SECOND DIVISION
G.R. Nos. 231538-39. December 01, 2021
JUDITH B. CARDENAS, JIMMY L. CLERIGO, DIEGO E. SANTIAGO, JOSE CHUBASCO B. CARDENAS, ALDIN L. AVILA, EDGAR D. ESTAMPADOR, ROBERTO F. BOLO, MAMERTO S. BERMIL, JR., AMADO E. DELOS REYES, PEDRO C. MONTERO, WAGNER BEKIM Y. CARDENAS, AND MA. LUISA L. LUZA, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CORAZON G. JAVIER AND GUIA ADVINCULA, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari With Prayer for Allowance of Petitioners to Post Bail Pending Appeal1 assails the Decision2 dated November 29, 2016 and the Resolution3 dated April 19, 2017 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0180 and Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0181 which essentially found Judith B. Cardenas (Judith), Jimmy L. Clerigo (Clerigo), Diego E. Santiago (Santiago), Jose Chubasco B. Cardenas (Jose), Aldin L. Avila (Avila), Edgar D. Estampador (Estampador), Roberto F. Bolo (Bolo), Mamerto S. Bermil, Jr. (Bermil, Jr.), Amado E. Delos Reyes (Delos Reyes), Pedro C. Montero (Montero), Wagner Bekim Y. Cardenas (Wagner), and Ma. Luisa L. Luza (Luza) (collectively, petitioners) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019,4 otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Another Information8 docketed as Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0182 was filed against Judith and Luza for Malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code in connection with the relending of the P60,000,000.00 loan obtained by the LGU of Canlaon City from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) to the Canlaon City Government Employees Multi-Purpose Cooperative. (CCGEMCO).9 However, the Sandiganbayan subsequently dismissed10 the case upon petitioners' filing of a Joint Demurrer to Evidence (With Leave of Court).11chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryCriminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0180
That on or about the 12th day of December 2005, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, at the City of San Carlos, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused JUDITH B. CARDENAS and MA. LUISA L. LUZA, public officers, being the City Mayor and City Treasurer, respectively, of Canlaon City, and upon authority from co-accused JIMMY L. CLERIGO, Vice Mayor and Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the same City, and co-accused DIEGO E. SANTIAGO, JOSE CHUBASCO B. CARDENAS, ALDIN L. AVILA, EDGAR D. ESTAMPADOR, ROBERTO F. BOLO, MAMERTO S. BERMIL, JR., ERIC M. SUGANOB, AMADO S. DELOS REYES, HERNANI L. BLANCO, PEDRO C. MONTERO, WAGNER BEKIM Y. CARDENAS, Members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, same City in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to office, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping one another, with deliberate intent, and with intent to gain and to defraud, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter, on behalf of the City Government of Canlaon, into a contract of loan with the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), San Carlos, Negros Oriental in the amount of SIXTY MILLION PESOS (Php60,000,000.00), Philippine Currency, subject to the condition that the said loan shall be secured by a holdout on Canlaon City's Special Savings Deposits with DBP, with a continuing assignment of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) of Canlaon City, which sum and all interest income accruing thereon shall thereby under the full control of the DBP until the loan will have been fully paid, and shall be automatically applied as payment of loan in case the same, its interest and other charges are not paid upon maturity, which contract or transaction is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government, particularly the City Government of Canlaon, as the latter is thereupon compelled to utilize public funds consisting of the aforesaid Special Savings Deposits and IRA, without need of an appropriation, law or other specific statutory authority.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryCriminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0181
That on or about the 13th day of December 2005, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, at the City of San Carlos, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused JUDITH B. CARDENAS, a high-ranking public official, being the City Mayor of Canlaon City, in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to office, with deliberate intent, and with intent to gain and to defraud, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter, on behalf of the City Government of Canlaon, into an agreement with the Canlaon City Employees Multi-Purpose Cooperative (CCGEMCO), for the re-lending to CCGEMCO members of the amount of SIXTY MILLION PESOS (Php 60,000,000.00), Philippine Currency, that Canlaon City obtained by way of loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and for which the City of Canlaon is obligated to pay the principal amount of P60,000,000.00 plus interest and other charges, which contract or agreement is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government, particularly the City Government of Canlaon, for being subject to the condition that all the interests, charges and other fees earned in the course of the re-lending shall accrue to the exclusive account of the CCGEMCO and not Canlaon City.
CONTRARY TO LAW.7chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
x x x xDuring the trial, the prosecution called to the stand nine witnesses:
1. That at all times relevant to the above-entitled case/s, the following accused were public officers of Canlaon City:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary2. That accused City Vice-Mayor and all City Councilors of Canlaon City unanimously approved SP Resolution No. 247, Series of 2005 authorizing co-accused City Mayor Cardenas to secure a loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), San Carlos City Branch, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, in the amount of P60M for the Livelihood Projects of the officials and employees of Canlaon City LGU payable within 42 months, taking into account the LGU-Canlaon City as guarantor, and further authorizing accused City Mayor Cardenas and City Treasurer Luza as signatories thereto;cralawlawlibrary
Judith B. Cardenas –City Mayor Jimmy L. Clerigo –City Vice-Mayor Diego E. Santiago –City Councilor Jose Chubasco B. Cardenas –City Councilor Alvin L. Avila –City Councilor Edgar D. Estampador –City Councilor Roberto F. Bolo City Councilor Mamerto S. Bermil, Jr. –City Council Eric M. Suganob (deceased) –City Councilor Amado E. Delos Reyes –City Councilor Hernani L. Blanco (deceased) –City Councilor Pedro C. Montero –City Councilor Wagner Bekim Y. Cardenas –City Councilor Ma. Luisa L. Luza –City Treasurer
3. That accused City Mayor Cardenas and City Treasurer Luza, for and in behalf of Canlaon City LGU and by authority of SP Resolution No. 247, Series of 2005, executed a promissory note unconditionally promising to pay DBP the loan amount of P60M;cralawlawlibrary
4. That the loan of P60M obtained from the DBP was secured by (a) assignment of Special Savings Deposits of Canlaon City LGU with the DBP; and (b) continuing assignment of Canlaon City LGU's Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) in favor of the DBP[;]
5. That accused City Mayor Cardenas, for and in behalf of Canlaon City LGU, entered into Memorandum of Agreement with Canlaon City Government Employees Multi-Purpose Cooperative (CCGEMCO) whereby Canlaon City LGU shall allow CCGEMCO to administer the P60M loan obtained from the DBP for the purpose of re-lending the same to the city officials and regular employees, members and non-members of the cooperative.13chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
After the prosecution presented its testimonial and documentary evidence, petitioners filed on August 22, 2012, a Joint Demurrer For Leave To File and Admit Attached Demurrer to Evidence25 anchored on the ground that the MOA between DBP and the LGU of Canlaon City and the MOA between the LGU of Canlaon City and CCGEMCO are not manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government. Further, they argued that there is no malversation of public funds committed by Judith.
(1) Corazon Gaspar Javier, private complainant, who testified on the complaint-affidavit that she executed together with co-complainant Guia Advincula wherein they questioned the loan between the LGU of Canlaon City and DBP;14 (2) Olympia A. Salde, Secretary of CCGEMCO, who testified that a Memorandum of Agreement15 (MOA) was executed between the LGU of Canlaon City and CCGEMCO;16 (3) Tobias B. Culinar, former Branch Head of DBP, San Carlos City Branch, who brought with him the documents relative to the P60,000,000.00 loan between DBP and the LGU of Canlaon City;17 (4) Samuel B. Eleccion, Secretary of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Canlaon City, who identified Sanggunian Panlungsod Resolution No. 247, Series of 2005 (SP Resolution No. 247) and the Minutes of the Regular Session of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Canlaon approving said Resolution;18 (5) Maria Luisa Locsin, a retired employee of DBP, who testified on the execution of the loan documents between DBP and the LGU of Canlaon City;19 (6) Orlando Bautista, Assistant City Assessor of Canlaon City, who testified on the execution of the loan agreement, denominated as the MOA, between the LGU of Canlaon City and CCGEMCO;20 (7) Juliano C. Montero, City Accountant of Canlaon City, who testified that the P60,000,000.00 loan between DBP and the LGU of Canlaon City was not reflected in the accounting records and financial statements of the LGU of Canlaon City for the years 2005 and 2006;21 (8) Rowena F. Oralde, Assistant City Accountant of Canlaon City, likewise testified that the P60,000,000.00 loan was not reflected in the accounting records and financial statements of the LGU of Canlaon City;22 and (9) Tobias V. Colina,23 Branch Head of DBP San Carlos City Branch, who presented the DBP manager's check in the amount of P60,000,000.00 representing the LGU of Canlaon City's loan with DBP.24chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused's "JOINT DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE (With Leave Of Court)" is hereby DENIED in so far as SB-09-CRM-0180 and SB-09-CRM-0181 are concerned. However, this Court GRANTS the same in so far as SB-09-CRM-0182 is concerned.Because of the denial of their demurrer in the subject cases, petitioners proceeded with the presentation of their testimonial and documentary evidence.
Accordingly, let the presentation of evidence for the defense in SB-09-CRM-0180 and SB-09-CRM-0181 be set.
In SB-09-CRM-0182, accused Mayor JUDITH B. CARDENAS and MA. LUISA L. LUZA are hereby ACQUITTED for the offense charged. The cash bonds which they respectively deposited for their provisional liberties in this instant case are hereby ordered cancelled and returned to them after the usual auditing and accounting procedures. The Hold Departure Order issued against them in this instant case is likewise hereby ordered cancelled. Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation for its proper guidance and information.
SO ORDERED.27chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0180, accused JUDITH B. CARDENAS, JIMMY L. [CLERIGO], DIEGO E. SANTIAGO, JOSE CHUBASCO B. CARDENAS, ALDIN L. AVILA, EDGAR D. ESTAMPADOR, ROBERTO F. BOLO, MAMERTO S. BERMIL, JR., AMADO E. DELOS REYES, PEDRO C. MONTERO, WAGNER BEKIM Y. CARDENAS and MA. LUISA L. LUZA, are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for which they are hereby sentenced, each of said accused, to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum and nine (9) years as maximum, with the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office.Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the above Decision but the Sandiganbayan denied it in a Resolution35 dated April 19, 2017.
In Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0181, accused JUDITH B. CARDENAS is also found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated Sec. 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the same principal and accessory penalties as above-described.
SO ORDERED.34chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Petitioners essentially argue that the prosecution failed to establish the third element of the offense charged, that is, that the contract or transaction was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government. They contend that the finding that the subject MOAs were grossly disadvantageous to the LGU of Canlaon City was based on mere speculations.37chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryI
THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF HAVING VIOLATED SECTION 3(G) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019[;]II
THE SANDIGANBAYAN MADE ERRONEOUS RATIOCINATIONS THAT CANNOT JUSTIFY THE CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONERS FOR VIOLATING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019[;]III
THE SANDIGANBAYAN MADE ERRONEOUS FINDINGS WHEN IT RULED THAT THERE WAS CONSPIRACY AMONG THE PETITIONERS.IV.
ASSUMING WITHOUT CONCEDING THAT PETITIONERS VIOLATED SECTION 3(G) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019, THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE SANDIGANBAYAN IS TOO HARSH CONSIDERING THAT THERE IS NO LOSS OR PREJUDICE PROVEN BY THE PROSECUTION.36chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 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 above provision are the following:x x x x
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
In the case, the charges filed against Judith and other petitioners arose from the acquisition by the City of Canlaon of the P60,000,000.00 loan from DBP which was authorized by the Sangguniang Panglungsod. This loan was secured by the City of Canlaon's Special Savings Deposit and continuing assignment of IRA. The LGU of Canlaon City then entered into a MOA with CCGEMCO allowing the latter to administer the DBP loan proceeds for the purpose of re-lending the same to the city officials and regular employees, members and non-members of the cooperative.
(1) that the accused is a public officer; (2) that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and (3) that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government.51
"AUTHORIZING THE CITY MAYOR OF CANLAON CITY TO SECURE FOR A NEW LOAN WITH THE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (DBP), SAN CARLOS CITY BRANCH, SAN CARLOS CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, IN THE AMOUNT OF SIXTY MILLION PESOS ONLY (PHP60,000,000.00) FOR THE LIVELIHOOD PROJECTS OF ITS OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES PAYABLE WITHIN FORTY TWO (42) MONTHS, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT LGU-CANLAON CITY AS A GUARANTOR, AND FURTHER AUTHORIZE THE CITY MAYOR AND THE CITY TREASURER AS SIGNATORIES THEREOF."It is not novel for LGUs to obtain loans or credit accommodations in line with their powers as a corporation.54 Under Section 296 of RA 7160 otherwise known as the "Local Government Code of 1991" (LGC), "any local government unit may create indebtedness, and avail of credit facilities to finance local infrastructure and other socio-economic development projects in accordance with the approved local development plan and public investment program."
WHEREAS, presented to the august body for consideration is the letter-request from the City Mayor of 12 October 2005, for the passage of a Resolution - "Authorizing Her to Enter Into A Loan Agreement By And Between The Local Government Unit of Canlaon City and the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP); San Carlos City Branch, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, and duly supported with the letter from Ms. Doris Y. Flores, City Administrator and Chairperson of the Local Credit Committee, dated 25 October 2005, which was noted by the City Mayor herself, conveying to the august body on the loan proposal of the aforementioned bank;cralawlawlibrary
WHEREAS, in order to uplift the economic well-being of its officials and employees, the city intents to secure a new loan with the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), San Carlos City Branch, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, in the amount of Php60,000,000.00 under the new terms and conditions which is advantageous to the City Government of Canlaon as a whole;
WHEREAS, in the sense that this has only an interest rate of 8% - inclusive of gross receipts tax, having an amortization schedule of forty two (42) months whose mode of payment of its principal and interest monthly to commence one month from release with the collateral of deed of assignment of CASA of LGU is equivalent to 100% of the loanable amount, taking into account that the multiple drawdowns, every partial payment made, and partial release of collateral are allowed;
WHEREAS, it is hereby emphasized that the availment of the said new loan shall not affect the Infrastructure Projects of the city;cralawlawlibrary
WHEREAS, in view of the foregoing premises, the august body has arrived into a consensus to give due course to the request of the City Mayor;cralawlawlibraryNOW, THEREFORE:
On motion of Honorable Avila and duly seconded by Honorable Delos Reyes, the body -
RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to authorize the City Mayor of Canlaon City to secure for a new loan with the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), San Carlos City Branch, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, in the Amount of P60,000,000.00 only for the livelihood projects of its officials and employees payable within forty two (42) months, taking into account that the LGU-Canlaon City as a guarantor, and further authorize the City Mayor and the City Treasurer as signatories thereof;
RESOLVED, FURTHER, that copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Manager, Development Bank of the Philippines, San Carlos City Branch, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, for their Information and guidance, and reference;cralawlawlibrary
ADOPTED by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Canlaon City, this 3rd day of November, 2005.
"UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED."53 (Italics supplied.)
Section 297. Loans, Credits, and Other Forms of Indebtedness of Local Government Units. — (a) A local government unit may contract loans, credits, and other forms of indebtedness with any government or domestic private bank and other lending institutions to finance the construction, installation, improvement, expansion, operation, or maintenance of public facilities, infrastructure facilities, housing projects, the acquisition of real property, and the implementation of other capital investment projects, subject to such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by the local government unit and the lender. The proceeds from such transactions shall accrue directly to the local government unit concerned.There is no dispute as to the existence of the first two elements of Section 3(g) of RA 3019. That petitioners were public officers at the time material to this case is settled. There is also no issue as to the fact that the MOA between DBP and the LGU of Canlaon City as well as the MOA between the LGU of Canlaon City and CCGEMCO were entered into on behalf of the LGU of Canlaon City. Thus, the two elements exist in the case at bar.
(b) A local government unit may likewise secure from any government bank and lending institution short-, medium- and longterm loans and advances against security of real estate or other acceptable assets for the establishment, development, or expansion of agricultural, industrial, commercial, house financing and livelihood projects, and other economic enterprises.
(c) Government financial and other lending institutions are hereby authorized to grant loans, credits, and other forms of indebtedness out of their loanable funds to local government units for purposes specified above. (Italics and emphasis supplied.)
Section 3 (g) of R.A. No. 3019 is intended to be flexible in order to give judges some latitude in determining whether the disadvantage to the government, occasioned by the act of a public officer in entering into a particular contract is, indeed, gross and manifest. Otherwise stated, there is no hard and fast rule against which the disadvantageous acts complained of should be calibrated. The determination of whether the disadvantage caused was gross and manifest, as contemplated by Section 3 (g), should be done on a case-to-case basis.55 (Italics supplied.)"Manifest" connotes something that is evident to the senses, open, obvious, notorious, unmistakable, etc.56 "Gross" is defined as "flagrant, shameful, such conduct as is not to be excused."57 While "disadvantageous" is something that is unfavorable, prejudicial.58chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
18. Q: You mentioned that DBP allows to collateralize special savings deposit and the Internal Revenue Allotment of LGUs. What do you mean by it?As in the case, SP Resolution No. 247 expressly provided that the deed of assignment of the current and savings account (CASA) of the LGU equivalent to 100% of the loanable amount shall serve as collateral. Notably, SP Resolution No. 247 did not specify what constitutes the CASA. Nevertheless, in determining what constitutes the CASA of an LGU, the Court is aware that the IRAs of LGUs are deposited in their respective depository accounts with the depository bank.64 In fact, as stated in the Deed of Assignment with Holdout on Special Savings Deposits and Continuing Assignment of IRA executed by DBP and the LGU of the City of Canlaon, the latter's IRA is remitted to its account carried at the DBP Dumaguete Branch.65chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
A: I meant that for LGU loan transactions entered into by DBP, the most common collateral being required by the bank are the Assignment of IRA and special savings deposits.
19. Q: Why do you usually opt to secure the IRA and special savings deposits as collateral to the LGU loans?
A: As I have said, it has very minimal risks and advantageous for both the DBP and the LGU concerned. Minimal risks because if Deed of Assignment has hold-out provision, payment of the loan is guaranteed in the event of default as the Bank can readily debit the loan payment from the bank accounts of borrower LGU. In addition, the LGU deposits being made as collateral earns a handful of interest income that benefits the LGU.63chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
2. Under DBP Funding – hold-out on CASA deposits equivalent to 100% of the loan balanceConsidering the circumstances, it must be understood that the CASA deposits with DBP which shall serve as security for the DBP loan per SP Resolution No. 247 included deposits equivalent to 100% of loan balance with continuing assignment of IRA, as security for the loan. Specifically, the MOA between DBP and the LGU of Canlaon City provides that the latter shall assign P60,000,000.00 only of its several Special Savings Deposits with the DBP San Carlos Branch and shall continue to assign its IRA carried at the DBP Dumaguete Branch while the loan remained outstanding.67chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Amount of Loan P60M Purpose of Loan To finance LGU's livelihood, development or environmental projects Security Holdout on deposits equivalent to 100% of loan balance with continuing assignment of IRA. Term of Loan Up to 15 years inclusive of 2-3 years grace period on principal amortizations depending on type of project & cash flow. Principal payable in equal monthly or quarterly amortizations to start 30 or 90 days from end of grace period until full payment. Interest Presently @ 7% p.a., reviewable & payable monthly Availability 1-2 years from date of notice of approval inclusive of documentation period. Others 1. Multiple drawdowns allowed
2. Interest earnings on deposits subject of holdout withdrawable provided the account is maintained up-to-date.
1. The LGU, as part of her continuing mandate for the development of cooperative, pursuant to law, hereby allows the CCGEMCO to administer the said loan of P60,000,000.00 for re-lending to the qualified officials and employees of Canlaon City, strictly in accordance with the LGU's LIVELIHOOD INCENTIVE SUPPORT PROGRAM as determined by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Canlaon City;cralawlawlibraryTo the mind of the Court, whether CCGEMCO granted loans to the City officials and employees without regard to the abovestated provisions of the MOA as would amount to a manifest and gross disadvantage to the Government is a matter that should have been established by the prosecution. Regrettably, there is none in the case.
x x x x
5. The CCGEMCO, in order to fulfill its tasks and the challenges placed upon itself by the LGU, has established the following rules in the administration of said funds, as follows:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryx x x x71cralawredlibrary
5.1 The said funds shall be used in its livelihood, lending and redemption programs; 5.2 City officials and employees with viable and acceptable livelihood project proposals are given the first priority to avail of the LIVELIHOOD INCENTIVE SUPPORT PROGRAM; second in priority are those with viable and acceptable livelihood project proposals but have outstanding loan obligations with other financial institutions charging higher rate of interests and who wish to be redeemed from such financial institutions; last in priority are those with outstanding loan obligations with other financial institutions charging higher rate of interests and who wish to be redeemed from such financial institutions;
4. The CCGEMCO undertakes to pay the principal amount including the interests and charges to the DBP in accordance with said loan package.Admittedly, CCGEMCO is not a party to the loan agreement between the LGU of Canlaon City and DBP such that DBP cannot directly make CCGEMCO liable to pay the loan. However, this express provision in the MOA shows that the LGU of Canlaon City exerted earnest efforts in ensuring that the DBP loan will be paid without having the special savings account and the IRA to answer for the DBP loan.x x x x
5. The CCGEMCO, in order to fulfill its tasks and the challenges placed upon itself by the LGU, has established the following rules in the administration of said fund, as follows:x x x x
5.10 CCGEMCO undertakes to remit to DBP premium payments not later than 12th day of the month.72
Undoubtedly, the special savings deposit account and the IRA of the LGU of Canlaon City have been left untouched considering that there is no default in the payment of the loan. Ultimately, the LGU of Canlaon City did not suffer any injury.CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the Php 60 Million 1:1 Loan, which was granted to the City of Canlaon (LGU) last December 12, 2005 was fully paid on June 10, 2009 per OR No. 4338. The account matured on June 12, 2009.
This is to certify further that during the term of the loan, amortizations were paid promptly, and the account was satisfactorily handled by the City.
This certification is issued upon the request of Hon. Judith B. Cardenas, City Mayor of Canlaon (LGU), for whatever purpose it may serve best.74chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 3-32.
2 Id. at 36-55; penned by Associate Justice Samuel R. Martires with Associate Justices Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang and Alex L. Quiroz, concurring.
3 Id. at 58-67; penned by Associate Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang with Associate Justices Alex L. Quiroz and Sarah Jane T. Fernandez, concurring.
4 Approved on August 17, 1960.
5 Sandiganbayan rollo (Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0180), Volume 1, pp. 1-4; Sandiganbayan rollo (Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0181), pp. 1-3.
6 Sandiganbayan rollo (Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0180), Volume 1, pp. 2-3.
7 Sandiganbayan rollo (Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0181), pp. 1-2.
8 Sandiganbayan rollo (Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0180-0182), Volume 2, pp. 8-10.
9 Id. at 8-9.
10 See Resolution dated March 12, 2013 of the Sandiganbayan penned by Presiding Justice Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr. with Associate Justices Samuel R. Martires and Alex L. Quiroz, concurring; id. at 384.
11 Id. at 286-315.
12 Sandiganbayan rollo (Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0180), Volume 1, pp. 284-285.
13 Sandiganbayan rollo (Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0180-0182), Volume 2, pp. 49-52.
14 Rollo, p. 40.
15 Sandiganbayan rollo (Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0180), Volume 1, pp. 73-75.
16 Rollo, p. 40.
17 Rollo, pp. 40-41.
18 Id. at 41.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 "Culinar" in the rollo and Sandiganbayan rollo and rollo. See also TSN, May 15, 2012.
24 Rollo, p. 42.
25 Sandiganbayan rollo (Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0180-0182), Volume 2, pp. 282-315.
26 Id. at 368-384.
27 Id. at 384.
28 Rollo, pp. 6-7. See also Resolution No. 247, Series of 2005, id. at 79-80.
29 Id. at 6-8.
30 Id. at 36-55.
31 Id. at 47.
32 Id. at 47-48.
33 Id. at 49-50.
34 Id. at 53-54.
35 Id. at 58-67.
36 Id. at 11-12.
37 Id. at 12-15.
38 Id. at 12-13.
39 Id. at 13-14.
40 Id. at 24-25.
41 Id. at 25-26.
42 Id. at 211-216.
43 See Certificate of Death, id. at 219.
44 See Resolution dated February 10, 2021, id. at 274-276.
45 Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code; See also Cruz v. People, G.R. Nos. 197142 & 197153, October 9, 2019; People v. Bayotas, 306 Phil. 266 (1994).
46 Lee v. Sandiganbayan, First Division, G.R. Nos. 234664-67, January 12, 2021, citing Republic v. Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership, 728 Phil. 277, 287-288 (2014) and Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers v. Cirtek Electronics, Inc., 665 Phil. 784, 788 (2011).
47 Id., Pascual v. Burgos, et al., 776 Phil. 167, 183 (2016).
48 Canlas v. Bongolan, et al., 832 Phil. 293, 332 (2018), citing Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 181 (2016).
49 Lee v. Sandiganbayan, First Division, supra note 46.
50 Id., citing Agullo v. Sandiganbayan, 414 Phil. 86, 99 (2001).
51 Go v. The Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan, 549 Phil. 782, 795 (2007).
52 Rollo, pp. 79-80.
53 Id.
54 Section 22 of Republic Act No. 7160.
55 Castillo-Co v. Sandiganbayan, et al., 838 Phil. 664, 674 (2018), citing Dans, Jr. v. People, 349 Phil. 434, 463 (1998).
56 Miranda v. Sandiganbayan, et al., 815 Phil. 123, 153 (2017), citing Sajul v. Sandiganbayan, 398 Phil. 1082, 1105 (2000).
57 Id., citing Morales v. People of the Philippines, 434 Phil. 471, 488 (2002).
58 Id., citing Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1983.
59 See "Rise UP LGUs," Land Bank of the Philippines, <https://www.landbank.com/images/inner_template/1595988190_RISE%20UP%20LGU%20-%20A4%20Brochure%20FINAL.pdf> (last accessed November 4, 2021).
60 See Energy Efficiency Savings Financing Program, Development Bank of the Philippines, <https://www.dbp.ph/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/E2SAVE.pdf> (last accessed November 4, 2021).
61 Available at <https://www.dbp.ph/developmental-banking/social-services-community-development/assistance-for-economic-and-social-development-asenso-for-local-government-units-lgus-financing-program/> (last accessed on November 4, 2021).
62 Sandiganbayan rollo (Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0180-0181), Volume 3, pp. 222-233.
63 Id. at 226.
64 See Treasury Circular No. 01-2017 dated December 28, 2016 of the Bureau of Treasury <https://www.treasury.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/TC-01-2017-28-December-2016.pdf> (last accessed November 4, 2021) and Joint Circular No. 2013-1 dated September 16, 2013 <https://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/Issuances/2013/Joint%20Circular%202013/JC2013-1%28DOF-DBM%29.pdf> (last accessed November 4, 2021).
65 Exhibit "F," Exhibit Folder.
66 Sandiganbayan rollo (Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0180-0182), Volume 2, pp. 209-210.
67 See Memorandum of Agreement, rollo, pp. 79-80.
68 Sandiganbayan rollo (Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0180-0182), Volume 2, pp. 229-237.
69 Sandiganbayan rollo (Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0180), Volume 1, pp. 87-92.
70 Sandiganbayan rollo (Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0180), Volume 1, p. 87. Private complainants averred:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary1. On March 13, 2006, Complainants received Respondents' Counter-Affidavit. In the said Counter-Affidavit, Respondents have raised the convenient excuse that the complaint is politically motivated. Yet, they failed to disclose that three of the respondents Sangguniang Panglungsod members do not belong to the party of Mayor Judith Cardenas. Respondent Sangguniang Panglungsod Member Diego Santiago ran and won as an independent while Respondent Sangguniang Panglungsod Members Filomena Bascones and Amado delos Reyes ran and won as opposition candidates. That the other 273 employees were not included as respondents is no excuse for the respondents to evade liability under the anti-graft statutes. The other 273 employees are just incidental beneficiaries of the illegitimate transaction. The respondents who are included in the complaint are the brains and principal authors of the criminal transaction which eventually benefited them.71 Sandiganbayan rollo (Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0180-0182), Volume 2, pp. 226-227.
72 Sandiganbayan rollo (Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0180-0182), Volume 2, pp. 227-228.
73 Sandiganbayan rollo (Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0180-0181), Volume 3, p. 220.
74 Id.cralawredlibrary