G.R. No. 248699 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JEORGE EJERCITO ESTREGAN, ARLYN LAZARO-TORRES, TERRYL GAMIT-TALABONG, KALAHI U. RABAGO, ERWIN P. SACLUTI, GENER C. DIMARANAN, AND MARILYN M. BRUEL, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered as follows: Accused JEORGE EJERCITO ESTREGAN, ARLYN LAZARO TORRES, TERRYL GAMIT-TALABONG, KALAHI U. RABAGO, ERWIN P. SACLUTI, GENER C. DIMARANAN , and MARILYN M. BRUEL are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Sec. 3(e) of [Republic Act] No. 3019, as amended, and are accordingly sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of [six] years and [one] month as minimum to [eight] years as maximum, with perpetual disqualification from holding public office. Accused CRISOSTOMO B. VILAR is hereby ACQUITTED of the charge of Violation of Sec. 3(e) of [Republic Act] No. 3019, for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt... SO ORDERED . [12] (Emphasis in the original) The SBN denied accused-appellants' respective motions for reconsideration in its assailed Resolution. [13] Aggrieved, all accused-appellants appealed before this Court and filed their briefs except for Estregan who sought additional time to file the same. In their Memorandum Brief, [14] Torres and Talabong claimed that: (1) they acted in good faith and were merely performing their official function as SB members when they signed Resolution No. 056-2008; (2) they had no knowledge that the source of the fund for the project of providing APA services was public in nature; (3) there could be no conspiracy in this case, especially since Talabong was in the opposition during Estregan's administration; and (4) the MOA was not an insurance contract but one for special services. On the other hand Rabago, Sacluti, and Dimaranan contended in their Memorandum Brief [15] that no irregularity attended the passage of Municipal Resolution No. 056-2008, and that Estregan transacted, negotiated, and contracted APA services with FRCV alone and never listened to anybody as he did what he wanted. They further claimed that there was no conspiracy but only pressure at the time to get the sympathy of the boatmen considering the amount of votes they can provide during the election. Bruel argued in her Brief [16] that: (1) not all the elements of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 were present; (2) the subject municipal ordinances and resolution were not revenue raising measures but were issued in view of the municipality's governmental functions; (3) the MOA did not pertain to a casualty insurance contract but was for special services and thus did not require public bidding; and (4) there was no evidence of conspiracy. The OSP, in their first Brief [17] dated June 18, 2020, retorted that: (1) accused-appellants availed of the wrong mode of appeal; thus, their conviction has already attained finality and is immutable; (2) the SBN correctly found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge; and (3) conspiracy attended the commission of the offense. Estregan, on the other hand, requested additional time to file his Brief due to change of counsel, [18] which the Court granted