THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 218902, October 17, 2016
HELEN EDITH LEE TAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.:
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the Decision1 and the Resolution2 dated 7 November 2013 and 30 June 2015, respectively, of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 25674. The questioned Decision found herein petitioner Helen Edith Lee Tan (Tan), President/Proprietor of International Builders Corporation (IBC),3 together with her co-accused therein, namely: Rene Mondejar (Mondejar), Municipal Mayor; Francisco Tolentino (Tolentino), Sangguniang Bayan Secretary; Ildefonso Espejo (Espejo), Sangguniang Bayan Member; Margarita Gumapas (Gumapas), Sangguniang Bayan Member; Manuel Piolo (Piolo), Sangguniang Bayan Member; and Roberto Velasco (Velasco), Sangguniang Bayan Member; all of Maasin, Iloilo City, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019,4 as amended. Each of them was meted with the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to 10 years, as maximum, as well as perpetual disqualification to hold public office.5 The questioned Resolution, on the other hand, denied for lack of merit the separate Motions for Reconsideration of petitioner and Mondejar, as well as the joint Motion for Reconsideration of Tolentino, Gumapas, Velasco and Espejo.6
The antecedents of this case are:cralawlawlibrary
To protect Barangay Naslo in Maasin, Iloilo City, from the dangers posed by the Tigum River, which usually overflows during the rainy season, its Sangguniang Barangay enacted on 16 June 1996 Resolution No. 97 requesting the IBC to rechannel the path of the Tigum River and, after the temporary river control is replenished, to extract whatever surplus of sand and gravel supply, as payment for its services.8 A day after, or on 17 June 1996, the Municipal Development Council (MDC) of Maasin, Iloilo City, adopted a similar resolution, i.e., Resolution No. 9,9 also requesting the IBC to perform the rechanneling of the Tigum River path because it has the necessary equipment for that kind of work, as well as the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to issue the Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) in connection with the implementation of the project.10 With these in view, the Sangguniang Bayan of Maasin, Iloilo City, enacted on 21 June 1996 the questioned (1) Resolution No. 30-A11 strongly endorsing the resolutions of Barangay Naslo and MDC; and (2) Resolution No. 30-B12 authorizing Mondejar to exercise his emergency powers to negotiate with the IBC for the rechanneling of the Tigum River path.13
On 27 June 1996, pursuant to the aforesaid Sangguniang Bayan resolutions, the Municipality of Maasin, Iloilo City, through Mondejar, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)14 with the IBC, through petitioner Tan, for the rechanneling of the Tigum River path. Per the said MOA, the parties agreed that the IBC will do the rechanneling for no monetary considerations whatsoever, except that it can get the surplus supply of sand and gravel taken out therefrom after the necessary dike has been established, as what has been provided for in the alleged Resolution No. 30-A, on account of financial constraints since the municipality has already exhausted all its resources due to a series of calamities.15
Soon thereafter, Criminal Complaints for Falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and for Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 were filed before the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas (OMB-Visayas) against the local officials involved in the project of rechanneling the Tigum River path, including petitioner Tan.16 The case was docketed as OMB-VIS-CRIM-98-0372.
The alleged Falsification was committed by Mondejar, Arnaldo Partisala (Partisala),17 Tolentino, Espejo, Gumapas, Piolo, and Velasco when they made it appear in the Minutes of the Regular Session of the Sangguniang Bayan of Maasin, Iloilo City, held on 21 June 1996, that Resolution No. 30-A and Resolution No. 30-B were deliberated, approved and/or enacted by the Sangguniang Bayan on the said date. Allegedly, no such resolutions were passed and/or enacted by the said body on that date. It was argued that this was done to give Mondejar legal basis or authority to enter into a MOA with the IBC, through petitioner Tan, for the supposed rechanneling of the Tigum River path. In reality, however, such MOA is a grant of an authority for the IBC to engage into massive quarrying activities in the area even without the required permit. As the argument ran, all the local officials involved in the project of rechanneling the Tigum River path, in conspiracy with petitioner Tan, indubitably committed also a Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 inasmuch as they gave unwarranted benefits, advantage and displayed manifest partiality in favor of the IBC. They entered into a contract that is grossly disadvantageous to the government, particularly to the Municipality of Maasin, Iloilo City, as it has been deprived of the revenues, which could have been collected from the IBC out of the hauling activities of the latter for sand and gravel if there was no such MOA.18
On 31 May 1999, the OMB-Visayas, through Special Prosecution Officer II Raul V. Cristoria, issued a Resolution19 recommending the (1) dismissal of the charge against the local officials involved in the project of rechanneling the Tigum River path, except for Mondejar, Partisala, Tolentino, Espejo, Gumapas, Piolo and Velasco, for insufficiency of evidence; (2) filing of separate Informations for Falsification under Article 171 of the RPC and for Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 against the afore-named public officials before the Sandiganbayan; and (3) inclusion of petitioner Tan as one of the accused in the Information for Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.20
Upon review, the OMB, through Graft Investigation Officer II Julita M. Calderon, issued a Memorandum dated 16 September 199921 approving the Resolution dated 31 May 1999 of the OMB-Visayas, thus, approving the filing of the Informations against the mentioned individuals. The said OMB Memorandum was later approved by the Acting Ombudsman Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr. on 17 September 1999.22
Accordingly, two separate Informations were filed against Mondejar, Partisala, Tolentino, Espejo, Gumapas, Piolo and Velasco, before the Sandiganbayan, to wit: (1) for Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 docketed as Criminal Case No. 25674, 23where petitioner Tan was included as one of the accused; and (2) for Falsification under Article 171 of the RPC docketed as Criminal Case No. 25675.24
The Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 25674 charging Mondejar, Partisala, Tolentino, Espejo, Gumapas, Piolo, Velasco and petitioner Tan with Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, by giving the latter unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference, to the damage and prejudice of the government, reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
That on or about the 27th day of June 1996, and for sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Maasin, Province of Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused [Mondejar, Partisala, Tolentino, Espejo, Gumapas, Piolo and Velasco], public officers, having been duly elected, appointed and qualified to such public positions above-mentioned, in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to Office, and while in the performance of their official functions, conniving, confederating and mutually helping with each other and with [herein petitioner Tan], a private individual and President/Proprietor of [IBC] Iloilo City with deliberate intent, with manifest partiality and evident bad faith, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously make it appear that Resolution No. 30-B, series of 1996, was validly enacted by the Sangguniang Bayan of Maasin, Iloilo, authorizing Mayor [Mondejar] to exercise his emergency powers as in fact accused [Mondejar], entered into a [MOA] with [petitioner Tan] of IBC authorizing the said IBC to engage in massive quarrying in the guise of rechan[n]eling the Tigum River in Maasin, Iloilo, thus accused in the performance of their official functions had given unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference to [petitioner Tan] and themselves, to the damage and prejudice of the government, particularly the Municipality of Maasin.chanrobleslaw
CONTRARY TO LAW.25 (Emphasis and italics supplied)
chanrobleslaw
- That at the time material in the Information, accused were public officials holding the following official positions in the government:cralawlawlibrary
- [MONDEJAR] - Municipal Mayor, Maasin, Iloilo;
- [TOLENTINO] - S. B. Member, Maasin, Iloilo;
- [ESPEJO] - S. B. Member, Maasin, Iloilo;
- [GUMAPAS] - S. B. Member, Maasin, Iloilo;
- [PIOLO] - S. B. Member, Maasin, Iloilo;
- [VELASCO] - S. B. Member, Maasin, Iloilo;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
While [herein petitioner Tan] was the President of [IBC].- That on 27 June 1996 a [MOA] was entered into between the Municipality of Maasin, Iloilo represented by Mayor [Mondejar] as the First Party and [IBC] represented by [petitioner Tan] as the Second Party, for the Rechanneling of the Tigum River path at Barangay Naslo, Maasin, Iloilo.
- That Resolution No. 9 Series of 1996 was passed by Barangay Naslo, Maasin, Iloilo, relative to the rechanneling of the Tigum River Path at Barangay Naslo.
- That Resolution No. 9 was also passed by the Members of the [MDC] of Maasin, Iloilo endorsing the rechanneling of the said River Path.28 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby rules as follows:cralawlawlibrarychanrobleslaw
1. In Criminal Case No. 25674, the Court finds the accused [MONDEJAR], [TOLENTINO], [ESPEJO], [GUMAPAS], [PIOLO], [VELASCO] and [HEREIN PETITIONER TAN] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of [Violation of Section 3 (e) of [RA 3019], as amended, and sentences each of them to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) month[,] as minimum[,] to ten (10) years[,] as maximum; and to suffer perpetual disqualification from public office. Insofar as [PARTISALA] is concerned, since he is still at large up to the present, let the case be ARCHIVED and let an alias warrant of arrest issue against him.
2. In Criminal Case No. 25675, the Court finds the accused [MONDEJAR], [TOLENTINO], [ESPEJO], [GUMAPAS], [PIOLO] and [VELASCO] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification defined under Article 171 of the [RPC] and sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months [and] one (1) day of prision correccional[,] as minimumf,] to eight (8) years and one (1) day ofprision mayor[,] as maximum in the absence of any mitigating and aggravating circumstance in accordance with the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law; to pay a fine of Five Thousand Pesos ([P]5,000.00); and to further suffer temporary absolute disqualification and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage. Insofar as [PARTISALA] is concerned, since he is still at large up to the present, let the case be ARCHIVED and let an alias warrant of arrest issue against him.47 (Emphasis partly in the original and partly supplied; italics supplied)
In arriving at such conclusion (in Criminal Case No. 25674), the Sandiganbayan elucidated, thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryTo be convicted of [Violation of Section 3 (e) of [RA 3019], the prosecution must prove the following:cralawlawlibrarychanrobleslaw
1) The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
2) He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence; and
3) 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.
The first element has been established as the accused public officials have stipulated on their public functions. [Herein petitioner Tan], on the other hand, is charged in conspiracy with the public officials.
The second element is likewise present x x x It was established by the prosecution that the SB never passed Resolution No. 30-B authorizing accused Mondejar to exercise his emergency powers and for him to carry out emergency measures relative to the rechanneling of the Tigum River. This means that accused Mondejar did not have the authority to enter into a MOA with the IBC for the rechanneling of the Tigum River. Knowing this, the accused public officials falsified Exh. "F" [Minutes of the 21 June 1996 Sangguniang Bayan Session] thereby making it appear that the SB gave such authority to accused Mondejar. This act was done in evident bad faith as they deliberately covered-up an illegal act thus justifying the extraction of sand and gravel by the IBC at the Tigum River. Without such act by the accused, IBC would not have any right to haul any and all "excess" sand and gravel from the said site x x x
As to third element, it was shown by the prosecution that the only way for the IBC to legally extract sand and gravel from the Tigum River was if it could secure a quarrying permit from the provincial government of Iloilo. This is stated clearly in Provincial Ordinance No. 11 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Iloilo dated [14 August 1995] x x x
The municipality of Maasin, through its Mayor and the SB, did not have the authority to issue quarrying permit. What the accused were able to accomplish through the MOA was to allow IBC to engage in quarrying activities without having to go through the trouble of securing a quarrying permit on the justification that IBC was performing a service for the townspeople by constructing a temporary dike and by rechanneling the Tigum River and that the extraction of sand and gravel as its compensation for services rendered.
In effect, the accused public officers and the IBC owner [petitioner] Tan effectively bypassed the provincial government and circumvented the requirement for a quarrying permit, with all its conditions and limitations. By so doing, the accused gave unwarranted favor or unwarranted benefit to [petitioner] Tan, the owner of the IBC, in the exercise of their official functions x x x
x x x Worse the MOA did not put in necessary safeguards to prevent any abuses by the IBC. It did not require the municipality to supervise the construction of the dike and the rechanneling of the river nor did it require monitoring of the sand and gravel being extracted by the IBC thereby giving IBC unfettered discretion in its implementation of the MOA and allowing indiscriminate quarrying in the area.48
Contrary to [herein petitioner] Tan's argument, the prosecution has proven her complicity by her act of signing the MOA ostensibly dated 28 June 1996 but was actually executed sometime after September 1997 which act indicates a common purpose to make it appear that accused Mondejar had the authority to enter into said MOA with [petitioner] Tan's IBC. While such finding had not been expressly stated in the assailed Decision, such is necessarily implied from the finding that the falsified Minutes was executed only sometime in 1997.chanrobleslawx x x x x x x x x x x x
The Information states that unwarranted benefit was given [petitioner] Tan by the act of the accused public officers in making it appear that Resolution No. 30-B series of 1996 was passed authorizing accused Mondejar to exercise his emergency powers and that, in fact, Mondejar did enter into a MOA with [petitioner] Tan of IBC authorizing it to engage in massive quarrying in the guise of rechanneling the Tigum River. These are the ultimate facts that go into the sufficiency of the Information and which the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt. The discussion by the Court that the acts of the accused had the effect of circumventing the rules on securing a quarry permit and that the MOA unduly benefited [petitioner] Tan's IBC are mere details that go into the whys and the hows of the authority granted [petitioner] Tan's IBC. Verily, an Information only needs to state the ultimate facts constituting the offense, not the finer details of why and how the illegal acts alleged amounted to undue injury or damage or unwarranted benefit.50 (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarychanrobleslawx x x x
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
x x x the prosecution has proven her complicity by her act of signing the MOA ostensibly dated 28 June 1996 but was actually executed sometime after September 1997 which act indicates a common purpose to make it appear that accused Mondejar had the authority to enter into said MOA with [petitioner] Tan's IBC. While such finding had not been expressly stated in the assailed Decision, such is necessarily implied from the finding that the falsified Minutes was executed only sometime in 1997.chanrobleslaw
SECTION 30. Proof of notarial document. - Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgement being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved. (Italics supplied)chanrobleslaw
As the aforesaid Joint Stipulation of Facts was reduced into writing and signed by the parties and their counsels, thus, they are bound by it and the same becomes judicial admissions of the facts stipulated.62 Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court states:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
- That on 27 June 1996 a Memorandum of Agreement was entered into between the Municipality of Maasin, Iloilo represented by Mayor Rene Mondejar as the First Party, International Builders Corporation (IBC) represented by Helen Edith Lee Tan as the Second Party, for the Rechanneling of the Tigum River path at Barangay Naslo, Maasin, Iloilo.
Section 4. Judicial Admissions. An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that, it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.chanrobleslaw
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo with Associate Justices Roland B. Jurado and Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang concurring; rollo, pp. 88-130.
2 Id. at 131-136.
3 A domestic corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines and based in Iloilo City.
4 Also known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act."
5 Sandiganbayan Decision dated 7 November 2013; rollo, p. 128.
6 Id. at 135.
7 Entitled "A Resolution Requiring The [IBC] For Rechanneling Of The Tigum River Path At Barangay Naslo." Those present during its enactment were: Rolando Sison (Punong Barangay/Presiding Officer), Allan Maderista (Barangay Secretary), Patricia Somo, Nora Bombita, Erwin Dumadaug, Edwin Maderista, Juan Cabrera, Nelson Bombita (all Sangguniang Barangay Members/Barangay Councilors) and Ed Son Garcia (Sangguniang Kabataan Chairman/Sangguniang Barangay Member).
8 Resolution No. 9, Series of 1996, of the Sangguniang Barangay of Barangay Naslo; rollo, p. 231.
9 Entitled "A Resolution Requesting For Rechanneling Of The Tigum River At Barangay Naslo." Those present during its enactment were: Rene M. Mondejar (Municipal Mayor/Chairman/Presiding Officer), Ildefonso P. Espejo (Sangguniang Bayan Member/Congressman's Representative), Jose S. Navarra (Sangguniang Bayan Member/Chairman on Appropriation), Benedicto Mandate (PEC), Sherlito Reyes (NGO), Francisco C. Tolentino (NGO), Engineer Juan Rentoy, Jr. (Municipal Planning Development Officer), Bienvenido P. Espino (ABC President), Elsa C. Maternal [NGO (SDAI)] and 48 Barangay Captains, as members.
10 Resolution No. 9, Series of 1996, of the MDC; rollo, p. 232.
11 Entitled "A Resolution Strongly Endorsing Resolution No. 9, of Barangay Naslo and Resolution No. 9, Series of 1996 of the [MDC]
12 Entitled "A Resolution authorizing Mayor [Mondejar] to exercise his Emergency Powers."
13 Office of the Ombudsman Memorandum dated 16 September 1999, which was approved by the Acting Ombudsman on 17 September 1999; rollo, p. 213; Respondent Comment dated 26 February 2016; rollo, p. 262.
14 Id. at 229-230.
15 Memorandum of Agreement, id. at 229.
16 Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) Resolution dated 31 May 1999, id. at 207.
17 Vice-Mayor of Maasin, Iloilo City.
18 Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) Resolution dated 31 May 1999; rollo, pp. 207-209; Office of the Ombudsman Memorandum dated 16 September 1999, which was approved by the Acting Ombudsman on 17 September 1999; rollo, p. 213.
19 Supra note 16, at 206-211.
20 Id. at 210-211.
21 Supra note 13, at 212-214.
22 Id. at 214.
23 Id. at 215-217.
24 Id. at 218-220.
25 Id. at 215-217.
26 This Court finds it no longer necessary to quote the text of the Information for Falsification under Article 171 of the RPC lodged against the accused public officials since Criminal Case No. 25674 (for Violation of Section 3[e] of R.A. 3019) against petitioner Tan is the only, subject of this Petition and only in the said case that the latter was named as an accused.
27 The accused in Criminal Case No. 25675 made the same plea.
28 Joint Stipulation of Facts dated 2 September 2003; rollo, pp. 221-222.
29 Sangguniang Bayan Member of Maasin, Iloilo City from 1 July 1992 to 30 June 1998.
30 Clerk of Court of the 12th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Cabatuan, Iloilo and a resident of Barangay Madriz, Maasin, Iloilo City.
31 Provincial Environmental and Natural Resources Officer (PENRO) of Iloilo Provincial Government.
32 Director III, DENR, Iloilo.
33 Sangguniang Bayan Member of Maasin, Iloilo City from 1992-2001.
34 Resident of Barangay Naslo, Maasin, Iloilo City and Chairman of the Save Naslo Movement.
35 Elected as Sangguniang Bayan Member of Maasin, Iloilo City, in 1996.
36 Municipal Councilor of Maasin, Iloilo City, from 1995-2001.
37 Supra note 5, at 92-101.
38 Id. at 101.
39 Id. at 101-102.
40 Barangay Captain of Barangay Naslo from October 1993 to October 2007.
41 Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (MPDC) of Maasin, Iloilo City from 1988 to present.
42 Operations Manager of IBC Equipment Division since 1984.
43 Supra note 5, at 102-114.
44 Id. at 114.
45 MDC Member between 1994 and 1998 in his capacity as NGO Representative (as President of the Maasin Market Vendors).
46 Supra note 5, at 114-116.
47 Supra note 5, at 128-129.
48 Id. at 125-127.
49 Petitioner Tan's co-accused in Crim. Case No. 25674 also filed their separate Motions for Reconsideration of the Sandiganbayan Decision dated 7 November 2013 but their motions were also denied in the same Resolution dated 30 June 2015.
50 Sandiganbayan Resolution dated 30 June 2015; supra note 2, at 134-135.
51 Petition for Review on Certiorari dated 19 August 2015; id. at 50-52.
52 Rivera v. People, G.R. No. 156577, 3 December 2014, 743 SCRA 476.
53 Id. at 496.
54 Id.
55Go v. The Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan, et al.,, 549 Phil. 783, 799 (2007).
56Froilan v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan, 385 Phil. 32, 42 (2000).
57 Id.
58People v. Carpio Vda. De Quijano, G.R. No. 102045, 17 March 1993, 220 SCRA 66, 72.
59Tigno v. Spouses Aquino, 486 Phil. 254, 267 (2004).
60 Fernandez v. Fernandez, 416 Phil. 322, 338 (2001).
61St. Mary's Farm, Inc. v. Prime Real Properties, Inc. 582 Phil. 673, 681 (2008).
62Bayas v. Sandiganbayan, 440 Phil. 54, 69 (2002).
63Sps. Binarao and v. Plus Builders, Inc., 524 Phil. 361, 366 (2006), citing Yuliongsiu v. Philippine National Bank, 130 Phil. 575, 580 (1968).
64 667 Phil. 229, 247 (2011).
65 520 Phil. 982, 991 (2006).