GR No 175750-51

Silverina Consigna vs People of the Philippines

GR No 175750-51    April 2, 2014

Facts:

            Consigna, then the Municipal Treasurer of General Luna, Surigao del Norte, obtained a loan from Moleta to pay for the salaries of the employees of the municipality and to construct the municipal gymnasium as the municipality’s IRA had not yet arrived. As payment, Consigna issued three Land Bank of the Philippines checks signed by Rusillon, then incumbent mayor of the same municipality. In several attempts and on different occasions, Moleta demanded payment from Consigna and Rusillon, but to no avail. When she deposited the same to the bank, the checks were returned for having no sufficient funds. Upon verification, LBP informed Moleta that said account indicated in the issued checks was already closed and transferred to DBP and Consigna had been relieved from her position.

            After trial, Sandiganbayan found Consigna guilty, but exonerated Rusillon for not having participated in the acts committed by Consigna. Hence, this petition with the SC.

Issue:

            WON Consigna be held guilty of estafa as penalized under Article 315 of RPC and that of Section 3 (e) of RA No 3019.

Held:

           The Petition must fail.

        SC ruled that it is entrenched in this jurisdiction is the dictum that the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information which specifies the provision of law to have been violated which were mere conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of the facts in the complaint or information.

          In another matter, the law explicitly provides that in the prosecution for estafa under Article 315 of RPC, it is indispensable that the element of deceit, consisting of the false statement or fraudulent representation of the accused, be made prior to, or at least simultaneously with the commission of fraud, it being essential that such false statement or representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which induced the offended party to part with his money.

            On the other hand, the following are the essential elements of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No 3019: a) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; b) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence; and c) that his action caused any undue injury to any part, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions.

           Apparently, under the Mejorada doctrine, Section 3 of RA No 3019 enumerates in eleven subsections the corrupt practices of any public officers declared unlawful. Its reference to any public officer is without distinction or qualification and it specifies the acts declared unlawful. The last sentence of Section 3 (e) is intended to make clear the inclusion of officers and employees of officers or government corporations which, under the ordinary concept of public officers may not come within the term. It is a strained construction of the provision to read it as applying exclusively to public officers charged with the duty of granting licenses or permits or other concessions.

GR No 186421

Roberto Fuentes vs People of the Philippines

GR No 186421         April 17, 2001

Facts:

         Fuentes was charged to have committed an act in violation of Article 3 (e) of RA No 3019, otherwise Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. It was alleged that Fuentes, a high ranking public official being the Municipal Mayor of Isabel, Pampanga, in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to his office, caused undue injury to Fe Valenzuela by refusing to unreasonable length of time to renew the latter’s business permit to engage in Ship Chandling Services in the Port of Isabel without any legal basis. However, Fuentes contended that there were reports made that transaction in the said port involved illegal ones and thus the business permit of Valenzuela was not renewed in order to prevent a greater damage to the municipality as a result of such illegal transactions.

         Sandiganbayan found that Fuentes had established all the elements of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 considering that: a) Fuentes was a public official at the time relevant to the case; b) he singled out Valenzuela’s particular business despite the fact that the rumors relative to the illegal smuggling and drug trading covered all ship chandlers operating in said port; c) he still refused to renew said business permit even though she already had clearances from other offices such as LGU and PNP, exculpating her from any illegal activities; and d) as a result of Fuente’s acts, Valenzuela was unable to operate her ship chandling business thus causing her undue injury.

       Fuentes then moved for reconsideration which Sandiganbayan denied. Hence, this petition before the SC.

Issue:

        WON Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Fuentes of the crime charged.

Held:

        The petition is without merit.

        The elements of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No 3019 are as follows: a) accused must be a public official discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions; b) that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and c) that his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions.

      After a judicious review of the case, the Court is convinced that the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Fuentes of the crime charged.

         First element, it is undisputed that Fuentes was a public officer, being the Municipal Mayor of Isabel, Leyte at the time he committed the acts complained of. As to the second element, law provides three modes of commission of the crime: a) manifest partiality; b) evident bad faith; and c) gross negligence. Here, Fuentes’ acts were not only committed with manifest partiality, but also with bad faith. Thirdly, Fuentes’ acts of refusing to issue a Business Permit in Valenzuela’s favor, coupled with his issuance of the unnumbered Memorandum which effectively barred the said business from engaging in its ship chandling operations without such Business Permit, caused some sort of undue injury on the part of Valenzuela.