USTICE MARTIN VILLARMA, JR.: THERE IS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHERE THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTS IN A CAPRICIOUS, WHIMSICAL, ARBITRARY OR DESPOTIC MANNER IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS JUDGMENT AS TO BE EQUIVALENT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION

The abuse of discretion must be so 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 or hostility. (People v. Sandiganbayan). Under the facts on record, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the SB when it submitted the case for decision and rendered the judgment of conviction on the basis of the prosecution evidence after the defense failed to present its evidence despite ample opportunity to do so. (Marino B. Icdang vs. Sandiganbayan (Second Division) and People of the Phils., G.R. No. 185960, January 25, 2012, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).