Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
FACTS: Petitioner was the mayor of the Municipality of Culasi, Province of
Petitioner is a revenue examiner of the BIR. He offered to settle 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 of her predecessor, then Mayor Alpas, which remained partially unpaid.
procuring a tax clearance. For such service, he would require a fee of These included the Janlagasi Diversion Dam, San Luis Diversion Dam,
P35,000.00 which was later reduced to P30,000.00. Samia, the Caridad-Bagacay Road, and San Juan-Tumao Road which were
manager of the firm, pretended to go along with him but reported the contracted by L.S. Gamotin Construction (L.S. Gamotin) with a total
matter to NBI which arranged an entrapment. project cost of ₱2 million. For the said projects, the municipality owed
the contractor ₱791,047.00.
An entrapment operation ensued on October 28, 1986, near the Rizal
Cafe in Makati. Samia, meeting with the petitioner there, told him he Relative to the aforesaid projects, petitioner, together with
had only P1,000.00 but he would deliver P9,000.00 to him that same Venturanza, then the Municipal Security Officer, was indicted in an
evening at his residence and pay the balance of P20,000.00 in Information for violation of Section 3(b), R.A. No. 3019. The information
November. The petitioner wrote his address on the back of a receipt, states that the accused Mayor is the approving authority of contracts
which he gave Samia. Samia tendered the white envelope containing involving the Municipality and she demanded money from Grace
P1,000.00 previously dusted with fluorescent powder, but the Superficial of L.S. Gamotin Construction, which undertook the
petitioner accepted it only when they had left the eatery and he was construction of government projects which amounted to TWO MILLION
nearing his car outside. He put the envelope in his pocket. The NBI 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 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 not convincing. It is belied by his proven under threat that the final payment would not be released unless she
acts. The implausibility of his promises 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 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 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, 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.12 It was Venturanza also who deposited the
erred. In short, he has failed to prove, in this petition three checks, representing the full payment of the project, to the
for certiorari where only questions of law may be raised, that he is account of Superficial.131avvphi1
entitled to a reversal of his conviction.
Emmanuel Palacios likewise denied having received ₱15,000.00 from
The petitioner seems to be suggesting in the conclusion to his petition
Superficial. He claimed that he was financially stable, being a Forester;
that judgment was rendered against him because he happens to be a
the manager of a 200-hectare agricultural land and of a medium piggery
tax collector, whom he says "history, even from Biblical times, depicts
establishment; and the owner of a residential house valued at no less
... as the most unpopular and vilified adjunct of any society." The plea
than ₱6 million, a parcel of land and other properties.22 He also claimed
does not persuade. It suffices to observe that he was convicted not
that the institution of the criminal case was ill-motivated as Neil
because he is a tax collector but because he accepted a bribe.
Superficial, in fact, initiated a complaint against him for frustrated
murder.23
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. Admittedly,
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.
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 disqualification from holding public office. The
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.
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
or judicial functions; (3) the act was done through manifest partiality,
In view of the above holding. We also dispose of the fourth issue which
evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (4) the public
relates to the allegation that petitioner cannot be convicted for a
officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government,
violation of the Anti-Graft Law because the evidence adduced by the
or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference.
prosecution is not the violation of Section 3 (e) but the crime of
robbery. Contrary to the petitioner averment. We find no variance
It is undisputed that the first two elements are present in the case at
between the offense charged in the information and the offense
bar.
proved. The prosecution was able to establish through the
corroborating testimonies of the witnesses presented how through
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 sworn 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 law
in a tradition of illegality. This is totally unacceptable, considering that Trieste was the mayor of Numancia, Aklan. In 1980, during his term, the
as municipal mayor, petitioner ought to implement the law to the Municipality of Numancia purchased construction materials from
letter. As local chief executive, he should have been the first to follow Trigen Agro-Industrial Development Corporation. Trieste was allegedly
the law and see to it that it was followed by his constituency. Sadly, the president of said corporation. Trieste was then sued for allegedly
however, he was the first to break it. violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act particularly for
willfully and unlawfully having financial or pecuniary interest in a
Petitioner should have complied with the requirements laid down by business, contract or transaction in connection with which said accused
RA 7160 on personal canvass, no matter how strict they may have been. intervened or took part in his official capacity and in which he is
Dura lex sed lex. The law is difficult but it is the law. These requirements prohibited by law from having any interest.
are not empty words but were specifically crafted to ensure
transparency in the acquisition of government supplies, especially since
Trieste, in defense, said that he already divested his interest from the
no public bidding is involved in personal canvass. Truly, the
corporation when he took his office as mayor; that he sold his shares to
requirement that the canvass and awarding of supplies be made by a
his sister; he presented evidence to that effect. The Solicitor General
collegial body assures the general public that despotic, irregular or
doubted said sale because it was not registered in the Securities and
unlawful transactions do not occur. It also guarantees that no personal
Exchange Commission. Further, the advertisement of Trigen in the local
preference is given to any supplier and that the government is given
rotary club.
the best possible price for its procurements.
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.
HELD:
Preference signifies priority or higher evaluation or desirability; choice
or estimation above another.
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.