Guadines v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Virginia M. Guadines, owner of V.M. Guadines Construction Supply, was awarded a contract for the repair and construction of Navotas Bridge. She delivered lumber (Macaasim hardwood) on November 13, 1992, which was stockpiled near the bridge and received by Bernie H. Azaula, Barangay Chairman and Sangguniang Bayan member. On November 20, 1992, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) officials confiscated seventy-three (73) pieces of Macaasim lumber, valued at ₱41,172.00, which were stockpiled along the road near the bridge. The lumber was marked with "DENR CONFISCATED" and a hatchet number. Azaula volunteered to take custody of the seized lumber. The Sangguniang Bayan of Polillo requested the DENR to donate the seized lumber for the bridge repair. Later, the Sangguniang Bayan passed a resolution requesting the DPWH to proceed with the construction. On January 28, 1993, Municipal Treasurer Naime Ayuma and Mayor Rosendo H. Escara prepared an Inspection Report stating the materials were delivered and received in good order. On February 18, 1993, petitioner received ₱83,228.00 as payment for the materials. A DENR official reported that workers, headed by Engr. Nierva of the Provincial Engineer's Office, used the confiscated lumber despite warnings. An investigation by the Provincial Auditor and COA Auditor Mendoza confirmed that the lumber used in the bridge was the confiscated lumber, concluding there was no justification for the payment. A Notice of Disallowance was issued for ₱70,924.00, representing the value of the confiscated lumber used. Procedural History: A complaint was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against petitioner, Azaula, Escara, and Ayuma for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The Ombudsman recommended filing charges against all respondents. An Information was filed charging petitioner, Azaula, Escara, and Ayuma. The Ombudsman later recommended dropping the charges against Ayuma. After trial, the Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner, Azaula, and Escara. Petitioner and Azaula filed motions for reconsideration, arguing the delivered lumber were not the confiscated ones, and that no damage was caused. The Sandiganbayan denied the motions, noting petitioner's admission that the delivered lumber were used and that the confiscated lumber became government property. The Sandiganbayan found the minutes of the Sangguniang Bayan session as evidence of petitioner's statements. The Sandiganbayan affirmed the conviction. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the Sandiganbayan's decision and resolution. She reiterated that the delivered lumber were not the confiscated ones, arguing that the DENR confiscated fewer pieces than delivered, and that some could have been stolen. She claimed she fulfilled her contractual obligation upon delivery and that the subsequent confiscation was not her concern. She also argued that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in finding conspiracy and defrauding the government.
Issue(s)
Whether the lumber delivered by petitioner were the same lumber confiscated by the DENR, and whether petitioner acted in good faith and fulfilled her contractual obligations. Whether the Province of Quezon suffered undue injury or damage, and whether petitioner received unwarranted benefits. Whether petitioner conspired with public officials to defraud the government. Whether petitioner is liable for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Whether the Sangguniang Bayan minutes are admissible as evidence against the petitioner.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Sandiganbayan dated April 30, 2004, and its Resolution dated August 20, 2004, in Criminal Case No. 20878, are affirmed. Petitioner Virginia M. Guadines is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to ten (10) years, as maximum. She is ordered to return ₱70,924.00 to the Province of Quezon.
Ratio Decidendi
On the identity of the lumber and petitioner's good faith: The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's finding that the lumber delivered by petitioner were indeed the confiscated ones used in the bridge construction. Petitioner's claim that the delivered lumber were not the confiscated ones was unsubstantiated. The Court noted that petitioner failed to present documents like permits or Certificates of Timber/Lumber Origin from the alleged third-party sellers, nor did she present witnesses who supposedly cut the trees. The prosecution's evidence, including the testimony of DENR officials and COA Auditor Mendoza, clearly established that the lumber used in the bridge bore the "DENR CONFISCATED" markings and hatchet number 1742. Petitioner's admission during the Sangguniang Bayan session, as reflected in the official minutes, further indicated her awareness of the confiscation. Her claim of good faith was rejected as her knowledge of the absence of supporting legal documents for the lumber, which led to its confiscation, belied this assertion. The Court emphasized that provisions of existing laws and regulations are read into government contracts, implying a duty to comply with forestry laws. On undue injury and unwarranted benefits: The Court held that petitioner, by accepting payment for lumber that had been validly seized by the government, caused undue injury to the provincial government. The confiscated lumber became property of the National Government, and the Municipality of Polillo had no right to utilize it without DENR authority. Consequently, petitioner had no right to receive payment for these confiscated materials, and the payment made by the Province of Quezon did not produce any legal effect. This act of accepting payment for confiscated lumber, with the assistance of public officials, constituted giving unwarranted benefits to herself and causing damage to the government. The Court reiterated that "undue injury" is interpreted as "actual damage" in jurisprudence, and petitioner's actions directly led to the Province of Quezon paying for materials it should not have paid for. On conspiracy: The Court found that petitioner's participation and cooperation were indispensable in defrauding the government. Her acts, such as delivering the lumber to Azaula instead of the provincial government or PEO, evading apprehension for illegally cut logs, appealing to the local sanggunian for consideration, and later accepting payment with the assistance of Azaula and Escara, demonstrated her complicity. The Court cited the principle that when defendants, by their acts aimed at the same object, perform different parts to complete it, with concerted and cooperative action, a conspiracy can be concluded. Petitioner's actions were clearly concerted with those of the public officials involved, completing the fraudulent scheme. On the violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019: The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's conviction based on the established elements of the crime. These elements are: (1) the accused are public officers or private persons conspiring with them; (2) the prohibited acts are committed during the performance of official duties or in relation to their public position; (3) undue injury is caused to any party; (4) unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference are given; and (5) the acts are done with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The Court found that petitioner, as a private contractor conspiring with public officials, caused undue injury to the Province of Quezon by causing it to pay for confiscated lumber, thereby giving herself unwarranted benefits. Her actions were characterized by evident bad faith, as she was aware of the illegality of the lumber and its confiscation. On the admissibility of Sangguniang Bayan minutes and the res inter alios acta rule: The Court upheld the Sandiganbayan's reliance on the minutes of the Sangguniang Bayan session as evidence of petitioner's statements. The minutes, being a public document and an official record, are considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, and petitioner failed to present competent evidence to rebut this presumption. The Court clarified that the res inter alios acta rule does not apply because the declarations and admissions made by the petitioner, an accused, were being used against her, not against third persons. The minutes provided crucial evidence of her awareness and involvement.
Main Doctrine
A contractor who delivers lumber that was subsequently confiscated by the government for lack of legal documents, and then accepts payment for said lumber, can be held liable for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 for causing undue injury to the government and giving unwarranted benefits to themselves, especially when there is evidence of conspiracy with public officials. The contractor's claim of good faith is belied by their knowledge of the illegality of the lumber and the subsequent confiscation.