People v. Garcia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Two Advice of Sub-Allotments (ASA) totaling P20,000,000 were issued for the purchase of combat clothing and individual equipment (CCIE) for the Cordillera Regional Command (CRECOM) of the Philippine National Police (PNP). Petitioners Chief Inspector Danilo O. Garcia (Garcia), then CRECOM Assistant Regional Director for Comptrollership, directed the preparation of 15 disbursement vouchers totaling P20,000,000, which were approved by Garcia or Armand D. Agbayani. These vouchers were issued in favor of petitioner Chief Inspector Joven SD. Brizuela (Brizuela), then CRECOM Disbursing Officer. Brizuela encashed 250 Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) checks totaling P20,000,000, and turned over the proceeds to Garcia in the presence of Chief Inspector Juan Luna (Luna), then CRECOM Finance Officer. For liquidation, various documents were submitted, including Clothing Requirements and Certifications and PNP Personnel Payrolls, purportedly signed by heads of CRECOM units. An investigation revealed that the ASAs were issued without a corresponding Personnel Program, that the signatures on the liquidating documents were forged, and that the personnel listed in the payrolls did not receive the CCIE. Procedural History: A PNP IG Fact-Finding Team recommended filing charges for Malversation through Falsification of Public Documents and violation of RA 3019. The Office of the Ombudsman filed an Amended Information for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 against several PNP officials, including Garcia and Brizuela. After preliminary investigation, the Sandiganbayan found Brizuela, Luna, and Garcia guilty of the crime charged and acquitted Guillermo T. Domondon and Van D. Luspo. The Sandiganbayan denied their motions for reconsideration and subsequent motions to take a second look. The Petition: Petitioners Garcia and Brizuela filed a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision and Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioners Garcia and Brizuela of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in denying their second motions for reconsideration.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated 14 October 2010 and Resolutions dated 9 March 2011 and 1 June 2011 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 20574 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conviction of petitioners Garcia and Brizuela for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019: The Court found that all three essential elements of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The first element, that the accused are public officers discharging official functions, was established by stipulation of fact. Regarding the second element, that the accused acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, the Amended Information specifically alleged "evident bad faith." The Court defined evident bad faith as a "palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will," contemplating a "state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes." Petitioners Garcia and Brizuela anchored their defense on the nature of their positions, claiming they acted within their functions. However, the Court noted that these defenses were raised for the first time in their supplements to their motions for reconsideration, after a decision had already been rendered, which is generally barred by estoppel. Furthermore, the Court found their defense weak as it rested on the presumption of regularity. Garcia, as Assistant Regional Director for Comptrollership, approved disbursement vouchers and was a signatory to P50,000 checks totaling P5,000,000. He did not refute the testimony that he received the P20,000,000 from Brizuela. His claim of forged signatures on payrolls and checks was not substantiated with clear, positive, and convincing evidence, thus the presumption of validity and regularity prevailed. Brizuela, as Disbursing Officer, admitted turning over the entire P20,000,000 to Garcia after encashing the checks, without questioning the unusual transaction or reporting it, demonstrating evident bad faith. Both Garcia and Brizuela, along with Luna, approved PNP Personnel Payrolls containing false entries, and Brizuela certified that the listed personnel received the CCIE when they did not. The Court found these acts to be of evident bad faith, constituting conscious wrongdoing for ulterior motives. The third element, causing undue injury to the government, was established by the fact that P20,000,000 was released for fictitious purchases and remains unaccounted for, causing substantial damage to the government. On the denial of their second motions for reconsideration: The Court reiterated the settled rule that issues not raised in the court a quo cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, including in a motion for reconsideration, as it is offensive to due process. Moreover, a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court, and its filing renders the questioned decision final and executory. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan correctly denied the petitioners' second motions for reconsideration.
Main Doctrine
Public officers who act with evident bad faith in approving and releasing government funds for fictitious purchases, leading to undue injury to the government, are guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The defense of merely complying with orders or the presumption of regularity is unavailing when substantial evidence proves dishonest purpose and conscious wrongdoing.