G.R. NO. 155574 - TIMOTEO A. GARCIA, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused TIMOTEO A GARCIA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of fifty-six (56) counts of violation of Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Accordingly, said accused is hereby sentenced to: (i) in each case, suffer an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for a period of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) month, as maximum; (ii) suffer all accessory penalties consequent thereto; and (iii) pay the costs. With respect to accused NERY TAGUPA, by reason of the total lack of any evidence against him, he is hereby ACQUITED. As for accused Gilbert G. Nabo, considering that he remained at large and jurisdiction over his person had yet to be acquired, let the case as against him be achieved. [18] Petitioner is now before us assigning as errors the following: THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF SECTION 3(B) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019 WERE PRESENT IN CRIM. CASES NOS. 24042 TO 24098 (EXCEPT 24078) AND IN FINDING THE HEREIN PETITIONER GUILTY OF FIFTY SIX (56) COUNTS OF VIOLATION THEREOF; THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN FINDING THE HEREIN PETITIONER GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF FIFTY SIX (56) COUNTS OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 3(B) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019 ON THE BASIS OF FATALLY DEFECTIVE INFORMATIONS WHEREIN THE FACTS CHARGED NEVER CONSTITUTED AN OFFENSE; THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN FINDING THE HEREIN PETITIONER GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF FIFTY SIX (56) COUNTS OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 3(B) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019 ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE WHICH IS INSUFFICIENT TO CONVICT (EVEN FOR A SINGLE COUNT); THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED AND IN THE PROCESS VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE HEREIN PETITIONER WHEN IT SUPPLIED THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION WITH ASSUMPTIONS WHICH WERE NOT AT ALL SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD; THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED WHEN IT OBSERVED DIFFERENT STANDARDS OF JUSTICE BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER'S CO-ACCUSED TAGUPA AND CONVICTING THE HEREIN PETITIONER WHEN THE SAME REASONING SHOULD HAVE LED ALSO TO THE ACQUITTAL OF THE PETITIONER. In any criminal prosecution, it is necessary that every essential ingredient of the crime charged must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in order to overcome the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent. [19] To be convicted of violation of Section 3(b) [20] of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, the prosecution has the burden of proving the following elements: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) who requested or received a gift, a present, a share a percentage, or a benefit (3) on behalf of the offender or any other person; (4) in connection with a contract or transaction with the government; (5) in which the public officer, in an official capacity under the law, has the right to intervene. [21] Petitioner maintains that not all the elements of Section 3(b) have been established by the