REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SANDIGANBAYAN
Quezon City

FOURTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Grim. Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005

Plaintiff, For: Violation ofSection 3(e), Republic
Act No. 3019, as amended

CONSTANCIO F.DANAO and Present:

ROMEL H. BELTRAN, MUSNGI,J., Chairperson
Accused. PAHIMNA,J., Associate Justice
JACINTO, J., Associate Justice

•JAN 13 2023^
Promulgated ^

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the Decision dated 28 January 2022 of the

Regional Trial Court(RTC), Branch 5 of Baguio City, finding the accused-
appellants Constancio F.Danao("Danao")and Romel H.Beltran("Beltran")
guilty of violating Section 3(e)ofRepublic Act No. 3019(R.A. No. 3019), as
amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as
amended.

The Information' dated 24 October 2017 reads:

Criminal Case No. 41181-R

That in December 2015, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in

Baguio City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable
Court, accused Constancio Danao y Faustino and Romel H. Beltran, both
public officers being then the Punong Barangay and Barangay Treasurer,
respectively, of Barangay Camp 7, Baguio City, while in the performance
of their official functions, committing the crime in relation to office, acting
with evident bad faith, manifest partiality and/or gross inexcusable
negligence, and conspiring and confederating with each other, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully, and criminally gave unwarranted benefit,
advantage or preference to J & J Tools and General Merchandise by

Sandiganbayan Records, Vol. 1 pp. 1-2.

 Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People V5. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 2 of27

awarding to it the contract for the supply of warning devices and disaster
preparedness equipment and tools without awaiting the completion of the
bidding process and despite the lack ofresolution from the Bids and Awards
Committee (BAG) recommending the award of the contract to J&J Tools
and General Merchandise, and issuing Veterans Bank Check No.
0000247225 in the amount of P369,249.11 as payment of the tools and
equipment procured without supporting documents, to the damage and
prejudice ofthe government.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

ANTECEDENT FACTS

The trial court found, as follows:

The Information,^ dated 24 October 2017 was filed before the Regional
Trial Court ofBaguio City, Branch 5("RTC")on 1 December 2017.

Accused-appellants Danao and Beltran were arraigned on 2 May 2018.

and both pleaded "not guilty" to the offense charged.^ The Pre-Trial Order'*
was issued by the RTC on 22 June 2018.The case proceeded to trial and the
prosecution presented its documentary and testimonial evidence.

After the prosecution rested its case, it filed its Formal Offer of
Evidence^ on 19 May 2021. The RTC issued its Order^ dated 22 June 2021
denying the Motionsfor Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence^ ofthe accused.

Accused-appellants Danao and Beltran, instead of presenting their

defenses, manifested their waiver to present evidence and instead filed their
respective Memoranda^ on 20 October 2021. Thereafter,the case was deemed
submitted for decision.

Thus, the court a quo rendered the questioned Judgement, the

dispositive portion of which reads:

Obid.
^ Sandiganbayan Records, Vol. 1, p.127.
"Ibid, pp. 140-144.
' Ibid. pp. 479-489.
^Ibid., p.514.
' Ibid., pp. 508-514 and pp. 168-171.
8 Ibid., pp.527-557.

/
 Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People vs. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 3 of27

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused CONSTANCIO

DANAO y FAUSTINO and ROMMEL BELTRAN y HONASAN are
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for committing corrupt practices
under Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. 3019. They are hereby sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to
eight (8) years as maximum and are perpetually disqualified from holding
public office.

SO ORDERED.

Accused-appellant Beltran filed a Motion for Reconsideration^ of the

above Decision, which the trial court denied. The RTC Order denying the
Motion for Reconsideration was received by accused-appellant Beltran on 23
March 2022.'° Thus, on 1 April 2022, Beltran timely filed with the RTC a
Notice ofAppeal to the Sandiganbayan."

Accused-appellant Beltran filed a Motion for Extension to file his

Appellant's Brief dated 10 August 2022, which was granted by the Court
extending the date of its filing on 17 September 2022.'^ accused-appellant
Beltran then timely filed his Appellant's Briefon 14 September 2022.'^

For his part, accused-appellant Danao filed his Motion for

Reconsideration''* of the above Decision, which the trial court, denied. The-
RTC Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration was received by accused-
appellant Danao on 22 March 2022.'^ On 12 April 2022, accused-appellant
filed with the RTC ei Notice ofAppeal to the Sandiganbayan.'°

Accused-appellant Danao filed a Motion for Extension to file his

Appellant's Brief, which was granted by the Court extending the date of its
filing on 18 September 2022. Accused-appellant Danao filed his Appellant's
Briefonly on 6 October 2022 which was seventeen(17)days after the last day
of filing of the Appellant's Brief as allowed by the Court. The Court also
did not receive any Appellee's Brief despite sufficient time given to the
prosecution to file the same.

'Sandiganbayan Records, Vol. I, pp. 570-573

Sandiganbayan Records, Vol. 11, p.61.
"Sandiganbayan Records, Vol. I, pp. 587-589.
Sandiganbayan Fourth Division Resolution dated 11 August 2022.
"Sandiganbayan Records, Vol. 11, pp. 59-87.
Sandiganbayan Records, Vol. 1, p. 575-582.
Sandiganbayan Records, Vol. 11, p.9l.
Sandiganbayan Records, Vol. 1, pp. 591.
"Sandiganbayan Records, Vol. II, p.57
Sandiganbayan Records, Vol. 11, pp. 88-152.

1
 Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People V5. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 4 of27

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The trial court found, thus:

The prosecution's case is built on the testimonies of(1)Juan Baldo;

(2) Angelina Ramos; (3) Susan Habbiling; (4) State Auditor Caspar D.
Otgalon, Jr.;(5) Joel Buena;(6) Marcelina Pucdo;(7) Esmeralda Dee; and
(8) Amalia Valentin.

It was established that Joel C. Buena ("Kag. Buena"), Juan Baldo,

Arthur Alfonso, Marcelina Pucdo, and Susan Habbiling, all duly elected
barangay kagawads ofBarangay Camp 7, Baguio City are also members of
the Bids and Awards Committee("BAC")in the year 2015 with Kag. Buena
as the Chairperson. On 9 December 2015, the members of the BAC,
excluding the chairperson Kag. Buena, were called by the Barangay
Secretaiy, Rosalie Abad, to report to the Barangay Hall for the opening of
the bids for the purchase of waming devices and disaster preparedness tools
and equipment("Subject Procurement").'^

According to the prosecution, accused-appellant Danao informed

Kag. Buena that there was a need to purchase the said tools and related
devices. Allegedly, accused-appellant Beltran informed the body that a
Notice to Interested Bidders regarding the project has already been posted
in the Philippine Government Procurement System ("PhilGEPS") website.
On the other hand, it was claimed that the body was surprised as they were
not aware ofthe said project for the same was not raised and discussed as a
body. Moreover, there was no Pre-Bid Conference("PBC")conducted. On
the scheduled conference, Mr. Caspar Otgalon, Jr., an officer of the
Commission on Audit("COA")was present and facilitated the same.^"

J&J Tools and General Merchandise ("J&J') and ESM Learning

Enterprise("ESM")were the only interested bidders who attended the PBC.
On the other hand, it was allegedly discovered that ESM submitted
incomplete documents. Allegedly, ESM claimed that they were not able to
access the required bid documents from PhilGEPS and accused-appellant
Beltran.

The BAC eventually decided to allow ESM to participate in the

bidding and was given until 16 December 2015 to complete all required
documents. However, it was claimed that on 9 December 2015, a
representative from J&J protested the BAC's decision on the ground that
the latter has already purchased shirts as they were given the impression that
it was already a "done deal".^'

"Sandiganbayan Records, Vol. I, pp. 558-566.

2' Supra at II.

/
 Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People vs. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 5 of27

On 10 December 2015, a formal protest was filed by On 11

December 2015, Otgalon ordered accused-appellant Danao to conduct an
investigation on the matters alleged by the EMS.^-'

Allegedly, it was found that accused-appellant Danao made Kag.

Buena and Kag. Baldo to sign the Abstract ofBids with Project Title 2015-
fi? Mr tha aaeucanGe that th@ matter regarding J&J
ESXVl Has aireaia^ beefi seUilecl.
Disbursement Voucher No.2015-12-29("Subjecl Disbui'sement Voucher")
and Philippine Veteran's Bank Chsck No.0000247225 dalccl 29 Dcccmbcr
2015 ("Subject Check") In the amount of Three Hundred Slxty-Nlne
Thousaitd Two Hundred Porfy-lVine PeSOS fllld EIGVGII CeiltaVOS (Flip
fssuttd J&J as sieHetl aeeugad-a0D0iiflnt£ Dauao and
Id^ltranr The sniu irreguiarities lect to tbe resignatlciH o'f ffag, Pucdo tllS
Ch9ifp?''son ofthe Commltiee on Appropriations("CAA")-^^

On 23 June 2016 accused-appellant Danao directed Kag. Pucdo to

sign the Subject Disbursement Voucher but the latter declined and reiterated
the reasons of her resignation.^^

On 16 February 2016, it was claimed that the barangay officials and

employees of Barangay Camp 7 did not receive their salaries. Accordingly,
it was ordered by the Commission on Audit ("COA") to defer the
encashment of all checks issued by Barangay Camp 7 because of the non-
submifision of the supporting documentg for th? payment mad? to ja-j ss
contained in the Audit Observation Memorandum No. 17-332 BROY
("Subject AOM").^-'

By way of compliance with the recommendation in the Subject

AOM, accused-appellants Danao and Beltran wrote a letter addressed to
COA State Auditors Otgalon and Dibangkitun I. Ayoong ("Ayoong"),
attaching documents relative to the Subject Procurement: "Purchase of
Warning Device and Disaster Preparedness Tools and Equipment."^^
However, according to the prosecution, accused-appellants submitted
irregular documents such as the Minutes ofthe Bids and Award Committee
Meeting on 9 December 2015^^ which bears the signature only of BAC
Secretary Rosalie Abad and Kag. Buena. On the other hand, the Post
Qualification Report dated 10 December 2015^'^ certifying that the technical
and financial requirements of Kag. Buena ofthe Subject Procurement were
validated and verified by the BAC members and the bidder was found to be
post-qualified and with the lowest calculated and responsive bid.^'

Exhibit"E",
"Exhibit "F".
2" Exhibit "M-10".
25 EHiibitT'and "M-14",
Cvliillif7VM2'',
"Exhibit "Q".
Exhibit "R-Sefies",
Exhibit "R-3".
30 Exhibit "R-14".
3' Ibid.
/
Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People vi'. Consiancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 6 of27

During the presentation of prosecution witness Kag. Habbiling, the

witness outlined the procedure in the procurement of supplies for the
barangay. According to Habbiling the correct procedure is as follows:(1)
The first step is the pre-procurement procedure where the Punong Barangay
calls for a meeting with the BAC;(2)Next is the Pre-Bid Conference which
is a meeting ofthe BAC with the contractors or interested bidders where the
latter are informed about the specifications of the project;(3) Afterwards is
the posting of the project and the invitation to bid at PhilGEPS website by
the BAC Secretariat. The invitation to bid is likewise posted in the City Hall
and Barangay Hall for a period of seven (7)days;(4)The fourth step is the
submission and opening of bids;(5)Lastly, after the opening of bids comes
the post-evaluation to determine which of the bidders submitted the lowest
calculated and responsive bid after which they will recommend to the
Punong Barangay for approval ofthe winning bidder and give notice to the
latter. Upon approval of the recommendation, the BAC awards the project
to the winning bidder. Record shows that these steps were not followed.^^

Lastly, State Auditor Otgalon testified that among others, he was

present during the opening of bids pertaining to the subject project of
Barangay Camp 7. According to the witness, pursuant to the auditing rules
and protest filed by ESM, he directed accused-appellant Danao as the
Punong Barangay to conduct an investigation on the alleged unavailability
ofthe bid documents to ESM but accused-appellant Danao failed to eomply
with the order of State Auditor Otgalon

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

Both accused-appellants Danao and Beltran waived their right to

present evidence but submitted their respective memoranda to the RTC.^"*

Accused-appellant Beltran in his Memorandums^ argues the

following:(1)the RTC has no jurisdiction over the charge;(2)the Complaint
was prematurely filed; and (3) there was no crime committed. All the
foregoing grounds are anchored on his claim that the disbursement of Three
Hundred Sixty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Forty-Nine Pesos and Eleven
Centavos(Php 369,249.11)to J&J was not disallowed by the COA and there
was no showing that the issuance of the check favored J&J.

Accused-appellant Beltran avers that all of the elements of the crime

are not present and that his signature on the Subject Disbursement Voucher
and Subject Check is clothed with presumption of regularity. First, Beltran

Transcript of Stenographic Notes(TSN)dated 24 April 2019.

TSN dated 19 November 2019.
Sandiganbayan Records, Vol.11, pp. 527-556.
Ibid.

i
Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People vs. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 7of27

argues that he is not a member of the BAC and it follows that he had no
participation in the procurement process. Second, the damage to the
government was not demonstrated by the prosecution since the warning
devices and disaster preparedness equipment and tools were delivered. Third,
as to the issuance of the Subject Check, his only participation was the
certification that funds were available which was ministerial on his part as the
Barangay Treasurer. Lastly, accused-appellant Beltran claims that the
prosecution failed to prove the presence of conspiracy between him and
accused-appellant Danao.

Accused-appellant Danao said in his Memorandum^^ that he cannot be

held liable for the crime charged as it is a well-settled rule that a Punong
Barangay does not participate in the bidding process which is an exclusive
function ofthe BAC.^^ He further claims that he did not have any participation
when the BAC awarded J&J the contract for the supply ofthe warning devices
and disaster preparedness equipment and tools as evidenced by the Abstract
ofBids and Resolution 08 Series of2015^^ issued by the BAC declaring J&J
as the winning bidder and recommending approval of its findings to the
punong barangay. Danao further highlights that what was only approved by
him was the resolution recommending the approval of J&J and not the
Resolution awarding the contract to J&J.^^

GROUNDS RELIED UPON ON APPEAL

Accused-appellants Beltran and Danao have interposed the instant-

appeal based on the following assignment of errors:

Accused Beltran

I
The charge against Beltran is for violation of Section 3(e)ofRA
No. 3019, and not for violation of Section 10 of Republic Act
(RA) No. 9184, otherwise known as the Government
Procurement Reform Act.

II
In relation thereto, appellant Beltran did not act with manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence:

Sandiganbayan Records, Vol. I, pp. 548-557

Ibid.

^ If
3® Exhibit
Supra at 21.
Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People vs. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 8 of27

a. Appellant Beltran performed his duties and

responsibilities under Sections 362 and 363 of R.A.
No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government
Code of 1991 (LOG of 1991);

b. Appellant Beltran is not a member of the

Sangguniang Barangay under Section 390 ofthe LOG
of 1991, in relation to the composition of the
Committee on Awards and Section 364 of the same
law;

c. The BAG, and not appellant Beltran, has the

obligation or duty to issue bid documents; and

d. Appellant Beltran merely performed his duty to

certify the availability offunds."^®

Accused Danao

Contrary to the Decision now under appeal, the prosecution

failed to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant Constancio F.
Danao beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 3(e) of
Republic Act No. 3019.^'

Essentially, the sole issue to be resolved here is whether or not the trial
court erred in convicting accused-appellants of violation ofSection 3(e), R.A.
No. 3019.

RULING

At the outset, the Court notes that accused-appellant Danao failed to

file an Appellant's Brief within the time prescribed by the Court. Sec. 8, Rule
124 ofthe Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 8. Dismissal ofappealfor abandonment orfailure to prosecute. -The

Court of Appeals may, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio
and with notice to the appellant in either case, dismiss the appeal if
the appellant fails to file his brief within the time prescribed by this
Rule,except where the appellant is represented by a counsel de officio.

Sandiganbayan Records, Vol. II, pp. 59-87.

Sandiganbayan Records, Vol. 11, pp. 88-152.
Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People vs. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 9 of27

XXX

However,the Supreme Court in a long line of cases has enumerated the

circumstances that may merit the relaxation ofthe procedural rules. The High
Court enumerated m Barnes v. Hon. Quijano Padilla'*^, citing Sanchez v.
Court ofAppeals to wit:

In the Sanchez case, the Court restated the range of reasons which may
provide justification for a court to resist a strict adherence to procedure,
enumerating the elements for an appeal to be given due course by a
suspension of procedural rules, such as:(a) matters of life, liberty, honor or
property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances, (c) the
merits of the case, (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or
negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules,(e) a lack of
any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (f)
the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.

Similarly, the case before us involves the life and liberty of accused-
appellant Danao. If the appeal is denied due course, the accused will be
deprived of liberty. Along with the right to life, the right to liberty is one of
the most fundamental rights which he could lose over a procedural
technicality. Obviously, such an appeal is far from being merely frivolous or
dilatory.

As reminded by the High Court, in the case of Malixi vs. Baltazarf^

technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights ofthe other
party. Every party must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper
and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints oftechnicalities,
to wit:

Time and again, this Court has reiterated the doctrine that the rules of
procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate the attainment of Justice,
rather than frustrate it. A strict and rigid application of the rules must
always be eschewed when it would subvert the rules' primary objective of
enhancing fair trials and expediting Justice. Technicalities should never be
used to defeat the substantive rights ofthe other party. Every party-litigant
must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and Just
determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.

As to the merits of the instant appeal, after a careful review of the

records, this Court finds that the RTC's Decision should be affirmed, and the
accused-appellants Danao and Beltran are guilty ofthe offense charged.

« 50 Phil. 303(2005).
« 452 Phil. 655 (2003).
■** G.R. No. 208224, 22 November 2017.
Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People V5. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H Beltran
DECISION
Page 10 of27
X X

In the present case, both of the accused-appellants were convicted of

the charge for violation of Section 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019.

Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 provides in part:

Sec. 3. Corrupt practices ofpublic 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

(e)Causing undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving

any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his official or judicial functions through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall
apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations
charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

In order to convict the accused-appellants ofthe foregoing offense, the

concurrence ofthe following elements must be established beyond reasonable
doubt:

1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative,

judicial or official functions;

2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or

inexcusable negligence; and

3. His action caused any undue injury to any party, including the
government, or he gave any private party unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions."^^
The presence of the first element was established in this case. It is
undisputed that accused-appellants Danao and Beltran were all public
officers'^^ who discharged their administrative and official functions at the
time material to the allegations in the Information ofthe case.

With respect to the second element, there are three (3) ways by which
a violation of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 may be committed, i.e., manifest
partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.'*^ The Supreme

Consigna vs. People, etal.,G.R. No. 175750-51,02 April 2014.

Section 2(b), R.A. No. 3019, otherwise known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act."
Ampil V. The Hon. Office ofIhe Ombudsman, ei a!., G.R.No. 192685, 31 July 2013 citing Swo/i v. Peop/e
ofthe Philippines, G.R. Nos. 170339 & 170398-403,09 March 2010.

\i
Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People vs. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page II of27

Court explained these three (3) modes of committing the offense in Uriarte
V5. People,''^ thus:
Section 3(e)ofR.A.3019 may be committed either by dolo, as when
the accused acted with evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or
by culpa as when the accused committed gross inexcusable negligence.
There is manifest partiality when there is a clear, notorious or plain
inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another.
Evident bad faith connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and
patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or
conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. It contemplates
a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some
motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. 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 willfully and intentionally, with conscious
indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.

In the case of Sison v. People ofthe Philippines,^'^ the Supreme Court

expounded on what constitutes evident bad faith, manifest partiality and gross
inexcusable negligence, thus:
"Partiality is synonymous with bias which excites a disposition to
see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are. Bad
faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a
dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing ofa wrong;
a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes
of the nature of fraud. Gross negligence has been so defined as negligence
characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and
intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as
other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even
inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property."

Mere bad faith or partiality and negligence per se are not enough for
one to be held liable under the law since the act of bad faith or partiality must
be,in the first place, evident or manifest respectively, while the negligent deed
should both be gross and inexcusable.^®
Applying the foregoing definitions, and after a judicious review of the
records and the evidence presented in this ease, the Court finds that the
prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the presence of the
second element ofthe subject offense.

G.R. No. 169251, 20 December 2006.

G.R. Nos. 170339 & 170398-403,09 March 2010.
Constantino v. Sandiganbqyan., G.R. No. 140656 and 154482, 13 September 2007.
•4^
(
Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People vs. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 12 of27

The prosecution imputed manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross

inexcusable negligence on the part of the accused by alleging essentially the
following acts:

a. For accused-appellant Danao, the prosecution claimed that as

Punong Barangay, he showed manifest partiality to J&J when he
proceeded to award the contract for the supply of warning devices
and disaster preparedness equipment and tools to J&J despite the
alleged decision of the BAC to give an opportunity to ESM to
submit its complete bid documents and the issuance of a BAC
resolution recommending the contract award to J&J.

Further, the prosecution averred that accused-appellant Danao.

facilitated and released the check payment of Three Hundred Sixty-
Nine Thousand Two Hundred Forty-Nine Pesos and Eleven
Centavos (Php 369,249.11) to J&J despite the lack of supporting
documents, which resulted in the Commission on Audit Advice dated
6 May 2016 for the deferred encashment/negotiation of all checks
issued by the barangay.

b. For accused-appellant Beltran, the prosecution alleged that he

conspired with accused Danao when he posted the advertisement of
the subject project in the PhilGEPS website despite allegedly being
unauthorized which demonstrated a preference for J&J.

The prosecution further claimed that the unavailability of accused-

appellant Beltran to issue the bid documents deprived other
interested bidders of the opportunity to secure bid documents and
thereby assuring that only J&J will be able to submit its bid.

To bolster the claim of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross

inexcusable negligence. Section 10 of R.A. 9184 and Section 10, Rule IV of
its IRR mandates that all procurement shall be done through competitive
bidding with certain exceptions. Under R.A. 9184, it is the BAC established
by the procuring entity which is in charge ofthe procurement ofsupplies and
services. According to the prosecution, the law requires that the bidding
document shall be downloaded from the PhilGEPS website or obtained from
the BAC Secretariat.

In this case, the prosecution highlighted the following:(a) the subject

contract was awarded to J&J without a pre-bid conference;(b)the notice and
invitation to bid were posted by accused Beltran instead of the BAC
Secretariat; and (3)the BAC members were not aware of the subject project
until the opening of bids.
u|v^
i
 Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People vs. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 13 of27

At the outset, it must be emphasized that the uncontroverted evidence

on record establishes the bad faith and the illegality in the accused's actions,
and prove, among other things, that accused-appellants Danao and Beltran
unduly arrogated upon themselves functions that they fully know to belong to
Barangay Camp 7's BAG,and concluded the procurement and disbursement
processes even absent complete authority to do so, and had a plain partiality
to award the contract to J&J.

As narrated and confirmed by prosecution witness and former BAG

Chairperson Joel Buena,^^ accused-appellant Danao informed him that the
latter will be the one to initiate the preparation ofthe bidding process. Further,
accused Beltran also informed Buena ofthe posting ofthe notice to interested
bidders at the PhilGEPS and that there would be an opening of bids on 9
December 2015.^^

Moreover, BAG members Juan T. Baldo, Susan M. Habbiling, and

Marcelina P. Pucdo all testified that they only leamed as well of the subject
bidding process only on 9 December 2015,the scheduled day for the opening
of bids. This only shows that the BAG members had no prior knowledge and
participation in preparation ofthe Subject Procurement, to wit:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY PROSECUTOR CASTRO

"PROSECUTOR CASTRO:

Q: In your Affidavit-Complaint which you identified, Mr. Witness, you

mentioned about the opening of certain bids on 9 December 2015,
is that right?

WITNESS:

A: Yes, Ma'am.

PROSECUTOR CASTRO:

Q: What are those bids which were to be opened at that time?

WITNESS:

A: At the first place we don't know that one. Now, when our Barangay
Secretary called us for the opening of the bid, we went to the
barangay.

5' TSN 19 November 2019.

"Exhibit "D".
" TSNs dated 19 November 2019, 19 November 2018, and 12 February 2019.

1
Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People vs. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 14 of27
X X

PROS. CASTRO:

Q: So at first you did not know about this but you said that you were
called by your barangay secretary. Who is this Barangay Secretary?

WITNESS:

A: Rosalie Abad, Ma'am.

PROS. CASTRO:

Q: When was it when she called you about the matter?

WITNESS:

A: It was on December 9, Ma'am.

PROS. CASTRO:

Q: Also on December 9. Do you remember the time?

A: 10:00 o'clock, Ma'am.

Q: What if any, did she tell you when she called you at that time?
WITNESS:

A: She called us to come to the barangay for the opening ofthe bids.

PROS. CASTRO:

Q: What were the bids to be conducted at that time, if she told you?

WITNESS:

A: The bids and awards of the tools and equipment for warning device
and preparedness.

PROS. CASTRO:

Q: At that time that this BAC Secretary Rosalie Abad called you and
informed you about this bid opening, what was your reaction at that
time?

A: We were surprised when we went there at the barangay hall. Ma'am.

PROS. CASTRO:

Q: Why were you surprised?

WITNESS:

A: Because we were not aware of the bidding, Ma'am.

w
/
Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People vs. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 15 of27
X X

PROS. CASTRO:

Q: How long have you been a member of the bids and awards
committee prior to 9 December 2015?

A: For six(6) years already, Ma'am."^'^

XXX

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTY.BOSANTOG

"ATTY.BOSANTOG:

Q: You likewise mentioned that Bids and Awards Committee has

the sole and control and authority with respect to the procurement
of materials and even infrastructure projects within Camp 7, will
you agree?

WITNESS:

A: Yes, Sir.

ATTY. BOSANTOG:

Q: Now, Madam Witness, let's go to that event on December 9,

2015. You mentioned that you received text message from
Rosalie Abad which was your BAC Secretary at that time that
there will be an opening of bid on that day, correct?

WITNESS:

A: Yes, Sir.

ATTY. BOSANTOG:

Q: However, you likewise mentioned that you did not know of any
project which is up for bidding at that time?

WITNESS:

A: Yes, Sir. ^5

XXX

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY PROSECUTOR CASTRO

PROS. CASTRO:

Q: On December 9, 2015, Madam Witness, do you remember where

you were in the morning of December 9, 2015?

^ TSN dated 19 November 2018, pp. 5-6.

TSN dated 24 April 2019, p. 3.

i
Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People vs. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 16 of27

WITNESS:

A: I was in our house, Ma'am.

PROS. CASTRO:

Q: What unusual incident, if any, happened at that time when you were
still in your house?

WITNESS:

A: At about 8:00 o'clock in the morning our BAG Secretary, Rosalie

Abad, texted me and asked me to go to the Barangay Hall because
there was an opening of bids.

PROS. CASTRO:

Q: There is an opening of bids already. What was your reaction at that

time?

WITNESS:

A: 1 was surprised why at that time there was an opening of bids.

PROS. CASTRO:

Q: Why were you surprised then. Madam Witness?

WITNESS:

A: Because there was no meeting conducted for that purpose.

PROS. CASTRO:

Q: When you say meeting, are you referring to pre-procurement

conference and pre-bid conference?

WITNESS:

A: Pre-procurement conference, Ma'am.^®

Further, COA representative Mr. Caspar Otgalon, Jr., testified that

during the opening of the bids on 9 December 2015, ESM's representative
protested their company's failure to secure bid documents from accused
Beltran despite their efforts to do so. Hence, the BAG did not continue the
opening of bids and instead, it gave ESM time to secure the bid documents, to
wit'.

TSN dated 12 February 2019.

/
Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People vs. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 17 of27

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY PROSECUTOR CASTRO

PROS. CASTRO:

Q: Let's go to the period ofDecember 2015. Can you tell the Honorable
Court, as far as you still remember, who was the Punong Barangay
then?

WITNESS:

A: Punong Barangay Constancio Danao, Your Honor.

PROS. CASTRO:

Q: Also,can you tell the Honorable Court ifever you did or you did not
attend any opening bid help at Camp 7 Barangay Hall on December
9, 2015 at around 10:00 o'clock in the morning pertaining to the
project purchase of warning device and disaster preparedness
equipment and tools?

WITNESS:

A: Your Honor, in response to the invitation letter of the BAG

Chairman, Mr. Joel Buena then, 1 attended the bidding that was
conducted on December 9, 2015 at 10:00 o'clock.

PROS. CASTRO:

Q: And what is the purpose why you have to attend the bidding?

WITNESS:

A: The main purpose there is as observant. In addition to the two (2)

observants from private or NGOs the Commission on Audit is
mandatory as observant.

PROS. CASTRO:

Q: Do you still remember at this point, who were present during the
conduct of this bidding?

WITNESS:

A: I remember. Your Honor, Chairman Joel was present during that

time and former Kagawads Pucdo and Habiling were present
during that time.

PROS. CASTRO:

Q: What unusual incident, if any, transpired during that bidding

process?
Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People vs. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 18 of27

WITNESS:

A: During the bidding I observed that the checking ofthe document for
the first bidder went on smoothly but when the bid of the second
bidder was about to be opened,the second bidder protested that they
were not issued bid documents during the time ofthe issuance of bid
documents. They cannot download from the PhilGEPS those
bidding documents. So the BAG decided to discontinue the opening
of bid of the second bidder until the protest will be resolved. As a
matter of fact, that is also my suggestion that the protest should be
resolved before any awarding should be made.

PROS. CASTRO:

Q: Do you still remember the name ofthe first bidder. You mentioned
about the second bidder who was not able to purchase the documents
ofESM. Do you remember who was the first bidder, Sir?

A: Your Honor, if remember it right, it's J&J Marketing.

PROS. CASTRO:

Q: J&J Marketing. Can you tell the Honorable Court at this point on
December 9, 2015 if the bidding proceeded despite that problem or
issue?

A: Your Honor, I observed that they did not continue opening the bid
of ESM. I was informed later that the BAG has given the second
bidder a chance.

Q: Sir, relative to your advice during the opening of the bid, do you
recall if you made any official communication to the proper
authority

A: Yes, Your Honor. I made a written communication addressed to the

Punong Barangay which is our mandatory task as observer. I made
a recommendation that Punong Barangay should conduct an
investigation on the matter to resolve that issue before any awarding
be made

PROS. CASTRO:

Q: Do you have a copy with you now. Sir, of that official

communication or letter that you made to the Punong Barangay?^'

It is evident that accused-appellants Danao and Beltran are responsible

for the procurement in question which was clearly beyond their authority. It
is the BAC,rather than accused-appellant Beltran, that possessed the authority
to post the Invitation to Bid at the PhilGEPS. The actions of Beltran cannot

"TSN dated 6 May 2019.

[J r
/
Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People vs. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 19 of27

be justified under Sections 362 and 363 ofthe Local Government Code.^^ The
alleged authority of barangay treasurers to oversee posting, under Book II,.
Title Six of the Local Government Code, have already been amended by
Republic ActNo.9184 in2003. The Subject Procurement before us took place
long thereafter which was in 2015.^^

Under the 2016 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of

Republic Act No. 9184, otherwise known as the Government Procurement
Reform Act, Section 12 provides:

Section 12. Functions of the BAC

12.1 The BAC shall have the following functions:(a) advertise and/or post
the invitation to bid/request for expressions of interest; (b) conduct pre-
procurement and pre-bid conferences; (c) determine the eligibility of

SEC. 362. Callfor Bids. - When procurement is to be made by local government units, the
provincial or city general services officer or the municipal or barangay treasurer shall call bids for
open public competition. The call for bids shall show the complete specifications and technical
descriptions ofthe required supplies and shall embody all terms and conditions of participation and
award, terms of delivery and payment, and all other covenants affecting the transaction. In all calls
for bids, the right to waive any defect in the tender as well as the right to accept the bid most
advantageous to the government shall be reserved. In no case, however, shall failure to meet the
specifications or technical requirements ofthe supplies desired be waived.

SEC. 363. Publication of Callfor Bids. - The call for bids shall be given the widest publicity
possible, sending, by mail or otherwise, any known prospective participant in the locality, ofcopies
ofthe call and by posting copies ofthe same in at least three(3)publicly accessible and conspicuous
places in the provincial capitol or city, municipal, or barangay hall, as the case may be. The notice
of the bidding may likewise be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the territorial
jurisdiction of the local government unit concerned when the provincial or city general services
officer or the municipal or barangay treasurer, as the case may be, deems it necessary in order to
obtain the lowest responsible and complying bid. The opening of bids shall only be made in the
presence ofthe provincial or city auditor or his duly authorized representative who shall initial and
secure copies ofthe bids and certify the abstract ofthe bidding.

SEC. 76. Repealing Clause.- This law repeals Executive Order No. 40, series of 2001, entitled
"Consolidating Procurement Rules and Procedures for All National Government Agencies,
Govemment-Owned-or-Controlled Corporations and/or Government Financial Institutions, and
Requiring the Use of the Government Electronic Procurement System"; Executive Order No. 262,
Series of 2000, entitled "Amending Executive Order No. 302, series of 1996, entitled "Providing
Polices, Guidelines, Rules and Regulations for the Procurement of Goods/Supplies by the National
Government" and Section 3 of Executive Order No. 201, series of 2000, entitled "Providing
Additional Policies and Guidelines in the Procurement of Goods/Supplies by the National
Government"; Executive Order No. 302, series of 1996, entitled "Providing Policies, Guidelines,
Rules and Regulations for the Procurement of Goods/Supplies by the National Government" and
Presidential Decree No. 1594 dated June 11, 1978, entitled 'Prescribing Policies, Guidelines, Rules
and Regulations for Government Infrastructure Contracts." This law amends Title Six, Book Two of
Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the "Local Government Code of 1991"; the relevant
provisions of Executive Order No. 164, Series of 1987, entitled "Providing Additional Guidelines in
the Processing and Approval of Contracts ofthe National Government"; and the relevant provisions
ofRepublic Act No. 7898 dated February 23,1995,entitled "An Act Providing for the Modernization
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and for Other Purposes." Any other law, presidential decree
or issuance, executive order, letter of instruction, administrative order, proclamation, charter, rule or
regulation and/or parts thereof contrary Republic Act No. 9184 23 to or inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act is hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly.

•f /
Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People vs. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 20 of27

prospective bidders;(d) receive and open bids;(e) conduct the evaluation

of bids; (f) undertake post-qualification proceedings;(g) resolve requests
for reconsideration;(h) recommend award of contracts to the HoPE or his
duly authorized representative: (i) recommend the imposition of sanctions
in accordance with Rule XXIII; (j) recommend to the HoPE the use of
Alternative Methods of Procurement as provided in Rule XVI hereof; k)
conduct any ofthe Alternative Methods ofProcurement; 1) conduct periodic
assessment of the procurement processes and procedures to streamline
procurement activities pursuant to Section 3(c)of this IRR; and m)perform
such other related functions as may be necessary, including the creation of
a Technical Working Group (TWO)from a pool of technical, financial,
and/or legal experts to assist in the following: xxx

Further, the BAG halted the 9 December 2015 proceedings and

thereafter passed a Resolution dated 15 December 2015 (Exhibit"H")reads:
"RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE PUNONG
BARANGAY FOR HIS ACTION ON THE ISSUES AND CONCERNS
REGARDING THE BIDDING OF THE PURCHASE OF WARNING
DEVIDE AND DISASTER PREPAREDNESS EQUIPMENT AND
TOOLS.

xxxx

WHEREAS, the BAC cannot pursue on its post evaluation due to

the following reasons:

1) In the Invitation to Bid, there should be a clear instruction of

activities specially on the schedules of availability of bid
documents;
2) No procurement Plan prepared as to thus purchases;
3) No Technical Specifications prepared as one basis of post
evaluation whether or not the bidder is complaint'
4) No Pre-Bid/Procurement conference conducted;
5) The Treasurer should not have mingled in this procurement
process;

Whereas, due to the above deficiencies, the BAC cannot determine

the lowest calculated bidder;(emphasis in the original)

xxxx

^ 2016 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9184, Otherwise Known as the
Government Procurement Reform Act, Section 12.
 Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People vs. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 21 of27

Further, although BAC Chairperson Joel C. Buena and Juan T. Baldo

eventually signed the Abstract of Bids and Award (Exhibit "M-10")in favor
ofJ&J, both testified that they were misled by accused-appellant Danao. They
only signed the documents on 29 December 2015, but both accused-appellants'
Danao and Beltran had already signed the Subject Disbursement Voucher and
issued Veterans Bank Check No. 0000247225 ("Subject Check") in the
amount of Three Hundred Sixty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Forty-Nine
Pesos and Eleven Centavos (Php 369,249.11) as payment for the subject
procured equipment.

Moreover, Chairperson Baldo^' also testified that he informed accused-

appellant Danao that he was withdrawing his signature after he realized that
he has been misled. Hence, this only means that the BAC documents relied
upon by accused-appellants were not supported by majority of the BAC
members.

Lastly, notwithstanding the lack of supporting documents which were

flagged by the COA in Audit Report(Exhibit "N"), both accused signed the
Subject Disbursement Voucher and Subject Check as payment to J&J. At the
time the said check was issued on 29 December 2015 (Exhibit "M-9"), the
Disbursement Voucher (Exhibit "M-8") was yet to be signed by Kagawad-
Marcelina P. Pucdo, Chairperson of the Barangay's Committee on
Appropriations. In fact, the Disbursement Voucher would show that Box "A"
ofthe said Disbursement Voucher was signed by Kagawad Janeta A. Lorena
only on 19 July 2016, or several months after the check had been issued to
J&J.^2

As to the third element, the Information stated that the acts of the
accused-appellants gave unwarranted benefits, advantages, or preferences to
J&J. In the case of Gallego, et al. v. Sandiganbayan,^^ the Supreme Court
defined giving 'unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference' as lacking
justification or support, i.e., if applied to this the award to J&J ofthe Subject
Procurement. The Court said:

The word 'unwarranted' is not uncertain. It means lacking adequate or

official support; unjustified; unauthorized;^'* or without justification or
adequate reason. {citations infootnotes below)

TSN dated 20 November 2018.

Exhibit "M-8".
"G.R. No. L-57841, 30 July 1982.
^ Webster, Third New International Dictionary, p. 2514.
Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. vs. U.S. Dept. of Justice, C.D. Pa., 405 F. Supp. 8,12, cited in Words and
Phrases, Permanent Edition, Vol. 43-A 1978, Cumulative Annual Pocket Part, p. 19.

1
Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People V5. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 22 of27

While prosecution witness and ESM owner Ms. Esmeralda Dee

testified that she was allowed to participate in the bidding of the subject
project by the BAC but lost the same, her testimony cannot be given weight
since Dee admitted that she has no personal knowledge of what transpired on
9 December 2015, to wit:

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY HON.TTLIONG-RIVERA

"JUDGE ITLIONG-RIVERA:

Q: But do you not remember the reason why you were not able to secure
and submit the bid documents on time?

WITNESS:

A: Actually, Your Honor, during the scheduled bid opening we were

already prepared with all the documents so there was a
representative from the BAC and the COA and they allowed us.
Your Honor.

JUDGE ITLIONG-RIVERA:

Q: Yes, but what is the reason why you were not able to submit your
bid documents when you said these were already prepared?

WITNESS:

A: I don't remember. Your Honor because it was my representative

who went there. I requested them to attend. Your Honor.

JUDGE ITLIONG-RIVERA:

Q: It was your representative who attended the opening of the bids in

the morning of December 9?

WITNESS:

A: Yes, Your Honor.

JUDGE ITLIONG-RIVERA:

Q: When you sent your representatives, were... Okay. Who

accomplished the bid documents?

WITNESS:

A: Our office. Your Honor.

JUDGE ITLIONG-RIVERA:

Q: When was that?

WITNESS:
Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People V5. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 23 of27

A: Maybe, between December 3 to 9, Your Honor.

Further, it is important to underscore that Barangay Camp 7 did not

receive the items purportedly purchased. According to prosecution witness
Angelina Ramos her signature was forged in the Inspection and Acceptance
Report and List of Recipients (Exhibits "M-5 to M-6") which purportedly
shows that the purchased materials and equipment from J&J as the lowest
bidder were delivered and redounded to the benefit of Barangay Camp 7. In
fact, she filed separate administrative and criminal cases against the accused-
appellants Danao and Beltran before the Office ofthe Ombudsman in relation
to the forgery of her signature in the list of recipients, to wit:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY PROSECUTOR CASTRO

"PROS. CASTRO

Q: Under your present oath, will you confirm. Madam Witness, if you
had the actually received or not received any or all of the items
herein listed rubber boot, raincoat, T-shirt and vest?

WITNESS;

A: No, Ma'am,I did not receive any ofthose items even one ofthem,

Q: Who has the official duty or function to distribute to the recipients

items that have been bidded out by Barangay Camp 7 as far as you
know?

A: The Barangay Treasurer, Romel Beltran, and Constancio Danao

because they are the recipients of the property.

Q: When you say they are the recipients of the property, you mean to
say the property to be distributed to the recipients?

A: Yes, Ma'am.

Q: And who, if you know, was/were the persons who prepared this
document which you identified and is marked as list of recipients?

A: The two(2)ofthem who are signatories to the transmittal letter, the

disbursement voucher and all the original attachments, ma'am.

Q: When you say the two(2)of them, you are referring to whom?

A: The Barangay Chairman Constancio Danao and the Barangay

Treasurer Romel Beltran, Ma'a.m.

^ TSN dated 22 February 2022, p. 8.

Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People vs. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 24 of27

Q: As soon as you discovered that your signature was forged in that

document, did you file any case against these persons whom you
believed falsified your signature in that document?

A: Yes, Ma'am.

Q: What case did you file?

A: Falsification, Ma'am.

Q: And has this case been elevated before any ofthe Courts?

A: Yes, Ma'am, in the RTC 3."^^

Indeed, the accused are not entitled to good faith given the set of facts
in this case. The Supreme Court in the case of Tolino v^. People^^ defined
good faith as "a state of mind denoting honesty ofintention, and freedom from
knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry: an
honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of
another, even though technicalities of law, together with absence of all
informations, notice, or benefit or belief of facts which render transaction
conscientious." It must be emphasized that the accused-appellants did not
testify to explain or justify their actions. Hence,there is no evidence on which
to base any conclusion that they acted in good faith, especially considering
the irregularities pointed out by the prosecution witnesses.

Thus, the Court affirms the findings and the conclusion of the court a
quo that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of a violation
of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 against the accused-appellants.

It is apt to state at thisjuncture that when the prosecution has succeeded

in discharging the burden of proof by presenting evidence sufficient to
convince the court of the truth of the allegations in the Information, or has
established a prima facie case against the accused, the burden of evidence
shifted to the accused making it incumbent upon them to adduce evidence in
order to meet and nullify if not overthrow that prima facie evidence.^^

TSN dated 6 February 2019.

G.R. No. 231548, 30 March 2022.
^ People vs. Villameva, G.R. No. 172116, 30 October 2006.
Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People vs. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 25 of27

Here, the arguments raised in the accused-appellants' Memoranda are

not sufficient to overthrow the prosecution's evidence. Certainly, the accused-
appellants' other arguments presented in their respective Briefs need not be
delved further by this Court for the prosecution has already proven all the
elements ofthe crime charged.

Also, it is a hornbook doctrine that the trial court's factual findings-

deserve great weight, considering that they have been fully substantiated by
the evidence on record. The reliance of appellate tribunals on the trial court's
factual findings is based on the postulate that the latter had a first-hand
opportunity to hear the witness and serve their conduct and demeanor during
the proceedings.^'^
Further, it is well-settled that when it comes to the issue of the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the findings of the trial courts carry
great weight and respect and, generally, the appellate courts will not overturn
the said findings unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which will
alter the assailed decision or affect the result ofthe case.^'

The Court sees no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the court a
quo which it likewise finds to be in accord with the evidence on record.

Lastly, as to the penalty imposed. Section 9 of R.A. No. 3019, the

penalty for violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 is imprisonment for not less
than six (6) years and one (1) month nor more than fifteen (15) years, and
perpetual disqualification from public office. Pursuant to Sec. 1 of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, if the offense is punished by a special law, the
accused is punished with an indeterminate sentence the maximum of which
does not exceed the maximum fixed by the law violated, and the minimum is
not less than the minimum term prescribed by the law violated.'^
Accordingly, the court a quo correctly imposed on accused-appellants
Danao and Beltran the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1)
month as minimum to eight(8)years as maximum. The penalty of perpetual
disqualification from public office was also correctly imposed.

De Jesus vs. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 127857, 20 June 2006.

People v,5, Gahi, 17 SCRA 2019, 19 February 2014. .
"Reyesvs. People, G.R. Nos. 177105-96,4 August 2010. J
Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People vs. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 26 of27

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 28

January 2022 ofthe Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Baguio City in Criminal
Case No. 41181-R convicting accused-appellants CONSTANCIO F.
DANAO and ROMEL H. BELTRAN is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL RIC MUSNGI

Associate Jus
Chairperson

AP PAHIMNA BAYA .JACINTO

Assoi :i Justice e Justice
Criminal Case No. SB-22-A/R-0005
People vs. Constancio F. Danao and Romel H. Beltran
DECISION
Page 27of27
X ^

ATTESTATION

I attest 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.

MICHAEL FREDERICK L. MUSNGI

Chairperson, Fourtn Division

CERTIFICATION
/'■I

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 ofthe opinion ofthe Court's Division.

MPARO M. CA AJE-TA
Presidi