C - Crim - SB-14-CRM-0315 - People Vs Nepomuceno, Et Al - 03 - 27 - 2017

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SANDIGANBAYAN
Quezon City
FOURTH DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
-versus- CRIM. CASE NO. S8-14-CRM-0315

For: Violation of Section 3 (e) of R A 3019,
as amended
FRANCIS L. NEPOMUCENO,
ABELARDO C. PAMINTUAN, JR.,
Accused.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
-versus- CRIM. CASE NO. SB-14-CRM-0316

For Violation of Section 3 (g) of R A 3019,
. . as amended
FRANCIS L. NEPOMUCENO,
ABELARDO C. PAMINTUAN, JR.,
Accused.
Present:
QUIROZ, J., Chairperson

CRUZ, J.
ECONG, J.
Promulgated on:
Ma.vh 27, 2011 W
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- - - - - - - - - ~ )( I~
. ~-r
DECISION
pp vs. Francis L. Nepomuceno, et al.
Crim. Case No. SB-14-CRM-0315 to 0316
Page 2 of 26
x -~--- --- ----- -- --- -- --------- --- ---------- ----- ---- -- x
DECISION
CRUZ, J.
On 15 July 2014, accused Francis L. Nepomuceno (hereinaf-

ter "Nepornuceno") and accused Abelardo C. Pamintuan, Jr., (Pa-
mintuan) were charged with the violations of Section 3(e) and Sec-
tion 3(g) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, as amended, otherwise
known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in two (2) sepa-
rate Informations, the accusatory portions of which read:
CRIM. CASE NO. 0315
That on 08 June 2010 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto,

in the City of Angeles, Pampanga, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused FRANCIS L.
NEPOMUCENO, a high ranking public official with Salary Grade
30, being then the Mayor of Angeles City, Pampanga, taking
advantage of his position and committing the offense in relation
to office, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding with
accused ABELARDO C. PAMINTUAN, JR., acting with manifest
partiality, evident bad faith and/or gross inexcusable negligence,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally give
unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference to his political
ally accused ABELARDO C. PAMINTUAN, JR., President of
Kapanalig Angeles City, Inc. (Kapanalig), a non-stock, non-profit
organization, by donating to Kapanalig a Mitsubishi Adventure
(GLS 2.5) with acquisition cost of P786,000.00, bearing red Plate
No. SHL 124 owned by Angeles City, per Deed of Donation dated
June 8, 2010, despite the ineligibility of Kapanalig to be a donee
of said property since it is not a government agency or
instrumentality, the disposition violates the Local Government
Code as well as other relevant rules and laws, and despite the
City's poor financial condition and need for service vehicle,
thereby causing undue injury or damage to Angeles City in the
amount of P786,000.00 less the depreciation cost.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 1
CRIM. CASE NO. 0316
That on 08 June 2010 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto,

in the City of Angeles, Pampanga, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused FRANCIS L.
NEPOMUCENO, a high ranking public official with Salary Grade
30, being then the Mayor of Angeles City, Pampanga, taking
advantage of his position and committing the offense in relation
1 Records, pp. 1-2.

DECISION
Page 3 of 26
x --- -- --- ----- -- ------- ------- --- -- -------- ------ -- --- x
to office, acting in conspiracy with eo-accused ABELARDO C.

PAMINTUAN, JR., his known political ally and President of
Kapanalig Angeles City Inc. (Kapanalig), a non-government
organization, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally
execute, in behalf of Angeles City, a Deed of Donation of the city's
Mitsubishi Adventure vehicle with red Plate No. SHL 124 in favor
of Kapanalig, which donation is manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the city, considering its poor financial
condition and the requirements of the city for service vehicles at
that time.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
On 22 July 2014, this Court approved the respective cash

bonds posted by accused Nepomuceno and accused Pamintuan in
the amount of Sixty Thousand Pesos (Php 60,000.00) each." Upon
their arraignment, on 18 August 2014, they separately entered a
plea of "NOT GUILTY" to the offenses charqed."
On 29 September 2014, the parties submitted a Joint

Stipulation" containing, among others, the following stipulation of
facts:
1. That accused Francis L. Nepomuceno is the same accused charged

in the Informations, who held the position of city mayor during the time
material to the allegations in the Information;
2. That accused Abelardo C. Pamintuan, Jr., is a private individual who

is the same accused charged in the Informations;
3. That accused Abelardo C. Pamintuan, Jr., is the then President of

Kapanalig Angeles Inc. A non-stock, non-profit organization at the time
of the donation; and
4. That Kapanalig Angeles Inc. is a non-government

corporation/domestic corporation duly registered with the Securities and
Exchange.
The parties also agreed, as per Pre-Trial Order" dated 07

October 2014, on the following issues? for resolution:
1. Whether or not accused Francis L. Nepomuceno acted with manifest

partiality, evident bad faith and/or gross inexcusable negligence in donating
the Mitsubishi Adventure, with red plate No. SHL 124, owned by the City
Government of Angeles to Kapanalig Angeles City, Inc., through its
president Abelardo C. Pamintuan, Jr., his eo-accused and a known political
2 Attached in a separate folder at the end of the records of Criminal Case No. S8-14-CRM-0315.
3 Records, pp. 200, 203.
4 Records, pp. 206-209.
5 Records, pp. 241-245.
6 Records, pp. 248-254.
7 Records, pp. 253-254.
DECISION
Page 4 of 26
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ·x
ally of him.
2. Whether or not there was an unwarranted benefit, advantage and

preference to Abelardo C. Pamintuan, Jr., in the amount of P786,000.00,
the acquisition cost of the Mitsubishi Adventure with Plate No. SHL 124.
3. Whether or not the City Government of Angeles City suffered undue

injury or damage in the amount of P786,000.00 due to the illegal or irregular
donation made by accused Nepomuceno to Kapanalig, Inc. through its
President accused Pamintuan, Jr.
4. Whether or not the contract (Deed of Donation) involving a Mitsubishi

Adventure, owned by the City Government of Angeles with red plate No.
SHL 124 entered into by the Angeles City Government, represented by
accused Francis Nepomuceno and Kapanalig, Inc., whose president is
accused Abelardo Pamintuan, Jr., is manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the city.
5. Whether or not a local government unit can donate to an accredited

civil society organization/non-governmental organization on the strength of
a Sanggunian Resolution.
6. Whether or not the allegation of conspiracy contained in the

informations exits between accused Nepomuceno and Pamintuan in the
donation of the motor vehicle subject of the Deed of Donation dated June
8,2010.
7. Whether or not the mere act of accepting the subject donation on

behalf of Kapanalig Angeles City, Inc., an accredited non-government
organization of the City of Angeles, from a local government unit constitutes
criminal liability.
EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION
The prosecution's witnesses' are Atty. Erwin Edward

Mendenueto, Elizabeth F. Lagman, Dolores Eola, Numer Palad,
Mayor Edgardo Pamintuan, Menandro Dizon, and Amalia Manabat;
their respective testimonies are summarized as follows:
The prosecution intended to present witness Atty. Erwin

Edward Mendenueto of the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) and Elizabeth F. Lagman of the Human Resource
Management Office. However, their respective testimonies were
dispensed with after the prosecution and the defense counsels
stipulated on the genuineness and due execution of the following
documents, namely:
DECISION
Crim. Case No. S8-14-CRM-0315 to 0316
Page 5 of 26
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
1. Certificate of Incorporation with attached By-laws of Kapanalig

Angeles City incorporated"
2. Authorization'' dated 4 November 2014 issued by the SEC au-
thorizing Mendenueto
3. Certification 10 dated 4 September 2014 that Francis L. Nepu-
moceno is the City Mayor of Angeles, Pampanga from 1 July
2007 until 30 June 2010
4. Certification!' dated 4 September 2014 that Nepumoceno is
the City Mayor of Angeles, Pampanga from 1 July 2007 until
30 June 2010
5. Service Record!" of Nepumoceno dated 4 September 2014
Dolores Eola 13 (Eola), as Acting Records Officer of Land

Transportation Office (LTO) Extension Office, Cubao, Ouezon City,
safeguards and monitors all records of motor vehicles registered at
the LTO Ouezon City. She said that based on Request for
Confirmation 14, motor vehicle with Plate No. SHL 124 from LTO
Balanga District Office is owned by Angeles City local government.
The attached documents (i.e. Resolution for the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of the City of Angeles and the Deed of Donation) state
that object vehicle was supposedly transferred to Kapanalig, Inc.,
represented by Pamintuan as President. Furthermore, LTO Quezon
City Extension Office, Motor Vehicle Inspection Report, sales
invoice, TPL, PNP, original official receipts and original Certificate of
Registration, confirm that the vehicle's plate number, SHL 124, is
valid.
The parties stipulated that the City of Balanga owns the said
vehicle up to the date of request of the confirmation record and that
its acquisition cost was Php 786,000.00 at the time of purchase.
Hence the direct examination was terminated.
Numer Palad15 (Palad), Election Officer of Pampanga, would

ave testified that Nepomuceno and Pamintuan belong to the same
party (National People's Coalition, NPC) where the latter nominated
the former to his position but the parties stipulated on the said facts.
Edgardo Parnintuan!" (Mayor Edgardo), incumbent Mayor of

----------------
8 Exhibit "En
9 Exhibit "Y."
10 Exhibit "T."
11 Exhibit "V."
12 Exhibit "U."
13 TSN dated 28 January 2015, pp. 7-18.
14 Exhibit "X."
16 ki., pp. 25-53.
DECISION
Page 6 of 26
x -- -- - ----- ---- -- ------- ------ --- --------- ------- -- --- x
Angeles City, was authorized by Resolution No. 612617 to represent

the City. He said that Nepomuceno and Pamintuan were party
mates in the NPC in the 10 May 2010 election.
He said that the following events transpired:
- On 21 May 2010, Sangguniang Panlungsod Resolution No.

592518, Series of 2010 was passed authorizing Nepomuceno
to donate eleven (11) vehicles;
- On 8 June 2010, a Deed of Donation 19 was executed pursuant
to the same Resolutiorr". On the same date, said donation
was accepted by Kapanalig, Inc. through a Letter of Ac-
ceptance-" ;
- Upon his assumption in office in 2010, he was informed by
Menandro Dizon (Dizon) about the missing vehicles;
- On 23 November 2010, Resolution No. 602722, Series of 2010
was passed to rescind the donations;
- All but one vehicle were recovered despite verbal and writterr"
requests. Pamintuan failed and continues to fail to return the
object vehicle as expressed in his reply-letter?" of refusal
dated 17 January 2011; and
- He filed the Complaint-Affidavit" dated 29 April 2011 after he
learned that it is improper to donate government property in
times of financial difficulties based on COA Audit Observation
Memorandum" (AOM) dated 4 August 2010.
On cross-examlnatlon'", Mayor Edgardo admitted that the
Mayor has the power to represent the city in all its business
transactions and sign in its behalf all bonds, contracts, and
obligations and such other documents upon authority of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod or pursuant to law or ordinance as
provided for in the Local Government Code (LGC). He also
admitted that after the Deed of Donation 28 was executed, the
angguniang Panlungsod ratified the donation via Resolution No.
593729, dated 19 June 2010. .
17 Exhibit "OH
18 Exhibit "4" / Exhibit "F."
19 Exhibit "5" / Exhibit "G."
20 Supra, footnote 18.
21 Exhibit '6" / Exhibit "H."

22 Exhibit "M."
23 Demand Letters dated 17 August 2010 and 6 January 2011, Exhibits "N" and "0" respectively.
24 Exhibit "P."
25 Exhibit "A."
26 Exhibit "J."

28 Exhibit "GH
29 Exhibit "23" / Exhibit "X-3."

DECISION
Page 7 of 26
x----------------------------------------------------- x
Menandro Dizorr", General Services Officer of Angeles City,

performs tasks related to supplies, property manaqernerrtsecurity
and janitorial services and assignment of buildings.
He issued a Certification 31 dated 9 September 2014

confirming the donation made to Pamituan. He corroborated the
testimony of Mayor Edgardo regarding the passage of Resolutions
that paved the way for the questioned donation including the
rescission; the letter requesting all donees to return said vehicles;
and that only Kapanalig Inc. refused to return the object of donation.
On cross-examinatiorr", he said that the subject vehicle was

assigned at his office until another was bought to replace it.
Additionally, he said that he did not know about the financial capacity
of the city at the time of the donation but to his knowledge, there are
around twenty (20) vehicles assigned to the Mayor's office.
On redirect examlnatlon ". he said that the Resolution?"

ratifying the donation preceded the Resolution" rescinding it.
Amalia Manabat36 (Manabat), Audit Team Leader of the City

Government of Angeles in 2010, was tasked to audit all accounts
and financial transactions of the City Government and inform the
management about their findings and render an Annual Audit Report.
She was assigned in Angeles City and prepared two audit

reports in 2010 (the Interim Audit Report:'? and the Annual Audit
Report) - the "Findings" portion states the financial condition of the
city and declares a shortfall of collections from 2008 to 2009. She
said that the shortfall resulted in the depletion of the funding
requirements of the 2010 budget. Notably, she pointed out that the
sets of laws, rules and requlations'" were not strictly adhered to,
namely:
1. The ratification of the Sangguniang Panlungsod;

2. The regulation stating that vehicles that are no longer
needed or unserviceable may be transferred to LGUs,
other local government entities and GOCCs; and
30 TSN dated 9 March 2015, pp. 8-25.

31 Exhibit "W."
r
32 TSN dated 9 March 2015, pp. 25-34.
33 Id, pp. 34-35.
34 Supra, note 29.
35 Supra, note 22.
36 TSN dated 13 May 2015, pp. 15-42.
37 Exhibit "K." _.
38Article 444 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991 or RA
7160, and Section 81 of the RepublicAct 7160, and Section 76 of PD. 1445. 'f
DECISION
Page 8 of 26
x ----------------------------------------------------- x
3. The inventory report stating that the subject properties are

no longer serviceable.
She corroborated the testimonies of Mayor Edgardo and
Dizon that the donation was made by Nepomuceno to Pamintuan.
Their team made an AOM to Mayor Edgardo stating their

findings. In turn, the City rescinded the donations but the vehicle
subject of this case was not returned.
On cross-examlnatlon'", she stressed that serviceable and

needed properties should not be transferred to any entity. However,
she admitted that their recommendation is only to retrieve the
donated properties.
On redirect examlnatlorr" , the court instructed the marking

of the portion of the Annual Audit Report pertaining to the returned
vehicles.
Upon inquiry of this Court", she said that LGUs need to

pass a resolution authorizing the Mayor to purchase and that since
the city is already under financial difficulty, it should not have
donated the vehicles. Notably, she said that, although the property
is serviceable but not needed, it may still be donated.
Acting on the prosecution's Consolidated Formal Offer of

Documentary Evidence'", this Court resolved to admit" exhibits A,
0, E, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R, T, U, V, W, X and Y either as
part of the testimonies of the witnesses and/or for the purposes for
which the said exhibits were offered.
After the prosecution rested its case, accused Nepomuceno

and Pamintuan filed their respective Consolidated Motions for
Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence;" which this Court
denied.45
EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE
The defense presented Eric Mendoza, Mark Alien Sison and

accused Francis Nepomuceno as witnesses and their respective
----------_.-
39 TSN dated 13 May 2015, pp. 42-58.
40 Id, pp. 59-64.
41 ki., pp. 64-73.
42 Records, pp. 374-399.
43 Records, pp. 423-424, 427-428.
44 Records, pp. 430-435, 436-438.
45 Records, p. 464.
DECISION
Crim. Case No. S8-14-CRM-0315 to 0316 .
Page 9 of 26
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
testimonies are summarized as follows:
Eric Mendoza46 (Mendoza), Secretary of the Sangguniang

Panlungsod of Angeles City, is the custodian of records of the
proceedings of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, including the
approved resolutions and ordinances. He brought to this court, two
(2) resolutions entitled "Resolution No. 5408, Series of 2007"
pertaining to different subject matters. The first only bears one
accredited NGO - Kapanalig Inc.; while the other Resolution "
contains a list of accredited NGOs, including Kapanalig Inc.
On cross-examinatlorr", Mendoza was not able to produce

the original of Resolution No. 540849, Series of 2007 when he was
asked about the basis of his certification of the photocopy. He said
Resolution No. 5925, Series of 2010 has an attached letter50 from
Nepomuceno addressed to the vice-mayor. The said letter is
addressed to the Vice-mayor and the City Council requesting the
approval of a resolution authorizing the City Mayor to execute a
Deed of Donation!" in favor of Kapanalig Inc.; Angeles City Public
School Teachers Credit Cooperative; and Philippine Elementary
School Principals Association. The Resolution was approved on 21
May 2010.
Mark Alien Sison52 (Sison), City Administrator of Angeles City

from January 2009 to June 2010, said that, among others, his duties
include overseeing all communications - incoming or outgoing to
the Mayor's Office, from the Sangguniang Panlungsod.
Kapanalig, Inc., an accredited NG053, is entitled to privileges,

including, but not limited to:
1. They can be appointed in local special bodies like the local

development councils;
2. Participate in the delivery of basic services and other facilities
of the local government;
3. Entitled to receive financial and other forms of assistance from
the LGU through the local Chief Executive, upon concurrence
and approval of the Sangguniang Panlungsod;
4. Enjoy unhampered access to information;
5. Tax exemptions, tax reliefs and tax holidays; and
46 TSN dated 5 November 2015, pp. 10-24.

47 Exhibit "3-a."
48 TSN dated 5 November 2015, pp. 30.
49 Exhibit "4."
50 Exhibit "Z" (with submarkings).
51 Exhibit "G
H
52 TSN dated 17 February 2016, pp. 8-38.

53 Exhibit "3a" / Exhibit "16-a."
DECISION
Page 10 of 26
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
6. Participate in transparent public biddings.

Sometime in May 2010, Pamintuan approached Sison stating
his intent to talk to Nepomuceno. He (Pamintuan) wanted to
reiterate their verbal request for a motor vehicle. Additionally, he
informed him that he already went to the councilors and he was
advised to get a letter request from the Mayor.
He, along with Pamintuan and some Kapanalig, Inc. officers,

had a meeting with the Mayor. Nepomuceno asked Sison for an
available motor vehicle and whether or not Kapanalig is qualified.
Sison replied in the affirmative. He identified a seldom used
standby vehicle - 2005 model Mitsubishi Adventure, that needs
some minor repairs and maintenance. Kapanalig Inc. did not reject
the offer, in fact, they expressed their willingness to take care of the
repair and maintenance of the vehicle. His office prepared a letter-
request to be submitted to the City Council.
He corroborated the testimonies of the other witnesses

regarding the passage of the above stated Resolutions to pave the
way for the execution of the donation and acceptance of the subject
vehicles.
He said that the City only donated eleven (11) vehicles out of
the thousands owned by the City.
The court gave emphasis to the fact that Sison is not a lawyer.
On cross-examination'", he said that the verbal request after

the 2010 election is not the first time that Kapanalig, Inc. requested
Nepomuceno to donate a vehicle. This request started in 2007. He
admitted that he is a not a lawyer oran accountant but sought the
advice of the City Legal Officer, RorneoYosi, regarding the donation.
He confirmed that the meeting, Resolutions, Deed of Donation and
ratification of the Deed of Donation were all done after the election.
Francisco Nepomuceno55 (Nepomuceno), Mayor of Angeles

City from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2010, said that his main functions
include overseeing day-to-day operations of the City Government;
directing all supervision and control over all the programs, projects,
activities and services of the Government; acting on all ordinances
and resolutions passed by the City Council concerned; and, lastly,
represents the city in all its business transactions and sign in its
behalf, all contracts, obligations, and such documents upon the
authority of the Sangguniang Panlungsod.
54 TSN dated 17 February 2016, pp. 38-47.

55 TSN dated 21 April 2016, pp. 6-21.
DECISION
Page 11 of 26
x----------------------------------------------------- x
He said that Pamintuan was the President of Kapanalig, Inc.

and that Kapanalig Inc. is active in all civic works of the City.
He also corroborated the testimonies of the other witnesses

regarding the passage of the above stated Resolutions to pave the
way for the execution of the donation and acceptance of the subject
vehicles.
He said that the Deed of Donation did not in any way hamper
the operation of the City Government of Angeles City in the delivery
of service to the people.
On cross-examination 56 , he stated that he reviewed the

Local Government Code (LGC) if the donation is in order since it is
a non-procurement transaction. He cited Section 36, stating: the
City is allowed through its executive to provide assistance, physical
or otherwise, to Non-Government Organization upon the authority
of the Sangguniang Bayan concerned.. He also did not consider
giving the vehicle to other NGOs. He further stated that it is the
Sangguniang's prerogative to approve or disprove his request.
He admitted that:
- he signed Pamintuan's Certification of Nornination'" as the

Chairman of the NPC;
- the City had a shortfall on tax collections based on the COA
Report'" for the period of January to 31 May 2010; and
- he donated the vehicle after the expiration of his term as
mayor.
Notably, he denied giving any political accommodation to
Kapanalig Inc. since the Kapanalig Inc. was worthy of the donation,
it badly needing the vehicle.
On re-direct examination'", he said that no case was filed

ainst him in relation to other donations made.
Thereafter, accused Nepomuceno and Pamintuan separately

filed a Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence 60, while the
prosecution submitted a Formal Offer of Additional Documentary
Evidence.?' The Court then admitted exhibits 1J' 2 3 3-a 4 5 6 7
• - J J )' J 1 ,

57 Exhibit "R."
58 Exhibit "K."
59 TSN date 21 April 2016, p, 45.
60 Records, pp. 518-522, 524-528.
61 Records, pp. 510-515.
DECISION
Page 12 of 26
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
8,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23, and 24 for the defense, and

exhibits Z to Z3 and Z4 to Z6 for the prosecution."
All the parties submitted their respective memoranda."
THE FACTS
The following narration of facts is based on the documentary

and testimonial evidence found on record, as well as on the
stipulations made between the parties:
On 21 May 2010, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Angeles

City issued Resolution No. 5925, 8-2010,64 pursuant to the letter65
dated 18 May 2010 of the Mayor, accused Nepomuceno, requesting
for authorization to execute a deed of donation over motor vehicles
owned by the city government in favor of the following non-
government and civil society organizations:
Description ._~. f----- __ P~la_t_e_~_o. ----f R_ecipien_t_-:----i

Mitsubishi Adventure SHL-124 Kapanalig, Inc.
(GLS 2.5) (Abelardo Pamintuan,
t---:-:----c--.----~- ...---.-- ..-.-..-.-.-~.-.- ~.)--"------_.
Toyota Avanza 1.3 J SJ8-659 Angeles City Public
School Teachers Credit
Cooperative (Manuel
I------~---~----- ---------.-----.---.~
Duenas)
--c-'------=-:------j
Toyota Avanza 1.3 J SJ8-446 Philippine Elementary
MIT1.35S School Principals
Association (Or
Enriqueta C. Tayao)
On 08 June 2010, a Deed of Donation 66 was executed

between the Angeles City Government, represented by accused
Nepomuceno as Mayor, and Kapanalig, lnc., an accredited'? NGO,
represented by its President, accused Parnintuan. The latter also
aepted the donation on behalf of Kapanalig, Inc., on the same
aay.68 As a result, one (1) unit city government motor vehicle, a
2005 Mitsubishi Adventure (GLS 2.5) bearing red plate no. SHL
124,69was conveyed and transferred to Kapanalig Inc.70 On 19
62 Records, p. 559.
63 Rp-cords, pp. 562-582,
583-589,
590-609.
64 Records, p. 261.
65 See Exhibits "Z" and"24."
66 Records, p. 264.
67 See Exhibit 3-A.
68 Records, p. 51.
69 TSN dated 28January 2015,
pp. 33,51.
70 Records, p.51.
DECISION
Crim. Case No. S8-14-CRM-031S to 0316
Page 13 of 26
x ----------------------------------------------------- x
June 2010, the Sangguniang Panlungsod ratified the donation as

per Resolution No. 5937, 8-2010.71
After accused Nepomuceno's term of office ended on 30 June

2010,72 he was succeeded by Mayor Edgardo as Mayor of Angeles
City.73
On 04 August 2010, the Office of the Auditor of Angeles City

released AOM No. 2010-005-(1 Of4, while on 05 August 2010, the
Commission on Audit (COA), Reqicnal Office Ill, transrnitted " a
copy of the Interim Report on the Audit of the Accounts and
Operations of the City of Angeles 76to the Office of the City Mayor.
Both documents questioned the propriety of the donation of the city
government's eleven (11) motor vehicles to various recipients,
considering its adverse effects on the city's financial condition, and
recommended the retrieval thereof.
Thus, on 17 August 2010, Mayor Edgardo wrote a letter77to

Kapanalig, Inc., addressed to accused Pamintuan informing him of
the impropriety of the donation and demanded the return of the
donated motor vehicle. This letter was received on 20 August 2010,
but he received no reply from accused Parnintuan."
In the interim, Mayor Edgardo was empowered to rescind all

deeds of donation of government vehicles to various recipients by
virtue of the Sangguniang Panlungsod's Resolution No. 6027, 8-
2010,79 dated 23 November 2010.
Consequently, on 06 January 2011, Mayor Edgardo sent a

Notice of Rescission, Revocation or Cancellation of Donation of
Vehicles 80 to Kapanalig, Inc., implementing the rescission,
revocation and cancellation of the donation, and reiterating his
demand for the surrender of the donated motor vehicle.
On 17 January 2011, accused Pamintuan wrote a letterB1on

behalf of Kapanalig Inc., insisting on the validity of the donation and
fusing to heed Mayor Edgardo's demand without a court order
requiring them to return the said motor vehicle.
71 Records, pp.278-279.
72 TSN dated 21 2016,
April p. 7.
73 TSN dated 28 2015,
January p. 28.
74 Records, pp.164-167.
75 Records, p.168.
76 Records, pp.170-193.
77 Records, p55.
78 TSN dated 28 2015,
January pp. 44-45.
79 54.
Records, p.
80 56.
Records, p.
81 Records, pp.59-60.
DECISION
Page 14 of 26
x----------------------------------------------------- x
This prompted Mayor Edgardo to file a complaint'? against

accused Nepomuceno and Parnintuan before the Office of the City
Prosecutor. 83 After the submission of the parties' responsive
pleadinqs.?" the city prosecutor issued a Resolution 85 dated 05
March 2012, recommending that both accused be charged with
vioiation of Sections 3(e) and 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019, and forwarded
the case to the Office of the Ombudsman for appropriate action.
Upon review, the Ombudsman confirmed the findings of the city
prosecutor and directed the filing of the corresponding
Informations." Accused Nepomuceno and Pamintuan moved for
reconsideration of the Ombudsman's review but their motions were
denied."
Hence, these cases.
DISCUSSION
Accused Nepomuceno anchors his defense on the doctrine of

the presumption of regularity of the performance of official duty,
contending that the execution. of the Deed of Donation in favor of
Kapanalig, Inc., was a legitimate exercise of his function as a City
Mayor under Section 455 (b)(vi)88 of the LGC. He claims that he
fully complied with the provision of the aforementioned section since
the purpose of the donation was for the efficient, effective and
economical governance of the general welfare of the city and its
inhabitants. Furthermore, he alleges that he acted in good faith
because he asked the permission of the Sangguniang Panlungsod,
and was authorized by the latter to execute such Deed of Donation.
The presumption of regularity of an official act or duty is never
82 Records, pp. 35-40.

83 Records, p. 41.
84 Records, pp. 61-62, 71-73, 75-81,108-113.
86 Records. pp. 21-27.
88 Section 455(b)(vi) of the LGC states:
"Section 455.Chief Executive; Power: Duties and Compensation.
xxx xxx xxx
(b) For efficient, effective and economical governance the purpose of which is the general
welfare of the city and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16of this Code, the City Mayor shall:
xxx xxx xxx
(vi) Represent the city in all its business transactions and sign in its behalf all bonds, contracts
and obligations, and such other documents upon the authority of the Sangguniang Panlungsod
or pursuant to law or ordinance. xxx"
DECISION
Crim. Case No. SB-14-CRM-0315 to 0316 .
Page 15 of 26
x----------------------------------------------------- x
an iron-clad defense as it may be rebutted by affirmative evidence

of irregularity or failure to perform a duty."? Here, the evidence on
record not only shows that accused Nepomuceno was remiss in
performing his duty under the LGC to enforce all laws relative to the
governance of the city.?" but it also proves that the execution of the
assailed donation was marred by several irregularities. This
conclusion is aptly summarized in the findings contained in AOM No.
2010-005-( 10) and reiterated in the Interim Report on the Audit of
the Accounts and Operations of the City of Angeles, viz.:
"Eleven (11) functioning and newly acquired motor vehicles of the

city government with acquisition cost in the total amount of
P10,214,400.00 were donated to different barangays,
government agency and non-government organizations. The
financial condition of the city and its requirements for service
vehicles were not amply considered in the disposition of the
vehicles and the requirements of existing laws, rules and
regulations were not strictly observed."
The significance of this report finds relevance in Title Six of

the LGC which governs the procurement, care, utilization, custody
and disposal of supplies by local government units." Under Section
383, Title Six of the LGC, the COA was mandated to promulgate the
necessary rules and regulations for the effective implementation of
the provisions of the said Title.92 Thus, on 20 October 1992, COA
Circular No. 92-386 was issued, prescribing the particular rules and
regulations on supply and property management in the local
governments.
Accordingly, the pertinent provisions of COA Circular No. 92-

386 set the parameters on when and how a property of any local
government unit should be disposed of, to wit:
Rule. 21. General Policy on Disposal
Sec. 162. When Supplies or Property shall be Disposed of -
89People of the Philippines vs. Carlos De Guzman y Panaligan, 229 SCRA 795 (1994), p. 799.
90Section 455 (b)(2) of the LGC directs the City Mayor to enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the
governance of the city.
91 Section 355, Title Six of the LGC states:
"Section 355. Scope. This Title shall govern the procurement, care, utilization, custody and
disposal of supplies, as defined herein, by local government units and the other aspects of supply
management at the local levels."
92 Section 383, Title Six of the LGC provides:
"Section 383. Implementing Rules and Regulations. The Chairman of the Commission on Audit
s~all promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to effectively implement the provisions of
this Title, including requirements as to testing, inspection and standardization of supply and
property."
DECISION
Page 16 of 26
x----------------------------------------------------- x
When supplies or property of any local government unit have

become unserviceable for any cause or are no longer needed,
the same shall be disposed of in accordance with the procedures
prescribed in these rules and regulations.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 165. Public Auction as the Primary Mode of Disposal. -

Supplies or Property which have become unserviceable or no
longer needed shall be sold, whenever applicable, at public
auction, subject to applicable rules and regulations.
Rule 22. Reporting of Disposable Supplies or Property
Sec. 167. Disposal Procedures. - When the supplies or property

of a local government unit have become unserviceable from any
cause, or are no longer needed, the officer immediately
accountable therefore shall return the same to the head of the
department or office who shall cancel the corresponding
Memorandum Receipt. If no longer needed in the department,
the head of the department or office shall return the same to the
general services officer, municipal or barangay treasurer, as the
case may be, with the use of Property Return Slip (LGU Form No.
12). The general services officer, municipal or barangay treasurer,
as the case may be, shall through the local chief executive, file
an application for its disposal with the provincial, city or municipal
auditor who shall conduct an inspection and determination
whether the subject property is with or without value.
Rule 27. Other Modes of Disposal
Sec. 189. Donations to Charitable, Scientific, Educational or

Cultural Associations. - In exceptional cases and for meritorious
reasons, disposable government property may be donated to
charitable, scientific, educational and cultural associations with
the approval of the sanggunian concerned.
The above cited guidelines make it clear that accused

Nepomuceno's donation of a serviceable motor vehicle in favor of
Kapanalig, Inc., is not allowed. Clearly, only the property of the city
government which has become unserviceable or is no longer
needed may be disposed of,93 and, as a general rule, these
disposable property are disposed of at a public auction. 94
Moreover, even if it is assumed that the donated motor vehicle is no
onger needed by the city government, the donation is still irregular
for non-compliance with the disposal procedures provided under
Section 167, Rule 22 of COA Circular 92-386.95 Significantly,
though Section 189 of the same COA Circular allows donation with
the approval of the sanggunian concerned, this only covers
93Section 162, Rule 21 of COA Circular 92-386.

94Section 165, Rule 21 of COA Circular 92-386.
95TSN dated 21 April 2016, pp. 11-1B.
DECISION
Page 17 of 26
x----------------------------------------------------- x
disposable government property. 96 "Disposable government

property" by definition refers to property reported for disposition by
a department or office. 97 Here, the donated motor vehicle was
never reported for disposition prior to the donation." hence Section
189 does not apply.
It is against the backdrop of these proven irregularities that the

liabilities of accused Nepomuceno and Pamintuan for the offenses
charged are examined below:
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 provides:
Section 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:
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the

Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted bene-
fits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, ad-
ministrative or judicial functions through manifest impartiality, ev-
ident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. xxx. (emphasis
supplied)
In order to sustain a conviction for violation of Section 3 (e) of

R. A. No. 3019, the following elements must concur:
(a) The accused must be a public officer discharging

administrative, judicial or official functions;
(b) He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith
or gross inexcusable negligence; and
(c) His action caused undue injury to any party, including the
government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.I"
The existence of the first element is undisputed as it was

already established that accused Nepomuceno held the position of
. y mayor at the time material to these cases.P" As the city mayor,
accused Nepomuceno is considered a public officer and he
admittedly executed the assailed donation in such capacity.'?'
96
97
Section 189, Rule 27 of COA Circular 92-386.
Section 4, Rule 1 of COA Circular 92-386.
99 Melchor G. Maderazo and Dionesio R. Veruen, Jr. vs. People of the Philippines and Sandiganbayan,
761 SCRA440, (2015), p. 441.
100 Records, pp. 241-245.
101 TSN dated 21 April 2016, pp 14-17.
r:r
DECISION
Page 18 of 26
x----------------------------------------------------- x
The second element provides the different modes by which

the crime may be committed, that is, through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable neqligence.l'" "Partiality" is
synonymous with "bias" which excites a disposition to see and
report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are.'?"
There is manifest partiality when there is a clear, notorious, or plain
inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than
another. 104 "Bad faith" does not simply connote bad judgment or
negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity
and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of a sworn duty through
some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud.'?"
Evident bad faith contemplates a state of mind affirmatively
operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or
ill will or for ulterior purposes.l'" Gross inexcusable negligence
refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest
care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to
act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with conscious
indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be
affected. 107
Here, accused Nepomuceno's manifest partiality and evident

bad faith were demonstrated when he allowed the donation of the
city government's serviceable motor vehicle in response to the
request for donation of his eo-accused, Pamintuan, and the other
members of Kapanalig, Inc. The following testimony of accused
Nepomuceno is instructive:
"Q: Mr. Witness, sometime in May 2010 after the election, did you
happen to see your eo-accused, Mr. Abelardo Pamintuan?
A: After the election, yes sir, he went to my office together with

some members of the Kapanalig, Incorporated, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And during that meeting what, if any, did they tell you?
A: Well, sir, they reiterated their request. They were requesting

for the City to donate motor vehicle in their favor, in favor of
Kapanalig, Incorporated.
Q: And when they told you this what, if any, was your reply?
-------------------
102 People of the Philippines vs. Aristeo E. Atienza, et al., 673 SCRA 470, (2012) p. 480.
103 Rolando E. Sison vs. People of the Philippines, 614 SCRA670, (2010) p. 680.
104 Supra, Note 102, p. 480.
105 Supra, Note 103.
106 Supra, Note 104.
107 Id.
DECISION
pp vs. Nepomuceno, et al.
Page 19 of 26
x----------------------------------------------------- x
A: Well, I replied to them I just cannot act on their request without

the authority coming from the City Council, sir.
Q: And when you told them this what, if any, did they tell you?
A: They told me, sir, "That's why we're back because we have
spoken with several members of the Sanggunian and they told us
to go to you sir and ask you to make a letter request regarding
our request for the donation of the vehicle."
Q: What is this letter request that you mentioned. Mr. Witness,

that they told you?
A: They said that the Sangguniang Panlungsod needs this

request coming from the Mayor's Office so that they can act on
their request, sir.
Q: After they told you this, what happened next?
A: So, I asked the City Administrator Mark Alien Sison, who was
present, if there is any available motor vehicle to be donated to
the Kapanalig Foundation, sir.
xxx xxx xxx

Q: And what was the reply, if any, of the City Administrator?
A: Well, he said that there is a vacant here assigned to our office,

Mayor's Office, which is seldom used. It is considered a standby
vehicle. It's a 2005 model Mitsubishi Adventure, sir.
Q: And, when he told you this, what happened next?
A: Well, I think I asked again the City Administrator, "What was

the condition of the said vehicle?"
Q: And what, if any, was the reply of the City Administrator?
A: Sir, he told me that the vehicle is a little bit old and seldom
works but it is still working and needs some repairs, sir.
Q: And when the City Administrator told you this, what happened
next, Mr. Witness?
A: I asked the members of the Kapanalig if they will consider that

vehicle that is worn-out and they answered that "any vehicle sir,
will do and we are willing to shoulder the expenses of the repair."
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What, if any, did you do when the members of Kapanalig told

you this?
A: I instructed the City Administrator to prepare the letter request

DECISION
Page 20 of 26
x -- -- -- ---- ----- - ------- ------ ----- --------- ----- --- -- x
and, at the same time, indicate the motor vehicle concerned, sir.
Q: And was the said letter request prepared?
A: It was prepared, sir.
Q: After it was prepared, what happened to that letter request?
A: When it was prepared, I signed the - in behalf of the City I

signed the letter request, sir.
Q: After you signed the letter request, what happened to the letter
request?
A: I instructed the City Administrator to transmit the letter request

to the City Council, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: After the transmittal of the letter request to the City Council of

Angeles City, what happened next, Mr. Witness?
A: Well, after sometime, sir, we received a resolution coming from

the - our office received a resolution comin~ from the City Council.
Q: And what was that resolution all about?
A: It was the approval of our letter request. The approval for the
City Mayor, it was specifically addressed to me to execute the
deed of donation and it was unanimously approved, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: After you received the said Resolution, what happened next.

Mr. Witness?
A: I told the City Administrator who brought the Resolution to me

to leave it to me first so I can further study the matter, sir.
Q: When it was brought to you and you told the City Administrator
to leave it first, what happened after that, Mr. Witness?
A: Well, again after sometime, sir, the City Administrator in my

office came to me again and he said that the members of
Kapanalig, as well as the City Council, were always calling again
to follow up the resolution. They were asking if what action have
I taken regarding the donation of the vehicle to the Kapanalig,
Incorporated, sir.
Q: And what the City Administrator told you this remarks, what, if
any was your reply to him?
A: I told him, sir, that since I find the said resolution in order and
it was more so unanimously approved, I told Mr. Mark Alien Sison,
DECISION
Page 21 of 26
x----------------------------------------------------- x
the City Administrator, to make the proper documents to make the

deed of donation, sir.
Q: Do you know if Mark Alllen Sison compliend with what you

instructed him to do?
A: Yes, sir, it was on June 8 the deed of donation was ready and
the members and officers of Kapanalig, Incorporated were there
in the office so we proceed with the signing of the deed of
donation. So, I signed first in behalf of the city and then my co-
accused, Mr. Abelardo Pamintuan, being the President of the
Kapanalig also signed the deed of donation, sir.108
The hasty manner in which the donation was executed shows

the predisposition of accused Nepomuceno to grant the donation.
This is bolstered by the conversations' he had with the City
Administrator and the subsequent instructions he gave the latter
relative to the execution of the donation. In fact, as soon as he
found out that there was an available motor vehicle, he immediately
set in motion the processing of the donation by giving instructions
to the City Administrator to make the necessary request from the
City Council to authorize him to execute the said donation.
The same above quoted testimony also confirms that accused

Nepomuceno was in breach of his mandated duty to enforce all laws
relative to the governance of the city, 109 as he did not even bother
to consider the pertinent rules on the proper disposal of the city
government's property when he executed the assailed donation.
The third element enumerates the two (2) ways in which

Section 3 (e) of R. A. No. 3019 may be violated: (1) by causing
undue injury to any party, including the government, or (2) by giving
any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or
preference.'!" Accordingly, jurisprudence instructs that these ways
of committing the offense need not be present at the same time.'!'
Thus, the presence of one is sufficient for conviction.f '<
In this case, this Court finds no evidence to support the

109 Supra, footnote 90.
110 Rolando E. Sison vs. People of the Philippines, 614 SeRA 670, (2010) p. 679.
111 The case of Rolando E. Sison vs. People of the Philippines, 614 SeRA 670, p. 681, thus states:
"xxx it should be noted that there are two ways by which Section 3(e) of RA 3019 may
be violated-the first, by causing undue injury to any party, including the government,
or the second, by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or
preference. Although neither mode constitutes a distinct offense, an accused may be
charged under either mode or both. The use of the disjunctive "or" connotes that the
two modes need not be present at the same time. In other words, the presence of one
would suffice for conviction. xxx"
112 Rolando E. Si son vs. People of the Philippines, 614 SeRA 670, (2010) p. 681.
DECISION
Page 22 of 26
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
prosecution's allegation that the city government of Angeles

suffered undue injury by reason of the execution of the assailed
donation. Significantly, other than stating the acquisition cost of the
subject vehicle, the prosecution did not adduce any evidence to
quantify the actual damage suffered by the said city. It is doctrinal
that the undue injury in Section 3 (e) of R. A. No. 3019 cannot be
presumed even after a wrong or a violation of a right has been
established.l':' This is so because undue injury in section 3(e) is
consistently interpreted as similar to the civil law concept of actual
damaqe.!'" Thus, it is required that the alleged undue injury be
specified, quantified and proven.!"
Nonetheless, this Court observes that there is ample evidence

to show that Kapanalig, Inc., as represented by its President,
accused Pamintuan, received unwarranted benefits, advantage and
preference when the assailed donation was accepted. In
jurisprudence, the word 'unwarranted'means lacking adequate or
official support; unjustified, unauthorized or without justification or
adequate reason. 'Advantage'. means a more favorable or improved
position or condition; Benefit, profit or gain of any kind; benefit from
some course of action. 'Preference' signifies priority or higher
evaluation or desirability; choice or estimation above another. 116
Here, the donation accepted by Kapanalig, Inc. through its
President, accused Pamintuan, is without justification because the
donation of a serviceable motor vehicle which is still in use by the
city government is not allowed .117
Accused Nepomuceno and Pamintuan are also charged with

the violation of Section 3(g) of R. A. No. 3019, which states:
Section 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:
xxx xxx xxx
(g) Entering on behalf of the Government, into any con-

tract or transaction, manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to
the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit
thereby.
The elements of this offense are as follows:
113 Hilario P Soriano vs. Ombudsman Simeon V Marcelo, et al. 5T/ SCRA 312, (2009), p. 320.
114 Id.
115 Id.
116 Rolando E. Sison vs. People of the Philippines, 614 SCRA670, p.682
117 Supra, footnotes 96, 97 and 98.
DECISION
Page 23 of 26
x----------------------------------------------------- x
1. The offender is a public officer;
2. He entered into a contract or transaction In behalf of the

government; and
3. The contract or transaction is manifestly and grossly

disadvantageous to the qovernrnent.!"
Here, the presence of the first two elements have already

been established. 119 Hence, only the third element will be
discussed.
The term "manifest" in the context of Section 3(g) has been

defined by jurisprudence as something "obvious to the
understanding, evident to the mind" and "is synonymous with open,
clear, visible, unmistakable, indubitable, evident and self-
evident.T" On the other hand, the term "gross" means "flagrant,
shameful, such conduct as is not to be excused."!" Guided by
these terms and the established evidence.!" it is readily seen that
the deed of donation executed by accused Nepomuceno is
manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government
because there is no lawfully acceptable justification for his blatant
disregard of the pertinent rules on the proper disposal of local
government property vis-a-vis his mandated responsibility to
enforce all of the laws relative to the governance of the city. 123 For
his actions, the city government was deprived of the use of its
serviceable motor vehicle. And if at all the said vehicle may indeed
be disposed of, the city government would have gained more
advantage had accused Nepomuceno properly followed the rules
on property disposal considering that the donated motor vehicle
could have been sold at public auction 124 or transferred to another
government aqency.!"
118lsabeloA. Braza vs. Sandiganbayan, 691 SCRA471, (2013) p. 490.

119Supra, footnotes 100 and 101.
120Eulogio Morales, et al. vs. People of the Philippines, 385 SCRA 259, (2002), p. 273.
121 Id.
122In the case of Jose P Dans, .lr. vs People of the Philippines, 285 SCRA 604, (1998), the Supreme
Court made the following observations on the interpretation of Section 3(g) of R. A. No. 3019, to wit:
"xxx There is, however, nothing vague about the statute. The assailed provision
answers the basic query What is the violation? Anything beyond this, the 'how's' and
the 'why's', are evidentiary matters which the law itself cannot possibly disclose in view
of the uniqueness of every case. The 'disadvantage' in this instance is something
that still has to be addressed by the States' evidence as the trial progresses. It
may be said that the law is intended to be flexible in order to allow the judge ii
certain latitude in determining if the disadvantage to the government occasioned
by the act of a public officer in entering into a particular contract is, indeed, gross
and manifest xxx" (emphasis ours)
123Supra, footnote 90.

124Supra, footnote 94.
125Section 184, Rule 24 and Section 185, Rule 25 of COA Circular 92-386 are instructive:
DECISION
Page 24 of 26
x -- --- --- ------ --- ---- -- ------ --- -- ------- ------ -- ---- x
Meanwhile, the liability of accused Pamintuan hinges on the

establishment of the fact of conspiracy between him and
accused Nepomuceno. Jurisprudence states that to establish
conspiracy, direct proof of an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and the decision to commit it is not
necessary.!" It may be inferred from the acts of the accused
before, during or after the commission of the crime which,
when taken together, would be enough to reveal a community
of criminal design, as the proof of conspiracy is frequently
made by evidence of a chain of circumstances."? Here, the
evidence on record shows that accused Pamintuan and the
other members of Kapanalig, Inc., took concrete steps to
ensure the execution of the donation in their favor. This is
supported by the fact that even before they had their meeting
with accused Nepomuceno at the Mayor's Office, they already
spoke with several members of the City Council regarding the
donation. 128 Furthermore, during the meeting, accused
Pamintuan and the members of Kapanalig, Inc., were the
ones who insisted and suggested to accused Nepomuceno to
ask authority from the City Council so he could execute the
donation.F? Then, after the execution of the deed of donation,
accused Pamintuan immediately accepted the donation, that
is, on the very same day it was executed.13o Thus, this Court
is convinced that the individual actions of accused
Nepomuceno when taken together with those of accused
Pamintuan, showed that they were acting in concert and
cooperating to achieve the same unlawful objective.':"
Rule 24. Sale thru Negotiation
Sec. 184. Transfer of Property with Cost to other Govemment Offices. - Transfer of
property with costs to other government offices is considered as negotiated sale.
Accordingly, the provisions of these regulations pertaining to negotiated sale shall apply.
Rule 25. Transfer Without Cost to other Government Offices.
Sec. 185. Transfer and Appraisal of Unsetviceeble or Property no Longer Needed. -

Property which has become unserviceable or no longer needed by any local
government unit may be transferred without cost to another government office, agency,
subdivision, or instrumentality at an appraised valuation determined by the local
Committee on Awards.
126 Henry T Go vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., 521 SCRA 270, (2007), p. 290.
127 Id.
130 Supra, footnotes 66,68.
131 The case of Cesar P. Guy vs. People of the Philippines, 582 SCRA 107 (2009) held:
"xxx Therefore, if it is proved that two or more persons aimed their acts towards the
accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doinq a part so that their acts,
though apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a
closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, then a conspiracy
may be inferred though no actual meeting among them to concert means is proved xxx"
DECISION
Page 25 of 26
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment IS hereby

rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0315, accused

FRANCIS L. NEPOMUCENO and accused ABELARDO C.
PAMINTUAN, JR., are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Section 3 (e) of R. A. No. 3019 and, pursuant to Section
9 thereof, and are hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) month as
minimum up to ten (10) years as maximum.
2. In Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0316, accused

FRANCIS L. NEPOMUCENO and accused ABELARDO C.
PAMINTUAN, JR., are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Section 3 (g) of R. A. No. 3019 and, pursuant to Section
9 thereof, are hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty
of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum up
to ten (10) years as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
We Concur:
•.
. /.LiIJ.A. ~
.~ WfJ
U.••, •...... ,L-
GERALDINE FAITH A. ECONG
Chairperson/ Associate Justice
Associate Justice
DECISION
Page 26 of 26
x----------------------------------------------------- x
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusion in the above decision were

reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and

the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified
that the conclusions in the above decision were reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Court's Division.

C - Crim - SB-14-CRM-0315 - People Vs Nepomuceno, Et Al - 03 - 27 - 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

C - Crim - SB-14-CRM-0315 - People Vs Nepomuceno, Et Al - 03 - 27 - 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

-versus- CRIM. CASE NO. S8-14-CRM-0315

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

-versus- CRIM. CASE NO. SB-14-CRM-0316

QUIROZ, J., Chairperson

Ma.vh 27, 2011 W

x -~--- --- ----- -- --- -- --------- --- ---------- ----- ---- -- x

On 15 July 2014, accused Francis L. Nepomuceno (hereinaf-

CRIM. CASE NO. 0315

That on 08 June 2010 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto,

CRIM. CASE NO. 0316

That on 08 June 2010 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto,

1 Records, pp. 1-2.

x --- -- --- ----- -- ------- ------- --- -- -------- ------ -- --- x

to office, acting in conspiracy with eo-accused ABELARDO C.

On 22 July 2014, this Court approved the respective cash

On 29 September 2014, the parties submitted a Joint

1. That accused Francis L. Nepomuceno is the same accused charged

2. That accused Abelardo C. Pamintuan, Jr., is a private individual who

3. That accused Abelardo C. Pamintuan, Jr., is the then President of

4. That Kapanalig Angeles Inc. is a non-government

The parties also agreed, as per Pre-Trial Order" dated 07

1. Whether or not accused Francis L. Nepomuceno acted with manifest

2. Whether or not there was an unwarranted benefit, advantage and

3. Whether or not the City Government of Angeles City suffered undue

4. Whether or not the contract (Deed of Donation) involving a Mitsubishi

5. Whether or not a local government unit can donate to an accredited

6. Whether or not the allegation of conspiracy contained in the

7. Whether or not the mere act of accepting the subject donation on

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The prosecution's witnesses' are Atty. Erwin Edward

The prosecution intended to present witness Atty. Erwin

1. Certificate of Incorporation with attached By-laws of Kapanalig

Dolores Eola 13 (Eola), as Acting Records Officer of Land

Numer Palad15 (Palad), Election Officer of Pampanga, would

Edgardo Parnintuan!" (Mayor Edgardo), incumbent Mayor of

13 TSN dated 28 January 2015, pp. 7-18.

x -- -- - ----- ---- -- ------- ------ --- --------- ------- -- --- x

Angeles City, was authorized by Resolution No. 612617 to represent

He said that the following events transpired:

- On 21 May 2010, Sangguniang Panlungsod Resolution No.

20 Supra, footnote 18.

21 Exhibit '6" / Exhibit "H."

27 TSN dated 28 January 2015, pp. 53-84.

29 Exhibit "23" / Exhibit "X-3."

Menandro Dizorr", General Services Officer of Angeles City,

He issued a Certification 31 dated 9 September 2014

On cross-examinatiorr", he said that the subject vehicle was

On redirect examlnatlon ". he said that the Resolution?"

Amalia Manabat36 (Manabat), Audit Team Leader of the City

She was assigned in Angeles City and prepared two audit

1. The ratification of the Sangguniang Panlungsod;

30 TSN dated 9 March 2015, pp. 8-25.

3. The inventory report stating that the subject properties are

Their team made an AOM to Mayor Edgardo stating their

On cross-examlnatlon'", she stressed that serviceable and

On redirect examlnatlorr" , the court instructed the marking

Upon inquiry of this Court", she said that LGUs need to

Acting on the prosecution's Consolidated Formal Offer of

After the prosecution rested its case, accused Nepomuceno

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

The defense presented Eric Mendoza, Mark Alien Sison and