G.R. Nos. 250951 and 250958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, V. HENRY M. GELACIO, ACCUSED- E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, [judgment] is hereby rendered as follows: (1) In Criminal Case No. SB-15-CRM-0101, the Court finds Henry Magaway Gelacio GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the following penalties: (a) imprisonment for six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to eight (8) years, as maximum; and (b) perpetual disqualification from public office. (2) In Criminal Case No. SB-15-CRM-0102, the Court finds Henry Magaway Gelacio GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 7(d) of R.A. No. 6713 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the following penalties: (a) imprisonment from one (1) year and one (1) day, as minimum, to five (5) years, as maximum; (b) fine of Five Thousand Pesos (PhP5,000.00); and disqualification to hold public office. SO ORDERED . [19] The Sandiganbayan held that all the elements of the crimes charged were satisfactorily established and that accused-appellant's defense of denial was sweeping and self-serving, which cannot prevail over the direct and positive testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses. The Sandiganbayan focused and lent evidentiary weight on the testimonies of Atty. Landero and Herminigilda. According to the Sandiganbayan, Atty. Landero positively testified on the delivery of the tuna fish that was requested by accused­ appellant as he had personal knowledge of the incident, and that he called up accused-appellant directly on where to deliver the fish. Meanwhile, Herminigilda was a direct witness to the giving by private complainant of the money to accused-appellant in his office. The Sandiganbayan did not give credence to the alleged affidavit of retraction executed by private complainant because the same was not offered in evidence; and also, that affidavits of desistance are looked upon with disfavor. The Sandiganbayan concluded that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are sufficient to convict accused-appellant even without the testimony of private complainant. [20] Accused-appellant filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in the June 26, 2019 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan. Later, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal [21] with the Sandiganbayan, which was, however, dismissed in a Minute Resolution dated September 4, 2019 for lack of proof of payment of the necessary appellate docket and other lawful fees. Accused-appellant filed a manifestation and motion for reconsideration of the September 4, 2019 Minute Resolution. The Sandiganbayan granted accused-appellant's manifestation and motion for reconsideration and gave due course to his notice of appeal via its January 10, 2020 Resolution. [22] The dispositive portion of said resolution states: WHEREFORE, the Court resolves as follows: a. Accused Gelacio's Motion for Leave of Court is NOTED [;] b. Accused Gelacio's Motion/or Reconsideration is GRANTED . The Resolution dated September 4, 2019 is reversed and set aside; c. The D