G.R. No.

155574 November 20, 2006

TIMOTEO A. GARCIA, Petitioner,

vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondent.

TIMOTEO A. GARCIA, as the REGIONAL DIRECTOR of LAND

TRANSPORTATION OFFICE, REGION X, was charged with the
crime of INDIRECT BRIBERY for the alleged borrowing of motor
vehicles from ORO ASIAN AUTOMOTIVE CENTER
CORPORATION. of ARTICLE 205 of the REVISED PENAL
CODE.

Digest by: BRYAN DASMARIÑAS

(Art. 205 Indirect Bribery of the Revised Penal Code)

FACTS:

• A Complaint was filed against petitioner TIMOTEO A. GARCIA, then Regional Director of
Land Transportation Office Region X, GILBERT NABO, and NERY TAGUPA, employees
of the same office, for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices for their alleged
frequent borrowing of motor vehicles from Oro Asian Automotive Center Corporation, a
business establishment engaged in vehicle assembly and dealership in Cagayan de Oro City
who regularly transacts with the petitioner’s LTO office for the registration of its motor
vehicles.

• Upon determination of probable cause, Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan against
GARCIA, NABO, and TAGUPA, charging them with 57 counts of violation of Section 3(b)
of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices. Hence, the competent court issued orders to arrest the
three accused.

• The charges were testified by ESTANISLAO BARRETE YUNGAO, the driver and liaison
officer of the Oro Asian Automotive Center Corporation. Moreover, Yungao regularly reports
to the Land Transportation Office of Cagayan de Oro City all the engine and chassis numbers
before the assembly of any motor vehicle.

By such process, the Company had to secure from the LTO a Conduct Permit after a motor
vehicle had been completely assembled to carry out the necessary road testing of the vehicle
concerned. After the said road testing, the car must be properly registered with the LTO. As the
Regional Director of LTO Cagayan de Oro City, the petitioner GARCIA was the approving
authority on the aforesaid reportorial requirements and the signatory of the said Conduct
Permits.

By reasons thereof, Yungao knew the accused Garcia as the former would always personally
talk to Garcia regarding issuing the required Conduct Permit for any newly assembled vehicle.
Yungao would secure from the accused Garcia as many as 30 to 40 permits in a year.

In the process, the accused Garcia would regularly summon Yungao to his office to tell him to
inform either AURORA or ALONZO CHIONG, the owners of Oro Asian Automotive Center
Corporation, that he (Garcia) would borrow motor vehicles to visit his farm during weekends
as he cannot utilize the Government-issued vehicle assigned to him for personal use.
 • According to Yungao, Garcia had been regularly borrowing motor vehicles from the
CHIONGS, the owners of Oro Asian Automotive Center Corporation, during the period
covering January 1993 to and until November 1994. Garcia would always ask his
representative, the accused NERY TAGUPA, to take the Company’s vehicle on a Saturday
morning. Though Yungao never reported for work on Saturdays, another person would release
the car to Garcia’s representative. Despite of, Yungao would know if a vehicle is released to
Garcia since a corresponding delivery receipt is placed on top of the former’s table for him to
file it to Company records. Such a receipt will show and indicate the number of times Garcia
borrowed the car from the company.

Furthermore, the names and signatures of the persons who received the Company’s vehicle
were reflected on the faces of the delivery receipts. However, Yungao does not recognize the
signatures on the said delivery receipts, including those alleged by TAGUPA, because, as said
before, he was not present every time the vehicles were taken.

• The institution of this case stemmed from the Complaint filed by MA. LOURDES V.
MIRANDA, the mother of JANE, a child who was run over and killed in a vehicular accident
in which the driver of such an unfortunate accident was GILBERT NABO, one of the accused.
Because of such, she successfully traced and discovered numerous delivery receipts in the files
and possession of the company. Wherefrom ultimately led to the institution of criminal cases
against the accused.

• Garcia contented such allegations by denying that he ever borrowed any vehicles from the
company, arguing that his signature never appeared on the adduced delivery receipts. He
admitted that the Company had been continually transacting with his office properly and
officially and had not, even for a single instance, violated any rules concerning the assembly of
motor vehicles. He also contended that the accused, Nabo, his driver, drove motor vehicles and
visited him at his farm on several occasions. He rode with him without allegedly knowing that
the cars driven by Nabo were merely borrowed from Nabo’s friends.

• The Sandiganbayan rendered a decision convicting 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. The accused TAGUPA was acquitted, while the
cases against the accused NABO, who remained at large, were archived.

ISSUE:

I. WON the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting GARCIA guilty of fifty-six (56) counts of violation of
Section 3(b) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; and

II. WON the petitioner be found guilty of INDIRECT BRIBERY.

RULING:

I.

The Supreme Court held that in any criminal prosecution, all the essential ingredients of the crime
charged must be proved beyond reasonable doubt to overcome the accused's constitutional right to be
presumed innocent. To be convicted of a violation of Section 3(b) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, the prosecution must prove the presence of 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 transaction with the government;
(5) in which the public officer, in an official capacity under the law, has the right to intervene;

The petitioner maintains, as well as the court agrees, that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the
existence of the fourth element. It is clear from Section 3(b) that the requesting or receiving of any gift,
present, share, percentage, or benefit must be in connection with “a contract or transaction” wherein
the public officer, in his official capacity, has the power to intervene under the law. In the case at bar,
the prosecution did not specify what transactions the Company had with the LTO that the petitioner
intervened in when he allegedly borrowed the vehicles from the Company. It is insufficient to consider
consummating the crime because the petitioner admitted that the Company has continually transacted
with his office.

What is required is that the transaction involved should at least be described with particularity and
proven. To establish the existence of the fourth element, the relation between the fact of requesting
and/or receiving and that of the transaction involved must be clearly shown. The prosecution’s
allegation that the Company regularly transacts with the petitioner’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, will not suffice. This general statement failed to
show the link between the 56 alleged borrowings with their corresponding transactions.

II.

Indirect bribery is committed by a public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his
office. The essential ingredient of indirect bribery, as defined in Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code,
is that the public officer must have accepted a gift or material consideration. In the case at bar, the
petitioner's alleged borrowing of a vehicle from the Company can be considered a gift in contemplation
of the law. To prove that the petitioner borrowed a vehicle from the Company 56 times, the prosecution
adduced 56 delivery receipts allegedly signed by the petitioner’s representative, whom the latter would
send to pick up the vehicle.

The prosecution was not able to show with moral certainty that the petitioner truly borrowed and
received the vehicle subject matter of the 56 information. The prosecution relies heavily on the
delivery receipts. The court, however, found that the delivery receipts insufficiently prove that the
petitioner received the vehicles considering that his signatures do not appear therein. In addition, the
prosecution failed to establish that the petitioner’s representatives picked up the vehicles. The acquittal
of one of the accused, Nery Tagupa, who allegedly received the vehicles from the Company, further
strengthens this argument. Suppose the identity of the person who reportedly picked up the vehicle on
behalf of the petitioner is uncertain. In that case, there can also be no certainty that the petitioner
received the vehicles in the end.

FALLO:

WHEREFORE, all the above considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Cases Nos. 24042 to 24077 and 24079 to 24098 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. For insufficiency of evidence, the petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged in
the information. No costs.