SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251249. September 28, 2020.]
RAPHAEL GERMAR MENDEZ, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated28 September 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251249 (Raphael Germar Mendez v. People of the Philippines). — Considering the failure of respondent to file comment on the petition and the Sandiganbayan(SB) to elevate the case records of Crim. Case No. SB 19-A/R-0001, both required in the Resolution dated 15 June 2020, the Court resolves to DISPENSE WITH the filing of the comment on the petition and the elevation of case records.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the August 28, 2019 Decision 2 and the January 6, 2020 Resolution 3 of the SB in Case No. SB-19-A/R-0001 for failure of petitioner Raphael Germar Mendez (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the SB committed any reversible error in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019. 4
As correctly ruled by the SB, the prosecution was able to prove all the elements 5 of the crime charged, considering that: (a) petitioner, then a Barangay Chairman, was a public officer discharging official functions; (b) there was evident bad faith, when he collected cash advances from private complainant Celso Sebastian (Sebastian) for projects, which were yet to be approved or conceptualized by the Sangguniang Barangay, promising the latter that said projects will be awarded to him, and failing to return the cash advances despite demands; and (c) said act caused undue injury to Sebastian. Moreover, since there is no indication that the courts a quo overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds no reason to deviate from their factual findings. In this regard, it should be noted that the trial court is in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the witnesses presented by both parties. 6
SO ORDERED. (Delos Santos, J., on official leave; Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.)"
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 31-46.
2.Id. at 7-20. Penned by Associate Justice Zaldy V. Trespeses with Associate Justices Ma. Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta and Georgina D. Hidalgo, concurring.
3.Id. at 21-24.
4. Entitled "ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT," approved on August 17, 1960.
5. "[T]he elements of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 are as follows: (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." (Fuentes v. People, 808 Phil. 586, 591-592 [2017].)
6. See Cahulogan v. People, G.R. No. 225695, March 21, 2018, citing Peralta v. People, 817 Phil. 554 (2017), further citing People v. Matibag, 757 Phil. 286, 293 (2015).