Case Digest: Domingo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 149175, October 25, 2005
RA 3019 | Criminal Law
Facts:
(1) Petitioner Jaime H. Domingo, at the time the petition was filed, was serving his third term as mayor of the Municipality of San Manuel, Isabela. Petitioner Garcia, on the other hand, is the proprietor of D.T. Garcia Construction Supply, and, incidentally, is the godson of Domingo in marriage.
(2) During Domingo’s incumbency in 1993, a Multi-Purpose Pavement (MPP) project was undertaken on the eighteen barangays of the municipality for the paving and repair of the barangay roads to be charged against the Economic Development Fund (EDF).
(3) On June 7, 1994, a special audit team was created by Commission on Audit (COA) Regional Director Pedro M. Guiang, Jr. to examine the infrastructure and EDF expenditures of the municipality during the incumbency of petitioner Domingo for the period January 1 to December 31, 1993. Based on the findings, the audit team concluded that D.T. Garcia Construction Supply was used by Domingo as a dummy to cover up his business transaction with the municipality of San Manuel.
(4) Consequently, Domingo was charged with violation of Section 3(h) of RA 3019 before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. On November 29, 1996, Domingo filed a Motion for Reinvestigation. After the prosecution conducted a reinvestigation, Garcia was impleaded as co-accused, along with Domingo, for violating Section 3(h) of RA 3019.
(5) The information alleges a direct pecuniary interest in the local government’s Muti-Purpose Pavement (MPP) project, by causing PNB checks, supposedly representing full payment to D.T. Garcia Construction owned and operated by accused Garcia for the delivery of truck-loads of mixed gravel and sand for the project, to be made payable to accused Domingo who subsequently encashed the same or through his wife, Consolacion Domingo.
(6) On July 23, 2001, Sandiganbayan found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(h) of RA No. 3019 .
Issues:
(I) WoN Sandiganbayan erred and gravely abused its discretion when it convicted Domingo in violation of R.A. 3019.
(II) WoN Sandiganbayan erred and gravely abused its discretion when it convicted Garcia as a conspirator in the violation of R.A. 3019 thereby imposing on him the corresponding penalty ranging from six years and one month to ten years and one day.
Defense:
(I) According to Domingo, the evidence adduced against him was insufficient to sustain a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Domingo contends that it was accused Garcia who requested that PNB checks be issued instead in Domingo’s name because Garcia’s mother was indebted to Domingo’s wife.
(II) According to Garcia, he should be considered as an accessory after the fact only, for which the penalty should be two degrees lower.
Held:
Judgment and resolution of Sandiganbayan AFFIRMED.
(I) Petitioner Domingo is guilty of violating Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft Law.
The essential elements of the violation of Sec 3(h) of RA 3019 are as follows:
1. The accused is a public officer;
2. He has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction;
3. He either:
a) intervenes or takes part in his official capacity in connection with such interest, or
b) is prohibited from having such interest by the Constitution or by law.
There are two modes by which a public officer who has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or transaction may violate Sec 3(h) of RA 3019. The first mode is when the public officer intervenes or takes part in his official capacity in connection with his financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction. The second mode is when he is prohibited from having such an interest by the Constitution or by law.
Petitioner Domingo, in his official capacity as mayor of San Manuel, Isabela, violated Sec 3(h) of RA 3019 via the first mode, that is, by intervening or taking part in his official capacity in connection with his financial or pecuniary interest in the transaction regarding the supply and delivery of mixed gravel and sand to the constituent barangays.
The contention of accused Domingo that it was accused Garcia who requested that PNB checks be issued instead in Domingo’s name because Garcia’s mother was indebted to Domingo’s wife fails to inspire belief in the Court’s mind. If indeed, such loan obligation existed, accused Domingo and Garcia are not the parties thereto.
Therefore, it was highly irregular for the municipal treasurer to issue the checks in Domingo’s name, when the voucher specifically states that they are intended as payment for the deliveries of sand and gravel to the municipality.
What the law prohibits is the actual intervention by a public official in a transaction in which he has a financial or pecuniary interest, for the law aims to prevent the dominant use of influence, authority and power.
(II) Petitioner Garcia is equally liable with petitioner Domingo pursuant to Sec 9(a) of RA 3019.
Conspiracy is present when one concurs with the criminal design of another, indicated by the performance of an overt act leading to the crime committed. Once established, all the conspirators are criminally liable as co-principals regardless of the degree of participation of each of them, for in contemplation of the law the act of one is the act of all.
The prosecution’s evidence has established the conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. The flimsy excuses given by petitioner Garcia cannot overturn the same.
That the checks were made payable to petitioner Domingo instead of petitioner Garcia’s D.T. Garcia Construction Supply company could only have been done through petitioner Garcia’s active cooperation.
Finally, petitioner Garcia’s admitted acts of attempting to cover up the transactions strongly point to his involvement therein.
Notes:
REPUBLIC ACT No. 3019
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
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:
(h) Director or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.
SEC. 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 one year nor more than ten 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.
Comments
Post a Comment