Escara v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Provincial Treasurer of Quezon directed a public bidding for materials to repair Navotas Bridge. The contract was awarded to V.M. Guadinez Construction Supply (VMGCS) for P83,228.00. VMGCS delivered lumber materials, evidenced by a Delivery Receipt, to Bernie H. Azaula, Barangay Captain, who placed them near the construction site. Subsequently, DENR forest rangers confiscated seventy-three (73) pieces of undocumented lumber along the road, approximately five meters from the bridge, marked them "DENR CONFISCATED," and turned them over to Azaula for safekeeping. Later, DENR officer Herminio Salvosa received information that the confiscated lumber was being used for the bridge repair. Upon verification, he observed the "DENR CONFISCATED" marked lumber being used in the repair. Petitioner Rosendo H. Escara, then Mayor of Polillo, Quezon, along with Municipal Treasurer Naime Ayuma, issued an undated Inspection Report certifying the delivery of materials for the bridge repair in good order and condition. Azaula prepared a Disbursement Voucher requesting payment to VMGCS, which petitioner also signed, certifying the goods were received in good condition. Virginia M. Guadines received the full payment of P83,228.00. Following this, a Sangguniang Bayan member requested a COA investigation. State Auditor Edgardo Mendoza and the municipal engineer inspected the site, noting the "DENR" markings on the lumber used. Based on Mendoza's report, COA allowed only P12,204.00 for wires and nails, disallowing P70,924.00 for the confiscated lumber, which was not refunded. Procedural History: An amended information charged petitioner, Azaula, Guadines, and Ayuma with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Ayuma was dropped from the information. The Sandiganbayan found petitioner, Azaula, and Guadines guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing them to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) month to ten (10) years imprisonment and ordering Guadines to return P70,924.00 to the Province of Quezon. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari, raising issues regarding the sufficiency of evidence, presumption of bad faith, reliance on speculation, and the existence of conspiracy.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in finding the petitioner guilty of violating Republic Act No. 3019 despite the prosecution's evidence failing to meet the quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in presuming bad faith on the part of the petitioner, contrary to the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in failing to consider crucial factual circumstances and relying on mere speculations and conjectures. Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in finding conspiracy between the petitioner and his co-accused without sufficient evidence. Whether the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 were met, and on the propriety of the penalty imposed.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The decision of the Sandiganbayan finding petitioner Rosendo H. Escara guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of evidence and presumption of bad faith: The Supreme Court reiterated that factual questions are generally not reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, unless there is a clear misapprehension of facts by the lower court. In this case, the Court found no reason to deviate from the Sandiganbayan's findings, which were supported by testimonial and documentary evidence. The testimonies of Mendoza and Salvosa, who identified the lumber used in the bridge repair as bearing the "DENR CONFISCATED" markings, were given credence. The petitioner's claim of good faith was belied by his own letter acknowledging the confiscation of the lumber by the DENR, which should have prompted him to be more circumspect. His act of signing the Inspection Report and Disbursement Voucher despite this foreknowledge demonstrated evident bad faith and manifest partiality, directly contradicting the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. On reliance on speculation and conjecture: The Court found that the Sandiganbayan did not rely on mere speculation. The decision was based on concrete evidence, including the testimonies of witnesses who identified the confiscated lumber being used in the construction and the documentary evidence such as the Inspection Report and Disbursement Voucher signed by the petitioner. The petitioner's own letter served as direct evidence of his knowledge of the confiscation, negating any claim that the findings were speculative. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's failure to exercise extra-diligence, as required by his position as Mayor and internal control representative, further supported the Sandiganbayan's findings. On the existence of conspiracy: While the amended information charged conspiracy, the Supreme Court's affirmation of the petitioner's guilt was primarily based on his individual actions and foreknowledge, which constituted evident bad faith and manifest partiality. The Court distinguished the present case from Arias v. Sandiganbayan and Magsuci v. Sandiganbayan, where the accused were acquitted because they lacked foreknowledge of any irregularity. In this case, the petitioner's letter explicitly acknowledged the confiscation of the lumber, demonstrating his awareness of the anomaly. By signing the relevant documents despite this knowledge, he actively participated in causing undue injury to the government and giving unwarranted benefit to Guadines, thus removing him from the protective ambit of the rulings in Arias and Magsuci. On the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and the penalty imposed: The Court affirmed that the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 were met. The petitioner was a public officer discharging official functions. He committed the prohibited act in relation to his public position. He acted with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, evidenced by his foreknowledge of the confiscated lumber being used and his subsequent signing of the payment documents. This action caused undue injury to the Government and gave unwarranted benefit to Guadines, as the payment included the value of the confiscated lumber which should not have been paid for. The Sandiganbayan correctly imposed the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to ten (10) years, as maximum, consistent with Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The perpetual disqualification from public office was also affirmed as a consequence of the conviction.
Main Doctrine
A public officer who signs an inspection report and disbursement voucher despite prior knowledge that the materials to be paid for have been confiscated by the government, and fails to observe the requisite caution, cannot claim the protection afforded by rulings that allow reliance on subordinates' reports in good faith, as such foreknowledge indicates evident bad faith and manifest partiality, leading to undue injury to the government and unwarranted benefit to a private party.