Simplicio Amper v. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Simplicio Amper, the Assistant City Engineer of Davao City, was charged with violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The charge alleged that Amper, taking advantage of his official position, caused undue injury to the Republic of the Philippines by using a city government-owned Allis Backhoe for his personal treasure hunting operations without proper authorization, thereby causing damage and prejudice to the City Government of Davao. Procedural History: Following his arraignment and plea of not guilty, a trial was conducted. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified to Amper's involvement in the unauthorized use of the backhoe for treasure hunting on the night of August 6-7, 1988. The defense claimed the backhoe was officially leased to a private contractor. The Sandiganbayan, finding Amper en flagrante delicto and unconvinced by the defense's assertions, convicted him of violating R.A. No. 3019 on March 6, 1995, sentencing him to imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office. The Petition: Petitioner Simplicio Amper seeks review of the Sandiganbayan's decision. He argues that the Sandiganbayan erred in its factual findings and evaluation of witness credibility. Amper also contends that newly discovered evidence, specifically the testimonies of Francisco Chavez and Segundo Tan, should be admitted to support his defense that the backhoe was properly leased. The Supreme Court reviewed the records, finding no reversible error in the Sandiganbayan's conviction, which was based on substantial evidence and the credibility of prosecution witnesses. The Court also ruled that the purported newly discovered evidence did not meet the legal requisites for a new trial and would not likely alter the judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner is guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. Whether the testimonies of Francisco Chavez and Segundo Tan constitute newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Sandiganbayan, finding petitioner Simplicio Amper guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. The Court denied the motion for a new trial.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019: The Court found that the petitioner was caught en flagrante delicto directing the use of the city government-owned backhoe for his personal treasure hunting operations. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses, including Filemon Cantela and Mayor Duterte, established Amper's presence and active participation in the illegal activity. Cantela testified that the backhoe began operating upon Amper's instructions, and Mayor Duterte corroborated this eyewitness account. Even the backhoe operator, Tobias Porta, testified that Amper instructed him to excavate for gold under the pretext of installing concrete culverts. The Court held that by taking advantage of his official position as Assistant City Engineer, Amper used the backhoe for personal gain without authority, causing undue injury to the Davao City government through wear and tear and unauthorized use. The petitioner's defense that the backhoe was leased to Francisco Chavez was found to be unsubstantiated, as he failed to present Chavez or Segundo Tan to corroborate his claim, and the Sandiganbayan noted that Amper was caught in the act of directing the operation for treasure hunting, not for installing culverts. On the motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence: The Court ruled that the testimonies of Francisco Chavez and Segundo Tan did not qualify as newly discovered evidence. Under the Rules of Court, for evidence to be considered newly discovered, it must have been discovered after the trial, could not have been discovered and produced at the trial with reasonable diligence, and must be material and of such weight that it would probably change the judgment. The petitioner failed to show that these testimonies could not have been discovered and produced at the trial despite reasonable diligence. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the Office of the Solicitor General that even if admitted, these testimonies would not alter the judgment, as Amper was caught en flagrante delicto directing the use of the backhoe for treasure hunting, not for installing culverts as he claimed. The Court also clarified that the Sandiganbayan's decision was based on overwhelming evidence of Amper's guilt, not on an adverse presumption arising from the non-presentation of Chavez and Tan.
Main Doctrine
A public officer who uses government-owned equipment for personal gain without authority, causing undue injury to the government through wear and tear, is guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.