|
ROBERTO E. CHANG and
PACIFICO D. SAN MATEO, Petitioners, - versus - PEOPLE OF THE
Respondent. |
G.R. No. 165111 Present: QUISUMBING, Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. Promulgated: July 21, 2006 |
|
|
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
On appeal is the July 2, 2004
Decision and August 23, 2004 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan[1]
finding herein petitioners Roberto E. Chang and Pacifico D. San Mateo guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, and sentencing each of them to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment from Six (6) Years and One (1) Month as minimum to Fifteen
(15) Years as maximum and perpetual disqualification from public office.
Petitioner Roberto Estanislao Chang (Chang) was the Municipal
Treasurer of
By Information dated June 20, 1991, petitioners were, along
with Edgar Leoncito Feraren (Feraren), a Driver-Clerk also of the Makati Treasurer’s
Office, charged before the Sandiganbayan to have willfully, unlawfully and
criminally demanded and received the amount of One Hundred Twenty Five Thousand
Pesos (P125,000) from Group Developers, Inc. (GDI) through its employee Mario
Magat (Magat) in consideration of the issuance by petitioners of a Certificate
of Examination that it had “no tax liability” to the Municipality, albeit it
had not settled the assessed deficiency tax in the amount of P494,000.[2] Thus the Information read:
That
on or about June 19, 1991, in Makati, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, accused ROBERTO ESTANISLAO CHANG, a public officer
being the incumbent Municipal Treasurer of Makati, Metro Manila and as such is
tasked among others, to examine or investigate corporate tax returns of private
corporations or companies operating within the municipality of Makati, Metro
Manila, to determine their compliance and/or insufficiency of Income Tax
Assessments thereon, and to collect payments corresponding thereto, while in
the performance of his official duties as such found Group Developer’s Inc., to
be owing the municipality in the form of tax liabilities amounting to Four
Hundred Ninety Four Thousand Pesos (P494,000.00), conspiring and
confederating with Pacifico Domingo San Mateo, Chief of Operations, Business
Revenue Examination, Audit Division, Municipal Treasurer’s Office, Makati,
Metro Manila, and Edgar Leoncito Feraren, Driver-Clerk,
Municipal Treasurer’s Office, Makati, Metro Manila, who are both public
officials, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally demand the
amount of One Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P125,000.00) from the
said corporation, through Mario Magat, an employee of said corporation, in
consideration of the issuance of a Certificate of Examination that it had “no
tax liability” to the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, which he in fact
issued to the said corporation, notwithstanding the fact that the latter has
not paid any amount out of the P494,000.00.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.
Gathered
from the evidence for the prosecution is its following version:
By
virtue of Letter-Authority No. M-90-245 dated June 18, 1990 issued by the
Office of the District Treasurer (District IV), Makati Treasurer’s Office examiners
Vivian Susan C. Yu and Leonila T. Azevedo conducted an examination of the books
of accounts and other pertinent records of GDI
covering the period from January
1985 to December 1989 in order to verify the true and correct amount of
tax due from its business operations.[3]
The
examiners found that GDI incurred a tax deficiency inclusive of penalty in the total
amount of P494,601.11, the details of which follow:
|
|
Deficiency in the payment for business
taxes in 1986 to 1990 |
|
|
|
Deficiency in the payments for Mayor’s
Permit & Garbage Fee |
14,730.00 |
|
|
Surcharge Interest |
208,711.11 |
|
|
Total Amount Due |
|
The
Office of the Treasurer thus issued an Initial Assessment Notice[5]
dated
No word having
been received by the Office of the Treasurer from GDI, it issued a Second
Assessment Notice[6] dated
The
assessment notices were personally received by Mario Magat (Magat), Chief
Operating Officer of GDI, in April 1991.
Magat thereupon referred the matter to the Accounting Department which informed
him that the computations and worksheets requested from the municipal auditors
to enable it to validate the assessment[7]
had not been received.
Magat
was later able to talk via telephone to
On
P125,000 by the end of May 1991, the
assessment would be “resolved.”[9]
On
P125,000 dated May 29, 1991 payable to the Municipal
Treasurer of Makati, San Mateo refused to accept the same, he uttering that
Magat may have misunderstood their agreement as the money would not be going to
the Municipality. Magat thereupon asked if
Chang knew about the matter and
After
consultation with the management of GDI, Magat repaired on
On
P494,601.11
to the Municipality or P125,000 to them.[13]
Magat thus consulted
with Victor Puyat, president of GDI. Referral
of the matter to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) was considered.[14]
On
After
the lapse of several days, Magat contacted P125,000
on
On
the morning of
A
few minutes before
At
After
their arrest, Chang,
The
defense, on the other hand, proffered the following tale:
On
the invitation of GDI through one of its accounting clerks and a certain Atty.
Villarosa,
In
the first week of May 1991,
On
P494,610.11.
P125,000. He did not accept the check, however, as he
did not have authority to accept any payment less than that which was due from
GDI.[24]
Magat
later went to P125,000
check but to no avail.[25]
On
On
After
lunch,
The
Sandiganbayan, by the assailed Decision[29] of
WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Roberto E. Chang and Pacifico D.
San Mateo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the violation of sec. 3 (b) of RA
3019 and are hereby sentenced to each suffer the indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment from six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to fifteen (15)
years as maximum and to each suffer the penalty of perpetual disqualification
from public office.
Anent
accused Edgar L. Feraren, judgment is hereby rendered finding him NOT GUILTY
for the violation of sec. 3 (b) of RA 3019 for failure of the Prosecution to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby ACQUITTED. Consequently,
the personal bail bond posted by accused Edgar L. Ferraren is hereby ordered cancelled
and the Hold-Departure Order issued against the same accused is hereby revoked
and declared functus officio.[30]
Hence,
the present petition, faulting the Sandiganbayan to have gravely erred in:
I.
. . . HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS HAVE COMMITTED
THE CRIME CHARGED AND THAT THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE UNDER SECTION 3
(B) OF RA 3019 HAVE BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II.
. . . HOLDING THAT THERE WAS CONSPIRACY ON
THE PART OF PETITIONERS IN COMMITTING THE CRIME CHARGED, DESPITE LACK OF
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
III.
. . . HOLDING THAT THE FAILURE OF
PETITIONER ROBERTO E. CHANG TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND TO REBUT THE PIECES OF
EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION, IS FATAL TO HIS CAUSE, OVERLOOKING
THE FACT THAT PETITIONER, WHO IS ENTITLED TO HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AGAINST
SELF-INCRIMINATION, CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY.
IV.
. . . NOT ACQUITTING PETITIONERS OF THE CRIME
CHARGED, THEIR GUILT NOT HAVING BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[31] (Underscoring supplied)
Petitioners
argue that the elements of the offense for which they were charged were not
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
On the
presence of fluorescent powder in their hands, petitioners claim that it was the
result of involuntary contact when Magat tossed to them the brown envelope.
At all
events, petitioners claim that the circumstances surrounding the supposed
pay-off fail to show community of purpose or design which is the critical
element of conspiracy.
Maintaining
their innocence, petitioners proffer that what transpired was not an entrapment
but an instigation, which is an absolutory cause in criminal prosecution. They point out that when Magat went to the NBI
on June 12, 1991, “no date, time or place was as yet known to them for purposes
of the planned entrapment, leading to no other conclusion except that all the
activities on . . . June 19, 1991, the day of the supposed pay-off in the
amount of P125,000, were all orchestrated by . . . Magat so as not to lose face with the
NBI.”[32]
Finally, petitioners
proffer that the failure of Chang to testify does not imply guilt, he being entitled
to his constitutional right against self-incrimination.
The petition
fails.
Section 3(b)
of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act provides:
SEC.
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:
x
x x x
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present,
share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in
connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any
other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to
intervene under the law.
Peligrino
v. People[33] restates the elements of the
above-quoted offense as summed up in Mejia v. Pamaran,[34] to wit: (1) the offender is a public
officer (2) who requested or received a gift, a present, a share, a percentage,
or a benefit (3) on behalf of the offender or any other person (4) in
connection with a contract or transaction with the government (5) in which the
public officer, in an official capacity under the law, has the right to
intervene.
From a review of the records of the case, this Court finds that
all the above-stated elements were satisfactorily established by the
prosecution.
Petitioners
were undisputedly public officers at the time of the commission of the offense. The prosecution, as reflected in the above
statement of its version, not only established creditably how the offense
charged was committed. It established
just as creditably how petitioners conspired to commit the crime.
Upon
the other hand, the defense failed to overturn the evidence for the prosecution.
Petitioners’
disclaimer of having demanded or requested anything from GDI to settle its
assessed deficiency tax does not persuade in light of, among other things, San Mateo’s willingness
and interest to meet in April, first week of May and May 29, 1991 by his own
account, with the officials of GDI outside his office, despite the receipt
in April 1991 by Magat of the First and Second Deficiency Assessment
Notices giving GDI four and three days, respectively, from receipt to
settle the assessed deficit taxes; the admitted refusal of San Mateo to
accept the check dated May 29, 1991 for P125,000 which was payable to
the order of the Municipality; and petitioners’ handing over to Magat the
Certificate of Examination dated May 28, 1991 on which was annotated “NO TAX
LIABILITY INVOLVED.” San Mateo’s justification
behind such refusal – that he had no authority to accept an amount less than
the assessment amount – is too shallow to merit belief, he being the Chief of Operations,
Business Revenue Examination, Audit Division of the Treasurer’s Office, who had,
on those various meetings, gone out of his way to negotiate the settlement of
the assessed deficiency tax.
As
to petitioners’ argument that what transpired on
There is
entrapment when law officers employ ruses and schemes to ensure the
apprehension of the criminal while in the actual commission of the crime. There
is instigation when the accused is induced to commit the crime. The difference
in the nature of the two lies in the origin of the criminal intent. In
entrapment, the mens rea originates from the mind of the criminal. The
idea and the resolve to commit the crime comes from him. In instigation, the
law officer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused
who adopts the idea and carries it into execution.[35]
From the
evidence for the prosecution, it was clearly established that the criminal
intent originated from the minds of petitioners. Even before the P494,601.11 to the Municipality, or pay the amount of P125,000
to them.
Respecting
the failure of Chang to testify, it bears noting that the evidence for the
prosecution did establish beyond reasonable doubt the presence of conspiracy as
it did his and San Mateo’s guilt. The
burden of the evidence having shifted to him, it was incumbent for him to
present evidence to controvert the prosecution evidence. He opted not to, however. He is thus deemed to have waived his right to
present evidence in his defense.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The challenged Sandiganbayan decision is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
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.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
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.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Justice Diosdado M. Peralta and concurred in by Justices Teresita Leonardo-De Castro and Roland B. Jurado.
[2] Sandiganbayan records, pp. 1-2.
[3] Exhibit “C,” folder of exhibits (unpaginated).
[4] Exhibit “A,” folder of exhibits.
[5] Exhibit “A,” folder of exhibits.
[6] Exhibit “A-1,” folder of exhibits.
[7] TSN,
[8]
[9]
[10] Exhibit “D,” folder of exhibits.
[11] TSN,
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] Exhibit “ C ,” folder of exhibits.
[20] TSN,
[21] Exhibits “O” to “Q-2,” folder of exhibits.
[22] TSN,
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27] Exhibit “R,” folder of exhibits.
[28] TSN,
[29] Rollo, pp. 70-88.
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33] 415 Phil. 94, 117 (2001).
[34] L-56741-42,
[35] 226 Phil. 437, 443 (1986).