SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 205976. August 5, 2013.]
CESAR P. ALPAY, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN [FOURTH DIVISION] AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 05 August 2013 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 205976 (CESAR P. ALPAY v. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN [Fourth Division] and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES). — We resolve petitioner Cesar P. Alpay's motion for reconsideration 1 from the Court's April 3, 2013 Resolution 2 denying his petition for review on certiorari for failure to show any reversible error in the assailed judgment of the Sandiganbayan to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Alpay was the outgoing mayor of the municipality of Unisan, Quezon Province. On January 14, 2003, Alpay handed to Municipal Treasurer Bernardita de Jesus a Landbank check in the amount of one million pesos (P1,000,000.00) representing the PGMA financial assistance program, "One Million, One Town, One Product," for the municipality of Unisan. De Jesus forthwith deposited the check to the trust fund account of the municipality.
On February 11, 2003, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order No. (EO) 176, "Institutionalizing the 'Isang Bayan, Isang Produkro, Isang Milyong Pisong' Program to Stimulate Local Economic Activity." This program was designed by the government to allocate lending to small and medium enterprises (SMEs), through identified funding sources. The funding amounted to one million pesos for every city or municipality in the country. For every city and municipality in the country, a product or service cluster is identified for funding support, such that an SME offering a product or service in the said city or municipality shall be eligible to apply for a loan with a funding source. The funding source shall then grant loans to eligible SMEs which have complied with the loan requirements, at a maximum effective interest rate of ten percent (10%) per annum. TDCAHE
On July 31, 2003, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) for EO 176 was approved. The IRR provided the specific program features, such as loan purposes, repayment terms and maximum financing.
Alpay alleged that sometime in the second quarter of 2004 and prior to the end of his term, he, along with the municipal officials of Unisan, decided to make use of the one million peso-fund by distributing a portion of the same as financial assistance to selected farmers and fishermen to enable them to purchase much needed motor engines for bancas and hand tractors. The prosecution's evidence meanwhile established that on June 30, 2004, or on the last day of his term, Alpay invited 42 farmers-fishermen beneficiaries to his residence; these beneficiaries were given cash with the simultaneous acquisition or purchase of hand tractors and motor engines to support the small-scale operation of their respective businesses. The recipients were then asked to sign a list and a document indicating receipt of the equipment.
Municipal Accountant Teresita Musca testified that sometime in 2004, she processed disbursement vouchers, in particular, disbursements for financial assistance in support of the livelihood project, Isang Bayan, Isang Produkto, Isang Milyong Piso of PGMA. She received forty-two (42) disbursement vouchers from the Office of the Municipal Mayor, all of which bore Alpay's signature that certified that the expenses/cash advances are necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision. Musca then affixed her signature certifying to the completeness and propriety of the supporting documents. Each of these vouchers was accompanied by an unsigned Sinumpaang Salaysay where it was stated that a certain beneficiary received a certain amount, which Sinumpaang Salaysay was to be signed by the recipient upon release of the money. HSCAIT
In the early morning of June 30, 2004, De Jesus testified that she received 42 disbursement vouchers from the Office of the Municipal Accountant that referred to the financial assistance to various beneficiaries under the One Million, One Town, One Product Program. De Jesus noticed that the vouchers she received already bore the signatures of Alpay and the municipal accountant; this was not the normal procedure as she had yet to sign and certify as to the availability of the funds. Since she knew that the project was funded and that the vouchers were already signed by Alpay and the municipal accountant, she issued the checks and sent them to Alpay for signature.
The information charged Alpay of unlawfully and criminally utilizing through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence the "One Million Peso Social Fund" under the "Isang Bayan, Isang Produkto, Isang Milyong Pisong Programa ni Pangulong GMA" in purchasing hand tractors amounting to P459,110 and motor engines for bancas amounting to P418,200, for a total of P877,310, without the benefit of public bidding and without the required supporting documents, knowing fully well that the said amount was originally intended as cash loans to deserving micro and medium scale enterprises or entrepreneurs or farmers, and as a result thereof, the municipality was not able to extend the supposed cash loans to the deserving beneficiaries since those given the hand tractors and motor engines were not able to repay the same and, thus, caused undue injury, damage and prejudice to the Government and public interest. AECDHS
In its decision of November 7, 2012, the Sandiganbayan found Alpay guilty of violating Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and imposed the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from 6 years and 1 month, as minimum, to 10 years, as maximum, including the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office and payment of costs. At the outset, the Sandiganbayan noted that while the information alleges that the funds were utilized without the benefit of a public bidding and without the required supporting documents, the true basis of the charge is the failure to extend loans to, and to recover payment thereof from, deserving micro and medium scale enterprises (MSEs) or entrepreneurs and farmers. Thus, the prosecution sought the application of EO 176, while the defense argued that the law did not apply considering that the municipality received the funds prior to the issuance of EO 176 and its IRR. The Sandiganbayan found, however, that EO 176 applied, considering that the funds received by the municipality came from the President's Social Fund. The defense in fact stipulated that the funds involved in this case came from the "Isang Bayan, Isang Produkto, Isang Milyong Piso Programa ni PGMA"; precisely the subject of EO 176.
The Sandiganbayan also found that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the elements of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019. 3 The first and second elements are undisputed since both parties stipulated that Alpay was a public officer discharging administrative or official duties during the material dates alleged in the Information.
As to the third element, the Sandiganbayan found that Alpay acted with evident bad faith in distributing the one million peso fund of the One Million, One Town, One Product Program. The Sandiganbayan held that Alpay was directly and personally responsible for the release and distribution of the amounts to the farmers/fishermen beneficiaries: from the preparation of the disbursement vouchers (the accused pre-signing and pre-approving the release of funds without the signature of the responsible officers) to the issuance of the checks (signed by the accused), the release of the checks (done at his residence and in his presence), the purchase of the hand tractors and motor engines by the beneficiaries, the apparent arrangement with the supplier of the equipment and machineries, and the signing of vouchers and execution of the receipts and Sinumpaang Salaysay by the beneficiaries to support the transaction. It also noted that the transactions transpired only in one day — June 30, 2004 — the very last day of Alpay's term as mayor. Even though Alpay's corrupt motive was not shown by direct evidence, the Court noted that Alpay's overt acts gave away his real intention in distributing the cash — to prevent the next administration from utilizing the available funds and, instead, for him to claim the credit for the distribution of the funds, made possible via the expedient act of making it appear as a direct financial assistance with no strings attached, despite the clear directive for repayment of the loan tinder EO 176. SHTcDE
The Sandiganbayan also found that the fourth element to be present since the evidence is clear that the amounts given to the farmers/fishermen beneficiaries were not repaid, contrary to the clear directive of EO 176. The undue injury, damage and prejudice to the government are best established by the demands made by the Presidential Management Staff for repayment of the loan; EO 176 grants long term loans of five years for purchase of equipment/machinery.
As mentioned, the Court issued a Resolution on April 3, 2013 denying Alpay's petition for review on certiorari for failure to show any reversible error in the assailed judgment of the Sandiganbayan to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
In the present motion for reconsideration dated June 4, 2013, Alpay argues, among others that the Sandiganbayan gravely erred: (1) in convicting him for violating Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 and for not holding that the prosecution failed to establish the averments in the information beyond reasonable doubt; (2) in not ruling that under the circumstances of the case, Alpay acted in good faith; (3) in not ruling that the subject funds are not covered by EO 176 and its IRR; and (4) in not ruling that under the circumstances, the government has yet to suffer any undue damage or injury.
We deny the motion for reconsideration with finality.
Alpay failed to raise substantial and/or new arguments that would merit a reconsideration of our April 3, 2013 Resolution. The issues and the discussions raised in Alpay's motion are mere rehashes of the arguments already raised and considered in our Resolution on the petition for review.
We reiterate that as a rule, the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon this Court except for a few exceptions. 4 In this case, we note that the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are final and conclusive, considering that Alpay failed to show that the exceptions to the rule obtain in the present case. ADSTCa
Considering that the first two elements of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 are not disputed in this case, the existence of the third and fourth elements is determinative of Alpay's guilt of the crime charged. The third element provides the different modes by which the crime may be committed, that is through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
Evident bad faith connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. "Evident bad faith" contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. 5
The Sandiganbayan correctly found that Alpay acted with evident bad faith in distributing the one million peso-fund of the One Million, One Town, One Product Program.
First, the prosecution's evidence clearly established the irregular issuance of the disbursement vouchers — it was "reversed-processed" with Alpay pre-signing and pre-approving the release of funds before the responsible officers affixed their signatures.
Second, the series of transactions from the issuance of the disbursement vouchers up to the receipt of the equipment and machines by the beneficiaries, all transpired only in one day — the last day of Alpay's term as mayor.
Third, Alpay cannot feign ignorance of the requirements of EO 176 considering that the funds were released and distributed on June 30, 2004, while EO 176 and its IRR were already then effective.
Fourth, Alpay made it appear that the distribution of the proceeds of the one million peso-fund was a direct financial assistance and not a loan, despite the clear directive for repayment of the loan under EO 176. caAICE
Thus, all of these overt acts, sufficiently established by the prosecution, indicate Alpay's evident bad faith in eschewing the procedures and requirements of EO 176 in the supposed distribution of cash loans to deserving MSEs. Indeed, Alpay cannot claim good faith or honest mistake in the release and distribution of the one million peso-fund considering that EO 176 clearly mandated the release of the loans to MSEs and not as a direct financial assistance without strings attached to beneficiaries.
The Sandiganbayan also correctly ruled that Alpay's actions caused undue injury to the Government, considering that the amounts given to the farmers/fishermen beneficiaries were not paid, as required by EO 176. In this case, there is no greater proof of undue injury to the Government when the amounts distributed by Alpay to the alleged farmers/fishermen beneficiaries were not distributed to deserving MSEs as EO 176 required. Worse, the supposed loan remained unpaid despite demands made by the Presidential Management Staff to the municipality.
WHEREFORE, we resolve to DENY petitioner Cesar P. Alpay's motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. No further pleadings shall be entertained. Let entry of judgment be made in due course.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 338-356.
2.Id. at 337.
3.The following elements are: (1) the accused is a public officer discharging administrative or official functions or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; (2) the public officer committed the prohibited act during the performance of his official duty or in relation to his public position; (3) the public officer acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and (4) his action caused undue injury to the government or any private party, or gave any party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to such parties.
4.The exceptions are: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts and the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on record. See Luspo v. People, G.R. Nos. 188487, 188541 and 188556, February 14, 2011, 642 SCRA 729.
5.Id.