FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 228039. July 28, 2021.]
RODOLFO NOEL I. LOZADA, JR. AND JOSE ORLANDO I. LOZADA, petitioners, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 28, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 228039 (Rodolfo Noel I. Lozada, Jr. and Jose Orlando I. Lozada v. People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman). — The criminal liability of the petitioners for violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 or the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," 1 of at focus in this Petition for Review on Certiorari2 assailing the Sandiganbayan Joint Decision 3 dated August 23, 2016 in SB-12-CRM-0206 and SB-12-CRM-0207.
ANTECEDENTS
On December 29, 2011, the Office of the Ombudsman filed against Rodolfo Noel I. Lozada, Jr. (Rodolfo) and Jose Orlando I. Lozada (Orlando) an Information for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019 before the Sandiganbayan docketed as SB-12-CRM-0206. 4 The Ombudsman likewise filed an Information against Rodolfo for violation of Section 3 (h) of the same law docketed as SB-12-CRM-0207, to wit:
SB-12-CRM-0206[For violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019]
xxx xxx xxx
That on or about December 18, 2007, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Taguig, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused RODOLFO NOEL LOZADA, JR. [y] IMPERIAL, a high-ranking public official, being then the President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Philippine Forest Corporation, with Salary Grade 30, while in the performance of his official function, committing the offense in relation to office and taking advantage of his official position, and in conspiracy with accused JOSE ORLANDO LOZADA [y] IMPERIAL, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, through evident bad faith and/or manifest partiality, award the leasehold right over 6.599 hectares of public land under the Lupang Hinirang Program of the Philippine Forest Corporation, to his brother, accused JOSE ORLANDO LOZADA [y] IMPERIAL, despite knowledge that the latter did not undergo the prescribed application process, when as President and CEO of the Philippine Forest Corporation, it was his duty to award leasehold rights and to ensure that all applicants should go through the regular application process, and accused JOSE ORLANDO LOZADA [y] IMPERIAL for accepting such award notwithstanding knowledge of the absence of such required application process, thereby giving unwarranted benefit, preference and advantage to accused JOSE ORLANDO LOZADA [y] IMPERIAL over other qualified beneficiaries of the program, to the prejudice of public interest. aDSIHc
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
[SB-12-CRM-0207][(For violation of Section 3(h) of RA No. 3019)]
That on or about the year 2007 to 2008, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Taguig, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused RODOLFO NOEL LOZADA, JR. y IMPERIAL, a high-ranking public official, being then the President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Philippine Forest Corporation, with Salary Grade 30, while in the performance of his official function, committing the offense in relation to office and taking advantage of his official position, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and criminally, cause the award of a leasehold right over a public land under the Lupang Hinirang Program of the Philippine Forest Corporation, to Transforma Quinta, Inc., a private corporation in which he has direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest, having been appointed, in conjunction with his wife, Ma. Violeta C. Lozada, by Transforma Quinta, Inc. via Board Resolution to act for and in its behalf certain financial transactions, when as President and CEO of the Philippine Forest Corporation, it was his duty to award leasehold rights to qualified beneficiaries who are legally entitled thereto, to the prejudice of the Government and public interest.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
Rodolfo and Orlando pleaded not guilty to the charges; hence, the trial. The prosecution testified that Rodolfo was the President of Philippine Forest Corporation, Inc. (PFC), a government-owned and controlled corporation, and a subsidiary of the National Resources Development Corporation, which are both under the supervision of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). On January 26, 2006, the Board of Directors (the Board) of PFC passed a resolution authorizing PFC to purchase, sell, or otherwise deal with Jatropha curcas seeds and Jatropha oil and/or Jatropha Methyl Ester, as well as to enter into an agreement for their propagation and plantation at a reasonable price, and in accordance with the Government Procurement Reform Act. The resolution also authorized PFC to grant usufructuary right or other similar right of possession and/or development right to all qualified natural or juridical persons over the public land awarded to the PFC by the DENR, and to enter into joint ventures with land owner for the development of the land into Jatropa plantation and/or any agro-forestry projects. For these purposes, the Board designated Rodolfo, as PFC President, to sign all documents, agreements and/or contracts relating thereto and to determine their terms and conditions. Thus, the PFC implemented a program called Lupang Hinirang which awards leasehold rights over idle public lands in favor of qualified applicants and bidders following the required application process. 7
On September 24, 2007, the Board passed Resolution Nos. 14 and 15, Series of 2007. Specifically, n Resolution No. 14 authorized the PFC to prepare a development plan for the 2,900 hectares of the idle lands within the resettlement area of Laiban Dam Project that was ceded by the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System to PFC. To make the lands productive, PFC was authorized to lease the lands, through auction process, at a floor price of P500.00 per hectare per year, and one time payment of P1,000.00 for the parcellary and monumenting cost for every hectare applied for. The areas will be awarded through the issuance of Lupang Hinirang Certificates, supported by the Economic Productivity out of Idle Land (EPIL) agreements. On the other hand, Resolution No. 15 authorized PFC to set aside 200 hectares for its own area for agro-forestry projects and Jatropha plantations. These 200 hectares may be awarded to PFC's officials, staff and personnel through the same auction process. 8
One of the categories under the Lupang Hinirang Program is the Family Farm Package which consists of the grant or award of lease of around one to 10 hectares of forest lands to qualified applicants. The requirements for application are the following: (a) Photocopy of National Statistics Office — Certified Birth Certificate or as certified by the Local Civil Registrar; (b) Barangay Clearance; (c) Cedula; and (d) One time payment of P1,000.00 x x x for every hectare applied for to be paid upon receipt of the Lupang Hinirang Certificate. As to the auction procedures, it is required that interested applicants shall obtain a complete set of Auction Kit for a fee of P500.00. The Auction Kit shall contain the following: (a) application form (Form 002); (b) the Terms of Reference (TOR); (c) bid form (Form 003); (d) applicant's envelope; (e) video CD containing all information pertaining to Jatropha curcas and PFC. 9
Orlando, Rodolfo's brother, serves as a consultant/confidential assistant at the office of the PFC President with a contractual status from October 1, 2005 to February 7, 2008. Despite not being an officer, staff or employee of PFC, Orlando was allowed to apply in the Lupang Hinirang Program. Consequently, Orlando was included in the list of bidders of leasehold rights over a 6.599-hectare of public land. Even if Orlando did not participate in the pre-qualification, auction, and award processes as laid out in the terms of reference of the program, he was issued a notice of award dated December 18, 2007, signed by Rodolfo, after paying P13,198.00 as lease fee. Also, Rodolfo signed and issued a notice of award of lease over a parcel of idle land in favor of Transforma Quinta, Inc. (TQI), a private domestic corporation in which he is one of the incorporators, and a member of the Board. As supporting evidence, the prosecution presented the statements of Rodolfo during the February 8, 2008 Senate investigation on the approval of the Philippines' broadband contract with ZTE, in which he admitted awarding a leasehold right in favor of TQI, 10 thus:
SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO:
xxx xxx xxx
Now, let me go to another point, x x x. I have here also a set of documents. The first one consists of the certificate of the secretary, the corporate secretary of Transforma Quinta, Incorporated, and this is a certification that this corporation passed a resolution for the lease of public lands in Antipolo City under the Lupang Hinirang Program of [PFC] of which you are President and CEO. [Kaya pinaupahan ng inyong korporasyon de gobyerno ang isang lupa sa] Antipolo [para sa panggalang] Transforma Quinta[,] Incorporated. [Ang problema ko lang ditto] . . .
[Ang problema ko lang dito ay ito. Meron na akong kopya ng] resolution [noong] Transforma Quinta, [pero meron pa akong dagdag na kopya na] . . . says there was a Board Resolution stating, "Resolved that Rodolfo Noel Lozada, Jr. and/or Ma. Violeta Lozada be as they are hereby authorized to sign for and in behalf of the corporation any document."
[Kaya] in other words, you were dealing with yourself. You as the head of the [PFC], you leased a certain piece of land, I think, 50 hectares in Antipolo to your own corporation. That is what this document. ETHIDa
xxx xxx xxx
MR. LOZADA[:] Madam Senator, I would admit to that. [Kasi ho 'yong ano namin, lahat ng trabaho namin pabanguhin ang tiwangwang na lupa. Alam n'yo], I would admit, I guess, in public, to the nation, there were certain things I did in my life that, I guess, upon reflection I would lose some respect to myself. But all the remaining respect I have in myself, madam, I don't want to lose [na]. I'd like whatever respect I have in myself to keep it [pa]. If I will go along with this NBN, I guess I'm going to lose it all. I'm afraid I'm going to lose my soul. So, yes, I admit to that, mea culpa. 11
Rodolfo denied that he issued a leasehold right in favor of either Orlando or TQI and explained that what was issued to them was a notice of award which merely notified them that their application has been reviewed. The signing of the EPIL agreements and the issuance of the certifications are the operative acts for the award of a leasehold right. Orlando's application underwent the regular procedural requirements. For his part, Orlando justified that he submitted his application form to the Lupang Hinirang Committee, composed of a technical group of foresters. Orlando admitted that he received a Notice of Award and affixed his conforme.
On August 23, 2016, 12 the Sandiganbayan found Rodolfo and Orlando guilty in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0206 for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019. However, the Sandiganbayan acquitted Rodolfo in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0207 for violation of Section 3 (h) on the ground of reasonable doubt as to his guilt, thus:
SB-12-CRM-0206
xxx xxx xxx
The prosecution was able to satisfactorily prove that accused Orlando Lozada was issued a Notice of Award despite the fact that he did not participate in the procedure for the pre-qualification, auction and award as laid out in the Terms of Reference (TOR). x x x. Some of the mandatory requirements for submission to the PFC prior to the issuance to the applicant of an Order of Payment were not even complied with.
When the Lozada brothers testified, they did not controvert the non-compliance with the procedure laid down in the x x x (TOR). Their defense is that the application and the eventual issuance of a Notice of Award to accused Orlando was because of Resolution No. 15 of PFC dated September 24, 2007, x x x.
But, it is very clear from Resolution No. 15 itself that the allocation and award to its officials, staff and personnel of any tenurial rights under this project can only be done if "the same auction process" is observed. x x x. Unfortunately, both accused were not able to establish that the "auction process" was ever complied with.
Moreover, it is worth stressing that even if allocation and award to the officials, staff and employees of tenurial rights do not require the "auction process," still accused Orlando Lozada should not have been issued an Order of Payment and a Notice of Award. x x x. As consultant, he could therefore, not be considered to be within the purview of "PFC official, staff and employees." x x x. Since he is not a qualified applicant under Resolution No. 15 of the PFC, he should have applied and undergone the regular process under the Family Farm Package.
xxx xxx xxx
In allowing his brother, accused Orlando, to apply for tenurial rights under the [Lupang Hinirang] Project under Resolution No. 15, accused Rodolfo Lozada acted with manifest partiality and evident bad faith. The accused brothers must surely know of the status of accused Orlando x x x as a consultant and therefore, not an employee thereof. x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
The Lozada brothers further claim that accused Rodolfo could not be found guilty of violation of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 because accused Rodolfo did not sign the x x x (EPIL) Agreement and the [Lupang Hinirang] Certificate in favor of accused Orlando Lozada. They assert that it is this Agreement and the Certificate that vest tenurial right to the grantee over the specific idle forest land. x x x.
While their assertion may be true, the acceptance of the application, payment of the fees, the issuance of the Notice of Award x x x, as well as the inclusion of the latter's name in the List of Grantees, had already vested upon him x x x, at the very least, a preferential right over any other applicant for the specific area of public land that he applied for. cSEDTC
xxx xxx xxx
In the instant case, regardless of whether accused Orlando Lozada already has an equitable right, a prior vested right or simply a preferential right over the public land applied for by reason of the award given by accused Rodolfo, which he accepted, this clearly shows the benefit that he received as a result of the manifest partiality and evident bad faith of accused Rodolfo. x x x.
On the other hand, on the issue of conspiracy between the Lozada brothers, the presence of which would make both guilty of the crime charged, this Court believes that the brothers conspired so that the lease of idle public land accused Orlando applied for would be awarded to him. 13 (Emphases supplied and citation omitted.)
xxx xxx xxx
SB-12-CRM-0207
xxx xxx xxx
The following are the elements that are to be established in order to prove a violation of Section 3 (h) of RA No. 3019:
1. The accused is a public officer;
2. He has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or transaction; and
3. He either (a) intervenes or takes part in his official capacity in connection with such interest, or (b) is prohibited from having such interest by the Constitution or by any law.
xxx xxx xxx
It would appear that the second element of the crime charged was not established beyond reasonable doubt. The fact of financial or pecuniary interest in the transaction or in Transforma Quinta, Inc. was not clearly established by the prosecution. Both pieces of circumstantial evidence — the authority to represent the corporation in certain banking transactions and that accused Rodolfo Lozada broached the idea to the corporation about investing in agriculture, did not establish beyond reasonable doubt the financial capacity or pecuniary interest of accused Rodolfo Lozada.
The prosecution was not able to explain the purpose of the Board Resolution of TQI. It was not able to relate it to the financial interest of accused Rodolfo Lozada. It is uncertain which is prior, the Board Resolution or the application for leasehold of idle public lands, or whether there exists any relation between the two facts. (Emphasis supplied and citation omitted.)
xxx xxx xxx
Verdict
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in the following criminal cases, to wit:
A. In Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0206, finding accused Rodolfo Noel I. Lozada, Jr. and accused Jose Orlando I. Lozada GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, and
a. Applying the x x x [ISLAW], they are hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of Six (6) years as minimum to Ten (10) Years and One (1) day, as maximum;
b. Accused Rodolfo Noel I. Lozada, Jr. is further disqualified from holding public office;
c. No pronouncement as to costs.
B. In Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0207, finding accused Rodolfo Noel I. Lozada, Jr. NOT GUILTY and is ACQUITTED of the charge of violation of Section 3(h) of R.A. No. 3019.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 14
Rodolfo and Orlando (petitioners) sought reconsideration but was denied. 15 Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari. 16 The petitioners contend that the Sandiganbayan violated their right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them and the right to fair trial. Also, the Sandiganbayan misapplied the concept of unwarranted benefit, manifest partiality, evident bad faith and conspiracy in concluding that they violated Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019. The petitioners emphasize that the Information under Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0206 alleged that Rodolfo, through evident bad faith and manifest partiality, awarded the leasehold right over 6.99 hectares of public land in favor of Orlando. The evidence presented by the prosecution, however, showed that Rodolfo merely issued a notice of award, which is not equivalent to an award. In any case, the prosecution failed to prove that Rodolfo awarded a leasehold right in favor of Orlando. The prosecution even admitted that Rodolfo has no knowledge whether a Lupang Hinirang Certificate and an EPIL agreement, which will consummate the grant of a leasehold right, were actually issued to Orlando. Moreover, Rodolfo did not give unwarranted benefit in favor of Orlando in allowing him to apply for a grant of leasehold right as the same was authorized by Resolution No. 15, approved by the Board of PFC. Orlando likewise complied with the prescribed process for the inclusion in the list of bidders by submitting an application form to the Lupang Hinirang Committee and placing his bid. Contrary to the ruling of the Sandiganbayan, Resolution No. 15 did not specifically require the existence of employer-employee relationship nor need a regular status of employment to qualify for application for a leasehold right. As a confidential assistant in the office of the PFC president, Orlando is considered a staff or personnel. Lastly, the finding of conspiracy has no basis absent proof of shared criminal purpose or design.
In its comment, 17 the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman argues that the petition should be denied because the issues raised are factual. Nonetheless, the Sandiganbayan did not err in ruling that petitioners are guilty of violating Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019. Despite not being qualified to apply for leasehold rights under the Lupang Hinirang Program and not going through the required auction process, Orlando was allowed to submit his application and was given a notice of award, through evident bad faith and manifest partiality on the part of Rodolfo as PFC president. Moreover, the petitioners' right to due process was not violated because the Information sufficiently alleged the elements of the offense committed enabling them to intelligently prepare their defense. The variance between the award of leasehold right as alleged in the Information and the notice of award that was supposedly proved during trial is immaterial because the issuance of the notice of award is precursor to the grant of the leasehold right. SDAaTC
RULING
The petition is unmeritorious.
The elements of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019 are the following: (a) that the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions (or a private individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers); (b) that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (c) that his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions. Here, the following elements were sufficiently alleged in the Information and established during trial with evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The presence of the first element is undisputed. At the time the complained acts were committed, Rodolfo was a public officer, being the president of PFC, a government-owned and controlled corporation. On the other hand, the second element provides the different modes by which the crime may be committed, that is, through "manifest partiality,""evident bad faith," or "gross inexcusable negligence." The proof of any of these three elements in connection with the prohibited acts mentioned in Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019 is enough to convict. 18 Partiality is synonymous with bias which excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud. Gross negligence is characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. 19
The Sandiganbayan ruled that Rodolfo showed manifest partiality and evident bad faith when he allowed his brother, Orlando, to apply for a leasehold right under Resolution No. 15, and granted a notice of award in his favor, despite his disqualification and non-compliance with the prescribed pre-qualification and auction processes. The Sandiganbayan explained that Orlando is a confidential assistant covered by a contract of service which does not create an employment relationship with PFC. As such, Orlando is not qualified to apply in the program because it is open only to officials, staff and personnel.
Notably, Resolution No. 15, Series of 2007, authorized the allocation and award of tenurial rights in favor of PFC's officials, staff and personnel. The Resolution explicitly provides: "RESOLVEDFINALLY, that the 200 hectares may, likewise, be allocated andawarded through the issuance of tenurial rights and/or Lupang Hinirang Certificates to its officials, staff and personnel for its development through the same auction process."20 Contrary to the ruling of the Sandiganbayan, the resolution does not require the existence of an employer-employee relationship to qualify for application. The language of the resolution is inclusive and does not distinguish as to the nature or status of employment of applicants. Consequently, no distinction should be applied when, apparently, none is intended. As a confidential assistant in the office of PFC president, Orlando, is thus, considered a member of the staff who can apply for a leasehold right. Nevertheless, while Resolution No. 15 grants a special privilege in favor of the officials, staff and personnel of PFC, it does not dispense with the requirement of application and auction. Verily, the burden to show compliance with the requirements for a valid application belongs to Orlando. Absent affirmative proof of compliance, it is deemed that there was no compliance at all, and the application should not have been accepted and processed. In this case, Orlando's testimony revealed that he submitted an application form without the complete required attachments. Thus, Rodolfo acted with manifest partiality when he allowed Orlando's application to be processed and signed a notice of award in his favor, to wit:
Q: Mr. Witness, did you personally submit your application form?
xxx xxx xxx
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And did you keep a copy of your application, the receiving copy of the said application form?
A: Yes, sir, but unfortunately, I live in Marikina, so all my copies were destroyed by the "habagat."
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And what was the attachments of your application form, Mr. Witness?
A: My birth certificate x x x.
Q: What else, Mr. Witness? Would that be the only attachment to that application form?
A: Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And, so, you did not attach any cedula or any police clearance or Brgy. clearance to your application form because you said you only attached a birth certificate?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you would agree that during your term as an employee of the Philippine Forest Corporation, you were given a notice of award . . .
A: Yes, sir. 21 (Emphases supplied.) acEHCD
As to the third element, there are two modes that a public officer violates Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019. These are: (a) by causing undue injury to any party including the Government; or (b) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference. The accused may be charged under either mode or both. The disjunctive term "or" connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019. In other words, the presence of one would suffice for conviction. 22 Further, the term "undue injury" in the context of Section 3 (e) of the RA No. 3019, punishing the act of "causing undue injury to any party," has a meaning akin to that civil law concept of "actual damage."23 On the other hand, the word "unwarranted" means lacking adequate or official support; unjustified; unauthorized or without justification or adequate reason. "Advantage" means a more favorable or improved position or condition; benefit, profit or gain of any kind; benefit from some course of action. "Preference" signifies priority or higher evaluation or desirability; choice or estimation above another. 24
Here, the prosecution failed to show that the government, or any party suffered undue injury by reason of the issuance of a notice of award to Orlando. Nonetheless, Rodolfo's issuance of a notice of award of leasehold rights in Orlando's favor, despite non-compliance with the application and auction requirements, smacks of unwarranted and unjustified preference. In establishing preference, it is not necessary to show that Orlando was preferred or chosen over a specific individual. The fact that Orlando was granted a notice of award, even if he did not go through the required procedure, is sufficient to establish that there was preference in his favor. We are not persuaded by Rodolfo's insistence that he did not give unwarranted benefit to Orlando since no lease agreement and tenurial instrument were executed in his favor and that, if at all, the issuance of a notice of award in Orlando's favor merely gave him a "preferential right" which was merely an inchoate right. While the issuance of the EPIL transfers the leasehold rights in favor of an applicant or awardee, it is merely a formality, or confirmation of the vested right previously acquired by the applicant or awardee, through the issuance of a notice of award in his favor. No less than Rodolfo himself stated in his testimony that the grant of a notice of award is followed by the execution and issuance of the EPIL and the Lupang Hinirang Certificate which will consummate the award of the leasehold rights. 25 The prosecution witness Erwin Krishna N. Santos confirmed this in his testimony as follows:
Q: And the purpose of the EPIL Agreement is actually to transfer the leasehold rights. Am I correct?
A: Yes, Sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Until an EPIL Agreement is signed between Philforest and a private individual, there is as yet no actual transfer of leasehold right. Correct?
xxx xxx xxx
A: Sir, it's a formalization. The contract, basically, is a formalization.
Q: In fact, there is also a requirement of a Lupang Hinirang Certificate, correct?
xxx xxx xxx
A: x x x We can actually do away with the certificate.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Then, after the award, what happens next?
A: With the award, Sir, we'll have to break it down, Sir. There is a notice of award. x x x . . .
Q: The notice simply notifies the awardee that they're being awarded certain leasehold, am I correct, because that is only one of the steps in the process?
A: The notice of award, Sir, more or less, gives you the vested right over the area.26
A vested right is one whose existence, effectivity and extent do not depend upon events foreign to the will of the holder, or to the exercise of which no obstacle exists, and which is immediate and perfect in itself and not dependent upon a contingency. To be vested, a right must have become a title — legal or equitable — to the present or future enjoyment of property. 27 The issuance of the notice of award, which is a precursor to the issuance of the EPIL Agreement and the EPIL Certificate, created a vested right in favor of Orlando. Thus, the notice of award constitutes a benefit in itself because it is the basis for the eventual award of the leasehold right.
The Court likewise agrees with the Sandiganbayan that petitioners conspired with each other, so that the lease of idle public land would be awarded to Orlando. Thus, the Court in Dr. Posadas v. Sandiganbayan, 28 held that: SDHTEC
Conspiracy is proved by evidence of actual cooperation; of acts indicative of an agreement, a common purpose or design, a concerted action or concurrence of sentiments to commit the felony and actually pursue it. For the accused to be held as conspirators, it is not necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an illegal objective is to be carried out. Therefore, if it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, then a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among them to concert means is proved. 29
In this case, Rodolfo's acts were indispensable in effecting the grant of notice of award to Orlando. As president of the PFC, Rodolfo was authorized to sign all documents, agreements, and contracts relating to the award of leasehold rights. Thus, without Rodolfo's approval, Orlando would not have been included in the list of bidders and issued a notice of award. On the other hand, the issuance of the notice of award would not have been consummated without Orlando's consent and acceptance, as evidenced by his signature in the conforme portion of the notice. Thus, taking together the actions of Rodolfo and Orlando, the element of conspiracy is established.
Lastly, the petitioners' constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them was not violated, despite the alleged variance between the award of leasehold rights, as charged in the Information, and the notice of award, as proven by the prosecution. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rules) requires that the Information state the designation of the offense given by the statute and the acts or omissions imputed which constitute the offense charged. Additionally, it requires that these acts or omissions and their attendant circumstances "be stated in ordinary and concise language" and in such form as is "sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying n and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment."30 "The test of the information's sufficiency is whether the crime is described in intelligible terms and with such particularity with reasonable certainty so that the accused is duly informed of the offense charged. In particular, whether an information validly charges an offense depends on whether the material facts alleged in the complaint or information shall establish the essential elements of the offense charged as defined in the law. The raison d'etre of the requirement in the Rules is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense." 31
Here, the Information against Rodolfo is valid as it sufficiently alleges the essential elements of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019. The Information specifically alleged that Rodolfo, being the president of PFC, while in the performance of his official function, and in conspiracy with Orlando, through evident bad faith and/or manifest partiality, awarded the leasehold right to Orlando, despite knowledge that he did not undergo the prescribed application process, thereby giving him unwarranted benefit, preference and advantage. At any rate, the petitioners were able to intelligently defend themselves during trial. The petitioners even pleaded not guilty to the charges, thereby acquiescing to the validity of the Information. In any case, the supposed variance between the award of leasehold right and the notice of award did not materially impair petitioners' right to prepare for their defense. As discussed above, a notice of award reasonably equates to the award itself, since the former is the basis for the issuance of the latter.
Under Section 9 of RA No. 3019, the penalty for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 is imprisonment for not less than six (6) years and one 1 month nor more than fifteen (15) years, and perpetual disqualification from public office. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, if the offense is punished by a special law, the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence must not exceed the maximum penalty fixed by law, and the minimum term should not be less than the minimum penalty prescribed by law. The Sandiganbayan aptly imposed the maximum term of ten (10) years and one (1) day. However, the Sandiganbayan erred in fixing the minimum term at six (6) years which is below the range of the prescribed penalty. Hence, the Court finds it proper to modify the minimum term to six (6) years and one (1) month. Lastly, the Sandiganbayan correctly meted the penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office.
FOR THESE REASONS, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Sandiganbayan Joint Decision dated August 23, 2016 in SB-12-CRM-0206 and SB-12-CRM-0207 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellants Rodolfo Noel I. Lozada, Jr. and Jose Orlando I. Lozada are declared guilty under Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and are sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day, as maximum. AScHCD
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Approved on August 17, 1960.
2.Rollo, pp. 3-41.
3.Id. at 46-72. Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine Faith A. Econg, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Jose R. Hernandez (Chairperson), and Alex L. Quiroz.
4.Id. at 161-162.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 48.
7.Id. at 50-51.
8.Id. at 51-52.
9.Id. at 53-54.
10.Id. at 54-56.
11.Id. at 112.
12.Supra note 3.
13.Id. at 58-65.
14.Id. at 66-71.
15.Id. at 101-108.
16.Id. at 3-41.
17.Id. at 316-333.
18. See Valencerina v. People, 749 Phil. 886, 890-891 (2014).
19.Id. at 907.
20.Rollo, p. 52.
21.Id. at 263-264.
22.Coloma, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 744 Phil. 214, 231-232 (2014).
23.Id.
24.Cabrera v. People, G.R. Nos. 191611-14, July 29, 2019.
25.Rollo, p. 57.
26.Id. at 209-210.
27.Quiao v. Quiao, 690 Phil. 220, 239 (2012).
28. 714 Phil. 248 (2013).
29.Id. at 289.
30. Rule 110, Section 9.
31.Miguel v. Sandiganbayan, 690 Phil. 147, 156 (2012).
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "qualifiying" in the official document.
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "Sepecifically" in the official document.