DOMINGO VS.

SANDIGANBAYAN
Not Cited Recently
Suggest Category
FIRST DIVISION G.R. NO. 149175, October 25, 2005 JAIME H. DOMINGO,
PETITIONER, VS. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENTS.

G.R. NO. 149406

DIOSDADO T. GARCIA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

AZCUNA, J.:

Petitioner Domingo, at the time the petition was filed, was serving his third term as
mayor
Petitioner Garcia, on the other hand, is the proprietor of D.T. Garcia Construction
Supply, and, incidentally, is the godson of Domingo in marriage.

The antecedents of the case are as follows:

During Domingo's incumbency in 1993 and prior to his ouster in November of the
same year, a Multi-Purpose Pavement (MPP) project was undertaken on the
eighteen barangays of the municipality for the paving and repair of the barangay
roads. The allocated budget for the project was P520,000 to be charged against the
20% Economic Development Fund (EDF). Congressman Faustino Dy, Jr. donated a
total of 3,600 bags of cement for the project to be divided equally among the
eighteen barangays.[4] The mixed gravel and sand was to be subsidized by the
municipality through its EDF, while the labor was to be provided by the constituent
barangays.

On June 7, 1994, pursuant to Resolution No. 94-40 of the Sangguniang Bayan of San
Manuel, Isabela, a special audit team was created by Commission on Audit (COA)
Regional Director Pedro M. Guiang, Jr. to examine the infrastructure and EDF
expenditures of the municipality during the incumbency of petitioner Domingo for
the period January 1 to December 31, 1993.
. The disbursement voucher for said checks, however, indicated that the claimant
for the sum of the two checks totaling P134,350 was D.T. Garcia Construction
Supply for the payment of the cost of gravel and sand delivered to the barangays.
Domingo handed said check to the municipal treasurer who later encashed it to
replenish the various cash items of the former. Apparently, Domingo would
occasionally advance the salaries of the municipal employees when the same were
not remitted to the municipality in time for payday. The municipal treasurer, in
turn, would reimburse Domingo when the funds become available.[5]

Some of these findings were:

1. There was no contract or agreement between the municipality and D.T. Garcia
Construction Supply;

2. Procurement of goods and services through public bidding was not properly
observed, in violation of Sections 356 to 365 of the Local Government Code of 1991
and Sections 430 to 436 of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual
(GAAM Vol. 1) as there was actually no public bidding undertaken;

3. Disbursement vouchers were not properly accomplished and not fully

Consequently, Domingo was charged with violation of Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019
before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon for having financial interest
in a business transaction involving the delivery of 226.5 truckloads of mixed gravel
and sand to the aforesaid barangays in San Manuel.

THE SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION) OVERLOOKED MATTERS OF SUBSTANCE WHICH

THE SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION) ERRED WHEN IT DENIED THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF PETITIONER SPECIFICALLY FAILING TO GIVE DUE WEIGHT AND
CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANCES ADDUCED IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER.
[26]

Are petitioners guilty and did they conspire to commit the offense?

Under Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019, the person liable is any public officer who directly
or indirectly has financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official
capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having
any interest.

The essential elements of the violation of said provision are as follows: 1) The
accused is a public officer; 2) he has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary
interest in any business, contract or transaction; 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 law.[28]

In other words, there are two modes by which a public officer who has a direct or
indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or transaction may
violate Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019. The first mode is when the public officer intervenes
or takes part in his official capacity in connection with his financial or pecuniary
interest in any business, contract or transaction. The second mode is when he is
prohibited from having such an interest by the Constitution or by law. [29]

Petitioner Domingo, in his official capacity as mayor of San Manuel, Isabela, violated
the aforestated provision via the first mode, that is, by intervening or taking part in
his official capacity in connection with his financial or pecuniary interest in the
transaction regarding the supply and delivery of mixed gravel and sand to the
constituent barangays. As correctly observed by the Sandiganbayan:

"After considering the testimonies of the various witnesses and the documentary
First, he was the co-drawer of the two questioned checks for which he was also the
payee. Said checks were allegedly applied as partial payment to the indebtedness
of Anicia Garcia to his wife, Consolacion Domingo;
Thus, in view of the above, petitioner Domingo is guilty of violating Section 3(h) of
the Anti-Graft Law. As earlier mentioned, what the law prohibits is the actual
intervention by a public official in a transaction in which he has a financial or
pecuniary interest,[38] for the law aims to prevent the dominant use of influence,
authority and power.[39]

Next, we address the issue of conspiracy between petitioners Domingo and Garcia.

The general rule is that the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive
upon the Supreme Court.[40] After reviewing the records of these cases, we are
convinced that the Sandiganbayan's finding is sufficiently rested on the evidence
presented by the prosecution to implicate Garcia as a conspirator for the crime
charged in the Amended Information.

Conspiracy is present when one concurs with the criminal design of another,
indicated by the performance of an overt act leading to the crime committed. [41] To
establish conspiracy, direct proof of an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and the decision to commit it is not necessary. [42] It may be inferred from the
acts of the accused before, during or after the commission of the crime which,
when taken together, would be enough to reveal a community of criminal design,
[43]
 as the proof of conspiracy is perhaps most frequently made by evidence of a
chain of circumstances.[44] Once established, all the conspirators are criminally liable
as co-principals regardless of the degree of participation of each of them, for in
contemplation of the law the act of one is the act of all.[45]

The prosecution's evidence has established the conspiracy beyond reasonable

Petitioner Garcia is, therefore, equally liable with petitioner Domingo pursuant to
Section 9(a) of R.A. No. 3019.

WHEREFORE, the Decision and Resolution of the Sandiganbayan, dated May 28,
2001 and July 23, 2001, respectively, in Criminal Case No. 23415, are
hereby AFFIRMED.