November 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 194974 : November 14, 2011]
DAISY TOLEDO Y CAUPAYAN, FRED BULAWIN Y EROY AND EVELYN TIZON Y AGUSTINES, PETITIONERS -VERSUS- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 194974 (Daisy Toledo y Caupayan, Fred Bulawin y Eroy and Evelyn Tizon y Agustines, petitioners -versus- People of the Philippines, respondent)
For resolution is the Manifestation with Motion for Leave to File and Admit Plea for New Trial[1] filed by petitioners before this Court, asking that the Sandiganbayan be ordered to conduct a trial de novo of Criminal Case No. 23027 in light of newly discovered evidence.
But first, the antecedents:
On 25 June 1990, Mr. Rey Yap, as then mayor of the municipality of Sapang Dalaga, Misamis Occidental entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Department of Public Works and Highway (DPWH) for the concreting of the Mansubong-Lower Bautista road for P1,000,000.00.
Pursuant to the proposed concreting of the Mansubong-Lower Bautista road, the national government issued a series of disbursement vouchers from 20 July 1990 up to 29 July 1991. On 1 October 1991, and on the basis of a DPWH sketch[2] and report that the concreting of the Mansubong-Lower Bautista road was 100% complete, Disbursement Voucher No. B0I-91101898 was issued by which final payment was made for the supposedly accomplished project. The petitioners were the DPWH employees that prepared and signed the mentioned sketch.
On 25 May 1992, a complaint against Mayor Yap was filed with the Ombudsman by private complainants Alfonso D�Lonsod IV, Joenever Paundog, Roland Cardino, Charles Go, Jose Suminguit, Domingo Calapiz, Pepito Langoyan, Pacifico Barongan, Clifford Velez, Raul Acol and Menito Monding. The complaint accuses Mayor Yap of fathering numerous "ghost projects" during his term�one of which is the concreting of the Mansubong-Lower Bautista road.
On 16 March 1994, after conducting an investigation and ocular inspection of the Mansubong-Lower Baustista road, Associate Graft Investigation Officer II Stephen David issued a report confirming the non-existence of the concreting project. Investigator David, however, recommended the filing of appropriate charges not only against Mayor Yap, but also against other persons involved in the ghost project�that included herein petitioners.
On 1 September 1995, an information for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019[3] was filed against, among others, the petitioners before the Sandiganbayan. During trial, Investigator David affirmed the contents of his report in open court.
On 29 June 2010, the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision[4] convicting the petitioners.[5] The petitioners moved to reconsider, but to no avail.[6]
On 10 March 2011, the petitioners filed an appeal[7] before this Court.
On 6 April 2011, this Court issued a Resolution[8] denying petitioners' appeal on the grounds of late filing and for failure to show that the Sandiganbayan committed any reversible error in its decision and resolution.
Undeterred, petitioners filed before this Court the instant Manifestation with Motion for Leave to File and Admit Plea for New Trial on 12 July 2011. In it, the petitioners ask for trial de novo in the Sandiganbayan in light of their recent discovery of a private notebook of petitioner Daisy Toledo.[9] Such notebook purportedly contains the handwritten observations of petitioner Toledo during the different on-site inspections she was able to conduct for the DPWH�which included the inspection of the Mansubong-Lower Bautista project.
The petitioners claim that since the notebook attests that they actually made an inspection of the Mansubong-Lower Bautista, they cannot be charged with evident bad faith in executing the sketch certifying that the concreting of the same road was 100 % complete.
We deny the instant motion.
The requisites for newly discovered evidence as a ground for new trial are:[10]
- the evidence was discovered after the trial;
- such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with reasonable diligence:
- that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and
- that it is of such weight that, if admitted, will probably change the judgment.
In this case, the notebook of petitioner Toledo does not meet the foregoing requisites and, therefore, fail to qualify as newly discovered evidence.
First. The petitioners failed to show that the notebook of petitioner Toledo could not have been produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence. On the contrary, it appears from the allegations of petitioners themselves that the subject notebook had always, even before the start of the trial been available to them. In explaining its belated production, the petitioners allege;[11]
Petitioner Toledo could not have possibly produced or discovered the notebook during trial precisely because she was totally unaware of its probative value or importance, believing in good faith that any private recording of observations during the on-site project inspection bears little weight compared with the official documents of the COA, NBI and DPWH fact-finding teams on the implementation status of the project as well as her own testimonial declarations during trial on the final inspection of the project. Besides, during the fact-finding and trial proceedings, petitioner Toledo was never asked about the cited notebook. Not by the Ombudsman, NBI, COA and DPWH teams or any of the previous counsels of the accused (Emphasis supplied).
Misgivings as to the possible "probative value or importance" of the subject notebook is not a sufficient excuse to permit its late admission. The petitioners were, all the while, represented by learned counsels duty-bound to exhaust each and every legal means to obtain evidence in their defense. The failure of the petitioners to present the notebook, during trial is, therefore, more accurately explained by the negligence of their counsel, rather than being occasioned by its recent discovery or availability.
Second. At any rate, We find that the admission of the notebook will not have the effect of altering petitioners' conviction. The notebook, an unauthenticated private document belonging lo petitioner Toledo, does not carry the necessary weight to overturn the report and findings of the Ombudsman regarding the non-existence of a concreting project in Mansubong-Lower Bautista. The invoked entries[12] do not prove that the Mansubong-Lower Bautista road was, as a matter of fact, being concretized. It does not even prove that they conducted an actual inspection of the Mansubong-Lower Bautista road.
Even assuming arguendo that the entries in the subject notebook are considered sufficient proof that petitioners conducted an inspection of the Mansubong-Lower Bautista road, the same still do not negate the finding of evident bad faith on their part in certifying the completion of the concreting project. If anything, the entries in the notebook affirm the petitioners' bad faith for notwithstanding such inspection they still erroneously certified the Mansubong-Lower Bautista concreting project as complete. It must be emphasized that the petitioners were convicted not because they did not inspect the Mansubong-Lower Bautista road. Rather, their conviction is based on issuing a false sketch with evident bad faith.
For having certified that the Mansubong-Lower Bautista road project was 100% complete, when there was in fact none, there is no doubt in this Court's mind that the petitioners became a party to undue injury caused to the government and, on that account, deserve incarceration.cralaw
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 788-805.[2] Id. at 753-760.
[3] Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, provides:
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
x x x
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
x x x.
[4] Rollo, pp. 64-104.
[5] The petitioners were each meted the penalty of imprisonment for six (6) years and one (1) month to ten (10) years and six (6) mouths; perpetual special disqualification. They are also solidarity liable to the government in the amount of Php 961,279.00. Id. at 101.
[6] See Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated 30 November 2010 in Criminal Case No. 23027. Id. at 105-108.
[7] Id. at 16-63.
[8] Id. at 787.
[9] Id. at 806-856.
[10] Custodio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 96027-28, 8 March 2005, 453 SCRA 24, 31. See Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 121 of the Rules of Court.
[11] Rollo, pp. 792-793.
[12] See id. at pp. 794-795.