SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 237864, July 08, 2020
EDWIN S. VILLANUEVA AND NIDA V. VILLANUEVA, PETITIONERS, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
DELOS SANTOS, J.:
In September 2010, or thereabouts, in Kalibo, Aklan, Philippines, and within this Honorable Court's jurisdiction, above-named accused EDWIN S. VILLANUEVA (Edwin), a public officer, being then the Provincial Director of Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), Aklan Provincial Office, committing the offense in relation to his office, conspiring and confederating with his wife, NIDA Y. VILLANUEVA (Nida), did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and criminally have Nida accept employment as In-house Competency Assessor of Rayborn-Agzam Center for Education, Inc., (RACE), a private competency assessment center which has a pending official business with Edwin. Edwin, among other things, approved RACE'S TESDA accreditation, and exercised jurisdiction over appeals regarding RACE'S assessments.Rayborn-Agzam Center for Education, Inc. (RACE), is a private competency assessment center accredited by the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) on November 12, 2010. RACE conducts competency assessment in Food and Beverage Services National Certification (NC) II, Housekeeping NC II, and Household Services NC II, which are needed by candidates or applicants for work in hotels and restaurants domestic or abroad.7
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds accused Edwin S. Villanueva and Nida Y. Villanueva GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3 (d) of R.A. No. 3019 and each is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to ten (10) years, as maximum, with the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding public office.On January 29, 2018, the petitioners moved for the reconsideration17 of the Sandiganbayan Decision, to which, the Office of the Ombudsman, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), filed its Comment/Opposition thereto.18
SO ORDERED.16
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:For one to be found guilty under the foregoing provisions, the following elements must be present and proven beyond reasonable doubt: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
x x x x
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its termination.
x x x x
After a judicious examination of the evidence on record, all the elements of violation of Section 3 (d) of RA 3019 are present and duly proven and established by the prosecution in the case at bench.
(a) the accused is a public officer; (b) he or she accepted or has a member of his or her family who accepted employment in a private enterprise; and, (c) such private enterprise has a pending official business with the public officer during the pendency of official business or within one year from its termination.
SEC. 1. Statement of policy. — It is the policy of the Philippine Government, in line with the principle that a public office is a public trust, to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto.Additionally, Section 9 of RA 3019 concretizes the conclusion that the anti-graft practices law applies to both public and private individuals.
SEC. 9. (a) Any public officer or private person committing any of the unlawful acts or omissions enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than six years and one month nor more than fifteen years, perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the Government of any prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income.Secondly, it is undisputed that Nida accepted employment in RACE, which is a private enterprise, as an In-House Competency Assessor for the period June 1, 2010 until June 1, 2012.23 She is not only an employee but also an incorporator or part owner of the said entity.24
x x x x (Emphasis ours)
[T]he act treated thereunder [referring to Section 3(g) of RA 3019] partakes the nature of malum prohibitum; it is the commission of that act as defined by law, not the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or not the provision has been violated. And this construction would be in consonance with the announced purpose for which Republic Act 3019 was enacted, which is the repression of certain acts of public officers and private persons constituting graft or corrupt practices act or which may lead thereto.31Thirdly, it was duly established that during the time that Nida accepted employment with RACE, the latter had a pending official business with TESDA over which Edwin had control and supervision as Provincial Director thereof.
A purely ministerial act or duty, in contra-distinction to a discretional act, is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment, upon the propriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer, and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment.33In the present case, the issuance of the subject Indorsement Letter to SEC and even the signing of the RACE'S TESDA accreditation cannot be deemed a merely ministerial act on the part of Edwin. It is a discretionary act or function of a TESDA Provincial Director to sign the foregoing Indorsement Letter in accordance with certain laws.
Edwin claims that when he issued the letter endorsing RACE to SEC, no document was presented to him by RACE, making him unaware that his wife was among its proposed incorporators. This Court finds this implausible, and granting that it is true, quite imprudent and reckless on the part of a Provincial Director. At the very least, TESDA should have asked for a letter request, with a draft of RACE'S Articles of Incorporation attached thereto, for the Provincial Director to inform himself of the primary purpose of the corporation he is about to endorse. A draft of RACE'S By-Laws should also be attached so that the Provincial Director could assure himself, subject to the final verification of SEC, that 60% of the capitalization of the assessment center, its administration and control, is vested on Filipino citizens. To our mind, these are the minimum requirements that a judicious and diligent Provincial Director should look for before it endorses the incorporation of a competency assessment center. Inasmuch as we presume regularity in the performance of the duties of the Provincial Director, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Edwin is familiar with the incorporation documents of RACE and was therefore already aware of his wife's involvement with RACE, when he gave his endorsement to it.34Likewise, petitioners cannot extricate themselves from the claws of law by denying Edwin's knowledge of Nida's employment with RACE. Unsubstantiated denial is a weak defense and cannot be given credence as it is self-serving. From the findings of the Sandiganbayan, there is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Edwin was aware of the involvement of Nida with RACE.
Section 9. Penalties for violations. — (a) Any public officer or private person committing any of the unlawful acts or omissions enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than six years and one month nor more than fifteen years, perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the Government of any prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income.In its assailed Decision, the Sandiganbayan sentenced both petitioners to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to ten (10) years, as maximum, with the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding office. As such, the penalty imposed is upheld for being in consonance with RA 3019.
Endnotes:
* Designated as additional member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 2780 dated May 11, 2020.
1Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 12-40.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine Faith A. Econg, with Associate Justices Efren N. De La Cruz and Edgardo M. Caldona, concurring; id. at 46-61.
3 Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine Faith A. Econg, with Associate Justices Efren N. De La Cruz and Edgardo M. Caldona, concurring; id. at 63-67.
4 August 17, 1960.
5Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 68-69.
6 Id. at 68.
7 Id. at 16.
8 Id. at 343.
9 Id. at 458-459.
10 Id. at 455-457.
11 Id. at 492.
12 Id. at 458.
13 TSN dated October 18, 2017, p. 22.
14Rollo, Vol. I, p. 53.
15 Id. at 57-58.
16 Id. at 60.
17Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 874-885.
18 Id. at 886-892.
19Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 63-67.
20Carinan v. Spouses Cueto, 745 Phil. 186, 192 (2014).
21Mandaue Realty & Resources Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 801 Phil. 27 (2016).
22Go v. Sandiganbayan, 549 Phil. 782 (2007).
23Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 458-459.
24 Id. at 346 and 357.
25 SECTION 59. Nepotism. — (1) All appointments in the national, provincial, city and municipal governments or in any branch or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, made in favor of a relative of the appointing or recommending authority, or of the chief of the bureau or office, or of the persons exercising immediate supervision over him, are hereby prohibited.
As used in this Section, the word "relative" and members of the family referred to are those related within the third degree either of consanguinity or of affinity.
(2) The following are exempted from the operation of the rules on nepotism: (a) persons employed in a confidential capacity, (b) teachers, (c) physicians, and (d) members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines: Provided, however, That in each particular instance full report of such appointment shall be made to the Commission.
The restriction mentioned in subsection (1) shall not be applicable to the case of a member of any family who, after his or her appointment to any position in an office or bureau, contracts marriage with someone in the same office or bureau, in which event the employment or retention therein of both husband and wife may be allowed.
26Office of the President v. Cataquiz, 673 Phil. 318, 343-344 (2011).
27Atty. Valera v. Office of the Ombudsman, 570 Phil. 368, 382 (2008).
28Ifurung v. Carpio-Morales, G.R. No. 232131, April 24, 2018.
29 Supra note 22.
30 145 Phil. 448 (1970).
31Go v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 22, at 799.
32 294 Phil. 594 (1993).
33 Id. at 605.
34Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 58-59.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary