LINDA CADIAO-PALACIOS vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
ALFONSO C. DACUMOS v. SANDIGANBAYAN SANDIGANBAYAN GR No. 95000, Apr 16, 1991
G.R. No. 168544
March 31, 2009
FACTS: FACTS:
Petitioner was the mayor of the Municipality of Culasi, Province of
Petitioner is a revenue examiner of the BIR. He offered to s ettle the tax
Antique from July 1998 to June 2001. During her administration, there
liability of R. Revilla Interiors amounting to P73,307.31 by pulling out its
were infrastructure projects that were initiated during the incumbency
assessment papers from the office of the BIR Commissioner and procuring a tax clearance. clearance. For such service, he would require require a fee of P35,000.00 which was later reduced reduced to P30,000.00. Samia, the manager of the firm, pretended to go along with him but reported the
of her predecessor, then Mayor Alpas, which remained partially unpaid. These included the Janlagasi Diversion Dam, San Luis Diversion Dam, Caridad-Bagacay Road, and San Juan-Tumao Road which were contracted by L.S. Gamotin Construction (L.S. Gamotin) with a total project cost of ₱2 million. For the said projects, the municipality owed
matter to NBI which arranged an entrapment.
the contractor ₱791, 047.00.
An entrapment operation ensued on October 28, 1986, near the Rizal Cafe in Makati. Samia, meeting with the petitioner petitioner there, told him he had only P1,000.00 but he would deliver P9,000.00 to him that same evening at his residence and pay the balance of P20,000.00 in November. The petitioner wrote his address on the back of a receipt, receipt, which he gave Samia. Samia tendered the the white envelope containing P1,000.00 previously dusted with fluorescent powder, but the petitioner accepted it only when they had left the eatery and he was nearing his car outside. He put the envelope in his pocket. The NBI
Relative to the aforesaid projects, petitioner, together with Venturanza, then the Municipal Security Officer, was indicted in an Information for violation of Section 3(b), R.A. No. 3019. The information states that the accused Mayor is the approving authority of contracts involving the Municipality and she demanded money from Grace Superficial of L.S. Gamotin Construction, which undertook the construction of government projects which amounted to TWO MILLION PESOS (₱2,000,000.00).
agents closed in, identified themselves, and placed him under arrest. The petitioner's reaction was to draw out the envelope and
On April 16, 2002, both accused voluntarily surrendered and, upon
throw it on the ground. One of the agents agents retrieved it. At the NBI
motion, posted a reduced bail bond of ₱15,000.00 each. They were
headquarters, the petitioner's hands were found positive for
subsequently arraigned wherein they both pleaded "Not Guilty." Trial
fluorescent powder, as so were the envelope itself and the bills inside.
thereafter ensued.
ISSUE:
During trial, the prosecution presented its sole witness —the private
Whether the petitioner is liable for direct bribery?
complainant herself, Grace M. Superficial (Superficial). She alleges that on behalf of L.S. Gamotin, she (Superficial) took charge of the collection
HELD:
of the unpaid billings of the municipality. Prior to the full payment of
Yes. His charge that he was "framed" because Samia resented his
the municipality’s obligation, petitioner demanded money from her,
refusal to be bribed is is not convincing. It is belied by his proven proven
under threat that the final payment would not be released unless she
acts. The implausibility of his promises does does not mean they were not
complied. Acceding to petitioner’s demand, she gave the former’s
made or that they did not appear to be credible, coming as they did
husband ₱15,000.00. Sometime in January 1999, petitioner demanded
from one with his long experience in the BIR and appeared to know his
from Superficial the full payment of her total "kickback" which should
way around. The Court finds it especially remarkable that he met Samia Samia
be 10% of the project cost. Superficial thus proposed that she would
at a private place instead of his office at the BIR, considering that they
deliver a check in lieu of cash, to which petitioner agreed.
were supposed to be discussing official business and it was Samia who he says was requesting his assistance.
On January 25, 1999, petitioner gave to Neil Superficial, then an incumbent councilor and the husband of private complainant, three
While protesting his innocence, the petitioner has failed to rebut the
checks representing the final payment for the construction projects.
evidence of the prosecution that has sufficiently established his guilt
The following day, Venturanza picked up the check promised by
and shifted the burden of proof proof to him. He has not discharged that
Superficial as payment for the 10% "kickback." In accordance with
burden by just contending that the decision is based on "speculations,
petitioner’s instruction, instruction, the check was made payable to Venturanza in
conjectures and assumptions" and that the conclusions drawn
the amount of ₱162,400.00. The check was encashed by Venturanza at
therefrom are "mistaken, absurd and fallacious." The thrust of his
the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), San Jose, Antique Branch, which
defense is that the respondent court should have believed him instead
is about 90-100 kilometers away from Culasi; and the amount was
of the People, but he has not convinced us that the trial court has
received by Venturanza Venturanza..12 It was Venturanza also who deposited the
erred.
three checks, representing the full payment of the project, to the
In
short,
he
has
failed
to prove,
in
this
petition
for certiorari where only questions of law may be raised, that he is
account of Superficial. Superficial.131avvphi1
entitled to a reversal of his conviction. The petitioner seems to be suggesting in the conclusion to his petition that judgment was rendered against him because he happens to be a tax collector, whom he says "history, even from Biblical times, depicts ... as the most unpopular and vilified adjunct of any society." The plea does not persuade. It suffices to observe that he was convicted not because he is a tax collector but because he accepted a bribe.
Emmanuel Palacios likewise denied having received ₱15,000.00 from
Superficial. He claimed that he was financially stable, being a Forester; the manager of a 200-hectare agricultural land and of a medium piggery establishment; and the owner of a residential house valued at no less than ₱6 million, a parcel of land and other properties. properties.22 He also claimed
that the institution of the criminal case was ill-motivated as Neil Superficial, in fact, initiated a complaint against him for frustrated murder. murder.23 Sandiganbayan: convicted both accused of the crime charged.
The Sandiganbayan concluded that the following circumstances
capacity has to intervene under the law. Each of these modes of
established the guilt of both petitioner and Venturanza: 1) that the
committing the offense is distinct and different from one another.
municipality had outstanding obligations with L.S. Gamotin for the
Proof of existence of any of them suffices to warrant conviction.
construction of several public works that were completed in 1998; 2) that petitioner was the person authorized to effect the payment of said
Notwithstanding her claim that the prosecution failed to present a
obligations which, in fact, she did; 3) that Venturanza was a trusted
special power of attorney to show Superficial’s authority to represent
employee of petitioner as he was in charge of the security of the
L.S. Gamotin, petitioner admitted that it was Superficial (or her
municipal buildings and personnel as well as the adjoining offices; 4)
husband) who received the three checks representing full payment of
that Venturanza received the three LBP checks representing the full
the municipality’s obligation. Moreover, although the checks were
payment to L.S. Gamotin and the LBP check bearing the amount of
issued to L.S. Gamotin, the deposit slip showed that they were
₱162,400.00; 5) that Venturanza went to San Jose, Antique on January
deposited by Venturanza to the account of Superficial. Thus, contrary
26, 1999 to deposit the three checks and encashed the ₱162,400.00
to petitioner’s contention, the evidence clearly shows that Superficial
check; 6) that Venturanza did not receive the above amount by virtue
was not a stranger to the transaction between the municipality and L.S.
of a loan agreement with Superficial because there was no evidence to
Gamotin, for she, in fact, played an important role in the receipt of the
prove it; 7) that Venturanza used the vehicle of the municipality to
final payment of the government’s obligation. It was not, therefore,
encash the check in San Jose, Antique; and 8) that the amount of
impossible for petitioner to have demanded the "grease money" from
₱15,000.00 initially given to Emmanuel Palacios and the ₱162,400.00
Superficial, for after all, it was the latter who received the proceeds of
appearing on the check corresponded to the 10% of the total project
the final payment. This was bolstered by the fact that the ₱162,400.00
cost after deducting the 10% VAT and ₱10,000.00 Engineering
check in the name of Venturanza was encashed by him on the s ame day
Supervision Fee.27
that he deposited the three checks. If indeed the amount given to Venturanza was in the form of a loan to finance his trip to Australia,
In arriving at this conclusion, the Sandiganbayan gave credence to the
why was the grant of the loan dependent on the receipt of the final
testimony of the lone witness for the prosecution. It added that
payment to L.S. Gamotin?40 We cannot fathom how Superficial could
contrary to the claim of the defense, no ill motive could be attributed
lend money out of the proceeds of the checks which admittedly were
to her in testifying against petitioner and Venturanza. This is especially
received by her not in her own capacity but for and on behalf of another
true in the case of the latter, as she was related to him. In finding both
person (L.S. Gamotin). The only plausible explanation is that the
accused guilty, the Sandiganbayan concluded that, together, they
amount given to Venturanza was "grease money" taken from the
conspired in committing the offense charged.
proceeds of the checks issued by the municipality.
Aggrieved, petitioner and Venturanza separately appealed their
In holding that petitioner and Venturanza conspired in committing the
conviction. The latter petition was docketed as G.R. No. 168548 which
offense, we agree with the Sandiganbayan that the circumstances
was denied by this Court in a Resolution dated September 26, 2005. The
enumerated above point to the culpability of the accused. A dmittedly,
former, on the other hand, is now before us, mainly challenging the
there was no direct evidence showing that petitioner demanded and
legal and factual bases of the Sandiganbayan decision.
received the money but the testimony of Superficial, corroborated by the documentary evidence and the admissions of the witnesses for the
ISSUE:
defense, sufficiently establishes that Venturanza received the money
Whether the petitioner is liable under Section 3(b) of RA 3019?
upon orders of petitioner.
HELD:
MADELEINE MENDOZA-ONG vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Yes. To be convicted of violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019, the
G.R. Nos. 146368-69
October 23, 2003
prosecution has the burden of proving the following elements: 1) the offender is a public officer; 2) who requested or received a gift, a
FACTS:
present, a share, a percentage, or benefit; 3) on behalf of the offender
Sometime in February 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of Laoang,
or any other person; 4) in connection with a contract or transaction
Northern Samar, passed Resolution No. 93-132 ,5authorizing the
with the government; 5) in which the public officer, in an official
municipality to borrow heavy equipment from the Philippine Army’s
capacity under the law, has the right to intervene.
53rd Engineering Battalion, to be utilized in the improvement of Laoang’s Bus Terminal. Resolution No. 93 -132 likewise mandated the
At the time material to the case, petitioner was the mayor of the
municipal government to shoulder the expenses for fuel, oil, and the
Municipality of Culasi, Antique. As mayor, her signature, both in the
subsistence allowances of the heavy equipment operators for the
vouchers and in the checks issued by the municipality, was necessary
duration of the project.
to effect payment to contractors (for government projects) .
29
Since the
case involved the collection by L.S. Gamotin of the municipality’s
Allegedly, however, the borrowed Army equipment was diverted by the
outstanding obligation to the former, the right of petitioner to
petitioner, who was then the town mayor of Laoang, to develop some
intervene in her official capacity is undisputed. Therefore, elements 1,
of her private properties. A concerned citizen and ex-member of the
4 and 5 of the offense are present.
Sangguniang Bayan of Laoang, filed a complaint against petitioner and nine (9) other municipal officer s7 with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), Visayas, for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Section 3(b) penalizes three distinct acts – 1) demanding or requesting; 2) receiving; or 3) demanding, requesting and receiving – any gift,
Acting on the complaint, Graft Investigation Officer Alfonso S.
present, share, percentage, or benefit for oneself or for any other
Sarmiento of the OMB ordered herein petitioner and her co-accused to
person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the
submit their respective counter-affidavits and other controverting
government and any other party, wherein a public officer in an official
evidence. Thereafter, in a Resolution 8 dated August 16, 1995,
investigator Sarmiento recommended the filing of the appropriate
Arturo A. Mejorada was a public officer who was first employed as a
criminal action against petitioner for violation of Sections 3(c) and (e)
temporary skilled laborer in the Bureau of Public Works on March 16,
of R.A. 3019, as amended.9 Despite strenuous opposition and
1947, and then as right-of-way agent in the Office of the Highway
objections by the defense, on August 1, 1997, two informations were
District Engineer, Pasig, Metro Manila, from February, 1974 up to
filed against her at the Sandiganbayan.
December 31, 1978. As a right-of-way agent, his main duty was to negotiate with property owners affected by highway constructions or
Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash with the Sandiganbayan but was
improvements for the purpose of compensating them for the damages
denied. Petitioner duly moved for reconsideration but this was likewise
incurred by said owners.
denied by the Sandiganbayan. Among those whose lots and improvements were affected by the widening of the proposed Pasig-Sta. Cruz-Calamba Road. 2nd IBRD
ISSUE:
Project, at Binangonan, Rizal were Isagani de Leon, Isaac Carlos, Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred or gravely abused its discretion in denying the Motion to Quash filed by petitioner, particularly on the ground that the information in Criminal Case No.
Napoleon Maybituin, Dominga Villaroza, Florentino de la Cruz, Cipriano Aran, Celestina S. Mallari and Rodolfo Rivera, all residents of Mambog, Binangonan, Rizal.
23848 does not constitute an offense? Sometime in October or November 1977, petitioner contacted the aforenamed persons and informed them that he could work out their
HELD:
claims for payment of the values of their lots and/or improvements
Based on the foregoing, the elements of the offense charged in the assailed information are as follows: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) he has secured or obtained, or would secure or obtain, for a person any government permit or license; (3) he directly or indirectly requested or received from said person any gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit for himself or for another; and (4) he requested or received the gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit in consideration for help given or to be given.16 In the instant case, we find that the information in Crim. Case No. 23848 alleged that: (1) accused Madeleine Mendoza-Ong, a public officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of Laoang, (2) committed the crime charged in relation to, while in the performance and taking advantage of her official functions, (3) did request or receive directly or indirectly, a gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit in the form of five drums of diesel fuel, for herself or for another, from spouses Mr. and Mrs. Chupo Lao, persons for whom accused Mendoza-Ong, (4) has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, a M unicipal Government permit or license anent the operation of the bus company, JB Lines, owned by said spouses, in consideration for help given or to be given by the accused. After considering thoroughly this averment as formulated by the prosecution, we are not prepared to say that the impugned information omitted an element needed to adequately charge a violation of Section 3(c) of R.A. 3019. In contrast, Section 3 (c) earlier quoted in the present case applies regardless of whether the gift’s value is manifestly e xcessive or not, and
regardless of the occasion. What is important here, in our view, is whether the gift is received in consideration for help given or to be given by the public officer. T he value of the gift is not mentioned at all as an essential element of the offense charged under Section 3 (c), and there appears no need to require the prosecution to specify such value in order to comply with the requirements of showing a prima facie case.
affected by the widening of said highway. In the process, Mejorada required the claimants to sign blank copies of the "Sworn Statement on the Correct and Fair Market Value of Real Properties" and "Agreement to Demolish, Remove and Reconstruct improvements" pertinent to their claims. The claimants complied without bothering to find out what the documents were all about as they were only interested in the payment of damages. In said "Sworn Statements" and "Agreements to Demolish", the value of the respective properties of the claimants were made to appear very much higher than the actual value claimed by them. Likewise, the said "Agreements to Demolish" reflected the value of the improvements as per assessor" which on the average was only P2,000.00 lower than the value declared by the owners in their sworn statements. The value as per assessor was, in turn, supported by the Declarations of Real Property in the names of the claimants containing an assessed value exactly the same as that stated in the Agreements to Demolish "as per assessor", except the claims of De la Cruz and Aran where there is only a difference of P400.00 and P200.00, respectively. It turned out, however, that said Declarations of Property are not really intended for the claimants as they were registered in the names of other persons, thus showing that they were all falsified. A few months after processing the claims, accused accompanied the claimants to the Office of the Highway District Engineer at the provincial capitol of Pasig, Metro Manila, to receive payments and personally assisted the claimants in signing the vouchers and encashing the checks by certifying as to their Identities and guaranteeing payment. Right after the claimants had received the proceeds of their checks, accused accompanied them to his car which was parked nearby w here they were divested of the amounts paid to them leaving only the sum of P1,000.00 to each, except Isaac Carlos to whom P5,000.00 was left, explaining to them that there were many who would share in said amounts. All the claimants were helpless to complaint because they
ARTURO A. MEJORADA vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN G.R. Nos. L-51065-72
June 30, 1987
FACTS:
Eight informations were filed by the Provincial Fiscal against the
were afraid of the accused and his armed companion. The claimants, through the assistance of counsel, filed their complaints with the Provincial Fiscal's Office of Pasig, Metro Manila, narrating in their supporting sworn statements what they later testified to in court.
petitioner and jointly tried before the Sandiganbayan. ISSUE:
I. Whether or not the essential elements constituting the offense
evident bad faith, petitioner caused damage to the claimants and the
penalized by section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as
Government. The manner by which the petitioner divested the private
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act have been clearly and
parties of the compensation they received was part of' the scheme
convincingly proven by the prosecution;
which commenced when the petitioner approached the claimants and informed them that he could work out their claims for payment of the
HELD:
values of their lots and/or improvements affected by the widening of the Pasig-Sta. Cruz-Calamba Road. The evidence presented by the
The first element, therefore, of Section 3 (e) is that the accused must
prosecution clearly establish a violation of Section 3(e).
be a public officer. This, the informations did not fail to allege. ROLANDO E. SISON vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398-403
Second , that such public officer caused undue injury to any party,
March 9, 2010
including the Government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions. Petitioner denies that there was injury or damage caused the Government because the payments were allegedly made on the basis of a document solely made by the Highway District Engineer to which petitioner had no hand in preparing. The fact, however, is that the government suffered undue injury as a result of the petitioner's having inflated the true claims of complainants which became the basis of the report submitted by the Highway District Engineer to the Regional Director of the Department of Highways and which eventually became the basis of payment. His contention that he had no participation is belied by the fact that as a right-of-way-agent, his duty was precisely to negotiate with property owners who are affected by highway constructions for the purpose of compensating them.
FACTS:
Petitioner was the municipal mayor of Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro, a fourth-class municipality, from July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1995, while Rigoberto de Jesus was the municipal treasurer. On July 18, 1994, state auditor Elsa E. Pajayon conducted a post-audit investigation which revealed that during petitioners incumbency, no public bidding was conducted for the purchase of a Toyota Land Cruiser, 119 bags of Fortune cement, an electric generator set, certain construction materials, two Desert Dueler tires, and a computer and its accessories. Pajayon also found out that there were irregularities in the documents supporting the acquisitions. Thus, on June 4, 1998, petitioner and de Jesus were indicted before the Sandiganbayan for seven counts of v iolation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) 3019. Petitioner pleaded not guilty to all the Informations. Accused de Jesus has remained at large.
On the part of the complainants, the injury caused to them consists in
During the trial, he admitted that indeed, no public bidding was
their being divested of a large proportion of their claims and receiving
conducted insofar as the purchases he was being accused of were
payment in an amount even lower than the actual damage they
concerned. When asked how the purchases were made, he answered
incurred. They were deprived of the just compensation to which they
that they were done through personal canvass. Accordingly, no public
are entitled.
bidding could be conducted because all the dealers of the items were based in Manila. It was therefore useless to invite bidders since nobody
Third , the injury to any party, or giving any private party any
would bid anyway.
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference was done through manifest, partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
The Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty as charged.As such, he was meted in each Information an imprisonment term ranging from six
Petitioner argues that for the third element to be present, the alleged
years and one month as minimum to ten years as maximum and
injury or damage to the complainants and the government must have
perpetual
been caused by the public officer in the discharge of his official,
Sandiganbayan also ordered that an alias warrant of arrest be issued
administrative or judicial functions and inasmuch as when the damage
against accused de Jesus.
disqualification
from
holding
public
office.
The
was caused to the complainants, he was no longer discharging his official administrative functions, therefore, he is not liable for the
On appeal, the Court dismissed the same.
offense charged. ISSUE:
The argument is devoid of merit. The Sandiganbayan established the fact that the petitioner took advantage of his position as a right-of-way-
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of RA
agent by making the claimants sign the aforementioned agreements to
3019?
demolish and sworn statements which contained falsified declarations of the value of the improvements and lots. There was evident bad faith
HELD:
on the part of the petitioner when he inflated the values of the true claims and when he divested the claimants of a large share of the
To be found guilty under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, the following
amounts due them.
elements must concur: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the act was done in the discharge of the public officers official, administrative
In view of the above holding. We also dispose of the fourth issue which relates to the allegation that petitioner cannot be convicted for a violation of the Anti-Graft Law because the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not the violation of Section 3 (e) but the crime of robbery. Contrary to the petitioner averment. We find no variance between the offense charged in the information and the offense proved. The prosecution was able to establish through the corroborating testimonies of the witnesses presented how through
or judicial functions; (3) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (4) the public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference. It is undisputed that the first two elements are present in the case at bar.
The third element of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 may be committed in three ways, through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
In order to be found guilty under the second mode, it suffices that the
inexcusable negligence. Proof ofanyof these three in connection with
accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another, in the
the prohibited acts mentioned in Section 3(e) of RA 3019 is enough to
exercise of his official, administrative or judicial functions. Petitioner
convict.
did just that. The fact that he repeatedly failed to follow the requirements of RA 7160 on personal canvass proves that unwarranted
Partiality is synonymous with bias which excites a disposition to see and
benefit, advantage or preference was given to the winning suppliers.
report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are. Bad faith
These suppliers were awarded the procurement contract without the
does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a
benefit of a fair system in determining the best possible price for the
dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a
government. The private suppliers, which were all personally chosen by
wrong; a breach of sw orn duty through some motive or intent or ill will;
respondent, were able to profit from the transactions without showing
it partakes of the nature of fraud. Gross negligence has been so defined
proof that their prices were the most beneficial to the government.
as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not
The petitioner is guilty of seven counts of violation of Section 3(e) of
inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally with a conscious
Republic Act (RA) 3019.
indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property.
GENEROSO TRIESTE, SR. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION) G.R. No. 70332-43 November 13, 1986
In the instant case, petitioner was grossly negligent in all the purchases that were made under his watch. Petitioner's admission that the
FACTS:
canvass sheets sent out by de Jesus to the suppliers already contained his signatures because he pre-signed these forms only proved his utter
The twelve (12) separate Informations filed by the Tanodbayan against
disregard of the consequences of his actions. Petitioner also admitted
the herein petitioner for violation of Section 3 (h) of the Anti-Graft Law
that he knew the provisions of RA 7160 on personal canvass but he did
are all similarly worded as the information presented in Criminal Case
not follow the law because he was merely following the practice of his
No. 6856 which is hereunder quoted:
predecessors. This was an admission of a mindless disregard for the la w in a tradition of illegality. This is totally unacceptable, considering that as municipal mayor, petitioner ought to implement the law to the letter. As local chief executive, he should have been the first to follow the law and see to it that it was followed by his constituency. Sadly, however, he was the first to break it. Petitioner should have complied with the requirements laid down by RA 7160 on personal canvass, no matter how strict they may have been. Dura lex sed lex. The law is difficult but it is the law. These requirements are not empty words but were specifically crafted to ensure transparency in the acquisition of government supplies, especially since no public bidding is involved in personal canvass. Truly, the requirement that the canvass and awarding of supplies be made by a collegial body assures the general public that despotic, irregular or unlawful transactions do not occur. It also guarantees that no personal preference is given to any supplier and that the government is given the best possible price for its procurements.
Trieste was the mayor of Numancia, Aklan. In 1980, during his term, the Municipality of Numancia purchased construction materials from Trigen Agro-Industrial Development Corporation. Trieste was allegedly the president of said corporation. Trieste was then sued for allegedly violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act particularly for willfully and unlawfully having financial or pecuniary interest in a business, contract or transaction in connection with which said accused intervened or took part in his official capacity and in which he is prohibited by law from having any interest. Trieste, in defense, said that he already divested his interest from the corporation when he took his office as mayor; that he sold his shares to his sister; he presented evidence to that effect. The Solicitor General doubted said sale because it was not registered in the Securities and Exchange Commission. Further, the advertisement of Trigen in the local rotary club.
The fourth element is likewise present. While it is true that the prosecution was not able to prove any undue injury to the government
Sandiganbayan: Convicted the petitioner in all the twelve (12) criminal
as a result of the purchases, it should be noted that there are two ways
cases.
by which Section 3(e) of RA 3019 may be violated the first, by causing undue injury to any party, including the government, or the second, by
ISSUE:
giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. Although neither mode constitutes a distinct offense, an
Whether the mere signing by a Municipal Mayor of municipal vouchers
accused may be charged under either mode or both. The use of the
and other supporting papers constitute a violation of the provisions of
disjunctive or connotes that the two modes need not be present at the
Section 3 (h) of Rep. Act No. 3019 otherwise known as the Anti-Graft
same time. In other words, the presence of one would suffice for
and Corrupt Practices Act?
conviction. Was damage or prejudice, as an element of the offense under Section POLITICAL LAW: unwarranted benefit, advantage, preference
3 (h) of the said law, caused to the Government or the Municipality of Numancia as a result of the contracts in question and as a corollary
The word unwarranted means lacking adequate or official support;
thereto, was undue advantage and gained by the transacting
unjustified; unauthorized or without justification or adequate reason.
corporation?
Advantage means a more favorable or improved position or condition; benefit, profit or gain of any kind; benefit from some course of action. Preference signifies priority or higher evaluation or desirability; choice or estimation above another.
HELD:
No. Prosecution failed to prove charges; evidence discloses absence of bidding and award. The prosecution's lone witness, Treasurer Aniceto Vega, testified that there never was a public bidding conducted because all the transactions were made by direct purchases from Trigen. The elements essential in the commission of the crime are: a) The public officer has financial or pecuniary interest in a business, contract or transaction; b) In connection with which he intervenes in his official capacity. Concurrence of both elements is necessary as the absence of one will not warrant conviction. Evidence showed that there actually was no bidding conducted. In the absence of public bidding, how can one ever imagine that Trieste has awarded the supply and delivery of c onstruction materials to Trigen? By signing the vouchers for the purchase and payment of construction materials, Trieste also cannot be s aid to have ‘intervened’ in contemplation of RA 3019. The vouchers were signed AFTER payment had already been made, such payment having been authorized by the municipal treasurer. What is contemplated in Section 3(h) of the anti-graft law is the actual intervention in the transaction in which one has financial or pecuniary interest in order that liability may attach. The official need not dispose his shares in the corporation as long as he does not do anything for the firm in its contract with the office. For the law aims to prevent the dontenant use of influence, authority and power. There is absolutely no evidence that petitioner had, in his capacity as Mayor, used his influence, power, and authority in having the transactions given to Trigen. He didn't ask anyone-neither Treasurer Vega nor Secretary Maravilla for that matter, to get the construction materials from Trigen. Trigen did not gain any undue advantage in the transaction Petitioner should not be faulted for Trigen's transaction with the municipality, which by the way, has been dealing with it even before petitioner had assumed the mayorship on March 3, 1980. Personal canvasses conducted found that Trigen's offer was the lowest, most reasonable, and advantageous to the municipality.
