Republic of the Bhilippines Supreme Court Manila SECOND DIVISION CANDELARIA DE MESA G.R. No, 236848 MANGULABNAN, Petitones, present = vers PERLAS-BERNARE, SJ, Chairperson, IERNANDO, Prope or ote RNA PHILIPPINES, DELOS SANTOS, and Respondent. GAERLAN,' J Prownilgate: 08 JUN DECISION PERLAS-BERNABE, J ‘Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari" are the Decision? 4dted October 6, 2017 and the Resolution? dated January 15, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan (SB) in Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0228 whieh found petitioner Candelaria De Mesa Mangulabnan (Mangulabnan) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code." ‘evgaed anal mmr pr Spal Oder Ni 2780 ted Nay 11,220 1 1 ena Assoc sie Rel F.C ith Ascites Ales LQ and cape ne‘The Facts ‘The instant case stemmed from an Information® charging Mangulabnan fof Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, the sccusatory portion of which sate; “That on or about March 1998 or fr sometime subsequent thereto, in the City of San Femand, Pampanga, Philippines, accised RODRIGO R FLORES, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Tvl Cout in Ces (MTCC), Branch 2, City of San Fernando, Parmpang, with Sélary Grae 27. this, within the jurisdiction ofthis Honorable Court. together with CANDELARIA MANGULABNAN, Cour. Interreter"and’ specially ‘signed as Chairman ofthe Revision Commitee of the same MTCC of San Fernando City, Pampanga, hile inthe performance of txt ofa finetions. commiting the offense in elation to thee offs, taking avaniage of thee respective oficial pots and with eave abuse ‘authority, confederating together and mutually helping ene aoe id then and ier willy, unlawfully and flonowsy demanded and eqest ‘he amount of P20,000.00 trom Dario Malas, party to an een protest case fled by Alber Guinto aint Dirio Manalaiay here accused Rodrigo R. Flores and Candstiria Mangulabna have to intervene in their oficial capacities snes such ease is pending tre the Court here accused Rodrigo R. Floves isthe Presiding Judge and Candclaia Manguiaan is the Court Interpreter and Chairman of the Revision Commits, which amount accused CandsaraMangulabpan acelly received for aceused Rodrigo Fre in consideration ef decision in the ease fvorable to Dario Maralastas whichis unjust, since the decision should be based on the mans of the case and ot the, money omseration, the damage and prejudice of Dasio Manglests an public CONTRARY TO LAW! The prosecution alleged that sometime in May 1997, private ‘complainant Alberto Guinto (Guinto) filed an election protest against Dario Manalastas (Manalastas) before the Municipal Trial Cour in Cities (MTCC) of the City of San Femnando, Pampanga, Branch 2, where Rodrigo R. Flores was Presiding Judge Uudge Flores) and Mangulabnan worked as ¢ Court Interpreter. On several occasions, Judge Flores allegedly visited Guinto in the latter's workplace and asked for several monetary favors. Despite receiving these favors, Judge Flores decided the ease in favor of Manalastas, Guinto then filed complaints bofore the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), charging Judge Flores for his failure to decide the election protest, Within the required period, and against Mangulabnan for releasing an Unauthorized copy of the decision, These administrative complaints were referred 10 Executive Judge Adelaida Ale-Medina (Judge Medina) for investigation, review, and recommendation. In her report, Judge Medina revealed that while the election protest ease was pending before the MTCC, Judge Flores borrowed Twenty Thousand Pesos -(P20,000.00) fiomMonalastas, which Mangulabnan received as middleman in favor of Judge Flores. Hence, Judge Medina recommended Mangulabnan’s dismissal {rom service for her participation as conduit inthe commission of the erime.” In a Resolution dated August 10, 2006, the Court adopted Judge Medina's findings, suspended Mangulabnan for one (1) year,’ and ordered that the Court's Resolution be fumished to the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) for investigation. Thereafter, dhe OMB found that the allegations make out ‘ase for Direct Bribery: hence, the Information was filed." Mangulabnan pleaded “not guilty” tothe charge." During the proceedings before the SB, the prosecution did not present ‘any witnesses, and instead presented the documents clled. fom. the administrative case, the due execution of which was stipulated on by the partes. After the prosecution rested its ease, Mangulabnan filed a Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence, which the SB denied." Thereafter, Mangulabnan filed an Ex-Parte Manifestation waiving her tight to present evidence. The SB then ordered the parties to sulbmit their respective “Memoranda; following which, the case would be submitted for decision.” In her Memorandum, Mangulabnan principally argued that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt considering its heavy reliance on the evidence adduced during the administrative proceedings, without presenting a single witness to identify the same or {0 be cross examined," She argued that administrative accountability eannot amount to 4 finding of guilt in aeviminal ease * Thus, she prayed that the Information be dismissed." ‘The SB Ruling In a Decision'” dated October 6, 2017, the SB found Mangulabnan zuilty beyond reasonable doubt of Direct’ Bribery " and accordingly, Gn Flores and Manulnan,AM. MT.2-19%, August 0, 2006. Sige Ig end ten mine os sec es pon since sabe seg ees apn Mat te Cou ell ve Pd ht she, ed ‘scion frond use we tele, fect ep ena 9s rs sr ee Syn a er Sn Meera ea pes he, 331, 0 months td on dy opin Cocca minima fae ON we teesentenced her to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for a period of four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision orreccional as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months, and ane (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, and to pay a fine inthe amount of Sixty Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00), with special temporary disqualification from holding public ofice.” ‘The SB noted Mangulabnan's admission in open court in separate civil case for injunction filed by Manalastas, whieh formed part of the ‘administrative case's records, that she indeed received money from the later and delivered it to Judge Flores, thus proving their conspiracy in committing the crime. Moreover, it found that the prosecution had established all the elements constituting Ditect Bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, considering that: (a) Judge Flores and Mangulabnan were both public officers, being the Presiding Judge and Court Interpreter respectively, ofthe MTCC of the City of San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 2 atthe time of the commission of the offense; (3) Mangulabnan acted as a conduit of Judge Flores when she received Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), from Manalastas, and delivered the same to Judge Flores; (¢) the amount was in consideration ofthe rendition of judgment in the pending election protest in favor of Manalastas; and (c) that the rendition of judgment relates to the function of Flores as Presiding Judge. Considering die concurrence of all the clements, and that Mangulabnan was a co-conspirator of ude Flores, the ‘SB found the prosecution's evidence sufficient to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.” Asgrieved, Mangulabnan filed a Motion for Reconsideration andor ‘To Reopen Case,” but was denied in a Resolution” dated January 15, 2018 Is found no showing that the SB deprived Mangulabnan of her tight to present evidence to justify the reopening of the case; hence, ths petition ‘The Issue Before the Court ‘The issue forthe Courts resolution is whether oF not the SB correctly convicted Mangulabnan of the crime of Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, "am ido (1) rian moor mina dene he py fie 00040 0's Car Agsdum dd ny 24201 Hence or coe fge Faes pena ne es ae 78) Siar‘The Court's Ruting ‘The petition is without merit, Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, sates ARTICLE 210, Direct Bribery. — Any public office who shall sare to perform an act constituting a ete, in conection wid ie Peformance of this oficial des, in eansidrsion of ty ale, pomise, Bill or present recvived by such otc, personally or though the Imediton of another, shall ser the penalty of prison mayor in rmcdum and maximum periods and fie not less Tha tice lines the Yale ofthe gif, in adion tothe penalty earesponding to the cme ‘greed upon if the sme shall ave bon commited Jn avon tothe penis provided in the preceding Parag, ‘he culpit sal ser the penalty of spel temporary disquiet ‘As may be gleaned from above, the elements ofthe crime charged are as follows: (a) the offender is a public officer; (6) he accepts an offer ot promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another, (c) such offer or promise be accepted or gift or present be received by the public officer with a view to committing some crime, or in consideration Of the execution of an aet which doce not constitute u erime but the act sunt be Unjust, or to refinin from doing something which itis his official ity to do and (a) the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes ie ‘onnected with the performance of his official duties * Altera judicious review of the case, the Court is convinced that the ‘SB correctly convicted Mangulabnan for Dieet Bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code as the co-conspirator of Judge Flores, Firstly, the conspiracy between the two accused has been duly proven by the findings of Judge Medina and by Mangulabnan’s own admission® When conspiracy is established, the responsibility of the conspirators is collective, not individual, rendering all of them equally liable regardless of the extent of their respective participations. Secondly, the elements constituting Direct Bribery have been sufficiently established considering, that: (a) Mangulabnan and Judge Flores were indisputably public officers, being the Court Interpreter and Presiding Judge, respectively, of the MTCC af the City of San Femando, Pampanga, Branch 2 at the time of the offense; (b) she acted as Judge Flores’ middleman in committing the erime, specifically by receiving Twenty ‘Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) from Manalastas and delivering it to Judge Flores; (c) the amount was given in exchenge for the * Pepi Doms, 739 Pi. 672,641 2016. ee Ib)Decision ‘ GR No. 35848 rendition of a judgment favorable to Manalastas, as may be infered fiom ‘Mangulabnan’s own admission that Judge Flores ordered the release of the decision only alter receiving the Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00)-" and (4) the rendition of judgment relates to the functions of Judge Flores. Moreover, the SB also comectly held that Mangulabnan failed to provide any sufficient reason to reapen the ease onthe ground of violation of her right t9 due process since she was given ample opportunity to adduce evidence inher behalf but willingly waived her right ta do 0.” While the SB's findings appear to have been sourced fiom the documentary evidence submitted and the admissions made in the related administrative and civil cases, the due execution of these documentary evidence has been stipulated upon by the parties, thus dispensing with the presentation of further witnesses.” Given that there evidence formed part of the records of the case, they may be properly considered by the SB in its ‘own independent determination of Mangulabnan’s guilt, which it did in this, case. Although itis tue thatthe quantum of evidence for administrative and Civil eases differ greatly trom those of criminal cases,” the evidence adduced in the former may result in a eriminal conviction. “Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not, of course, mean such degree of root as, exchiding the possiblity of error, produce absolute ceriinty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Jn view of the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to overturn these findings, as there was no showing thatthe SB overlooked misunderstood, or inisappied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the eae “Ie hears Pointing out that in appeals from the [SB], a i this case, only questions of Jaw an not questions of fact may be raised Issues brought tothe Cour on whether the prosecution was able to prove the gull of the aecused beyond reasonable doubt, whether the presumption of innocence was sufficiently dlsbunked, whether or not eanspracy was satisfactorily established. oF whether oF not good faith was properly appreciated, are all, invariably, auestions of fact. Hence, absent any of the recognized exception tothe above-mentioned mule, the [SB’s} findings on the foregoing matters should bbe deemed as conclusive." As such, Mangulabnan’s conviction for Direc Bribery under Antiele 210 ofthe Revized Penal Code must stand Mena 721 ea 73, 187892019, Pepe v Cima 320 PI, 3435108). ey GX No 225095 Mach 21, 018, 80 SCRA 86,96, ting Pra»As regards the proper penalty to be imposed on Mangulabnan, Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the penalty of prisian mayor in its ‘medium and maximum periods and a fine not less than three times the value of the wit with the accessory penalty of special temporary disqualification, ‘Thus, faking into consideration the provision of the Indeterminate Sentence Law," the SB corectly sentenced her to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for a period of four (4) yeas, 40 (2) months, and one (1) day of prision correceional as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months, and ‘one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, and a fine in the amount of Sixty ‘Thousand Pesos (60,000.00), with special temporary disqualification from holding public office. * WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated October 6, 2017 and the Resolution dated January 15, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0228 are AFFIRMED, Petitioner Candelaria De Mesa Mangulabnan is found GUILITY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Direct Bribery under Aaicle 210 of the Revised Penal Code, and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for a period of four (4) years, two (2) months, and fone (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, t0 nine (9) yeas, four (8) months, and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, and a fine in the amount of Sixty Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00), with special temporary sisqualification from holding public office 80 onDERED, esrenal fe oeevane Senior Assis sn Weconcur: PAULL. HERNANDO Associate Justice Associa lustice ‘Associate lustice "eto 03, ened “AW ACT 0 PROGR AY HEERMNATE SEN AND PARE AL,AMUEL PRATER Associate lustice ATTESTATION | attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer ofthe opinion of the ous Dison vsrena (HM eran Shor Anew hae csp Sean on CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, | certify that the conclusions. in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer ofthe opinion of the: DIOSDADO M. PERALTA hier Justice