Garcia v Sandiganbayan

GR No. 155574, 20 Nov 2006

Chico-Nazario, J.:

FACTS:

        Various information were filed with the Sandiganbayan against Timoteo

Garcia, Gilbert Nabo and Nery Tagupa for violation of Sec 3(b) RA 3019 on 14
Aug 1997.  The information alleged that on 9-10 Jan 1993, in Cagayan de Oro, the
accused, being public officers of LTO, conspired with each other to borrow a
specific car from Oro Asian Automotive Corp. (the Company), which is engaged
in the business of vehicle assembly and dealership.  The other 56 information are
similarly worded except for the dates and types of vehicles.

        On 22 Aug 1997, Sandiganbayan issued orders for the arrest of the accused.
On 17 Aug 1998, when arraigned, petitioner and Tagupa pleaded not guilty, while
Nabo remained at large.

Evidence of Prosecution:

        Estanislao Yungao, employed as a drier and liaison officer of the Company,

had to officially report to the LTO all the engine and chassis numbers prior to the
assembly of any motor vehicle.  The Company had to secure a Conduct Permit
for the road testing of vehicles assembled.  After road testing, vehicles had to be
registered with the LTO.  Garcia, as the Director of LTO CDO, was the approving
authority.  By reason thereof, Garcia would regularly summon Yungao to his
office to tell him to inform either Aurora or Alonzo Chiong, the owners of the
Company, the he would borrow a vehicle in visiting his farm because he could not
use the assigned government vehicle for his own use during weekends in going
to his farm.  When Yungao could not be contacted, Garcia would personally call
the Company and talk to the owners to borrow the vehicle.  Although there was a
Regulation Officer before whom the request is to be presented, Yungao was often
told to go straight up to the office of Garcia.  Yungao testitfied that the names
and signatures of the persons who actually received the vehicles were reflected
on the faces of the delivery receipts but did not recognize the signatures because
Yungao was not present when the vehicles were taken.

        Ma Lourdes Miranda  was present when Yungao testified.  The parties

agreed to enter into stipulations prior to her presentation that Miranda was the
mother of a child Jane, who was run over and killed in a vehicular accident; that
the driver was Nabo; that Miranda discovered the vehicle and numerous delivery
receipts in the files of the Company; that such led to the institution of the subject
criminal cases against accused.

        Aurora Chiong, the VP and Gen Manager of the Company, recounted that
Garcia had a farm and would borrow a vehicle from the Company on a weekly
basis by asking her directly or through Yungao.  Each time Garcia would borrow,
the Company would issue a delivery receipt which would usually be sign by
Chiong.  On several occasions, Chiong had seen Nabo affixing his signature on
the delivery receipt before taking out the vehicles.  She also testified that Garcia
would return the vehicle in the after of the same day and that there was only once
when Garcia returned the car the day after – when the car met an accident
involving the death of Jane, the daughter or Miranda.  It was clarified that the
cars borrowed by Garcia were all company service cars and not newly assembled
vehicles.

Garcia’s defense:

        He testified that he was the Reg Dir of LTO and denied borrowing any motor
vehicle from the Company arguing that his signatures never appeared in the
Delivery Receipts submitted by prosecution.  He added that he warned his
subordinates against the borrowing of vehicles from their friends but they merely
turned a deaf ear.  Lastly, his driver Nabo had, on several occasions, driven motor
vehicles and visited him at his farm, and that he rode with him in going home
without allegedly knowing that the vehicles driven by Nabo were merely borrowed
from Nabo’s friends.

        On 6 May 2002, Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner on 56 counts of

violation of Sec 3(b) RA 3019, Tagupa was acquitted for lack of evidence, while
the cases of Nabo, who remained at large, were archived.
ISSUES:

        W/N petitioner is guilty under Sec 3(b) RA 3019.

        W/N petitioner is guilty of direct briber.

        W/N petitioner is guilty of indirect bribery.

HELD:

        No.  The Court held that the prosecution failed to proved the existence of all
(absence of the 4th) the elements of Sec 3(b) RA 3019 [PROMO]:

1. The offender is a public officer;

2. He requested or received a gift, present, share, percentage or benefit;
3. He made the request or receipt on behalf of the offender or any other
person;
4. The request or receipt was made in connection with a contract or
transaction with the government;
5. He has the right to intervene, in an official capacity under the law, in
connection with a contract or transaction.

        In the case at bar the prosecution did not specify what transactions the
Company had with the LTO that petitioner intervened in when he allegedly
borrowed the vehicles from the Company.  It is insufficient that petitioner
admitted that the Company has continually transacted with his office. 

        To establish the existence of the 4th element, the relation of the fact of

requesting and receiving, and that of the transaction involved must be clearly
shown.  The allegation that the Company regularly transacts with Garcia for the
registration of their vehicles will not suffice

        No. The Court ruled that there is utter lack of evidence adduced by the
prosecution showing that petitioner committed any of the 3 acts of direct
bribery [CUR]:
 1. By agreeing to perform, or by performing, in consideration of any offer,
promise gift or present an act constituting a crime, in connection with the
performance of his official duties;
2. By accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of an act which does
not constitute a crime but is unjust, in connection with the performance of
his official duties;
3. By agreeing to refrain, or by refraining, from doing something which is his
official duty to do, in consideration of any gift or promise.

        The two witnesses did not mention anything about petitioner asking for
something in exchange for his performance of, or abstaining to perform, an act in
connection with his official duty.  In fact Atty. Aurora Chiong testified that the
Company complied with all the requirements without asking for any intervention
from petitioner.

        No. Indirect bribery is committed by a public officer who shall accept gifts
offered to him by reason of his office.  The essential ingredient is that the public
officer must have accepted the gift or material consideration.  In the case at bar,
the prosecution was not able to show that petitioner truly borrowed and received
the vehicles.  The prosecution claims that petitioner received the vehicles via his
representative.  Contrary, the Court held that the delivery receipts o not
sufficiently prove that petitioner received the vehicles considering that his
signatures do not appear therein  in addition, the prosecution failed to establish
that it was petitioner’s representatives who picked up the vehicles.  If the identity
of the person who allegedly picked up the vehicle is uncertain, there can also be
no certainty that it was petitioner who received the vehicles in the end.

        The Court ruled that the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are binding
and conclusive except [SM – GMW - P]:

1. When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation,

surmises and conjectures;
2. The inference made is manifestly mistaken;
3. There is a grave abuse of discretion;
4. The judgment is based on misapprehension of facts;
5. Said findings of facts are conclusions without citation of specific evidence
on which they are based;
6. Findings of facts are premised on the absence of evidence on the record.
        Nonetheless, the Court held that the ruling of the Sandiganbayan is grounded
on speculation, surmise, and conjectures and not supported by evidence on
record.