Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1993 > August 1993 Decisions > G.R. No. 94955 August 18, 1993 - JUAN CORONADO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 94955. August 18, 1993.]

JUAN CORONADO, Petitioner, v. THE SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

Jose A. Rico for Petitioner.

The Solicitor General for public respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES; NEGLECTING OR REFUSING TO ACT WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME ON ANY MATTER BEFORE PUBLIC OFFICER FOR SOME PECUNIARY OR MATERIAL BENEFIT; ELEMENTS. — The elements of Sec. 3(f) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices (R.A. No. 3019) are that: a) The offender is a public officer; b) The said officer has neglected or has refused to act without sufficient justification after due demand or request has been made on him; c) Reasonable time has elapsed from such demand or request without the public officer having acted on the matter pending before him; and d) Such failure to so act is "for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage in favor of an interested party, or discriminating against another.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PURPOSE OF OBTAINING SOME PECUNIARY OR MATERIAL BENEFIT OR ADVANTAGE IN FAVOR OF AN INTERESTED PARTY OR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ANOTHER MUST BE PROVED; CONSTRUED IN CASE AT BAR. — We agree with the Sandiganbayan that, indeed, there was failure on the part of the petitioner, a public officer, to observe due diligence in his assigned task; let us call it one of neglect, a broad term which is defined as the failure to do what can be done and what is required to be done (West’s Legal Thesaurus/Dictionary, 1986). In its generic sense, it would not matter whether such refusal is intended or unintended. But here that is not the real issue. To warrant conviction for a violation of Section 3 (f) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the law itself additionally requires that the accused’s dereliction, besides being without justification, must be for the purpose of (a) obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage in favor of an interested party or (b) discriminating against another interested party. The severity of the penalty imposed by the law leaves no doubt that the legislative intent is to consider this element to be indispensable. The record is bereft of evidence, albeit alleged, to indicate that the petitioner’s failure to act was motivated by any gain or benefit for himself or knowingly for the purpose of favoring an interested party or discriminating against another. It is not enough that an advantage in favor of one party, as against another, would result from such neglect or refusal. Has it been so, the law would have perhaps instead said, "or as a consequence of such neglect or refusal undue advantage is derived by an interested party or another is unduly discriminated against." Let is again be said: It has always been the avowed policy of the law that before an accused is convicted of a crime, his guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the burden of that proof rests upon the prosecution. The stringency with which We have scrupulously observed this rule needs no further explanation; suffice it to say that is behooves us to do no less whenever at stake is the life or liberty of a person. And so it is, not only in the appreciation of the evidence but likewise in the application and interpretation of the law.


D E C I S I O N


VITUG, J.:


The Sandiganbayan convicted the petitioner, Juan Coronado, for violation of Section 3 (f) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, from which decision 1 this petition for review on certiorari was filed.

Herein petitioner, then a newly hired Process Server in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Antipolo, Rizal, was charged, along with Cesar Villamor and Oscar Caing, in an Information, dated 26 November 1985, and docketed as Criminal Case No. 11035 (p. 7, Rollo). The arraignment was postponed for several times because of a pending reinvestigation then being conducted by the Tanodbayan. After the reinvestigation, an "Omnibus Motion to Admit Amended Information and To Dismiss the case Against Accused Cesar Villamor and Oscar Caing", dated 09 February 1987, was filed by the Tanodbayan (Ibid.)

On 23 September 1987, the respondent court granted the omnibus motion above-referred to and thereby admitted the Amended Information against the petitioner, thus —

"That during the period from August 31, 1984 to February 21, 1985 in the Municipality of Antipolo, Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, Accused JUAN CORONADO, JR., a public officer being the Process Server of all the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully neglect and refuse to serve within reasonable time, a copy of the Order dated July 11, 1984, issued by Executive Judge Antonio V. Benedicto in Civil Case No. 290-A entitled "Pinagkamaligan Indo-Agro-Development Corporation, Et. Al. v. Mariano Lim, Et Al.," denying plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of January 23, 1984 dismissing their complaint for Cancellation of Title, upon plaintiffs’ counsel, Atty. Patrocinio Palanog, without sufficient justification, despite due demand and request made by defendant Mariano Lim, the copy of said Order of July 11, 1984 being served on plaintiffs’ counsel only on February 22, 1985, for the purpose of giving undue advantage in favor of the plaintiffs and discrimination against defendants in said case by delaying the finality of the order of dismissal and allowing the plaintiffs to prolong their stay on the land in litigation.

CONTRARY TO LAW." (p. 8, rollo).

Paraphrasing the Sandiganbayan, the chronological recitation of events, based in part on the stipulation of facts and the rest on the evidence adduced during the trial, may be stated, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First — The Regional Trial Court of Rizal (Br. 71) issued an Order, dated 11 July 1984, denying plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the order of 23 January 1984, that dismissed the complaint in Civil Case No. 290-A, entitled "Pinagkamaligan Indo-Agro-Development Corporation, Et. Al. v. Mariano Lim Et. Al." ;

Second — On 31 August 1984, the complaining witness Mariano Lim, one of the defendants in the above civil case, learned of the rendition of the Order and the fact that it had not yet then been served upon the plaintiffs. Lim felt "agitated about the loss of eleven days before the decision’s period of finality had commenced to run," and he, therefore, made representations with the Executive Judge, the Hon. Antonio Benedicto, to have the Order served on Atty. Patrocinio Palanog, the counsel for the plaintiffs;

Third — The accused, a process server, was directed to effect the service. His first attempt was unsuccessful because he could not locate the address of Atty. Palanog. The accused again tried on 02 September 1984, and although this time he found the address, Atty. Palanog and his entire family had apparently gone out for the weekend. The accused found only a woman, not a member of the family of Atty. Palanog, who had only been asked to watch over the house. Accused Coronado did not thus leave the Order;

Fourth — On 22 February 1985, Lim went back to the courthouse where he was informed that the case had meanwhile been sent to the archives together with 29 other cases (Exhibit "E") (Ibid.).

Fifth — On 25 February 1985, Lim returned to the courthouse and, examining the records, he observed additional unnumbered pages that include, among other things, a) a return, dated 4 September 1984 (Exhibit "F"), signed by accused Coronado stating that plaintiff’s counsel, Atty. Palanog, could not be contacted; b) an entry at the foot of the Order of 11 July 1984 (Exhibit "A-2") to the effect that Atty. Palanog had received the Order on 25 February 1985; and (c) a return, dated 25 February 1985 (Exhibit "B") that the Order had indeed been served on plaintiffs (pp. 35-36, Rollo).

On the basis of the foregoing, particularly the 5-month delay in the service of the court order, the Sandiganbayan convicted herein petitioner of having violated Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019 and imposed upon him the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for six (6) years and one (1) month to nine (9) years and one (1) day.

Hence, this petition.

The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not the failure of the petitioner to successfully serve the 11 July 1984 Order, given the above settings, warrants his conviction under Section 3(f) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The pertinent provision of the law (Republic Act No. 3019) alleged to have been violated provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Section 3. Corrupt Practices of Public Officers: The following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared unlawful:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage in favor of or discriminating against another interested party.

Admittedly, the elements of the offense are that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a) The offender is a public officer;

b) The said officer has neglected or has refused to act without sufficient justification after due demand or request has been made on him;

c) Reasonable time has elapsed from such demand or request without the public officer having acted on the matter pending before him; and

d) Such failure to so act is "for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage in favor of an interested party, or discriminating against another.

The attendance of the first three elements in this case can hardly be disputed. The controversy, however, lies on the fourth element.

We agree with the Sandiganbayan that, indeed, there was failure on the part of the petitioner, a public officer, to observe due diligence in his assigned task; let us call it one of neglect, a broad term which is defined as the failure to do what can be done and what is required to be done (West’s Legal Thesaurus/Dictionary, 1986). In its generic sense, it would not matter whether such refusal is intended or unintended. But here that is not the real issue. To warrant conviction for a violation of Section 3 (f) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the law itself additionally requires that the accused’s dereliction, besides being without justification, must be for the purpose of (a) obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage in favor of an interested party or (b) discriminating against another interested party. The severity of the penalty imposed by the law leaves no doubt that the legislative intent is to consider this element to be indispensable.

The record is bereft of evidence, albeit alleged, to indicate that the petitioner’s failure to act was motivated by any gain or benefit for himself or knowingly for the purpose of favoring an interested party or discriminating against another. It is not enough that an advantage in favor of one party, as against another, would result from such neglect or refusal. Had it been so, the law would have perhaps instead said, "or as a consequence of such neglect or refusal undue advantage is derived by an interested party or another is unduly discriminated against."cralaw virtua1aw library

Let it again be said: It has always been the avowed policy of the law that before an accused is convicted of a crime, his guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the burden of that proof rests upon the prosecution. The stringency with which We have scrupulously observed this rule needs no further explanation; suffice it to say that it behooves us to do no less whenever at stake is the life or liberty of a person. And so it is, not only in the appreciation of the evidence but likewise in the application and interpretation of the law.

It is not that We are condoning the misconduct of the petitioner, nor that we are unmindful of the prejudice that may have been sustained by the private respondent, but the legal remedies lie elsewhere, not in the instant action.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is REVERSED and the petitioner, Juan Coronado, is hereby acquitted of the charge on reasonable doubt.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason and Puno, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Penned by Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena, concurred in by Associate Justices Regino Hermosisima, Jr. and Augusto Amores.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1993 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 86939 August 2, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTOS DUCAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96988 August 2, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO BALAJADIA

  • G.R. No. 80645 August 3, 1993 - MARCELINO GALANG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89112 August 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES M. LIWAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102725 August 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISMAEL N. RELORCASA

  • G.R. No. 103233 August 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMO PELIGRO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-89-383 August 4, 1993 - ANTONIO G. MIRANO v. MARILYN O. SAAVEDRA

  • G.R. Nos. 74294-96 August 4, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER LLABRES

  • G.R. No. 104513 August 4, 1993 - SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106837 August 4, 1993 - HENRY MACION, ET AL. v. JAPAL M. GUIANI, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-898 August 5, 1993 - EVANGELINE L. DINAPOL v. ISMAEL O. BALDADO

  • G.R. No. 85041 August 5, 1993 - GRACIANO BERNAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 88475-96 August 5, 1993 - CRESENCIA L. TAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95145 August 5, 1993 - GUALBERTO R. ESTIVA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 98007-08 August 5, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NECEMIO JOAQUIN

  • G.R. No. 103303 August 5, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO E. GASPER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105138 August 5, 1993 - BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-90-414 August 9, 1993 - BELEN P. FERRIOLS v. NORMA HIAM

  • A.M. No. MTJ-91-530 August 9, 1993 - TRINIDAD SUNGLAO VDA. DE CORONEL v. CONRADO T. DANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94549 August 9, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY SUETA

  • G.R. No. 102657 August 9, 1993 - FELICIANO NITO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93029 August 10, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VILLAMOR ACZON

  • G.R. No. 94093 August 10, 1993 - FAR EAST MARBLE (PHILS.), INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102411 August 10, 1993 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97873 August 12, 1993 - PILIPINAS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103302 August 12, 1993 - NATALIA REALTY, INC., ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104226 August 12, 1993 - CONCHITA ROMUALDEZ-YAP v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85985 August 13, 1993 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL) v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 90795-96 & 91125-26 August 13, 1993 - SHOEMART, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101583 August 13, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLITO TIDONG

  • G.R. No. 55343 August 16, 1993 - A & A CONTINENTAL COMM. PHIL., INC. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94644 August 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL M. ALEJANDRO

  • G.R. No. 98468 August 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103299 August 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOPE VIENTE

  • G.R. No. 106164 August 17, 1993 - EDWIN V. SARDEA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90626 August 18, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ALCORIZA LASCUNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94955 August 18, 1993 - JUAN CORONADO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109293 August 18, 1993 - HOME INSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98472 August 19, 1993 - PHIL. ASS. OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC., ET AL. v. RUBEN D. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103059 August 19, 1993 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106953 August 19, 1993 - CESAR SAN JOSE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74449 August 20, 1993 - IMELDA A. NAKPIL v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96306 August 20, 1993 - LORENZO BERICO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103072 August 20, 1993 - MOBIL OIL PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103295 August 20, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO SALAMAT

  • G.R. No. 104216 August 20, 1993 - TEODORO B. PANGILINAN v. GUILLERMO T. MAGLAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105083 August 20, 1993 - VIRGILIO CALLANTA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75038 August 23, 1993 - ELIAS VILLUGA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85817 August 23, 1993 - PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108232 August 23, 1993 - ZONSAYDA L. ALINSUG v. RTC, Br. 58, San Carlos City, Negros Occ., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85073 August 24, 1993 - DAVAO FRUITS CORP. v. ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96541 August 24, 1993 - DEAN JOSE JOYA, ET AL. v. PRESIDENTIAL COMM. ON GOOD GOVT., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102973 August 24, 1993 - ROGELIO CARAMOL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103393 August 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO MANZANO

  • G.R. No. 103403 August 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ULILI

  • G.R. No. 104615 August 24, 1993 - EMILIANA MEDINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108229 August 24, 1993 - DASMARIÑAS GARMENTS, INC. v. RUBEN T. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99299 August 26, 1993 - ROBERTO ULANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100592 August 26, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR ARMADA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 104995 August 26, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALTAZAR DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107324 August 26, 1993 - APOLINARIO ESBER, ET AL. v. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91889 August 27, 1993 - MANUEL R. DULAY ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-91-565 August 30, 1993 - PATRICIO T. JUNIO v. PEDRO C. RIVERA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 97226 August 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BETHOVEN LIZADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98443 August 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO NAPARAN, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 103446-47 August 30, 1993 - MARIANO F. OCAMPO, IV v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105214 August 30, 1993 - FRANCISCO JAVIER O. CARAM, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105141 August 31, 1993 - SIGNETICS CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106915 August 31, 1993 - JARDINE DAVIES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.