G.R. No. 258968 - DANILO SOLINA ZAUSA, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused DANILO S. ZAUSA a.k.a. DANILO ZAUSA y SOLINA , guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, and considering the Indeterminate Sentence Law, hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to ten (10) years and six (6) months, as maximum, with perpetual disqualification from public office, and is ordered to pay private complainant GLORIA C. MERZA the amount of [PHP] 198,500.00 as actual damages, [31] with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid. SO ORDERED . [32] The Regional Trial Court held that all the elements to hold one liable for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 were present in this case. First, Zausa was the Barangay Chairman of Barangay 404, Zone 41, District IV, Sampaloc, Manila and, therefore, a public officer when the transactions occurred. Second, he committed the prohibited acts in relation to the performance of his official duties. He led Merza to believe that the [PHP] 100,000.00 loan would be used to fund the barangay's rental expenses and purchase of office supplies. This is supported by the March 10, 2016 promissory note. The additional [PHP] 126,000.00 loan, on the other hand, was substantiated through the July 12, 2016 promissory note, which stated that Zausa had a remaining balance of [PHP] 201,000.00, as well as the two demand letters for [PHP] 165,000.00 and [PHP] 198,500.00, respectively. Third, Zausa caused undue injury to Merza, a private party, when he failed to pay the loans. Fourth, Zausa acted in bad faith when he committed the following acts: (a) he misled Merza into believing that the loans would be used to pay for the barangay's expenses; (b) he lied when he said that the barangay urgently needed money, but the Commission on Audit prohibited any withdrawals from their funds; (c) he promised to pay the loans once the prohibition was lifted; and (d) he issued a check drawn against the LBP account of Barangay 404, Zone 41, District IV, Sampaloc, Manila payable to himself. [33] On appeal, the Sandiganbayan affirmed the Regional Trial Court's ruling as all the elements for a violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 existed. [34] The Sandiganbayan agreed that Zausa was discharging his official functions as a public officer when he committed the crime. It took into consideration the unrebutted conclusions that Zausa used his official function to create an impression of authority to entice Merza to lend him money for the payment of barangay expenses. The promissory notes with Zausa's signature expressly stated that the loans were for the payment of these expenses. Merza was even led to believe that she could benefit as a potential future contractor or supplier for the barangay. Thus, there was a direct relation betw