SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 246451, February 03, 2021
STEWART G. LEONARDO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
The Case
This UNDERSIGNED Ombudsman Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman in Mindanao, hereby accuses STEWART G. LEONARDO, of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, committed as follows:cralawredOn arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty.22 Trial ensued.That on or about 21 May 2010 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Quezon, Bukidnon, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, STEWART G. LEONARDO, Municipal Mayor of the Quezon, Bukidnon, a high ranking public employee, committing the offense in relation to office, and taking advantage of his position with manifest partiality and evident bad faith, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and criminally secured for himself, in his private capacity, unwarranted benefit and advantage, that while representing the Local Government of the Municipality of Quezon (LGU Quezon) in the auction conducted by the United Auctioneers, Inc. in Olongapo City, for the procurement of the LGU Quezon equipment, he also bid and bought his personal equipment, and thereby made use of the bid deposit in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP100,000.00) paid for by the LGU Quezon for his personal bid, and applied the same, which was supposed to be deducted from the total purchase price of the LGU Quezon, to the total purchase price of his personal equipment; and that he made sure that his personal equipment will be transported alongside the LGU Quezon equipment in order to avoid incurring expenses for himself in the form of toll fees, shipment costs, and other incidental expenses.
CONTRARY TO LAW.21
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused Stewart Guadalquiver Leonardo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and hereby imposes on him an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum with perpetual disqualification from holding public office. He is ordered to reimburse the amount of P8,134.80 to the Municipality of Quezon, Bukidnon as transportation costs for the equipment that he purchased in the auction.Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied under Resolution27 dated March 1, 2019.
SO ORDERED.
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:The elements of the offense are: (1) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; (2) he or she must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence; and (3) his or her action caused injury to any party, including the government, or giving any party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his or her official functions.30
x 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.
Leonardo personally attended the auction and placed the bid on behalf of LGU Quezon and on his behalf, using the same bid deposit of P100,000.00[. He] successfully bid for five (5) trucks intended for LGU Quezon and for one (1) unit hydraulic excavator and one (1) unit front cut with cabin (truck head) as his personal purchase x x xPetitioner's personal participation during the auction negates his purported lack of knowledge of crediting the P100,000.00-bid deposit for the two (2) equipment bought by him. By only paying P1,570,000.00 for equipment valued at P1,670,000.00, petitioner was well aware that the P100,000.00-bid deposit (which amount is considered public funds for the account of the Municipality of Quezon) was instead, credited to him, thus resulting in unwarranted benefits. This bolster the conclusion that he acted with evident bad faith or manifest partiality.
x x x x
x x x On the other hand, Leonardo paid the amount of P1,570,000.00 for the hydraulic excavator and truck head (Item numbers 5 and 7 in the list) instead of the total price of P1,670,000.00. The difference of P100,000.00 turned out to be the bid deposit which was deducted from the price for the equipment that Leonardo [himself] purchased instead of from the total price of the trucks that LGU Quezon bought at the auction. x x x32
Leonardo signed on behalf of LGU Quezon as vendee in the Deeds of Sale for the five (5) trucks the municipality purchased through auction. Deeds of Sale were also issued for the two (2) pieces of equipment that he purchased for his own use, although the vendee indicated therein was LGU Quezon.34 (Emphasis supplied)The fact that the deeds of sale for the two (2) equipment were not made in petitioner's name shows that the transactions were fronted under Quezon's name in order for petitioner to utilize the P100,000.00-bid deposit of said municipality. Notably, although the deeds of sale were made in Quezon's name, two (2) receipts were issued: one amounting to P6,387,500.00 for the items bought by Quezon, and one amounting to P1,570,000.00 for petitioner's equipment.35 Petitioner, therefore, kept a receipt for his own equipment while fronting the purchase of the same under the deeds of sale in Quezon's name. Again, this is a badge of petitioner's evident bad faith or manifest partiality. Indeed, there is no doubt that petitioner manifestly, unjustly, and intentionally took advantage of his public office to gain unwarranted benefits for himself, to the prejudice of Quezon.
Still on cross-examination, [petitioner] stated that he was advised by someone from the Accounting Office that he should pay P100,000.00 because the bid deposit was deducted from this purchase only. He mentioned that he followed such advice and paid LGU Quezon such amount in installments. He first paid Seventy Thousand Pesos [P70,000.00] and then Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) four (4) days after. He said that he only paid P70,000.00 first because he was waiting for Bavron to liquidate the P30,000.00 that he gave the latter to rescue them from being stranded in Lipata.37 (Underscoring supplied)If it were true that petitioner acted in good faith by entirely shouldering the costs of transportation, then why did he seek to liquidate the same? As such, contrary to his posturing, petitioner never intended to pay for any transportation costs for his own account. On the contrary, he passed on these costs to Quezon, which again resulted in unwarranted benefits. The transportation costs, at least for his own two (2) purchased equipment, should be solely borne by petitioner and not the Municipality. As such, the Sandiganbayan correctly directed him to pay the amount of P8,134.80 as transportation costs for the equipment he purchased.
[I]t is worthy to note that it was only on 21 December 1999, after the case was set for an-arraignment, that petitioners raised the issue of the delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation. As stated by them in their Motion to Quash/Dismiss, [o]ther than the counter-affidavits, [they] did nothing. Also, in their petition, they averred: "Aside from the motion for extension of time to file counter-affidavits, petitioners in the present case did not file nor send any letter-queries addressed to the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao which conducted the preliminary investigation." They slept on their right - a situation amounting to laches. The matter could have taken a different dimension if during all those four years, they showed signs of asserting their right to a speedy disposition of their cases or at least made some overt acts, like filing a motion for early resolution, to show that they were not waiving that right. Their silence may, therefore be interpreted as a waiver of such right. As aptly stated in Alvizo, the petitioner therein was "insensitive to the implications and contingencies" of the projected criminal prosecution posed against him "by not taking any step whatsoever to accelerate the disposition of the matter, which inaction conduces to the perception that the supervening delay seems to have been without his objection, [and] hence impliedly with his acquiescence." (Emphasis supplied)For the first time and only here and now, petitioner belatedly asserts his alleged right to speedy disposition of the case against him. Below, he never filed a motion to quash the Information, nor a motion for early resolution of the case, or some other pleading, motion, or the like which would have unequivocally shown he never waived his right to speedy disposition of the case against him. It was only after losing the case twice in a row (first before the OMB and second, before the Sandiganbayan) that he is now asserting for the first time his objection to what he claims to be an inordinate delay in the resolution of the case against him before the OMB.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 3-40.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Reynaldo P. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Alex L. Quiroz and Bayani H. Jacinto. They composed the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division, id. at 45-67.
3 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:cralawredx x x x4Id. at 69-73.
(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.
5Id. at 87-88.
6 Exhibit "N," Acknowledgment Receipt No. 035864 dated May 21, 2010, id. at 102.
7Id. at 57-58.
8Id. at 97-98.
9Id. at 93.
10Id. at 102.
11 Exhibit "L," Acknowledgment Receipt No. 036586 dated June 1, 2010, id. at 102.
12 Exhibit "M," Acknowledgment Receipt No. 036575 dated June 3, 2010, id.
13Id. at 58.
14Id. at 47.
15Id. at 74-82.
16Id. at 60.
17Id. at 116-123.
18Id. at 61.
19Id. at 125-126.
20Id. at 45-46.
21Id. at 125.
22Id. at 138.
23 Exhibit "O," Official Receipt dated October 8, 2010, id. at 103.
24 Exhibit "P," Official Receipt dated October 18, 2010, id. at 104.
25Id. at 54-58.
26 Penned by Associate Justice Reynaldo P. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Alex L. Quiroz and Bayani H. Jacinto. They composed the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division, id. at 45-67.
27Id. at 69-73.
28Id. at 3-40.
29 Comment dated September 10, 2019, id. at 136-168.
30People v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), 769 Phil. 378, 389 (2015); Fuentes v. People, 808 Phil. 586, 593 (2017).
31Albert v. Sandiganbayan, 599 Phil. 439, 450-451 (2009).
32Rollo at 57-58.
33Id. at 58.
34Id.
35Id. at 102.
36Id. at 55.
37Id.
38 412 Phil. 921, 932 (2001), [Per CJ. Davide, En Banc].
39Lihaylihay v. People, 715 Phil. 722, 728 (2013); Ferrer, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 240209, June 10, 2019.
40People v. Naciongayo, G.R. No. 243897, June 8, 2020, citing Cahulogan v. People, 828 Phil. 742, 749 (2018).
41 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.
Any complaining party at whose complaint the criminal prosecution was initiated shall, in case of conviction of the accused, be entitled to recover in the criminal action with priority over the forfeiture in favor of the Government, the amount of money or the thing he may have given to the accused, or the fair value of such thing.