Mejorada vs. Sandiganbayan

Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 applies to any public officer, not only to officers charged with granting licenses, permits, or other concessions, and is violated when the officer, through evident bad faith, causes undue injury to the Government or private parties in the discharge of official functions. The three-fold rule in Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code governs the service, not the imposition, of penalties, so a court may impose as many penalties as there are separate offenses.

Petitioner Arturo A. Mejorada was employed as a right-of-way agent in the Office of the Highway District Engineer, Pasig, Metro Manila, from February 1974 up to December 31, 1978, with the main duty of negotiating with property owners affected by highway constructions or improvements for compensation. The government undertook the widening of the proposed Pasig-Sta. Cruz-Calamba Road, 2nd IBRD Project, at Binangonan, Rizal, which affected lots and improvements of several residents. Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 declares unlawful the causing of undue injury to any party, including the Government, or the giving of unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of official functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The Sandiganbayan, created under Presidential Decree No. 1606, sits in three divisions of three justices each.

Arturo A. Mejorada was a public officer first employed as a temporary skilled laborer in the Bureau of Public Works on March 16, 1947, and later as right-of-way agent in the Office of the Highway District Engineer, Pasig, Metro Manila, from February 1974 up to December 31, 1978. As right-of-way agent, his main duty was to negotiate with property owners affected by highway constructions or improvements for the purpose of compensating them for damages. Among those whose lots and improvements were affected by the widening of the proposed Pasig-Sta. Cruz-Calamba Road, 2nd IBRD Project, at Binangonan, Rizal were Isagani de Leon, Isaac Carlos, Napoleon Maybituin, Dominga Villaroza, Florentino de la Cruz, Cipriano Aran, Celestina S. Mallari, and Rodolfo Rivera, all residents of Mambog, Binangonan, Rizal.

Sometime in October or November 1977, Mejorada contacted the claimants and informed them that he could work out their claims for payment of the values of their lots and/or improvements affected by the widening of the highway. He required them to sign blank copies of the "Sworn Statement on the Correct and Fair Market Value of Real Properties" and "Agreement to Demolish, Remove and Reconstruct Improvements" pertinent to their claims. The claimants complied without bothering to find out what the documents were about because they were only interested in payment of damages. In those documents, the value of the respective properties was made to appear much higher than the actual value claimed by the owners; the "Agreements to Demolish" reflected the value of the improvements "as per assessor" which, on average, was only P2,000.00 lower than the value declared by the owners in their sworn statements. The assessor's value was supported by Declarations of Real Property in the names of the claimants containing an assessed value exactly the same as that stated in the Agreements to Demolish "as per assessor," except for the claims of De la Cruz and Aran, where the difference was P400.00 and P200.00, respectively. The Declarations of Property, however, were not really intended for the claimants because they were registered in the names of other persons, thus showing that they were all falsified.

A few months after processing the claims, Mejorada accompanied the claimants to the Office of the Highway District Engineer at the provincial capitol of Pasig, Metro Manila, to receive payments, and personally assisted them in signing the vouchers and encashing the checks by certifying as to their identities and guaranteeing payment. Right after the claimants had received the proceeds of their checks, Mejorada accompanied them to his car parked nearby, where they were divested of the amounts paid to them, leaving only P1,000.00 to each, except Isaac Carlos, to whom P5,000.00 was left. He explained that there were many who would share in the amounts. All the claimants were helpless to complain because they were afraid of Mejorada and his armed companion.

The claimants, through counsel, filed complaints with the Provincial Fiscal's Office of Pasig, Metro Manila, narrating in their supporting sworn statements what they later testified to in court. The Provincial Fiscal filed eight informations against Mejorada and two John Does, and the cases were jointly tried before the Sandiganbayan. The information in Criminal Case No. 002 alleged that the offense was committed on or about and during the period from October 1977 to February 1978 in Pasig, Metro Manila; that Mejorada, conspiring with two John Does, with evident bad faith and for personal gain, directly intervened, worked for, and facilitated the approval of Isagani de Leon's claim for payment in the removal and reconstruction of his house and part of his land expropriated by the government; and that PNB Check No. SN 5625748 was issued and encashed in the amount of P7,200.00, with only P1,000.00 given to de Leon and P6,200.00 appropriated, applied, and converted to the accused. Except for the date of the commission of the offense, the name of the aggrieved private party, the PNB Check number, the amount involved, and the number of John Does, the seven other informations were verbatim repetitions of the above.

The Sandiganbayan found that Mejorada took advantage of his position as right-of-way agent by making the claimants sign the agreements to demolish and sworn statements containing falsified declarations of the value of their improvements and lots; that he inflated the true claims, which became the basis of the report submitted by the Highway District Engineer and eventually of payment; and that the Government and the claimants suffered undue injury, the latter having been deprived of the just compensation to which they were entitled.

• Defective Informations / Elements of Section 3(e): Petitioner contended that the eight informations filed against him before the Sandiganbayan were fatally defective for failing to allege the essential ingredients or elements constituting the offense penalized by Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. He argued that the accused must be a public officer charged with the duty of granting licenses, permits, or other concessions, and that because he was not so charged, he was not covered by the provision.
• Absence of Injury to Government: Petitioner denied that there was injury or damage caused to the Government, claiming that the payments were made on the basis of a document solely made by the Highway District Engineer, to which he had no hand in preparing.
• Official Functions: Petitioner argued that for the third element to be present, the alleged injury or damage to the complainants and the Government must have been caused by the public officer in the discharge of his official, administrative, or judicial functions, and that when the damage was caused to the complainants, he was no longer discharging his official administrative functions.
• Variance / Robbery: Petitioner averred that he could not be convicted for a violation of the Anti-Graft Law because the evidence adduced by the prosecution did not establish a violation of Section 3(e) but the crime of robbery, creating a variance between the offense charged in the information and the offense proved.
• Sandiganbayan Competency: Petitioner assailed the competency of the Sandiganbayan to hear and decide the case, arguing that before the Sandiganbayan could legally function as a judicial body, at least two divisions, or a majority of the justices, must have been duly constituted and appointed.
• Excessive Penalty / Three-Fold Rule: Petitioner impugned the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan, which totaled fifty-six (56) years and eight (8) days of imprisonment, as contrary to the three-fold rule under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, insisting that the duration of the aggregate penalties should not exceed forty (40) years.
• Question of Law: Petitioner raised whether the conclusion drawn from the record of the Sandiganbayan in arriving at a verdict of conviction is correct is a question of law that the Supreme Court is authorized to pass upon.

• Scope of Section 3(e): Respondent, through the Solicitor General, maintained that the last sentence of paragraph (e) of Section 3 is intended to make clear the inclusion of officers and employees of offices or government corporations which, under the ordinary concept of "public officers," may not come within the term, and not to limit the provision exclusively to public officers charged with the duty of granting licenses, permits, or other concessions.

• Elements of Section 3(e): Whether the essential elements constituting the offense penalized by Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 have been clearly and convincingly proven by the prosecution.
• Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction and Composition: Whether the Sandiganbayan is a court of competent jurisdiction duly constituted in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 1606.
• Penalty and Three-Fold Rule: Whether the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is excessive and contrary to the three-fold rule as provided for by Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Variance: Whether there is a variance between the offense charged in the information and the offense proved.
• Question of Law: Whether the conclusion drawn from the record of the Sandiganbayan in arriving at a verdict of conviction is correct is a question of law that the Supreme Court is authorized to pass upon.

• Elements of Section 3(e): Yes. The elements were sufficiently alleged and proven: petitioner was a public officer, he caused undue injury to the Government and the claimants, and he acted through evident bad faith in the discharge of his official functions. Section 3(e) is not limited to officers charged with granting licenses, permits, or other concessions.
• Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction and Composition: Yes. A duly constituted division of three justices is a judicial body whose pronouncements are binding as judgments of the Sandiganbayan; the First Division unanimously convicted petitioner as required by Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1606.
• Penalty and Three-Fold Rule: No. Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code governs the service, not the imposition, of penalties; the Sandiganbayan did not err in imposing eight penalties for the eight informations.
• Variance: No. The prosecution established a violation of Section 3(e), and the manner by which petitioner divested the claimants of their compensation was part of the same scheme; there was no variance between the offense charged and the offense proved.
• Question of Law: Not reached. The Court deemed it unnecessary to pass upon this issue in view of its discussion of the other issues.

• Elements of Section 3(e): Section 3(e) provides that causing undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence constitutes a corrupt practice. The first element is that the accused must be a public officer; the informations alleged this. The last sentence of paragraph (e) includes officers and employees of offices or government corporations, but it is a strained construction to read the provision as applying exclusively to public officers charged with granting licenses, permits, or other concessions. The second element is causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefits. The Government suffered undue injury because petitioner inflated the true claims of the complainants, which became the basis of the report submitted by the Highway District Engineer to the Regional Director of the Department of Highways and eventually of payment; his claim of no participation is belied by his duty as right-of-way agent to negotiate with affected property owners. The complainants suffered injury because they were divested of a large proportion of their claims and received payment lower than the actual damage they incurred, depriving them of the just compensation to which they were entitled. The third element is that the injury or benefit was caused through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. Petitioner took advantage of his position as right-of-way agent by making the claimants sign agreements to demolish and sworn statements containing falsified declarations of the value of their improvements and lots; there was evident bad faith when he inflated the values of the true claims and divested the claimants of a large share of the amounts due them. All elements were therefore present.
• Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction and Composition: The Court had previously ruled on the same matter in De Guzman vs. People. Although the Sandiganbayan is composed of a Presiding Justice and eight Associate Justices, it does not mean that it cannot validly function without all of the divisions constituted. Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1606 provides that the Sandiganbayan shall sit in three divisions of three justices each, while Section 5 thereof provides that the unanimous vote of three justices of a division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a judgment. Each division functions independently of the others. As long as a division has been duly constituted, it is a judicial body whose pronouncements are binding as judgments of the Sandiganbayan. The judgment convicting petitioner was a unanimous decision of the First Division duly constituted, thus meeting the requirement for the pronouncement of a judgment under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1606.
• Penalty and Three-Fold Rule: Petitioner was mistaken in his application of the three-fold rule under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code. This article is taken into account not in the imposition of the penalty but in connection with the service of the sentence imposed, as held in People vs. Escares. Article 70 speaks of "service" of sentence, "duration" of penalty, and penalty "to be inflicted"; nowhere does it mention the "imposition of penalty." It merely provides that the prisoner cannot be made to serve more than three times the most severe of the penalties, the maximum of which is forty years. The Sandiganbayan therefore did not commit any error in imposing eight penalties for the eight informations filed against petitioner. As pointed out in People vs. Peralta, even without the authority provided by Article 70, courts can still impose as many penalties as there are separate and distinct offenses committed, since for every individual crime committed, a corresponding penalty is prescribed by law. In light of these reasons, petitioner could not assail the penalty imposed upon him as harsh, cruel, and unusual, as held in Veniegas vs. People.
• Variance: The Court found no variance between the offense charged in the information and the offense proved. The prosecution was able to establish through the corroborating testimonies of the witnesses how, through evident bad faith, petitioner caused damage to the claimants and the Government. The manner by which petitioner divested the private parties of the compensation they received was part of the scheme which commenced when petitioner approached the claimants and informed them that he could work out their claims for payment of the values of their lots and/or improvements affected by the widening of the Pasig-Sta. Cruz-Calamba Road. The evidence presented by the prosecution clearly established a violation of Section 3(e).
• Question of Law: The Court deemed it unnecessary to pass upon the fifth issue in view of the foregoing discussion.

• Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 — Coverage and Elements — The provision penalizes any public officer who causes undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gives any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. It applies to any public officer; the last sentence includes officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with granting licenses, permits, or other concessions, but does not limit the provision to them. The elements are: (a) the accused is a public officer; (b) he caused undue injury or gave unwarranted benefits in the discharge of official functions; and (c) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. In this case, a right-of-way agent was covered, and all elements were proven.
• Three-Fold Rule under Article 70, Revised Penal Code — The rule limits the service of sentence, not the imposition of penalties. It provides that a prisoner cannot be made to serve more than three times the most severe of the penalties imposed, with a maximum of forty years. Courts may impose as many penalties as there are separate and distinct offenses. The Court applied this to uphold the Sandiganbayan's imposition of eight penalties for eight informations.
• Sandiganbayan Divisions under Presidential Decree No. 1606 — The Sandiganbayan sits in three divisions of three justices each, and each division functions independently. A duly constituted division is a judicial body whose pronouncements are binding as judgments of the Sandiganbayan. The unanimous vote of three justices of a division is necessary for the pronouncement of judgment. The First Division's unanimous conviction of petitioner was valid.
• No Variance between Information and Proof — A conviction is not invalid where the evidence establishes the offense charged rather than a different crime. In this case, the prosecution proved violation of Section 3(e), and the acts of divesting the claimants of their compensation were part of the same scheme, not a separate crime of robbery.

• "It is a strained construction of the provision to read it as applying exclusively to public officers charged with the duty of granting licenses or permits or other concessions." — This interprets Section 3(e) as covering any public officer and rejects petitioner's restrictive reading of the provision.
• "As long as a division has been duly constituted it is a judicial body whose pronouncements are binding as judgments of the Sandiganbayan." — This states the rule upholding the Sandiganbayan's competence despite the absence of all divisions.
• "Article 70 speaks of "service" of sentence, "duration" of penalty and penalty "to be inflicted". Nowhere in the article is anything mentioned about the "imposition of penalty"." — This distinguishes service from imposition and supports the validity of the eight penalties imposed.
• "The Sandiganbayan, therefore, did not commit any error in imposing eight penalties for the eight informations filed against the accused-petitioner." — This is the conclusion on the penalty issue, rejecting petitioner's three-fold rule argument.

• De Guzman vs. People, G.R. No. 54288, December 15, 1982, 119 SCRA 337 — Controlling precedent on the Sandiganbayan's authority; the Court followed it in rejecting petitioner's challenge to the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction and composition.
• People vs. Escares, 102 Phil. 677 [1957] — Cited for the rule that Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code is considered in connection with the service of sentence, not the imposition of the penalty.
• People vs. Peralta, No. L-19069, October 29, 1968, 25 SCRA 759, 783-784 — Cited to support the imposition of as many penalties as there are separate and distinct offenses.
• Veniegas vs. People, G.R. No. 57601-06, July 20, 1982, 115 SCRA 790, 792 — Cited in rejecting petitioner's claim that the penalty was harsh, cruel, and unusual.

• Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019 — Defines the corrupt practice of causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. Applied to convict petitioner; the Court held it covers any public officer and that all elements were alleged and proven.
• Article 70, Revised Penal Code — Provides the three-fold rule on service of sentence. Applied to hold that the Sandiganbayan could impose eight separate penalties and that the aggregate service limit does not bar imposition.
• Section 3, Presidential Decree No. 1606 — Provides that the Sandiganbayan shall sit in three divisions of three justices each. Applied to uphold the competence of a duly constituted division.
• Section 5, Presidential Decree No. 1606 — Requires the unanimous vote of three justices of a division for the pronouncement of judgment. Applied to validate the First Division's unanimous conviction.

Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, and Sarmiento, JJ.