CRESENTE Y. LLORENTE, JR., PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND LETICIA G. FUERTES, RESPONDENTS.

Llorente versus Sandiganbayan

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Cresente Y. Llorente, Jr., then municipal mayor of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, against the Sandiganbayan and Leticia G. Fuertes. The mayor was convicted of violating Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for refusing to sign and approve the payrolls and vouchers covering the salaries and emoluments of Fuertes, the assistant municipal treasurer. The case matters because it fixes the strict standard for "undue injury" in graft prosecutions: the injury must be actual and proven, not speculative or incidental, and the element of evident bad faith must rest on more than a mere delay in payment.

Procedural History

An Information dated October 22, 1992 charged the mayor before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. He was arraigned on March 29, 1993 and entered a plea of not guilty. After trial, the Sandiganbayan rendered its Decision on June 23, 1995, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing him to imprisonment of six years and one month, as minimum, to seven years, as maximum, with perpetual disqualification from public office and costs. The Sandiganbayan denied his motion for reconsideration and new trial in a Resolution promulgated on October 12, 1995. He then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review.

Facts

Leticia G. Fuertes had been the duly appointed Assistant Municipal Treasurer of Sindangan since October 18, 1985. Beginning in 1986 she was detailed to several other offices, including the municipalities of Katipunan, Roxas, and Piñan, and the Office of the Provincial Treasurer. In July 1990 she was returned to her post in Sindangan. Upon her return she was not given an office table or chair, no work assignment was given her, and her daily time record and applications for leave were not acted upon, upon the instruction of the mayor. On July 23, 1990, the Sangguniang Bayan, presided over by the mayor, passed a resolution objecting to her assignment as Assistant Municipal Treasurer of Sindangan.

Because Fuertes had been out of Sindangan for more than four years, her name had been removed from the regular payroll, and payment of her past salaries and emoluments had to be made by voucher. When she presented her vouchers, the mayor required clearances from the offices where she had been detailed, as well as a certificate of last payment. He also received a demand from the Municipality of Piñan for reimbursement of amounts it claimed were overpaid to her, which he said had to be clarified first. On May 22, 1991, Fuertes filed a petition for mandamus with damages against the mayor and the municipality. The mayor did not file an answer; instead, the parties entered into a Compromise Agreement dated August 27, 1991, in which he bound himself to sign and approve her vouchers and payrolls. A decision was rendered on the basis of that agreement, but he failed to comply, so a writ of execution was issued and served on him in September 1991.

Fuertes was paid her salaries for January to August 1991, but her other claims remained unpaid. She received complete payment of her claims only on January 4, 1993, through checks dated December 29, 1992, and her representation and transportation allowance only on July 25, 1994. The mayor admitted some delays but invoked good faith: the withholding was due to her failure to submit the required money and property clearance and to the Sangguniang Bayan's delayed enactment of a supplemental budget. The Sandiganbayan rejected these defenses, found evident bad faith, and convicted him.

Issues

• Whether or not a violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act may be committed through nonfeasance, that is, by failing or refusing to sign and approve vouchers, rather than by a positive act.
• Whether or not the prosecution proved undue injury to Fuertes, she having been paid all her claims.
• Whether or not the mayor acted in good faith in refusing to immediately sign the vouchers until the Sangguniang Bayan had enacted the appropriation ordinance and until Fuertes had submitted the clearance from the Municipality of Piñan.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, provides:

Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

This is the very provision under which the mayor was charged, and its elements of undue injury and evident bad faith are what the Court measures against the evidence.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition is meritorious. The Court explained that in a prosecution for violation of Section 3(e) for causing undue injury, the government prosecutors must prove actual injury to the offended party; speculative or incidental injury is not sufficient. The Court reviewed the records and found that the element of undue injury was not established with the certainty required in a criminal case, since the complainant was in fact paid her claims.

On the second issue, the Court held that the element of evident bad faith was likewise not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The delays in the payment of the complainant's claims were attributable to the absence of an appropriation ordinance and to the need to clarify the demand of the Municipality of Piñan, matters that negated the existence of a criminal intent to cause injury. The Court thus ruled that the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting the mayor, and it acquitted him on the ground that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Doctrine

In a prosecution for violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for causing undue injury, the injury must be actual and proven; speculative or incidental injury will not suffice. The elements of the offense, namely undue injury and evident bad faith, must each be established beyond reasonable doubt, and a mere delay in the payment of salaries and emoluments, attributable to lawful requirements such as the enactment of an appropriation ordinance, does not by itself constitute evident bad faith.

Disposition

The Court granted the petition, reversed the Sandiganbayan, and acquitted Cresente Y. Llorente, Jr. of the charge on the ground that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Remember This

Memorize the line that in a Section 3(e) prosecution for causing undue injury, the injury must be actual, not speculative or incidental. Examiners use this case to test the elements of undue injury and evident bad faith, and to ask whether a violation of the Anti-Graft Law may be committed by nonfeasance.