Mondejar v. People

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 219692. December 2, 2015.]

RENE MONDEJAR, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 2, 2015 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 219692 — RENE MONDEJAR, petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing Sandiganbayan's Decision 1 dated 7 November 2013, finding Mayor Rene Mondejar (Mayor Mondejar) of Maasin, Iloilo guilty of violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act (R.A.) 3019 2 otherwise known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Falsification of a Public Document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). 3

As alleged by the prosecution, Mayor Mondejar, together with his co-accused public officials Arnaldo Partisala, 4 Francisco Tolentino, Ildefonso Espejo, Margarita Gumapas, Manuel Piolo and Roberto Velasco, took advantage of their positions and conspired with one another to falsify the minutes of the meeting of the Sangguniang Bayan dated 21 June 1996 and fabricated municipal resolution to make it appear that Resolution Nos. 30-A and 30-B were passed to authorize Mayor Mondejar to exercise his emergency powers and enter in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with International Builders Corporation (IBC) through its President Helen L. Tan (Tan) for the rechanneling (Resolution No. 30-A) of Tigum River in Barangay Naslo, Maasin, Iloilo to prevent further damage during the typhoon season. The falsification was resorted into to justify the massive quarrying of IBC, in the guise of rechanneling of river, thereby, giving unwarranted benefits to IBC at the expense of the undue injury sustained by the municipality.

On the other hand, Mayor Mondejar denied any conspiracy to commit falsification of the Sangguniang Bayan Resolution as he was not a member of the Sanggunian and did not participate in the session and preparation of the minutes. On the same note, he also denied any form of benefits given to IBC because the latter was not handpicked by him but by barangay officials of Barangay Naslo.

Due to the circumstances tainting the legality of the MOA, Mayor Mondejar, together with other public officials of Maasin, Iloilo were charged by the office of the Ombudsman for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code on Falsification of Public Document.

On 7 November 2013, the Sandiganbayan found the accused public officers guilty and sentenced them to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum and to suffer perpetual disqualification from public service for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 and to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six months and one day of prision correccional as minimum to eight years (8) and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum and to pay a fine of P5,000.00 and to suffer perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage for violation of Article 171 of the RPC. In a Resolution 5 dated 30 June 2015, the motion for reconsideration was denied by the Sandiganbayan.

Before this Court, petitioner Mayor Mondejar argues that the Sandiganbayan committed an error in convicting him since there was no evidence that he falsified the fraudulent minutes of the meeting and gave unwarranted benefits to IBC when he and the latter entered into a MOA allowing the rechanneling of the river.

We find that the elements of Section 3 (e) 6 and falsification of the minutes of the meeting and resolution are present in this case to convict the charged officials.

As to the charge of falsification:

It is evident from the testimony of the witnesses particularly that of Jose S. Navarra, a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Maasin, Iloilo that the contested resolutions, Resolution Nos. 30-A and 30-B, were never passed nor deliberated upon on the session day of 21 June 1996. He testified that when he and his fellow Sangguniang Bayan members attended the said session, only two resolutions were tackled, Resolution No. 30 pertaining to approval of Resolution No. 10 of the Municipal Development Council and Resolution No. 31 referring to a re-alignment of budget. AScHCD

Navarra's testimony was affirmed by fellow Sangguniang Member Ernie Malaga when he confirmed through his personal copy of the real minutes of the meeting dated 21 June 1996 that the matter of rechanneling of the Tigum River was not taken upon during that session.

For this reason, Malaga, Navarra together with the two other members of the Sangguniang Bayan Dr. Vicente Albecete and Elisa Torjillo refused to sign the falsified minutes prepared by the Sangguniang Bayan Secretary Francisco Tolentino after 21 June 1996 to legitimize the MOA entered into by Mayor Mondejar. All the other accused officials signed the same despite knowledge that the Sangguniang Bayan did not discuss the rechanneling nor give any authority to Mayor Mondejar to exercise emergency powers.

Clearly, from the totality of evidence, it can inferred from the acts of the accused officials that there was a conspiracy to falsify the minutes of the meeting by making it appear that there was two resolutions justifying the contract entered into by Mayor Mondejar with IBC.

As to the graft charge, we find all the elements present to convict mayor.

First, Mayor Mondejar is a public officer who discharged his official function.

Second, Mayor Mondejar acted with manifest partiality and evident bad faith in the discharge of his function. In Ambil, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan7 we defined partiality and bias as follows:

"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." 8

In this case, manifest partiality and evident bad faith were evident on the part of Mayor Mondejar when despite his lack of authority and knowledge of the spurious character of the Resolutions, he entered into a MOA with Tan of IBC to rechannel the Tigum River. In concurrence with the Sandiganbayan, the minutes and resolutions were falsified in order to serve as a cover-up of the lack of authority of Mayor Mondejar to exercise his emergency powers.

Lastly, from the foregoing transaction, it is apparent that Mayor Mondejar, in the discharge of his official functions gave unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference to Tan and her company IBC. The MOA entered into not only allowed IBC to rechannel the river, it even authorized the company to extract sand and gravel without the necessary permit as a form of payment for the service performed. More so, the MOA neither provide for any limitation for the allowable volume to be extracted nor any requirement on regulation/supervision of municipality on IBC. Putting it differently, Mayor Mondejar gave IBC absolute control of the conduct of the quarrying of river in the guise of rechanneling without any permit as required by the provincial government.

Final note, the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 is imprisonment for six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum and perpetual disqualification from public.

Under Section 9 of R.A. 3019, the penalty provided for violation of Section 3 (e) is punishable with imprisonment for not less than six (6) years and one (1) month to not more than fifteen (15) years and perpetual disqualification from public office and confiscation and forfeiture in favor of the Government of any prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income. Under Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW) or Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225, if the offense is punished by a special law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. 9

Thus, in this case, the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan upon Mayor Mondejar of imprisonment for six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum and perpetual disqualification from public office is in accord with law.

On the other hand, the penalty imposed by Sandiganbayan for falsification is imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years and one day of prision mayor as maximum and payment of a fine of P5,000.00 and perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage.

Article 171 of RPC penalizes falsification by a public officer of single divisible penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000.00. In the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the imposable penalty will be in the medium period or imprisonment for eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years, pursuant to Article 64 of the RPC. 10 Applying further the ISLAW, the maximum penalty imposable would be the medium period of prision mayor or eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years while the minimum penalty will be one degree lower which is the medium period of prision correccional which ranges from two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months. 11

Thus, we modify the imposed penalty of Sandiganbayan from six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years and one day of prision mayor as maximum to imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years as maximum penalty. AcICHD

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision and the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Cases No. 25674 and No. 25675 dated 7 November 2013 and 30 June 2015, respectively, are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. For violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, petitioner Mayor Rene Mondejar is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum and perpetual disqualification from public office. However, the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan for violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code is amended to the following modifications that Mayor Mondejar is to suffer an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years as maximum penalty, fine of P5,000.00 and perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo with Associate Justices Roland B. Jurado and Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang concurring; rollo, pp. 71-113.

2. Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

3. Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister.

The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000.00 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:

1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;

2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate;

3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them;

4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;

5. Altering true dates;

6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;

7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or

8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offense enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons.

4. Remains at large.

5. Rollo, pp. 154-159.

6. The accused is a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;

That he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and

That his action has caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions.

7. Ambil, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, et al., 669 Phil. 32 (2011).

8. Id. at 48, citing Sison v. People, 628 Phil. 573, 583 (2010).

9. Supra note 5, at 58.

10. Goma, et al. v. Court of Appeals, 596 Phil. 1, 13 (2009).

11. Id.