Merencillio v People
GR No. 142369-70, 13 April 2007
Corona, J.:
FACTS:
On 13 Sept 1995, Lucit Estollore went to BIR to ask for the computation of taxes due on the sale of real property to Ramasola Superstudio, Inc. and to apply for a Certificate Authorizing Registration (CAR). She was entertained by revenue examiner Lourdes Fuentes who computed the documentary stamp tax (P37,500) and capital gains tax (P125,000) which was approved by petitioner Juanito Merencillo, a Group Supervising Examiner of the BIR. Fuentes advised Estillore that the CAR would be released after 7 days.
At around 10am of the same day, upon a call from Fuentes, Maria Angles Ramasola went to see Merencillo who demanded P20,000 in exchange for the approval of the CAR. Cesar replied that she needed to confer with her 2 business associates.
The CAR was approved by Revenue District Officer Galahad Balagon on 19 Sept 1995 and was ready for release but the releasing clerk Susan Cabangon told her that she was still waiting for the go signal to release the same. Hence, on 22 Sept, Cesar complained to Balaganon about Merencillo’s refusal to release.
Subsequently Cesar received a call from Merencillo again following up his demand. Fed up, Cesar sought the help of the Provincial Director of PNP, Sr. Supt. Dionaid Baraguer who referred the complaint to the Chief of Police of Tagbilaran City who latter coordinated for the entrapment of Merencillo. Cesar was instructed to prepare 2 bundles of bogus money by putting one P100 bill on each side of each 2 bundles.
Merencillo was entertaining the visitor when Cesar arrived. On seeing Cesar, Merencillo handed the CAR to her and was cued to follow him downstairs. Cesar handed the envelope and was asked, “why is this thick?” Before she could answer, a member of the PNP photographed them. The PNP entrapment team then introduced themselves to petitioner and invited him to go with them to their headquarters. He was charged in violation of RA 3019 and Art. 210.
Merencillo denied the charges during trial and that the allegations only existed in Cesar’s mind after she was told that there was a misclassification of the asset and additional taxes had to be paid. The RTC found petitioner guilty as charged and sentenced him to suffer 8 years and 1 month to 15 years of imprisonment.
Merencillo appealed to Sandiganbayan but was denied.
ISSUES:
W/N the Sandiganbayan erred in refusing to believe Merencillo’s evidence over that of the prosecution.
W/N Sandiganbayan erred in failing to recognize that Merencillo was placed in double jeopardy.
HELD:
No. The Court ruled that both the RTC and Sandiganbayan found the testimonies of the prosecution sufficient and credible enough to sustain conviction. Questions of fact cannot generally be raised for the consideration of this Court. The calibration of evidence and the relative weight thereof belongs to the appellate court. Its findings and conclusions cannot be set aside by this Court unless there is no evidence on record to support them. Moreover, findings and conclusions of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses enjoy the respect of appellate courts because trial courts have the distinct advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify.
The Court ruled that the inconsistencies referred only to minor details that did not detract from the truth of the prosecution’s testimonial evidence. Witnesses testifying on the same event do not have to be consistent in each and every detail. Inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity or the weight of their testimony.
Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution’s evidence as a whole or reflect on the witness’s honesty. The test is whether the testimonies agree on essential facts and whether the respective versions corroborate and substantially coincide with each other so as to make a consistent and coherent whole. Thus, inconsistencies and discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime cannot be successfully invoked as grounds for acquittal.
No, petitioner was not placed in double jeopardy. Sec 3 of RA 3019 begins with the following statement, “In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law…” One may therefore be charged with violation of RA 3019 in addition to a felony under the Revised Penal Code for the same delictual act, that is, either concurrently or subsequent to being charged with a felony under the Revised Penal Code. There is no double jeopardy if a person is charged simultaneously or successively for violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 and the Revised Penal Code.
The rule against double jeopardy prohibits twice placing a person in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. The test is whether one offense is identical with the other or is an attempt to commit it or a frustration thereof; or whether one offense necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the other. An offense charged necessarily includes that which is proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter; and an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of those constituting the latter.
The elements of crime penalized under Sec 3(b) of RA 3019 [PROMO]:
Elements of direct bribery [PA-CURE]:
