quezon city - sandiganbayansb.judiciary.gov.ph/resolutions/2019/h_crim_sb-19-ar-0001_people...

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

^anhigsnlia||aitQuezon City

Seventh Divisionit "k "kick it it

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

Case No. SB-19-A/R-0001

Present:

- versus -

RAPHAEL GERMAR MENDEZ,Accused.

X X

Gomez-Estoesta, J.

ChairpersonTrespeses, J.Hidalgo, J.

Promulgated:

DECISION

TRESPESES, J.-.

This resolves the appeal from the Decision' rendered by the RegionalTrial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 41, finding accused Raphael GermarMendez^ (Mendez) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019.

The Antecedent Facts

On the basis of a complaint^ filed by private complainant CelsoSebastian (Sebastian), accused was charged with violation of Sec. 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019 in an Information"^ which reads:

That on or about October 26, 2011 to February 8, 2012, or sometimeprior or subsequent thereto, in the City "of Manila, and within the jurisdictionof this Honorable Court the above-named accused, RAPHAEL MENDEZ yGERMAR, a low ranking public officer then the Chairman of Barangay131, Zone 11,^ District 1, Manila (SG-14), committing the offense inrelation to and in the course of his official duty, and/or taking advantage of

' RTC Records, pp. 316-331; dated November 19,2018 and penned by Presiding Judge Rosalyn D. Mislos-Loja.^ The maternal surname of accused was amended from "German to Germar" in the Order dated October 3,2016 (RTC Records, pp. 108-109).^ Exhibit "A" for the prosecution is the Complaint dated July 15, 2014. Exhibit "A-1" is the signature ofprivate complainant Sebastian therein.* RTC Records, pp. 1-2; dated October 20,2015.^ The zone number of accused's barangay was amended from 2 to 11 in the Order dated October 3, 2016(RTCRecords, pp. 108-109). ^

;/ T

DECISION

Case No. SB-19-A/R-0001People V. Mendez of 14X X

his official position through evident bad faith, did then and there willfully,unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to Celso S. Sebastian bycollecting cash advances from Sebastian in the total amount of One HundredFifty Thousand Pesos (PI50,000.00) in consideration of granting himBarangay projects when in truth and in fact no such project was given, to thedamage and prejudice of Sebastian in said amount.

CONTRARY TO LAW.^

A >varrant for the arrest of accused was issued and bail was set at

P30,000.^ After accused's motion for the reduction of bail in the amount ofPI 5,000 was granted, accused posted cash bail, which resulted in hisprovisional release.® Accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.^ Pre-trialwas scheduled and terminated after the issuance of the Pre-Trial Order.

Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

Evidence for the Prosecution

The prosecution presented the testimonies of (1) Maria MinervaSinaguinan^^ and (2) private complainant Sebastian.

The evidence for the prosecution reveals that in 2011, privatecomplainant - then the barangay chairman of Barangay 211, Zone 19,District H, Manila and proprietor of Double Share Enterprises^^ - wasapproached by accused - then the barangay chairman of Barangay 131, Zone11, District I, Manila - who offered him barangay projects in exchange forcash advances. Private complainant was told that accused could wieldinfluence in the current administration and that such agreement was beingpracticed in the barangay. Private complainant then gave accused a projectproposal and cash on six dates (P50,000 on October 26,2016;^^ P5,000^^ and

® RTC Records, pp. 1-2.' Id. at 37 (Order dated July 1,2016).

® Id. at 40 (Order dated June 30,2016 issued by Presiding Judge Carolina Icasiano-Sison).' Id. at 81 (Order dated July 27,2016).

Id. at 97-100; dated September 5,2016." TSN, October 3,2016, pp. 1-15; her testimony was dispensed with in light of stipulations regarding theexistence, authenticity, and due execution of Exhibits "B" (Service Record of accused Mendez); "B-1"(Certification dated September 14, 2016 issued by Chief Barangay Affairs Division Eladia D. Sindo); "B-2" (accused's Oath of Office dated December 1, 2010); and "B-3" (accused's Personal Data Sheet datedDecember 1,2010).'2 TSN, November 7,2016, pp. 1-31.'2 Exhibit "K" for the prosecution is the Bureau of Internal Revenue Certificate of RegistrationOCN1RC0000910521. Exhibit "J" for the prosecution is the Articles of Partnership of Double ShareEnterprises - a hardware, electrical, plumbing, and construction supplies store.TSN, November 7,2016, p. 8.Id. at 10. The accused allegedly stated "Pore alam mo naman kung gaano ako kalakas ngayon sa

administrasyon, baka maikwento kita sa ibang chairman kung gaano ka kasungit at kahirap katransaksyone Hindi ka na makuha ng kontrata dito sa Maynila" (Complaint, pp. 3-4; RTC Records, pp. 18-19).

Exhibit "C" is the Acknowledgment Receipt and Exhibit "C-1" is the signature of accused thereon.

r \

DECISION

Case No. SB-19-A/R-0001People V. Mendez of 14

P15,000^^ on November 2, 2011; P20,000 on December 28, 2011;^^ P30,000on January 10, 2012;^® P20,000 on January 18, 2012;^* and P10,000 onFebruary 8,2012^^) totaling PI 50,000.^ Private complainant further claimedthat even if he gave such amount, not a single barangay project was awardedto him.^"^ When private complainant went to accused's office to claim hismoney, accused told him, '^putang ina mo talaga bang hindi ka marunongumintindi sinabi ko na sayo hindi mo ako kayang banggain, baka mabuwisitako sayo pad pamilya mo idamay ko''^^ This prompted private complainantto file a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman^^ which foundprobable cause to indict accused for violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019and directed the filing of the Information before the appropriate court.^^

On cross-examination, private complainant admitted to executing anAffidavit of Desistance^® after the case was filed.^® He also confirmed thataccused had partially paid.^®

The prosecution made a formal offer of evidence in open court andthereafter rested its case.^*

Accused filed a Motion for Leave to File a Demurrer to Evidence;^^ theprosecution filed its Opposition.^^ After the trial court granted the motion,^"^accused filed a demurrer to evidence.^^ He claimed therein that theInformation against him was filed due to a supposed threat to privatecomplainant's family; however, an Affidavit of Desistance was alreadyexecuted.^® Moreover, accused claimed that the prosecution failed to provethe second and third elements of the offense because the transaction was a

loan and because pajmient was already made.^^

" Exhibit "D" is the Acknowledgment Receipt and Exhibit "D-l" is the signature of accused thereon.'8 Exhibit "E" is the Acknowledgment Receipt and Exhibit "E-l" is the signature of accused thereon." Exhibit "F' is the Acknowledgment Receipt and Exhibit "F-1" is the signature of accused thereon.

Exhibit "G" is the Acknowledgment Receipt and Exhibit "G-l" is the signature of accused thereon.Exhibit "H" is the Acknowledgment Receipt and Exhibit "H-l" is the signature of accused thereon.Exhibit "I" is the Acknowledgment Receipt and Exhibit "I-l" is the signature of accused thereon.

23 TSN, November 7,2016, p. 25.24 Id. at 15.23 Complaint, pp. 4-5; RTC Records, pp. 19-20.23 TSN, November 7,2016, p. 15.22 RTC Records, pp. 9-15 (Resolution dated Januaiy 20,2015).2® Exhibit "3" for the accused is the Affidavit of Desistance dated February 22, 2016. Exhibit "3-a" is thesignature of private complainant Sebastian thereon.29 TSN, November 7,2016, p. 20.3° Id. at 26-27. Exhibit "2" is the Receipt of Payment by private complainant's wife, Elizabeth Sebastian,dated April 30, 2014 in the amount of P5,000 while Exhibit "2-a" is Elizabeth Sebastian's signaturethereon.

3' TSN, November 28,2016, pp. 1-10; RTC Records, pp. 159-160 (Order dated November 28,2016).32 RTC Records, pp. 161-164; dated December 2,2016.33 Id. at 168-171; dated December 15,2016. ,34 Id. at 173-174 (Order dated January 7,2017).33 Id. at 184-195; dated February 2,2017. ^ *33 Id. at 184-185. 732 Id. at 192.

f\

DECISION


The prosecution filed a Comment and/or Opposition.^® It regarded theAffidavit of Desistance as a mere afterthought, which should not prevailover the categorical statements of private complainant at the witness stand.^^The prosecution further claimed that in graft cases, such as the instant case,the ultimate aggrieved party is the government or the State."^® Finally, theprosecution argued that there was bad faith because accused affixed hissignature to all of the Acknowledgment Receipts knowing that the amoimtswere cash advances in exchange for a barangay project."^^

The trial court resolved to deny the demunrer to evidence finding thatthe elements of the offense appeared to be present."*^ Thus, the reception fordefense evidence followed.

Evidence for the Defense

The evidence consisted of the testimonies of (1) accused Mendez,"^^ (2)Jesus Payad (Payad),'*^ and (3) Daniel Tan (Tan)."^^

Accused denied the charge against hhn.^^ He averred that the amountwas a loan, which he had already paid in full to private complainant's wifeproven by the Receipt of Payment,"^^ and through Payad and Tan proven bythe Acknowledgment Receipt"^® dated April 9, 2015.^® Thus, accused wassurprised when he received a notice from the Ombudsman informing himthat a case had been filed against him and directing him to file his Counter-Affidavit.^®

On cross-examination, accused claimed that he had indeed received theamounts from private complainant on various days as a loan for his personalconsumption.^^ Accused further refuted his claim in his Counter-Affidavit^^

Id. at 196-207; dated February 16,2017.Id. at 197.

'•0 Id. at 198.

Id. at 200.

Id. at 210-214 (Order dated February 28,2017).TSN, August 8,2017, pp. 1-12; TSN, September 26,2017, pp. 1-17.

^ TSN, December 15,2017, pp. 1-9; TSN, February 13,2018, pp. 1-10.« TSN, June 22,2018, pp. 1-15.^ TSN, August 8,2017, p. 5.

Exhibit "2" for the accused is the Receipt of Payment signed by private complainant's wife, ElizabethSebastian dated April 30,2014 in the amount of P5,000.

Exhibit "4" for the accused is the Acknowledgment Receipt dated April 9, 2015 in the amount ofP300,000.^9 TSN, September 26,2017, p. 11.TSN, August 8, 2017, p. 8. Exhibit "1" for the accused is his Counter-Affidavit dated August 27, 2014

(RTC Records, pp. 31-34).TSN, September 26,2017, p. 6.Exhibit "1" for the accused is die Counter-Affidavit dated August 27, 2014 submitted before the Office

of the Ombudsman.

; r I

DECISION


that the words cash advance and automatically deducted in brgyproject^ appearing on the Acknowledgment Receipts were "made pursuantto [private complainant's] suggestion and "made in jest."^^ He insteadclaimed at the witness stand that when he signed those Receipts, the wordswere not written yet.^"^

Witness Jesus Payad, on the other hand, corroborated accused's claimthat the amount was a loan.^^ Upon request by accused, Payad gaveP300,000 to Tan full payment/settlement of amount due to Mr.Sebastian'^^^ proven by an Acknowledgment Receipt dated April 9, 2015signed by Payad and Tan.^^ On cross examination, however, Payad admittedthat there was no authorization from private complainant in favor of Tan toreceive the amount and there was no proof of receipt of the amount byprivate complainant from Tan.^®

Witness Daniel Tan also took the witness stand and claimed that he

received the amount of P300,000 from Payad and handed it to privatecomplainant.^^ He also claimed that he and private complainant weretogether in the buy-and-sell business since the 1990s.^° Meanwhile, he knewaccused because he replaced the former as director of the Manila NorthCemetery.^^ However, on cross-examination. Tan could not provide proofthat private complainant received the amount of P300,000 from him and thatprivate complainant authorized him to receive the same.^^ On redirectexamination. Tan claimed that he never required a receipt because he andprivate complainant had been friends and their transactions in the pastinvolved much more than the amount of P300,000.^^

Thereafter, the defense made an oral offer of evidence.^ After thedefense rested its case and the parties submitted their respectiveMemoranda,^^ the case was eventually submitted for decision.^^

RTC Records, p. 32.^ TSN, September 26,2017, p. 10.55 TSN, December 15,2017, p. 4.55 Exhibit "4" for the accused is the Acknowledgment Receipt dated April 9, 2015 in the amount ofP300,000.5' TSN, December 15, 2017, p. 4. Exhibit "4-a" for the accused is the signature of Daniel Tan on theAcknowledgment Receipt dated April 19, 2015. Exhibit "4-b" for the accused is the signature of JesusPayad on the Acknowledgment Receipt.58 TSN, Februaiy 13,2018, p. 8.59 TSN, June 22,2018, p. 7.59 Id.

5'Id.52 Id. at 9.53 Id. at 10.

54 Id. at 12-13.55 RTC Records, pp. 268-293 (Memorandum of the Prosecution dated August 16,2018); RTC Records, pp.299-313 (Memorandum of the Accused dated October 1,2018).55 Id. at 259-260 (Order dated June 22,2018). ♦

/•

DECISION


The Ruling of the RTC

In a Decision dated November 19, 2018, the RTC convicted accusedMendez of the charge. It ruled that the elements of the crime were present.Accused was a public officer who promised barangay projects in favor ofprivate complainant in exchange for cash advances. Die court ruled thatthere was evident bad faith because accused collected cash advances for

projects which were yet to be approved by the Sangguniang Barangay^ wereyet to be subjected to public bidding and worstj never materialized. Therewas bad faith, too, according to the trial court because of accused'sassurance that he was highly influential and of his failure to return themoney despite demand. Thus, it sentenced accused to suffer the penalty ofimprisonment and to return the amount of PI50,000 minus the amount ofP5,000 already received by private complainant's wife or PI45,000.

The dispositive portion of the Decision states:

WHEREFORE, the prosecution having established the guilt ofthe accused RAPHAEL MENDEZ Y GERMAR beyond reasonabledoubt, his conviction for the violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 ishereby pronounced and is hereby sentenced to imprisonment of six (6)years, one (1) month and one (1) day to eight (8) years and withperpetual disqualification fi-om public office.

He is also ordered to return the sum of One Hundred Forty FiveThousand Pesos (Php145,000) to the private complainant.

SO ORDERED.®^

In light of the conviction of accused, the trial court doubled his bailbond and directed him to post additional cash bail of P45,000 to the existingbond of PI 5,000 for a totd of P60,000.^^ After complying with the directive,accused filed a Notice of Appeal.^^

In his Appellant's Brief,^® accused argues that the RTC erred infmding that the prosecution was able to establish his guilt beyond reasonabledoubt because the prosecution failed to prove the second and third elementsof the crime.^^ Accused further claims that the RTC erred in failing toconsider the Affidavit of Desistance in his favor, to take into account that thefiling of the case was a mere afterthought, and to pronounce that privatecomplainant was in part delicto with him.^^

'^nd.atssi.

Id. at 332-333 (Order dated November 21,2018).® Id. at 350-352 (Notice of Appeal dated November 22,2018).Records, pp. 58-95; dated March 18,2019. iId. at 76.

'2 Id. at 74. ^

/

DECISION


In its Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief,^^ the prosecution states that the RTCwas correct in finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubtJ"^ Moreover,the prosecution insists that the Affidavit of Desistance cannot have the effectof abating the criminal proceedings.^^ It claims that the findings of fact ofthe RTC should not be disturbed on appeal.^^ Finally, it posits that thedoctrine of in part delicto has no application in the instant case.^^

The Issue

The sole issue to be resolved in this case is whether the trial court

erred in finding accused guilty of the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

Our Ruling

This Court resolves the issue in favor of the prosecution and affirms theruling of the Regional Trial Court.

The Affidavit of Desistance does notwork to absolve the accused of thecrime

It is settled that an Affidavit of Desistance is not a ground for thedismissal of an action, once the action has been instituted in court.^^ Little orno persuasive value is often attached to it,^^ especially when executed as anafterthought.®®

The Affidavit of Desistance in the instant case was executed after the

filing of the Information but before the case was raffled to this Court. Assuch, this Court accords it little value. If at all, it is merely an additionalground to buttress the accused's defenses, not the sole consideration that canresult in acquittal.®' In other words, there must be other circumstanceswhich, when coupled with retraction or desistance, create doubts on theveracity of the testimony given by witnesses during the trial.®^

^ Id. at 120-141; dated May 3,2019.^Md.atl31.

Id. at 130.

^Md.atl36.

^Id. at 130-131.

™ Sta. Catalina v. People, 591 Phil. 726,736 (2006).^ Tison V. Spouses Tomasin, 671 Phil. 686 (2011).^ Sta. Catalina v. People, 591 Phil. 726,736 (2006).

Tadena v. People, G.R. No. 228610, March 20,2019, citing People v. Ballabare, 332 Phil. 384 (1996).«2ld.

'V '

DECISION


A close scrutiny of the circumstances in this case, however, yields tono such doubt. What the circumstances of the case reveal instead is that the

elements of the crime were sufficiently proven by the prosecution.

The elements of the offense are presentin the instance case

The elements of the crime of violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 are asfollows: (a) that the accused must be a public officer dischargingadministrative, judicial, or official functions (or a private individual acting inconspiracy with such public officers); (b) that he acted with manifestpartiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (c) that hisaction caused an undue injury to any party, including the government, orgiving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference inthe discharge of his functions.^^

The first element is readily apparent. The evidence for the prosecutionhad established that accused was a barangay chairman at the time of thecommission of the crime. This was also admitted by accused when hetestified in open court.

As to the second element, accused was a chief executive who had theduty to "negotiate, enter into, and sign contract for and in behalf of thebarangay, upon the authorization of the sangguniang barangay, Accusedthus breached his sworn duty when he fraudulently promised barangayprojects to private complainant in exchange for cash advances.

The Information charges accused with having committed the crimewith evident bad faith, which is defined in jurisprudence as follows:

Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; itimputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing ofa wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; itpartakes of the nature of fraud.^^

Fuentes v. People^ G.R. No. 186421, April 17,2017, citing Cambe v. Ombudsman^ 802 Phil. 190 (2016).Section 389, paragraph 2 of R.A. No. 7160 or the Local Government Code provides as follows:

Sec. 389. Chief Executive: Powers, Duties, and Functions. - (a) The punong barangay^ as the chiefexecutive of die barangay government, shall exercise such powers and perform such duties and functions,as provided by this Code and other laws.(b) For efiScient, effective and economical governance, the purpose of which is the general welfare of thebarangay and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code, the punong barangay shall:xxxx

(2) Negotiate, enter into, and sign contracts for and in behalf of the barangay, upon authorization of thesangguniang barangay;xxxx

Fuentes v. People^ G.R. No. 186421, April 17, 2017, citing Coloma v. Sandiganbayan, 744 Phil. 214,229.(2014).

DECISION


The prosecution established accused's evident bad faith in manyinstances. This was shown when accused represented that he could giveprojects to private complainant even if the .projects were yet to beconceptualized or to be approved by the Sangguniang Barangay. Thetestimony of private complainant is clear on this:

Pros. Amuco: So you mentioned in your Complaint Affidavit that youwere the proprietor of Double Share Enterprises, correct?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: Now in connection with this business, what transaction, if any, didyou have with accused?

A: A promise that he would give me a project in his barangay inexchange [for] cash advance, and I gave [those] cash advances.

Q: So what was your response to that proposal, Mr. Witness?

A: I ask for a [sic] time to think about it because I knew that that isillegal, ma'am.

Q: So what did the accused do, if any, after that, Mr. Witness?

A: Raphael Mendez called me and reminded me that he [was]''malakas sa administrasyon.^^

Q: So what was your reaction to that, Mr. Witness?

A: Ibinigay ko ang proposal, ang proposal na sinabi nya sa akin atibinigay ko ang cash advancefs] mula October 26, 2011 hanggang February8,2012, ma'am.

Q: So how much was the aggregated sum [sic] of money you gave tothe accused, Mr. Witness?

A: I gave PI50,000 to Sir Raffy Mendez in seven (7) separateoccasions, ma'am.^^

Evident bad faith was likewise shown when accused received the

amounts. His signatures on the Acknowledgment Receipts with wordscash advance and automatically deducted in brgy project and his admissionthat he received the amounts attest to this. The following was elicited fromhim at the witness stand by the prosecution:

t

86 TSN, November 7,2016, pp. 10-11.

J

f I

DTOISION


Q: Showing to you the Acknowledgment Receipts marked by theprosecution as Exhs. "C", "D", "E", "F", "G", "H", and "I", can youconfirm to us if those are the Acknowledgment Receipts you mentioned yousigned as evidence of the loan to the private complamant?

87A: This is my signature, ma'am.

Finally, evident bad faith was proven when accused failed to return themoney to private complainant despite demand. Private complainant testifiedthat hds attempts to get his money back from accused proved futile in thiswise:

Pros. Amuco: Now, Mr. Witness, you mentioned a while ago that theaccused proposed to you barangay projects and in exchange you will have togive cash advances to him, correct?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: So now, Mr. Witness, what happened to these barangay projectsthat were promised to you by the accused?

A: 'Wala po ni isang naibigay sa akin na barangay project at hinanapko ang project na ipinangako sa akinJ"

Q: So when the accused was not able to comply with his promise,what did you do next, if any, Mr. Witness?

A: I told him to just return the money even without interest andaccording to him he could not return my money, ma'am.

Q: So after the accused told you that he will not return the money,what did you do next, if any?

ma am.

A: I filed a complaint before the Ombudsman on July 15, 2014,88

While accused refuted the claims of private complainant, this Courtfinds his refutations unpersuasive. First, he gave conflicting claims regardingthe words "as cash advance and automatically deducted in brgy projectwritten on the Acknowledgment Receipts. Initially, he claimed in hisCounter Affidavit that the words were written when he affixed his signaturesthereto.®^ However, at the witness stand, accused refuted his prior statementand claimed that those words were not present when he signed thedocuments.^® The inconsistency in the testimony of accused only shows that

^ TSN, September 26,2017, p. 6.88 TSN, November 7,2016, pp. 14-15.89 RTC Records, p. 32.90 TSN, September 26,2017, p. 10.

r \

DECISION


his claim that he was not aware of the words written on the seven (7)Acknowledgment Receipts is a mere afterthought.

Also, we find untenable accused's claim of full payment. Nowhere inhis Counter Affidavit was this ever stated if indeed he had paid privatecomplainant. It was only during the presentation of his testimony did heoffer proof of payment in the form of the Acknowledgment Receipt datedApril 30,2014. This documentary evidence, however, merely proves that thepayment was made belatedly or more than two (2) years after accused'sreceipt of the cash advances and only to the amount of P5,000 received byprivate complainant's wife. Thus, accused still owes private complainant theresulting amount of PI45,000.

The testimony of accused also highlights that he himself was uncertainof his claim of full payment. An excerpt fi*om his testimony states asfollows:

Pros. Amuco: Now, isn't it correct that the only proof that you havealready paid is the single receipt amounting to P5;000.00?

A: Hindi po, actually Ma'am, matagal na akong tapos doon, angproblemapo, as a fnend...

Q: My question is answerable by yes or no. Isn't it correct that theonly proof Aat you have is the receipt?

A: Hindi po, ma'am, halos bayad na po ako lahat.

Q: Now, where are your other receipts as proof?

A: I have proof, ma'am.

Q: Did you mark that as one of your exhibits?

Atty. Ramos: That was not marked. Your Honor.^^

The testimonies of Payad and Tan were subsequently presented toprove the supposed full payment. However, their corroborative testimoniesdeserve scant consideration because no evidence was shown that privatecomplainant authorized either Payad or Tan to receive the amount on privatecomplainant's behalf.

As to the third element, it is clear that accused caused undue injuryupon private complainant in the amount of PI 50,000 given in seven (7)separate instances. The Acknowledgment Receipts clearly show that accused

''Id. at 11.

/t

DECISION


received the following amounts on various dates cash advance andautomatically deducted in brgy project: P50,000 on October 26, 2016;P5,000 and PI5,000 on November 2, 2011; P20,000 on December 28, 2011;P30,000 on January 10, 2012; P20,000 on January 18, 2012; and P10,000 onFebruary 8,2012.

The RTC therefore did not err when it found that the prosecution wasable to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged.This Court thus sustains the fmdings and appreciation of evidence by theRTC finding no cogent reason to depart therefrom. Consequently, this Courtaffirms accused's conviction.

The doctrine ofm pari delicto does notapply

Accused then invokes - albeit belatedly on appeal - the doctrine of inpari delicto to excuse himself from the directive "to pay private complainantthe amount of PI45,000. He insists that he should not be directed to pay theamount to private complainant because the latter gave the money mindful ofthe illegality of the transaction.

This Court is guided by the following provision in R.A. No. 3019 onthis matter in this wise:

Section 9. Penalties for violations, (a) Any public officer or privateperson committing any of the unlawful acts or omissions enumerated inSections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment fornot less than one year nor more than ten years, perpetual disqualificationfrom public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the Governmentof any prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out ofproportion to his salary and other lawful income.

Any complaining party at whose complaint the criminalprosecution was initiated shall, in case of conviction of the accused, beentitled to recover in the criminal action with priority over theforfeiture in favor of the Government, the amount of money or thething he may have given to the accused, or the value of such thing.

(b) Any public officer violation any of the provisions of Section 7 ofthis Act shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred pesos normore than one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year,or by both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the Court.

The violation of said section proven in a proper administrativeproceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a publicofficer, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him. (emphasissupplied)

7 /i

DECISION


This Court does not see the need to further discuss the doctrine of in

part delicto in light of the abovecited express provision of the law and of thefact that the issue is being raised for the first time on appeal.

As to the penalty, the same provision quoted above imposes thepenalty of imprisonment for not less ihan one year nor more than ten yearsand perpetual disqualification fi*om public office. The penalty imposed bythe RTC - imprisonment of six (6) years, one (1) month and one (1) day toeight (8) years and with perpetual disqualification jfrom public office - is inkeeping with the law. Thus, this Court does not see the need to modify thesame.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court resolves toDENY the appeal and AFFIRM in toto the Decision of the Regional TrialCourt.

SO ORDERED.

V. '^SPESESAssoci^ Justice

WE CONCUR:

►M)!'Qt,

MA. THERESA DOj^RES C. GOMEZ-ESTOESTAAssociate Justice, Chairperson

1/GEORGINA D. HIDALGO

Associg te Justice

DECISION


ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in

consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of theCourt's Division.

1MA. THERESAy^GLGRES C. GGMEZ-ESTGESTA

Chairperson, Seventh Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and theDivision Chairman's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions inthe above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was

assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

PARG Mr€ARGTAJE-TANG

/

t

quezon city - sandiganbayansb.judiciary.gov.ph/resolutions/2019/h_crim_sb-19-ar-0001_people...

Documents