People v. Uy

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 248566. August 4, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. NESTOR MALASIG UY, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 04 August 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 248566 (People of the Philippines v. Nestor Malasig Uy). — Accused-appellant Nestor Malasig Uy (accused-appellant/Uy) appeals 1 the May 17, 2019 Decision 2 and the July 11, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Sandiganbayan which found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Usurpation of Official Functions under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

The Antecedents:

In 2013, Uy and Fernando Cumigad (Cumigad) emerged as winners in the election for Mayor and Vice Mayor of Gamu, Isabela, respectively. As Vice Mayor and concurrently the Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Bayan, Cumigad appointed four contractual legislative staff namely Dante Martinez (Dante), Jasmin Rose Martinez (Jasmin), Silverio Balagan (Silverio), and Michael Balagan (Michael). 4 Their appointment papers were prepared by Municipal Human Resource Management Officer Gloriza Preza (Preza), and were forwarded to Municipal Accountant Eduard Ferrer (Ferrer) for the inclusion of said appointees in the payroll of the municipality. 5

Dante, Jasmin, Silverio, and Michael immediately reported for work on the same day that Cumigad assumed office on July 1, 2013. However, said appointees did not receive their salaries starting July 2013 despite their prompt submission of Daily Time Records (DTRs) and Accomplishment Reports. 6 Cumigad eventually discovered that the four hirees were not included in the payroll of the municipality. Thus, Cumigad immediately asked Preza and Ferrer for clarification and was informed that the appointment papers have already been endorsed to the office of Uy for appropriate action. With no action forthcoming, Cumigad wrote two letters dated August 5, 2013 and August 20, 2013 informing Preza and Ferrer that Uy's approval of said appointments is not necessary because the authority to appoint sanggunian personnel is vested on him (Cumigad) pursuant to Republic Act No. 7160 (RA 7160) or the Local Government Code 7 and that the wages of the job order appointees are chargeable against the funds of the sanggunian.

In their reply-letters, 8 Preza and Ferrer mentioned that Cumigad's concern was already endorsed to the Office of the Mayor for appropriate action. Subsequently, Cumigad invited Preza and Ferrer to his office to discuss the matter. 9 Finding his actions futile, Cumigad wrote another letter 10 manifesting that he will pursue legal recourse if they will take no action. In hindsight, the appointment papers and salaries of Dante, Jasmin, Silverio and Michael were only processed and paid sometime in 2015 when Uy was suspended as Mayor, and Cumigad became the Acting Mayor of the municipality. 11 aScITE

No action was taken on the appointments in 2013 and from the tone of Preza and Ferrer's reply-letters, Cumigad presumed that Preza and Ferrer were influenced by Uy. 12 As a result, Cumigad filed a Sworn Complaint 13 dated September 13, 2013 against Uy for violation of Section 3 (a) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) and Abuse of Authority. In his Counter-Affidavit, 14 Uy asserted that he is the proper appointing authority for the appointees of Cumigad as their salaries were to be paid from the municipal funds following Section 444 (v) of RA 7160, and even granting that Cumigad had the authority to do so, said appointments were not compliant with the civil service rules and procedures. 15

The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon issued a Resolution 16 dated June 25, 2014 which recommended that Uy be indicted for Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions under Article 177 of the RPC and not for violation of Section 3 (a) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) and Abuse of Authority. 17 Hence, an Information 18 was filed against Uy for violation of Article 177 of the RPC, viz.:

That on or about July 2013, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Gamu, Isabela, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused NESTOR UY y MALASIG[,] a public officer, being the Mayor of Gamu, Isabela, by taking advantage of his official functions and committing the crime in relation to office, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously withhold and/or disapprove the appointment papers of the legislative staff of the Sangguniang Bayan of Gamu, Isabela, namely: Dante D. Martinez, Legislative Aide; Jasmin Rose Martinez, Clerk; Silverio Balagan, Driver; and Michael Balagan, Driver without being lawfully entitled to do so and under the pretense of official functions and/or with the use of false pretenses and knowing that the power and authority to appoint the legislative staff of the Sangguniang Bayan of Gamu, Isabela, pursuant to Section 445, paragraph (a)(2) of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code belongs to the Vice Mayor and Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Bayan of Gamu, Isabela, thereby usurping the latter's power to appoint all officers and employees of the Sangguniang Bayan of Gamu, Isabela to the damage and prejudice of the government and of public interest.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 19

In his arraignment, 20 Uy pleaded not guilty for the crime charged. Preliminary conference and pre-trial ensued which then resulted to the parties' submission of their Joint Stipulations of Fact, List of Exhibits and Witnesses. 21 During trial, the prosecution presented its witnesses namely Cumigad, Jasmin, Silverio, and Michael, and its exhibits 22 marked as "A" to "J" were formally offered and admitted in evidence with their sub-markings. 23

Uy filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence, 24 but the same was denied 25 without prejudice to his right to file a demurrer to evidence without leave of court. The defense opted to proceed to the presentation of evidence and of witnesses namely Uy, Preza, and Ferrer, and its exhibits 26 marked as "1" to "21" were formally offered and admitted in evidence with their sub-markings. On May 17, 2019, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its Decision.

Ruling of the Sandiganbayan:

In its Decision, 27 the Sandiganbayan convicted Uy of the crime of Usurpation of Official Functions, the second mode of committing the offense specified under Article 177 28 of the RPC. 29 The Sandiganbayan enumerated the elements of said felony: (1) that the accused, a public officer or private individual, performed an act pertaining to a person in authority or a public officer; (2) that the accused performed a positive or negative act under pretense of official position; and (3) that the accused was not lawfully entitled to perform said act.

The Sandiganbayan likewise held that a Vice Mayor, in his capacity as the Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Bayan, has the authority to appoint all officials and employees of the sanggunian pursuant to Section 445 (a) (2) 30 of RA 7160. This provision is strengthened by Section 164 (c) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Local Government Code of 1991 (AO 270) where it was provided that the Presiding Officer of the Sanggunian shall be responsible for human resource management and shall take all personnel actions following the civil service law. 31

However, contrary to the mandate of law and absent legal authority to do so, Uy rejected the appointments issued by Cumigad. He insisted that he has the authority to oversee the earmarked budget for the salary of contractual appointees of the sanggunian. As Uy judicially admitted, the appointments were disapproved for the non-compliance of the following: (a) certification of available appropriation; (b) posting of said appointments in at least three (3) conspicuous places in the municipality; (c) that the appointments must pass through the Personnel Selection Board of the municipality. 32

The Sandiganbayan also found that Uy, who was the Chairman of the Personnel Selection Board, failed to act on said appointments for two years, hence, effectively disapproved the same. The graft tribunal was not convinced by Uy's ratiocination that Cumigad's contractual appointments were for legal consultants which are no longer needed since their municipal counsel may serve as such. But perusing the letter, it was clear that the appointees were legislative consultants, not legal consultants. 33

The fallo of the Sandiganbayan Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Nestor Malasig Uy GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of usurpation of official functions under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code. Taking into consideration the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in view of the accused's posting of the required cash bond for his provisional liberty on April 29, 2016, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as maximum.

SO ORDERED. 34

Uy filed a Motion for Reconsideration 35 but it was denied in the July 11, 2019 Resolution 36 of the Sandiganbayan. Aggrieved, Uy filed this appeal raising the following assignment of errors and issue, to wit:

V. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

A. THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF USURPATION OF OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF A POSITIVE ACT ON HIS PART THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE SUCH A FELONY.

B. THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY CONSIDERING THAT THE TESTIMONIAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND OFFERED BY THE PROSECUTION ARE GROSSLY INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT COMMITTED THE ALLEGED CRIME OF USURPATION OF OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS.

C. THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE ACTS ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION DATED DECEMBER 2, 2015 AS PURPORTEDLY CONSTITUTING THE OFFENSE CHARGED. 37

VI. ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS SUFFICIENT AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE OF USURPATION OF OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE AS CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION DATED DECEMBER 2, 2015. 38 HEITAD

Our Ruling

The appeal lacks merit.

Article 177 of the RPC embodies two modes of committing the offense, to wit:

Article 177. Usurpation of authority or official functions. — Any person who shall knowingly and falsely represent himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government or of any foreign government, or who, under pretense of official position, shall perform any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or any foreign government, or any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

The first mode pertains to usurpation of authority where a person knowingly and falsely represent himself as an officer, agent or representative of the Philippine government or any foreign government. 39 While the second mode refers to usurpation of official functions where a person, under the pretense of official function, does an act belonging to a public officer or person in authority of the Philippine government or any foreign government without being lawfully entitled to perform the same. 40

To recall, in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed in order to amount into a judgment of conviction. The prosecution has the duty to prove every element of the crime to warrant the finding of guilt. Since an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the existence of an iota of doubt in the prosecution's case and evidence tilts the scales of justice in favor of the accused's acquittal based on reasonable doubt. 41

In this instance, the focal point of controversy is whether or not the prosecution has discharged its burden and established in evidence Uy's acts which constitute the elements of Usurpation of Official Functions, the second mode of committing the offense under Article 177 of the RPC. Tiongco v. People42 enumerated the elements of the offense, viz.:

To put simply, Usurpation of Official Functions has the following elements:

1. The offender may be a private person or public officer.

2. The offender performs any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine government, any of its agencies, or of a foreign government.

3. The offender performs the act under pretense of official function.

4. The offender performs the act without being legally entitled to do so. 43

Going by the elements of the offense, We hold that the prosecution discharged its burden of proof and sufficiently established Uy's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the admitted documentary evidence and testimonies of witnesses.

First Element: Uy as Mayor of

With regard to the first element, there is no question that Uy, as the offender, is a public officer who was elected as Mayor of Gamu, Isabela in 2013. In their admitted stipulations, both parties conceded in this effect:

2. Nestor Malasig Uy is a public officer, being then the Mayor of the Municipality of Gamu, Isabela, from to (sic) 2013 to 2016, and within the time material to this case. 44

This fact no longer requires proof as it is already considered a judicial admission done through stipulation by parties in a written document pursuant to Rule 129, Section 4 45 of the Rules of Court. 46 Hence, the first element is present.

Second Element: Uy

The second element provides that the offender performs an act pertaining to another public officer or person in authority in the Philippine government or any foreign government.

In his Appellant's Brief, 47 Uy argued that a positive act is necessary in order that said crime may arise. He further averred that there was no evidence showing that he disapproved the appointments or that his inaction resulted to the disapproval thereof. He then justified his inaction by stating that the power to appoint Dante, Jasmin, Silverio and Michael was not vested in him. 48 However, as aptly pointed out by the Sandiganbayan, Uy affirmatively testified in open court and judicially admitted that the appointments of Dante, Jasmin, Silverio and Michael were not approved for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of appointment, 49 thus: ATICcS

Q [PROS. TANYAG]:

So, do you confirm, Mr. Witness, that the reason why the appointment was not approved was because it did not undergo the usual process of appointment; the posting of notices, the appointments passing through the selection board and the certification from the Chairman of the Personnel Selection Board? Do you confirm that, Mr. Witness?

A [UY]:

Yes, Ma'am, because the legislative and the executive will follow the same procedure in appointing some of our employees. They have to go under the Personnel Selection Board and other requirements that are needed. We have to uplift our standard of our services. 50

This testimony of Uy himself negates his assertions that there were insufficient evidence that he disapproved the appointments. Despite the lack of official correspondence pertaining to the disapproval or rejection of the appointments, Uy admitted in court that the appointments were not compliant with the requirements of posting of notices in at least three conspicuous places or did the appointments pass through the Personnel Selection Board of the municipality, hence, said appointments were inefficacious and not approved. Such testimony confirms that there was indeed disapproval on his part even though no document nor action was actually taken to convey the rejection. Worse, this inaction worked to the prejudice of the appointees who did not receive their salary from the municipality. This substantiates the fact that the disapproval emanated from Uy and not from Cumigad who actually had the authority to approve or reject appointments in the sangguniangbayan pursuant to Section 445 of RA 7160. Cumigad, as the Vice Mayor of Gamu, Isabela, had the following duties, to wit:

SECTION 445. Powers, Duties and Compensation. — (a) The vice-mayor shall:

(1) Be the presiding officer of the sangguniang bayan and sign all warrants drawn on the municipal treasury for all expenditures appropriated for the operation of the sangguniang bayan;

(2) Subject to civil service law, rules and regulations, appoint all officials and employees of the sangguniang bayan, except those whose manner of appointment is specifically provided in this Code;

xxx xxx xxx. 51

Clearly, Uy disapproved the appointments when such authority belongs to Cumigad as the Vice Mayor of the municipality. At this juncture, it is evident that Uy encroached upon the prerogatives and duties of another public officer in the person of Cumigad who had the power and authority to appoint sangguniangbayan officials and personnel. Therefore, the second element of the offense has been satisfied.

Third Element: Uy acted

The case of Ruzol v. Sandiganbayan52 clarified that good faith controverts usurpation of official function. Good faith, as a defense, eliminates the element of acting under the pretense of official function. Ruzol defined good faith, to wit:

The term "good faith" is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting "honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry; an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through technicalities of law, together with absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts which render transaction unconscientious." Good faith is actually a question of intention and although something internal, it can be ascertained by relying not on one's self-serving protestations of good faith but on evidence of his conduct and outward acts.53 (Citations Omitted) (Emphasis Supplied)

While Uy acknowledged having no authority to appoint sangguniang bayan personnel, and attested that such authority belongs to Cumigad as the Vice Mayor and Presiding Officer of the sanggunian, the undeniable fact remains that he Uy sat on the appointment papers transmitted to his Office for appropriate action; it remained unacted upon for years until Uy's suspension as Mayor. It was only when Cumigad became the Acting Mayor that the appointment papers were processed.

Instead of merely relying on Preza and Ferrer, who endorsed the papers to his office, Uy should have referred the documents to the proper office for action, and not unilaterally decide to reject the appointment. Uy testified that it is their practice for appointments to pass through the Personnel Selection Board prior to approval. Despite this knowledge of the procedure, Uy's passivity not only cancelled his honest intention to veer away from the appointments made by Cumigad, but also caused prejudice to the appointees who were not included in the municipality's payroll. Hence, even if Uy's actuations may appear indirect and subtle, the disapproval was made under the pretense of official function.

Fourth Element: Uy was notsangguniang bayan.

Under Section 445 of RA 7160, Uy, who was then the Mayor, had no authority to appoint officials and personnel in the sangguniang bayan for the reason that this prerogative belongs to the Vice Mayor and Presiding Officer of the sanggunian in the person of Cumigad. Clearly, Uy's actions went beyond his mandate and interfered with the authority of Cumigad as the Vice Mayor of Gamu, Isabela.

All told, the evidence clearly showed that Uy usurped the official function of the Vice Mayor and Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Bayan, particularly the authority to appoint sangguniang bayan personnel.

Article 177 of the RPC provides for the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods which ranges from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months. 54 Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty is within the range of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods which ranges from two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) months. 55 There being no mitigating and aggravating circumstance, the maximum penalty should be taken from the medium period of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. Hence, we modify the maximum penalty to one (1) year, eight (8) months, and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed May 17, 2019 Decision and July 11, 2019 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan are AFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATION that accused-appellant is hereby found to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Usurpation of Official Functions under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of two (2) months arid one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year, eight (8) months, and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional, as maximum. TIADCc

SO ORDERED." (J. Rosario, designated as additional Member per S.O. No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 56-57.

2.Id. at 3-55; penned by Associate Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang and concurred in by Associate Justices Bernelito R. Fernandez and Sarah Jane T. Fernandez.

3.Id. at 146-162; penned by Associate Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang and concurred in by Associate Justices Bernelito R. Fernandez and Sarah Jane T. Fernandez.

4. TSN, April 5, 2017, pp. 5-6.

5.Id. at 7.

6.Id. at 8-9.

7.Id. at 9-12.

8. Sandiganbayan rollo, p. 22.

9. TSN, April 5, 2017, pp. 12-17.

10. Sandiganbayan rollo, pp. 25-27.

11. TSN, April 5, 2017, pp. 17-25.

12.Id. at 25.

13. Sandiganbayan rollo, pp. 16-19.

14.Id. at 34-39.

15.Id. at 330-334.

16.Id. at 4-10.

17.Id. at 10.

18.Id. at 1-2.

19.Id. at 1.

20.Id. at 134.

21.Id. at 146-152.

22.Id. at 146-148 and 150-151.

23.Id. at 199-215.

24.Id. at 236-244.

25.Id. at 251-252.

26.Id. at 322-329.

27.Rollo, pp. 3-55.

28. Art. 177. Usurpation of authority or official functions. — Any person who shall knowingly and falsely represent himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government or of any foreign government, or who, under pretense of official position, shall perform any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or of any foreign government, or any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium period.

29. ACT NO. 3815, as amended by PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 38 Dated November 7, 1972.

30. SECTION 445. Powers, Duties and Compensation. — (a) The vice-mayor shall:

xxx xxx xxx

(2) Subject to civil service law, rules and regulations, appoint all officials and employees of the sangguniang bayan, except those whose manner of appointment is specifically provided in this Code.

xxx xxx xxx

31.Rollo, p. 52.

32.Id. at 48.

33.Id. at 51.

34.Id. at 54.

35. Sandiganbayan rollo, pp. 421-435.

36.Rollo, pp. 146-162.

37.Id. at 74-75.

38.Id. at 75.

39. REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 177.

40. REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 177.

41.People v. Cruz, 736 Phil. 564, 580 (2014).

42. G.R. Nos. 218709-10, November 14, 2018.

43.Tiongco v. People, G.R. Nos. 218709-10, November 14, 2018.

44. Sandiganbayan rollo, p. 150.

45. SECTION 4. Judicial Admissions. — An admission, oral or written, made by [the] party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that the imputed admission was not, in fact, made.

46. A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC. Approved October 8, 2019.

47.Rollo, pp. 66-92.

48.Id. at 75-86.

49.Id. at 48.

50. TSN, October 18, 2017, p. 24.

51. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7160 or the LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991. Approved October 10, 1991.

52. 709 Phil. 708, 752 (2013), citing People v. Hilvano, 99 Phil. 655, 657 (1956).

53.Ruzol v. Sandiganbayan, 709 Phil. 708, 752-753 (2013).

54. Minimum: 6 months and 1 day to 1 year, 8 months and 20 days.

Medium: 1 year, 8 months and 21 days to 2 years, 11 months and 10 days.

Maximum: 2 years, 11 months and 11 days to 4 years and 2 months.

55. Minimum: 2 months and 1 day to 3 months and 10 days.

Medium: 3 months and 11 days to 4 months and 20 days.

Maximum: 4 months and 21 days to 6 months.