G.R. Nos. 218709-10 - LIBERTY B. TIONGCO, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0414, this Court finds accused LIBERTY TIONGCO y BACCAY GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt x x x of Usurpation of Official Functions defined and penalized under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code. Considering the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and where no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance was proven, accused is imposed the indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS of arresto mayor in its maximum period as minimum to TWO (2) YEARS, ELEVEN (11) MONTHS and TEN (10) DAYS of prision correccional in its medium p[e]riod as maximum . In Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0415, this Court finds accused LIBERTY TIONGCO y BACCAY GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of IMPRISONMENT of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) MONTH as minimum to TEN (10) YEARS as maximum , with perpetual disqualification to hold public office. x x x x [36] The Sandiganbayan held that all the elements of the crime of Usurpation of Official Functions were present in this case. [37] First , Tiongco is concededly a public officer at the time of the commission of the crime. Second , the Sandiganbayan held that the specific duties for Tiongco's position, as laid down in BC-CSC Form No. 1 (Revised 23 June 1976), do not include the authority to determine the release of retirement benefits to a prospective retiree. Likewise, based on her own testimony, Tiongco believed signing the Request for Clearance was merely ministerial after all the department heads had already affixed their signature. However, the Sandiganbayan ruled that, under Ombudsman Memorandum Circular No. 10 (OMB MC No. 10), [38] said authority is not ministerial but discretionary. [39] The Sandiganbayan also ruled that discretion to release retirement benefits was not included in the authority delegated by Barbin. [40] Third , the Sandiganbayan held that it is the payment and release of Estacio's retirement gratuity that is the essence of the crime since the authority for this exclusively pertains to the head of the agency. In this case, Barbin was even "left in the dark" on the release of Estacio's retirement benefits. [41] Fourth , the Sandiganbayan brushed aside Tiongco's argument that Section 20.4 of the PCIC CASA granted her the power to allow the disbursement of Estacio's retirement gratuity. The Sandiganbayan held that this provision speaks only of the absence of the president. Barbin may have been out of the office most of the time but he was expected to come in albeit at odd hours. It was still physically possible for Tiongco to consult with Barbin and give him the discretion on the release of Estacio's retirement pay, the Sandiganbayan ruled. [42] The Sandiganbayan further held that Tiongco cannot use good faith as a defense since she "certainly knew at the outset that it was possible that the payment of Estacio's retirement grat