537 Phil. 419
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
That on or about the period covering January 9, 1993 to January 10, 1993 or sometime prior thereto, in Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, TIMOTEO A. GARCIA, GILBERT G. NABO and NERY TAGUPA, being then public officers or employees of the Land Transportation Office (LTO), Cagayan de Oro City, taking advantage of their respective official positions, and conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another and with intent to gain personal use or benefit, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously borrow One (1) unit Asian Automotive Center's Service Vehicle – Fiera Blue KBK-732, in good running condition, spare tire, tools from Oro Asian Automotive Corporation, which is engaged in the business of vehicle assembly and dealership in Cagayan de Oro City, knowing that said corporation regularly transacts with the accused's LTO Office for the registration of its motor vehicles, in the reporting of its engine and chassis numbers as well as the submission of its vehicle dealer's report and other similar transactions which require the prior approval and/or intervention of the said accused Regional Director and employees and/or their said LTO office in Cagayan de Oro City, to the damage and prejudice of and undue injury to said Oro Asian Automotive Corporation, including complainant Maria Lourdes Miranda.[3]The fifty-six other Informations are similarly worded except for the alleged dates of commission of the offense, and the types/descriptions of the vehicles allegedly borrowed by them. The pertinent data in the other informations are as follows:12345
CASE NUMBER | DATE OF COMMISSION | TYPE/DESCRIPTION OF VEHICLE |
| | |
24043 | January 16, 1993 to January 17, 1993 | One (1) unit FIERA BLUE |
| | |
24044 | January 23, 1993 to January 24, 1993 | One (1) unit FIERA BLUE KBK-732, service vehicle of Asian Automotive Center, in good running condition with tools, spare tire |
| | |
24045 | February 6, 1993 to February 7, 1993 | One (1) unit FIERA BLUE KBK-732, in good running condition with tools |
| | |
24046 | February 13, 1993 to February 14, 1993 | One (1) unit FIERA BLUE KBK-732, in good running condition |
| | |
24047 | March 13, 1993 to March 14, 1993 | One (1) unit TOYOTA TAMARAW yellow, KBN-156, in good running condition, with tools and spare tire |
| | |
24048 | Morning of March 20, 1993 to afternoon of March 20, 1993 | One (1) unit TOYOTA HSPUR YELLOW KBN-156, with spare tools, in good condition |
| | |
24049 | Morning of March 27, 1993 to afternoon of March 27, 1993 | One (1) unit TAMARAW HSPUR, yellow in color, KBN-156, in good condition, with spare tire, with jack and tire wrench |
| | |
24050 | April 24, 1993 to April 25, 1993 | One (1) unit TAMARAW HSPUR, Yellow in color, KBN-156, in good condition, with spare tire, jack and tire wrench |
| | |
24051 | April 25, 1993 and have been returned after use | One (1) unit AERO D VAN KBN-865, maroon in color Asian Automotive Center's Vehicle, in good running condition, with spare tire, tools, jack and tire wrench |
| | |
24052 | May 15, 1993 to May 16, 1993 | One (1) unit TOYOTA Fierra, yellow in color, engine no. 4k-0907126, chassis no. CMCI-109247-C, in good condition, jack, spare tire, tire wrench |
| | |
24053 | May 29, 1993 to May 30, 1993 | One (1) unit TAMARAW HSPUR, KBN-156, yellow in color, in good running condition, w/ spare tire, jack and tire wrench |
| | |
24054 | June 5, 1993 to June 6, 1993 | One (1) unit TAMARAW HSPUR, KBN-156, yellow in color, in good running condition, w/ spare tire, jack and tire wrench |
| | |
24055 | June 19, 1993 to June 20, 1993 | One (1) unit TAMARAW HSPUR, KBN-156, yellow in color, in good running condition, w/ spare tire, jack and tire wrench |
| | |
24056 | June 26, 1993 to morning of June 26, 1993 | One (1) unit TAMARAW HSPUR, KBN-156, yellow in color, in good running condition, w/ spare tire, jack and tire wrench |
| | |
24057 | July 17, 1993 to July 18, 1993 | One (1) unit TAMARAW HSPUR, KBN-156, yellow in color, in good running condition, w/ spare tire, jack and tire wrench |
| | |
24058 | July 31, 1993 to August 1, 1993 | One (1) unit TAMARAW HSPUR, KBN-156, yellow in color, in good running condition, w/ spare tire, jack and tire wrench |
| | |
24059 | July 24, 1993 to July 25, 1993 | One (1) unit TAMARAW HSPUR, KBN-156, yellow in color, in good running condition, w/ spare tire, jack and tire wrench |
| | |
24060 | August 7, 1993 to August 8, 1993 | One (1) unit TAMARAW HSPUR, KBN-156, yellow in color, in good running condition, w/ spare tire, jack and tire wrench |
| | |
24061 | August 14, 1993 to August 15, 1993 | One (1) unit TAMARAW HSPUR, KBN-156, yellow in color, in good running condition, w/ spare tire, jack and tire wrench |
| | |
24062 | August 21, 1993 to August 22, 1993 | One (1) unit TAMARAW HSPUR, KBN-156, yellow in color, in good running condition, w/ spare tire, jack and tire wrench |
| | |
24063 | September 4, 1993 to September 5, 1993 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, KBP-375, white in color, with engine no. C190-484232, Chassis no. SMM90-6787-C, in good running condition upholstered seats |
| | |
24064 | Morning of September 11, 1993 to evening of September 11, 1993 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, KBP-375, white in color, in good running condition, upholstered seats, jack, tire wrench, spare tire |
| | |
24065 | September 18, 1993 to September 19, 1993 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, KBP-375, in good running condition, upholstered seats, side view mirrors, rear view mirror, jack w/ handle, tire wrench, seats |
| | |
24066 | September 25, 1993 to September 26, 1993 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, KBP-375, good running condition, upholstered seats, side view mirrors, rear view mirror, jack w/ handle, tire wrench, seats |
| | |
24067 | October 23, 1993 to October 24, 1993 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, KBP-375, good running condition, upholstered seats, side view mirrors, rear view mirror, jack w/ handle, tire wrench, seats |
| | |
24068 | October 30, 1993 to October 31, 1993 | One (1) unit ISUZU, NNJ-917, white in color, in good running condition, side view mirror, jack w/ tire wrench |
| | |
24069 | November 6, 1993 to November 7, 1993 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, KBP-375, good running condition, upholstered seats, side view mirrors, rear view mirror, jack w/ handle, tire wrench, seats |
| | |
24070 | November 13, 1993 to November 14, 1993 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, KBP-375, good running condition, upholstered seats, side view mirrors, rear view mirror, jack w/ handle, tire wrench, seats |
| | |
24071 | November 27, 1993 to November 28, 1993 | One (1) unit AERO D-II HSPUR, KBP-375, good running condition, jack w/ handle, tire wrench, spare tire |
| | |
24072 | December 4, 1993 to December 5, 1993 | One (1) unit AERO D-II HSPUR, KBP-375, good running condition, jack w/ handle, tire wrench, spare tire |
| | |
24073 | December 11, 1993 to December 12, 1993 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, white in color, KBP-375, full in dash instrumentation, jack w/ handle, tire wrench in good running condition |
| | |
24074 | December 18, 1993 to December 19, 1993 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, white in color, KBP-375, full in dash instrumentation, jack w/ handle, tire wrench in good running condition |
| | |
24075 | January 8, 1994 to January 9, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, white in color, KBP-375, full in dash instrumentation, jack w/ handle, tire wrench in good running condition |
| | |
24076 | Morning of January 15, 1994 to late afternoon of January 15, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, white in color, KBP-375, full in dash instrumentation, jack w/ handle, tire wrench in good running condition. |
| | |
24077 | January 29, 1994 to January 30, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, KBP-375, white in color, w/o plate number |
| | |
24078 | Withdrawn per Court Resolution dated July 3, 1998, p. 103 Crim. Case # 24042 | |
| | |
24079 | February 5, 1994 to February 6, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, white in color, KBP-375, full in dash instrumentation, jack w/ handle, tire wrench in good running condition |
| | |
24080 | February 12, 1994 to February 13, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D-II HSPUR, KBP-375, in good running condition, jack w/ handle, tire wrench, spare tire |
| | |
24081 | February 26, 1994 to February 27, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, white in color, KBP-375, full in dash instrumentation, jack w/ handle, tire wrench in good running condition |
| | |
24082 | March 4, 1994 to March 5, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, white in color, KBP-375, full in dash instrumentation, jack w/ handle, tire wrench in good running condition |
| | |
24083 | March 12, 1994 to March 13, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, white in color, KBP-375, full in dash instrumentation, jack w/ handle, tire wrench in good running condition |
| | |
24084 | March 19, 1994 to March 20, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, white in color, KBP-375, full in dash instrumentation, in good running condition, with jack, tire wrench, spare tire. |
| | |
24085 | April 9, 1994 to April 10, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, white in color, KBP-375, full in dash instrumentation, jack w/ handle, tire wrench in good running condition |
| | |
24086 | April 30, 1994 to May 1, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, white in color, KBP-375, full in dash instrumentation, jack w/ handle, tire wrench in good running condition |
| | |
24087 | May 7, 1994 to May 8, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, white in color, KBP-375, full in dash instrumentation, jack w/ handle, tire wrench in good running condition |
| | |
24088 | May 14, 1994 to May 15, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, white in color, KBP-375, full in dash instrumentation, jack w/ handle, tire wrench in good running condition |
| | |
24089 | May 21, 1994 to May 22, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, white in color, KBP-375, full in dash instrumentation, jack w/ handle, tire wrench in good running condition |
| | |
24090 | June 4, 1994 to June 5, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D-II HSPUR, KBP-375, in good running condition, jack w/ handle, tire wrench, spare tire |
| | |
24091 | June 11, 1994 to June 12, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D-II HSPUR, KBP-375, in good running condition, jack w/ handle, tire wrench, spare tire |
| | |
24092 | June 17, 1994 to June 19, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D-II HSPUR, KBP-375, in good running condition, jack w/ handle, tire wrench, spare tire |
| | |
24093 | July 2, 1994 to July 3, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, white in color, KBP-375, full in dash instrumentation, jack w/ handle, tire wrench in good running condition |
| | |
24094 | July 23, 1994 to July 24, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, white in color, KBP-375, full in dash instrumentation, jack w/ handle, tire wrench in good running condition |
| | |
24095 | August 25, 1994 to August 28, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D VAN with engine no. C190-542416, chassis no. SMM90-8370-C, full in dash instrumentation, maroon in color with plate no. KBN-865, in good condition |
| | |
24096 | Morning of September 3, 1994 to afternoon of September 3, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, white in color, KBP-375, full in dash instrumentation, jack, tire wrench, in good running condition |
| | |
24097 | September 17, 1994 to September 18, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, white in color, KBP-375, full in dash instrumentation, in good running condition |
| | |
24098 | November 26, 1994 to November 27, 1994 | One (1) unit AERO D HSPUR, white in color, KBP-375, full in dash instrumentation, jack w/ handle, tire wrench in good running condition[4] |
ESTANISLAO BARRETE YUNGAO (hereinafter, "Yungao") declared that he was employed as the driver and liaison officer of the Oro Asian Automotive Center Corporation (hereinafter, "the Company"), an establishment engaged in the assembly of motor vehicles, during the period covering the years 1991 to 1995. As such, Yungao had to officially report to the Land Transportation Office ("LTO") of Cagayan de Oro City all the engine and chassis numbers prior to the assembly of any motor vehicle. In the process, the Company had to secure from the LTO a Conduct Permit after a motor vehicle has been completely assembled, for purposes of carrying out the necessary road testing of the vehicle concerned. After the said road testing and prior to its eventual sale/disposition, the vehicle has to be first properly registered with the LTO. Accused Garcia, in his capacity as the Director of the LTO of Cagayan de Oro City, during all times relevant to the instant cases, was the approving authority on the aforesaid reportorial requirements and the signatory of the said Conduct Permits.For the defense, petitioner took the witness stand, while accused Tagupa did not present any evidence.
By reason thereof, Yungao knew accused Garcia since January of 1991. Yungao would always personally talk to accused Garcia regarding the issuance of the required Conduct Permit for any newly assembled vehicle. Yungao would secure from accused Garcia as many as 30 to 40 of such permits in a year.
In the process, accused Garcia would regularly summon Yungao to his office to tell him to inform either Aurora or Alonzo Chiong, the owners of the Company, that he (accused Garcia) would borrow a motor vehicle for purposes of visiting his farm. When Yungao could not be contacted, accused Garcia would personally call up the Company and talk to the owners thereof to borrow the vehicle. Accused Garcia confided to Yungao that he could not utilize the assigned government vehicle for his own personal use during Saturdays and Sundays. It was for this reason that he had to borrow vehicles from the Chiongs to enable him to visit his farm.
Yungao maintained that accused Garcia had been regularly borrowing motor vehicles from the Chiongs during the period covering January of 1993 up to and until November of 1994. Accused Garcia would always ask his representative to take the Company's vehicle on a Saturday morning. However, Yungao never reported for work on Saturdays; thus, he was not the one who actually released the borrowed motor vehicles to the representative of accused Garcia. Nonetheless, Yungao would be aware of the fact that accused Garcia borrowed the vehicles requested because, for every such instance, a corresponding delivery receipt is issued, which is placed on top of his table for him to place in the Company's record files on the following working day. The numerous delivery receipts would show and indicate the actual number of times accused Garcia had borrowed vehicles from the Company.
Finally, Yungao identified the affidavit which he executed in connection with the subject cases.
On cross-examination, Yungao testified that it was his duty to keep the permits relating to the road testing of the motor vehicles assembled by the Company. These permits were secured by him from accused Garcia before the vehicles were eventually put on display or presented to potential buyers. Although there was a Regulation Officer at the LTO before whom the request for the issuance of a Conduct Permit is to be presented, Yungao was often told to go straight up to the room of accused Garcia so that the latter could personally sign the said permit. It was only when accused Garcia is absent or is not in office that the papers submitted to the LTO were attended to by his assistant.
Yungao testified that accused Garcia would always make his request to borrow the Company's motor vehicle verbally and on a Friday. However, Yungao admitted that he was not very familiar with the signature of accused Garcia, and that the latter's signature did not appear in any of the delivery receipts.
During all these years, Yungao could only recall one (1) instance when accused Garcia failed to approve the Company's request, and this was a request for an extension of the usual "5-day road test" period granted to the Company. Nonetheless, the Company found the said disapproval to be acceptable and proper.
On questions propounded by the Court, Yungao testified that the names and signatures of the persons who actually received the Company's vehicles were reflected on the faces of the delivery receipts. However, Yungao does not recognize the signatures appearing on the said delivery receipts, including those purportedly of accused Tagupa, because Yungao was not present when the vehicles were taken.
The prosecution had intended to present another witness in the person of Ms. Ma. Lourdes V. Miranda (hereinafter, "Miranda"), who was present at the time Yungao testified. Prior to her presentation, however, the parties agreed to enter into stipulations and admissions. Thus, it was stipulated that Miranda was the mother of a child named Jane, who was run over and killed in a vehicular accident; that the driver of the ill-fated motor vehicle was accused Nabo; that Miranda, thereafter, successfully traced the said vehicle and eventually discovered the existence of numerous delivery receipts in the files and possession of the Company; and that said discovery led to the institution of the subject criminal cases against herein accused. As a result of such admissions and stipulations, the proposed testimony of Miranda was, thereafter, dispensed with.
AURORA J. CHIONG (hereinafter, "Chiong") declared that she is the Vice-President and General Manager of the Company, a business establishment engaged in the assembly of motor vehicles. In the process, the Company has to submit a Dealer's Report to the LTO prior to the assembly of a motor vehicle. After the assembly is completed, the Company has to secure a permit from the LTO for purposes of conducting the necessary road testing of the newly assembled motor vehicle.
In 1993, accused Garcia was the Regional Director of the LTO in Cagayan de Oro City. He was the officer who approves the needed Conduction Permit of newly assembled motor vehicles. He was also the LTO officer who approves and signs the Company's annual LTO Accreditation Certificate.
Chiong recounted that accused Garcia has a farm, and that he would need a vehicle to transport water thereto. For this purpose, he would, on a weekly basis, borrow from the Company a motor vehicle, either by asking from Chiong directly through telephone calls or through Yungao, her Liaison Officer. Everytime accused Garcia would borrow a motor vehicle, the Company would issue a delivery receipt for such purpose, which has to be signed by the person whom accused Garcia would send to pick up the motor vehicle. Chiong was usually the company officer who signed the delivery receipt for the release of the borrowed motor vehicle to the representative of accused Garcia. When she was not in office, she would authorize her personnel to place [their] initials on top of her name. On several occasions, Chiong had seen accused Nabo affixing his signature on the delivery receipt before taking out the borrowed motor vehicles. Chiong was very sure that the driver who picked up the motor vehicle from the Company was the personnel of accused Garcia because the latter would always call her up first before sending his representative to get a vehicle. Chiong was likewise very familiar with the voice of accused Garcia because she had been dealing with him for a long period of time already, and all the while she had always maintained a cordial relationship with him.
On questions propounded by the Court, Chiong testified that accused Garcia would ask his driver to get a vehicle on a Saturday at around 6:30 o'clock in the morning. He would return it in the late afternoon of the same day. There was only one instance when accused Garcia returned the motor vehicle on the day after, and this was the time when the said vehicle had figured in a vehicular accident which resulted in the death of a certain Jane, the daughter of Miranda. Chiong was not the complainant in the said vehicular accident case because she could not afford to offend or antagonize accused Garcia, and she had always considered the lending of motor vehicles to accused Garcia as a public relation thing.
Chiong clarified that the subject motor vehicles occasionally borrowed by accused Garcia were all company service cars and not newly assembled vehicles. Finally, she testified that she gets irritated whenever accused Garcia would ask for a vehicle at a time when she herself would also need it. However, under the circumstances, she had to give in to his request.[11]
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused TIMOTEO A GARCIA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of fifty-six (56) counts of violation of Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Accordingly, said accused is hereby sentenced to: (i) in each case, suffer an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for a period of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) month, as maximum; (ii) suffer all accessory penalties consequent thereto; and (iii) pay the costs.Petitioner is now before us assigning as errors the following:
With respect to accused NERY TAGUPA, by reason of the total lack of any evidence against him, he is hereby ACQUITED.
As for accused Gilbert G. Nabo, considering that he remained at large and jurisdiction over his person had yet to be acquired, let the case as against him be achieved.[18]
In any criminal prosecution, it is necessary that every essential ingredient of the crime charged must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in order to overcome the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent.[19] To be convicted of violation of Section 3(b)[20] of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, the prosecution has the burden of proving the following elements: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) who requested or received a gift, a present, a share a percentage, or a benefit (3) on behalf of the offender or any other person; (4) in connection with a contract or transaction with the government; (5) in which the public officer, in an official capacity under the law, has the right to intervene.[21]
- THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF SECTION 3(B) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019 WERE PRESENT IN CRIM. CASES NOS. 24042 TO 24098 (EXCEPT 24078) AND IN FINDING THE HEREIN PETITIONER GUILTY OF FIFTY SIX (56) COUNTS OF VIOLATION THEREOF;
- THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN FINDING THE HEREIN PETITIONER GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF FIFTY SIX (56) COUNTS OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 3(B) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019 ON THE BASIS OF FATALLY DEFECTIVE INFORMATIONS WHEREIN THE FACTS CHARGED NEVER CONSTITUTED AN OFFENSE;
- THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN FINDING THE HEREIN PETITIONER GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF FIFTY SIX (56) COUNTS OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 3(B) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019 ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE WHICH IS INSUFFICIENT TO CONVICT (EVEN FOR A SINGLE COUNT);
- THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED AND IN THE PROCESS VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE HEREIN PETITIONER WHEN IT SUPPLIED THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION WITH ASSUMPTIONS WHICH WERE NOT AT ALL SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD;
- THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED WHEN IT OBSERVED DIFFERENT STANDARDS OF JUSTICE BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER'S CO-ACCUSED TAGUPA AND CONVICTING THE HEREIN PETITIONER WHEN THE SAME REASONING SHOULD HAVE LED ALSO TO THE ACQUITTAL OF THE PETITIONER.