the prosecution filed the present motion for reconsideration only on October 28, 2024, the same was filed out of time. It is well-settled that judgment or orders become final and executory by operation of law and not by judicial declaration. Thus, finality of a judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is perfected or motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed,” it ruled.
Even if both the rules against double jeopardy and the failure to file the motion for reconsideration on time were to be relaxed, the Sandiganbayan said the prosecution’s evidence still failed to establish that Enrile received a percentage of the cost of his PDAF for his endorsement of Napoles’ NGO.
“In granting the demurrers to evidence of Enrile and Napoles, and in eventually acquitting them and their co-accused Reyes, the following circumstances had been shown: none of the prosecution witnesses testified that they handed or transferred money to Enrile; (prosecution witness Benhur) Luy’s unsigned DDRs did not establish the delivery of money to Reyes; and, there was no showing that Napoles gave kickbacks to Enrile or Reyes,” the court said.
