G.R. No. 252971 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ALEJANDRO NAVUAL ABARRATIGUE, RAUL ROBERTO TAPIA, and ANALIZA MABONGA BAGRO, Accused-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced them to suffer the penalties of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to ten (10) years, as maximum, and perpetual disqualification from holding public office. [30] The Sandiganbayan held that all elements of the crime were established by the prosecution. First , it was undisputed that accused-appellants are public officers who were in the exercise of their official functions. Second , Abarratigue exhibited gross inexcusable negligence in the purchase of the subject lot without authority from the SB of Hinabangan, Samar, in violation of Section 22(c) of RA 7160, [31] otherwise known as the Local Government Code (LGC), which states that "no contract may be entered into by the local chief executive in behalf of the local government unit without prior authorization by the sanggunian concerned. A legible copy of such contract shall be posted at a conspicuous place in the provincial capitol or the city, municipal or barangay hall." The Sandiganbayan further noted that this rule is reiterated again in Section 444 of the LGC. In this connection, the Sandiganbayan found that the SB Resolution No. 23-2007 and MDC Resolution No. 01-S2007 invoked by Abarratigue cannot be considered as his authority to purchase the subject lot. This is considering that nowhere in the said resolutions does it provide for the purchase of a lot, only for the expansion of the municipal cemetery. According to the Sandiganbayan, "expansion" and "purchase" cannot be treated synonymously. Finally, Abarratigue's act of purchasing the lot without the authority required by the LGC caused a disbursement of P500,000.00, constituting undue injury on the government. [32] Furthermore, the Sandiganbayan held that Tapia and Bagro were in conspiracy with Abarratigue. Citing Baldebrin v. Sandiganbayan , [33] the Court, through Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, explained that there is conspiracy where the accused "by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part, and the other performing another part so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts though apparently independent, were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments, the court will be justified in concluding that said defendants were engaged in a conspiracy." [34] Here, the Sandiganbayan stated that it was expressly admitted by Tapia that he, himself certified the availability of the funds and that he was aware that the allocation of such funds was only for the expansion of the cemetery. Such act signified his assent to the unlawful disbursement of funds. [35] Finally, Bagro was held to be equally liable with Tapia and Abarratigue. Bagro was indicated as the payee in Check No. 617805 although DV 100-2008081081 for the said check indicated that the claimant for the sum thereof was Abarracoso. Aside from Abarracoso's