View full case

HELEN EDITH LEE TAN v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Partial Digest:

The case involves the Sandiganbayan's decision to find Helen Edith Lee Tan (Tan), President/Proprietor of International Builders Corporation (IBC), together with her co-accused, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019. The charges stemmed from the rechanneling of the Tigum River path in Barangay Naslo, Maasin, Iloilo City.

On June 16, 1996, the Sangguniang Barangay and the Municipal Development Council (MDC) of Maasin, Iloilo City, both requested IBC to rechannel the Tigum River path due to the dangers it posed during the rainy season. The Sangguniang Bayan of Maasin, Iloilo City, then enacted Resolution No. 30-A endorsing the resolutions of Barangay Naslo and MDC, and Resolution No. 30-B authorizing Municipal Mayor Rene Mondejar to negotiate with IBC for the rechanneling project.

On June 27, 1996, the Municipality of Maasin, through Mondejar, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with IBC for the rechanneling project. The MOA stated that IBC will perform the rechanneling for no monetary considerations, except for the surplus supply of sand and gravel it can extract after the necessary dike has been established. The local officials involved were later charged with falsification and violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for giving unwarranted benefits to IBC and entering into a contract that disadvantaged the government.

The Ombudsman-Visayas recommended the dismissal of the charges against some of the local officials for insufficiency of evidence, but the Sandiganbayan approved the filing of separate Informations for falsification and violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 against the remaining accused. This led to the present petition for review on certiorari.

The case involves the approval of the filing of Informations against several individuals, including the petitioner, for Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Two separate Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan, with one charging the accused with Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 and the other charging them with Falsification under Article 171 of the RPC. The charges stemmed from the alleged falsification of the Minutes of the Regular Session of the Sangguniang Bayan of Maasin, Iloilo City, which led to the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Municipal Mayor and the petitioner for the rechanneling of the Tigum River. The accused pleaded not guilty and entered into a Joint Stipulation of Facts, which included the relevant details of the MOA and the resolutions passed by the Sangguniang Barangay and the Municipal Development Council. Both the prosecution and defense presented witnesses to prove their respective cases. The Sandiganbayan eventually denied the accused's Demurrers to Evidence and their motion for reconsideration, leading to the trial's continuation.

The case involves the rechanneling of the Tigum River path in Maasin, Iloilo City, Philippines. Resolutions were passed by the Sangguniang Barangay of Barangay Naslo and the Maasin Development Council (MDC) requesting the IBC to do the rechanneling, as the IBC had the necessary equipment for the work. These resolutions were endorsed by the Sangguniang Bayan of Maasin City. Pursuant to the resolutions, the Municipality of Maasin entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the IBC for the rechanneling. The IBC successfully rechanneled the Tigum River path.

Petitioner Tan and her co-accused were subsequently charged with the offense of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019), as amended, and the offense of falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The Sandiganbayan admitted the formal offer of evidence made by petitioner Tan and her co-accused, despite the objection of the prosecution. The prosecution presented rebuttal witnesses and submitted a supplemental offer of evidence, which the Sandiganbayan also admitted over petitioner Tan's objection.

After the parties submitted their respective memoranda, the Sandiganbayan rendered a joint decision finding petitioner Tan and her co-accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged. Tan and her co-accused were sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to ten (10) years, as maximum, for the violation of RA 3019. They were also sentenced to imprisonment for six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, for the offense of falsification. In addition, they were imposed various disqualifications from public office, the right of suffrage, and a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00). A warrant of arrest was issued against one of the accused who was still at large.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.

  2. Whether the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification under Article 171 of the RPC.

  3. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding petitioner Tan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 in conspiracy with the accused public officials of Maasin, Iloilo City.

  4. Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the conspiracy between the petitioner and her co-accused public officials.

  5. Whether the MOA was actually executed on a date other than 27 June 1996.

  6. Whether or not the petitioner had knowledge of the alleged irregularity or illegality in the execution of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).

  7. Whether or not the petitioner conspired with her co-accused public officials in committing the offense charged.

RULING:

  1. The accused (including petitioner Tan) are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. They are sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum, to ten (10) years as maximum, and to suffer perpetual disqualification from public office. Insofar as one accused is concerned, the case will be archived and an alias warrant of arrest will be issued against him.

  2. The accused (excluding petitioner Tan) are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification under Article 171 of the RPC. They are sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum. They are also required to pay a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) and to suffer temporary absolute disqualification and perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage. Insofar as one accused is concerned, the case will be archived and an alias warrant of arrest will be issued against him.

  3. The Petition is meritorious. The Sandiganbayan erred in finding petitioner Tan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 in conspiracy with the accused public officials of Maasin, Iloilo City.

  4. The Sandiganbayan failed to present evidence that petitioner Tan conspired with her co-accused public officials. The act of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and while direct proof is not essential, it must be established by positive and conclusive evidence. Mere inferences and presumptions are not enough for conviction.

  5. There was no evidence presented to prove that the MOA was executed on a date other than 27 June 1996. The MOA was duly notarized on 28 June 1996 and its notarization carries legal effect. The joint stipulation of facts signed by the parties and their counsels also stated that the MOA was entered into on 27 June 1996. The Sandiganbayan is precluded from ruling otherwise, as the stipulation becomes a judicial admission that cannot be contradicted by the party who made it.

  6. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner had knowledge of the irregularity or illegality in the execution of the MOA or that she conspired with her co-accused public officials. The Court pointed out that there was nothing in the MOA that would apprise the petitioner of any irregularity or illegality and that the prosecution did not present evidence to show that she had knowledge of the falsified document from which the resolution was derived. Furthermore, none of the witnesses linked the petitioner to the alleged falsification. Therefore, the petitioner's conviction based on conspiracy was reversed and set aside, and she was acquitted from the charge.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In order to be convicted of Violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, the prosecution must prove that the accused: (1) is a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; (2) acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (3) his action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions.

  • Falsification under Article 171 of the RPC can be proven by showing that the accused falsified a document with the following elements: (1) that there be an actual falsification; (2) that the falsification is committed on a document; (3) that the false document is committed with any of the acts of counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubric, or causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; and (4) that the falsification was committed with intent to cause damage.

  • To justify an indictment under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions; (2) the accused must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (3) the accused's actions caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference.

  • A private person can be charged with and convicted of Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 if it is satisfactorily proven that he/she acted in conspiracy with the public officers in committing the offense.

  • In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and while direct proof is not essential, it must be established by positive and conclusive evidence.

  • The notarization of a private document converts it into a public document and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. The notarization carries legal effect and the document is presumed to be true, unless there is clear and convincing evidence to prove otherwise.

  • Judicial admissions made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case do not require proof and cannot be contradicted by the party who made it. Unless there is a showing of palpable mistake, a judicial admission binds the person who made it.

  • Conspiracy must be established beyond reasonable doubt to convict a person.

  • Knowledge of irregularity or illegality is necessary to establish conspiracy.

  • The prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.