Balderama v People

Balderama v People

GR No. 147578-85, 28 January 2008

Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.:

FACTS:

        Petitioners Rolando Balderama and Rolando Nagal were employed with the LTO assigned to the Field Enforcement Division, Law Enforcement Servises.  Juan Armamento, the private respondent, operates a taxi business with a fleet of 10 taxi units.

        The LTO created the Flying Squad wherein petitioner were members together with Cipriano Lubrica and Cressencio de Jesus, to look into the veracity of various complaints that taxi drivers in the NAIA would transport their passengers only on a contract basis. 

        On 14 July 1992, the team impounded a taxi owned by private respondent on the ground that its meter was defective.  However, the results of LTO Inspection Division showed the contrary, hence the release of the vehicle.

        On 2 Dec 1992, the respondent filed a complaint for bribery and violation of Sec 3(e) of RA 3019; that since 15 Feb 1992 until prior to the event, petitioners had been receiving P300 twice a month in security that his drivers will not be apprehended.

        On 5 Mar 1999, accused de Jesus died, hence the cases against him were dismissed.

Sandiganbayan:

        Rendered decision on 17 Nov 2000 convicting petitioners and Lubrica guilty of direct bribery

Petitioners:

        Filed separate motions for reconsideration. Arguing that they were not yet grouped as a team on 15 Feb 1992, hence there could be no conspiracy.  While the motion was pending, petitioners filed a petitioner for new trial base on an affidavit dated 22 Dec 2000 executed by respondent pointing to Lubrica and de Jesus as the sole culprits. 

Sandiganbayan:

        Both motions were denied by Sandiganbayan on 20 Mar 2001 arguing that direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy, as it may be shown by acts and circumstances from which may logically be inferred the existence of a common design, or may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetuated.

        A motion for new trial will not be granted if based on an affidavit of a witness where the effect is to free the appellant from participation in the commission of the crime.  the recantation made by the private complainant after the conviction is unreliable and deserves scant consideration.

ISSUE:

        W/N petitioners were guilty as proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD:

        Yes.  The Court ruled that found the elements of direct bribery and crime defined in Sec 3(e) RA 3019 present.

        Elements of direct bribery [PA-CURE]:

1. The offender is a public officer;
2. The offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another;
3. Such offer or promise be accepted or gift or present be received by the public officer with a view to:
   1. committing some crime;
   2. in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime but the act must be unjust;
   3. to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do;
4. The act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is connected with the performance of his official duties.

        Elements of crime penalized under Sec. 3(e) RA No. 3019 [PRICE]:

1. That the accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them;
2. That said public officers committed the prohibited acts during the performance of their official duties or in relation to their public positions;
3. They caused undue injury to any party, whether the Government or a private party;
4. Such injury was caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; 
5. The public officers acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.

        The Court ruled that the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are binding and conclusive except [SM – GMW - P]:

1. When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures;
2. The inference made is manifestly mistaken;
3. There is a grave abuse of discretion;
4. The judgment is based on misapprehension of facts;
5. Said findings of facts are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
6. Findings of facts are premised on the absence of evidence on the record.

        Moreover, the Court looks with disfavor upon retractions of testimonies previously given in court.  An affidavit of desistance made by a witness after conviction of the accused is not reliable, and deserves only scant attention.  This is because such affidavit can easily be secured from witnesses, usually through intimidation or for a monetary consideration.