republic of the philippines -...

Republic of the PhilippinesSandiganbayan

Quezon City

Second Division

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO. 26495Plaintiff,

Present:- versus - SANDOVAL, J.

VILLARUZ, Jr. & MARTIRES, JJ.

GEORGE D. CAMHIT, et.al Promulgated:Accused. September 13, 2006

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

D E C I S I O N

SANDOVAL:,

Accused GEORGE D. CAMHIT and PERFECTO B. MARTINEZ stand indicted before this Court for having violated Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 in an Information textually reading as follows:

“That on or about June of 1999, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Claveria, Cagayan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused GEORGE D. CAMHIT, Regional Director, Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF), Regional 02, Tugegarao, Cagayan and PERFECTO B. MARTINEZ, JR., Provincial Treasurer, Provincial Capitol, Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya, and at the same time, President of the Regional Association of Assessors and Treasurers of Region 02 (REGATA-02), while in the performance of their official functions, committing the offense in relation to their office, and taking

DECISIONCrim Case No. 26495People vs. George A. Camhit of 38x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

advantage of their official positions, acting with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, in conspiracy with each other, cause undue injury to BLGF, to the government as a whole and to the public interest, and at the same time give unwarranted benefits to REGATA-02, a private organization composed of treasurer and assessors of Region 02, by then and there, holding a conference at Claveria, Cagayan on June 24 until June 26, 1999 wherein a conference fee of P2,500.00 was to be collected per participant, the aggregate amount of which is THREE HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P320,000.00), supposedly collected by BLGF but instead, it was REGATA-02 who collected the same, to the damage and prejudice of BLGF, to the government as a whole and to public interest while giving unwarranted benefit to REGATA-02 in the aforestated amount.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

Accused Camhit posted bail1 for his provisional liberty on February 15, 2001 while accused Martinez posted bail2 on February 12, 2001. Then they filed a Motion to Quash/For Reinvestigation dated February 16, 20013 to which the prosecution filed its Manifestation and Opposition4.

1 pp. 30-36 Record.2 pp. 122-127 Ibid.3 pp. 36-111 Ibid.4 pp. 135-136 Ibid.


In a Resolution promulgated on May 2, 20015, this Court denied the Motion to Quash/For Reinvestigation of the accused.

Taking issue to the said ruling of the Court, accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated June 4, 20016 which elicited an Opposition dated July 3, 2001 from the prosecution. The Court denied the said Motion for Reconsideration in its Resolution of September 21, 20017.

The Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration dated November 13, 2001 subsequently submitted by the accused was adjudged by this Court as moot and academic on account of the denial of the principal motion, albeit it ruled that the issues cited therein are mere matters of defense which can be ventilated in a full blown trial8.

Consequently, accused were arraigned during which they interposed their individual pleas of not guilty9 to the offense charged. After the pre-trial, in the course of which parties arrived at a Joint Stipulation of Facts10, trial ensued.

After the termination of the presentation of prosecution’s evidence, plaintiff filed its formal offer

5 pp. 139-140 Ibid.6 pp. 158-165 Ibid.7 p. 193 Ibid.8 p. 248 Ibid.9 pp. 251-252 Ibid.10pp. 264-268 Ibid.


of exhibits11 eliciting a Comment dated June 20, 200412 from the accused. After the prosecution’s Exhibits “A” to “M” were all admitted13, accused thereafter started to present their evidence. With the completion of the testimony of accused Perfecto B. Martinez, the defense offered14 Exhibits “1” to “6” which were all admitted15 by the Court. On manifestation of the parties, to consider the case submitted for decision upon the submission of their respective memoranda, the Court now renders this decision.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

In seeking to secure the conviction of the accused and in order to establish a strong case for Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, the prosecution presented five (5) witnesses and offered Exhibits “A” to “M”.

Sans nonessentials, it was the declaration of ALEXANDER CABASAL y UMAGIG16, who at the time he took the witness stand was 52 years old, married, a government employee, and a resident of La Torre St. Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya that:

He was the Financial Management Officer I of the Province of Nueva Vizcaya

11 pp. 490-561 Ibid.12 pp. 564-565 Ibid.13 p. 569 Ibid.14 pp. 577-611 Ibid.15 P. 617 Ibid.16 TSN dated March 19, 2002.


in 1999. As such, he checks the cash allocation of documents that passes through him.

In June 1999, in the performance of his duties as such, he found out that the supporting document of the voucher of Manuel Reyes was irrelevant to the claim. He noticed that as an attachment to the voucher was a receipt from Regatta. It should be a government receipt issued by the Bureau of Local Government. Considering that the said voucher was all about the conference conducted by the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) on June 24 to 26, 1999 at Claveria, Cagayan, he requested confirmation from the participant and after that nagkompirma ako sa regon.

That BLGF, as per the said voucher, paid P2,000.00 to grassroots cooperative. Finding irregularity on the said voucher, he filed a complaint against herein accused in the Office of the Ombudsman.

To buttress the prosecutions stance, witness ORLANDO MINA y DE LEON17, 51 years old, married, OIC Regional Director of the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) of Region 1 and a resident of Cabarroguis, Province of Quirino, testified:

That he was then Assistant Regional Director of the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF for brevity), Region 2, Tuguegarao in June 1999. He knew that REGATA-02 stands for Regional Association of Treasurers and Assessors

17 TSN dated October 15, 2003


Region 2. That a conference (2nd Quarter Regional Conference Program) of Regata-02 was held on June 24 to 25, 1999 at Claveria, Cagayan. He was invited thereat and gave the opening remarks during the said occasion.

Several BLGF staff, i.e. Fe Rosario G. Acacio, Lina T. Divina, Marvie Q. Alvarez, Marlene Maganto, Zuriel P. Pedro, Milagros B. Gumabay, Amalia G. Cadatal, Estefena F. Cadelina, Romeo M. Matutino and Noel C. Agapito were present too in the said conference because they were authorized by Regional Director, Mr. George Camhit, to be present thereat as per Regional Office Order No. 99-09 dated June 21, 1999 (Exhibit H)18.

The first five staff mentioned were tasked to register the participants, collect fees and dues, preparation of Certificate of Appearances and other management support services while other staffs were tasked for (a) documentation of conference proceedings and (b) distribution of kits and other support services.

Present too in the said conference was the driver of BLGF, Noel C. Agapito.

The participants to the said conference were the provincial, city and municipal treasurers and assessors of Region 2. They were invited to attend the said conference under Regional Memorandum Circular No. 99-15 dated June 1, 1999.

He said that BLGF allows treasurers and assessors to attend BLGF conferences and meetings charging their

18 p. 5 Ibid.


expenses to public funds. The office authorized too REGATA-02 members to charge registration fees.19

They do not allow payment of registration fee to private organization like REGATA-02. As far as he knew, if a BLGF Regional Memorandum Circular authorizes expenses in conferences and meetings to be charged to operational funds of the Local Government Unit (LGU), what is necessary in the liquidation thereof is for the claimant to present a certificate of travel accomplished, certificate of appearances and the receipt of the registration or conference paid which must be official receipt of the Republic of the Philippines.20

He further said, that BLGF does not allow REGATA-02 to schedule and conduct quarterly regional conferences of the assessors and treasurers. The conduct of a conference is part of the office plans and programs of the BLGF hence it is the BLGF which is authorized to conduct the quarterly regional conference21.

When asked by the Court, he said that BLGF normally holds conference-seminar for treasurers and assessors every after three (3) months and collects conference fee for that to cover the costs for supplies, materials and honorarium for the speakers. The Local Government Unit shoulders the expenses for each participant.22

19 p. 13 Ibid.20 p. 14 Ibid.21 p. 16 Ibid.22 pp. 16-17Ibid.


TESSIE MANGACCAT y SARANDI, 50 years old, married, a Local Treasury Operations Officer IV and designated OIC of the Barangay Local Government Finance Unit, Regional Office No. 02, Tugegarao, Cagayan and a resident of Maddela, Quirino, declared:

She was the Local Treasurer Operation Officer IV of the Bureau of Local Government and designated as Secretary of the REGATA-02. She has been with the BLGF since 1981. REGATA-02 is a private organization registered under the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mr. Perfecto Martinez, Jr., the President of REGATA-02, designated him as Secretary of REGATA-02 in 1995 as shown in the Minutes of REGATA-02 Meeting held at Governor’s Garden Hotel, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya on May 25, 1995. As secretary of REGATA-02, she holds office at the BLGF Regional Office in Tugegarao, Cagayan. As far as he knew REGATA-02 has no staff.23

That she was able to attend the conference held on June 24 to 25, 1999 at Claveria, Cagayan and used BLGF Regional Office’s vehicle – Tamaraw Fx driven by Noel C. Agapito. Together with her were Mrs. Mercuria Donato, the Administrative Officer II and Ms. Rosario G. Acacio, the Senior Bookkeeper of BLGF.24

BLGF staffs went to the conference to provide administrative (registration &

23 p. 11 Ibid.24 p. 13 Ibid.


collection of registration fees) and support services to the regional conference-seminar. That BLGF staffs did not pay for the registration fees, it was only the participants – the provincial, city and municipal treasurers who paid the registration fees of P2,500.00 each drawn against the fund of the Local Government Unit25.

Participants therein were issued certificate of appearance as she is in possession of the duplicate originals issued to them.26 BLGF staffs present in the said conference were not issued certificates as they merely provide administrative and support services.

The registration fees collected by the BLGF staff were turned over to the Treasurer of the association, Mr. Gilbert Pagulayan.27

On cross-examination she said, it was the objective of REGATA-02 to uplift the treasury and assessment operations, uplift the capability, intelligence or educational background or integrity of treasurers and assessors, and to conduct seminars, trainings to professionalize treasury assessment operations. She affirmed that REGATA-02 was created for the purpose of promoting the general welfare of the assessors and treasurers of the region.

She knew too that in the subject conference, the treasurers and assessors attended the same with the authority of their agencies and it was their agency concerned which paid the fees anent the

25 P. 15 Ibid.26 Pp. 17-18 Ibid.27 Pp. 19-20 Ibid.


same.28 That the money collected as fees became money of REGATA-02, a private corporation, hence a private fund.

When asked by the Court, she said that there are instances where BLGF sent their personnel to attend seminars conducted by private groups like Philippine Association of Local Treasurers and Assessors.29

MERCURIA DONATO y PAGULAYAN30, 62 years old, widow, and resident of No. 5 Blumentritt St. Tuguegarao City, has this to testify:

“She was the Administrative Officer of the Bureau of Local Government of Region II. She recalled that BLGF held a conference in Claveria, Cagayan on June 24-25, 1999. She was issued an Office Order to attend thereat. She, with Ricardo, took a bus in going to Claveria, Cagayan from Tuguegarao and it took them five (5) hours to get there. They went to Claveria on June 23 to 26, 1999. As per instructions of the Regional Director per Regional Office Order No. 99-09 dated June 21, 1999, she was supposed to act as Chairman of the Secretariat, take care of the accommodation of the resource speakers, official guests and participants as well, see to it that the conference is conducted in an orderly and efficient manner. She supervised the employees in-charge of the registration of participants and the documentation of the conference proceedings.

28 P. 21-22 Ibid.29 P. 23 Ibid.30 TSN dated April 12, 2004.


That the most difficult and challenging duty for her at that time was the securing of the lodging houses for the participants and the accommodation.31

They issued Certificates of Appearance to the participants. Minutes of the meeting and the news of the conference were prepared. After the 25th

of June, there were no activities and some participants went home and others stayed until the 27th.

The secretariat took care too of the sound system. As a whole, in effect they took care of the logistics, documentation, certificates, smooth flow of the conference and the accommodation.32

At that particular seminar, the participation of REGATA-02 was that it provided the information to the Provincial Treasurers and Assessors regarding policies, regarding instructions from the Central Office, Department of Finance, plans for their budget, budget appropriation and activities, trainings and others.33

She affirmed that REGATA-02 has no private staff. Secretariat received monetary consideration from REGATA-02 (Exhibit M, paragraph b.3)

On cross-examination she said that she being a Chief of the Secretariat of REGATA-02 is merely an additional function or a function separate and distinct from her being an Administrative Officer of the Bureau of Local Government Finance, Region 2. She functions as Chief of the Secretariat

31 Pp. 17-18 Ibid.32 pp. 37-38 Ibid.33 P. 38 Ibid.


whenever seminars were sponsored by REGATA-02.

She could no longer recall having received a sum from REGATA-02. That in 1999, four (4) seminars were conducted by REGATA-02 jointly with the Bureau of Finance. Previous seminars were conducted too by REGATA-02 attended to by Treasurers and Assessors of different towns of Region II. Their respective agencies paid the fees thereof.

On re-direct, she said she received per diem from BLGF during the seminar. During the seminar in question he worked thereat for BLGF though she was the Chairman of the Secretariat in view of the Order from BLGF. Day one of the seminar was BLGF affair while the second day was REGATA-02 affair which lasted for 1 ½ hours.34

After paying all the expenses anent the seminar, the remaining balance was turned-over to REGATA-02 because it was the practice.

When asked by the Court, she clarified that the practice was that the Regional Director and the President of REGATA-02 will plan the program and plan as to who the speakers will be at the conference. The actual invitation to speakers and delegates is being done by BLGF and not REGATA-02.35

FE ROSARIO ACACIO y GANACE was called to testify too by the prosecution. However, in view

34 Pp. 54-56 Ibid.35 Pp. 65-67 Ibid.


of the following stipulations entered into by the parties, to wit:

1. That witness Fe Rosario G. Acacio was the one in-charge of the collection of the registration fees from the participants of the regional conference of the Regional Association of Assessors and Treasurers of Region 2 (REGATA-02) held in Claveria, Cagayan on June 24-25, 1999;

2. That the said witness was able to collect the total amount of P325,000.00 from the participants of that conference;

3. That out of the money collected in the amount of P325,000.00, the witness caused to be paid the expenses for the venue, accommodation and meals of the participants, honoraria for the officers and resource persons of REGATA-02;

4. That the witness made an accounting of the funds collected and the amounts spent which accounting she turned over to Mr. Gilbert Pagulayan, treasurer of REGATA-02;

5. That the balance left in the amount of P91,636.75 was


turned over to Mr. Gilbert Pagulayan.

her testimony was dispensed with.

After the presentation of the witnesses, the prosecution offered the following documentary evidence:

Exhibits Description

A to A-9 Minutes of the REGATA II Board Meeting held at Governor’s Garden Hotel, Solano, Nueva Viscaya on May 25, 1999, consisting of ten (10) pages;

A-9-a Name and signature of REGATA II Secretary, Tessie S. Mangaccat;

A-9-b Name and signature of accused Perfecto B. Martinez, Jr., President of REGATA II and Provincial Treasurer of Nueva Viscaya;

B Regional Memorandum Circular No. 99-15 June 1, 1999;

B-1 Bracketed entry in Exhibit B directing the collection of P2,500.00 from each participant chargeable against the operational funds of the public office of each participant;

C Opening Program of the 2nd Quarter Regional conference of Provincial, City and Municipal Treasurers and Assessors of Region II, Claveria, Cagayan on June 24-26, 1999;

C-1 Bracketed entry of Exhibit C pertaining to the Opening Remarks


of witness Orlando L. Mina, Director I, BLGF, RO-02;

D Summary of Receipts issued to participants during the BLGF 2nd

quarter regional conference by the REGATA II, consisting of six (6) pages;

E to E-6 List of Certificates of Appearances issued by accused Regional Director George D. Camhit to participants on June 25, 1999 (consisting of seven pages);

E-7 Bracketed entry in Exhibit E pertaining to the name and signature of witness Administrative Officer Mercuria P. Donato;

E-8 to E-27 Duplicate originals of the Certificates of Appearance issued by accused Camhit;

F Certification dated June 30, 1999;

G Disbursement Voucher No. 9906 for P2,000.00 paid to Claveria Grassroots Multi-purpose Cooperative;

H Certified True Copy of Regional Office Order No. 99-09 dated June 24-26, 1999;

H-1 Designation of Secretariat for BLGF Second Quarter Conference on June 24-26, 1999;

H-2 Names of BLGF staff assigned as members of the Secretariat of the BLGF second quarter conference;


H-3 Name and signature of accused George P. Camhit, CESO V, Regional Director;

H-4 Bracketed entry of Exhibit “H” designating witness Mercuria P. Donato as Chairman of Secretariat;

I Certified True Copy of Letter dated June 7, 1999 addressed to Atty. Angelina M. Magsino, OIC Exec. Director, BLGF from accused Camhit;

I-1 REGATA II schedule of BLGF Second Quarter Regional conference;

J Certification dated October 3, 2003 from REGATA II Treasurer Gilbert G. Pagulayan;

J-1 Bracketed entry representing total collections of P325,000.00 by REGATA II Treasurer;

J-2 Name and signature of Gilbert G. Pagulayan, REGATA II Treasurer;

K Statement of Disbursement of REGATA II for Second Quarter Regional Conference on June 24-26, 1999;

K-1 Balance of P91,636.75;

K-2 Bracketed entry of Exhibit “K”, name and signature of Gilbert G. Pagulayan, REGATA II Treasurer;

L Minutes of the Second Quarter Regional Conference of Provincial, City and Municipal Treasurers and Assessors of Region II, held on June


24-26, 1999 at Claveria, Cagayan (consisting of 2 pages);

L-2 Bracketed entry in Exhibit L names and signature of BLGF staff Estefana Cadelina and Amalia Cadatal.

M,M-1 to M-3 Minutes of the REGATA II General Assembly Meeting held at the grassroots multi-purpose cooperative, Inc. Claveria, Cagayan on June 24, 1999.

EVIDENCE FOR THE ACCUSED

To counteract and offset the People’s evidence, the defense presented one (1) witness and offered Exhibits 1 to 6.

Stripped of needless allegations, the testimony of PERFECTO MARTINEZ Jr. y BULLECER36, 59 years old, married, Provincial Treasurer for the Province of Nueva Vizcaya and residing at Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya is as follows:

“As Provincial Treasurer of Nueva Vizcaya it was his duty to collect provincial taxes, fees and charges and to disburse funds for the province. He started as an OIC-Provincial Treasurer in 1979 and was appointed as regular Provincial Treasurer of the Province in 1980 up to the present.

He is a member and President as well of REGATA-02 which stands for Regional Association of Treasurers and

36 TSN dated November 4, 2004.


Assessors of Region 2. REGATA-02 is a non-stock, non-profit association of the local treasurers and assessors in Region 2 to include Ranking Officers of the regional office of the BLGF in Region 2 of the local treasury and assessment offices in Region 2. It is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and has its own Articles of Incorporation and By-laws. Its members are local treasurer and assessors of Region 2, including ranking officers of the regional office of the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) and ranking treasury and assessment officers of Region 2. Its mother association is the Philippine Association of Treasurer and Assessors, Inc (PHALTRA) composing of the provincial, city, municipal including their assistant treasurers and assessors nationwide, including ranking officers of all regional offices and local treasury and assessment officers nationwide.

As President, he acts as Presiding Officer of REGATA-02 and it is his duty to call conventions and general assemblies of the association. Likewise to see to it that all promulgated rules and regulations are being observed and exercised or implemented. REGATA-02 was established for the purpose of uplifting the general interest of the local treasurers and assessors. It is established too for the purpose of enhancing the efficiency, integrity, ideals of the association by fostering unity among ourselves and by maintaining harmonious relationship with local officers and other concerned agencies towards improving the quality of service.

Regional Director George Camhit acts as adviser of REGATA-02. REGATA-


02 is a partner of BLGF in the implementation of its programs for the current year. Provincial Treasurers and members of the association sit down with their Regional Director including his staff and discuss strategies, the revenue collection of the local taxes, the concerns affecting the interest of the Board.37

REGATA-02 was sanctioned by the Civil Service Commission and the Bureau of Finance.

That on June 24-26, 1999 REGATA-02 sponsored a conference-seminar held at Claveria, Cagayan with more or less 125 participants. Conference fee of P2,500 was collected from the participant, charged from the Local Government Unit represented by each participant. The fee collected was utilized to pay conference expenses such as meals, lodging of the participants, including the secretariat, for supplies, honoraria, for resource speakers and other related conference expenses. The fee collected by REGATA-02 became private fund because the REGATA, the sponsoring association, is a private association.38 Like with PHALTRA, the nature of the fund collected therein are likewise private fund.

REGATA doesn’t have employees hence in case of seminars, as a matter of arrangement with the regional office, it is the regional office which provides for selected staffs who are given incentives in the form of honoraria by REGATA.39

He further said that the savings of the association is being deposited in

37 p. 11 Ibid.38 p. 14 Ibid.39 p. 17 Ibid.


LandBank Tuguegarao City Branch and used as financial assistance to be given to BLGF for the procurement of equipments, improvement of office and repairs of equipment upon approval of the Board of Directors of REGATA-02. As proof thereof, several vouchers of REGATA-02 in the name of Director George Camhit were presented, i.e. (1) reimbursement of expenses paid for the improvement of the newly rented building and for the transport of office files, materials, furniture and equipment amounting to P26,911.00; (2) payment of financial assistance to the Regional Office, Region 2 [P50,000]; (3)reimbursement of expenses paid for the purchase of typewriter, ribbon and stencil for use of REGATA [P16,330.00]; (4) covering the expenses for the payment of one (1) unit typewriter and other expenses.

There was no suspension or disallowance issued by the Commission on Audit on the expenses for the attendance of the subject conference-workshop40.

Director Orlando Mina is one of the incorporators of REGATA-0241. That as far as he could recall, Director Mina filed a similar case against REGATA-02 anent Skills Development Workshop held at Tuguegarao City which was dismissed by the Office of the Ombudsman.42

That there was no public fund involved extended as financial assistance to BLGF-02 because the fund of the REGATA-02 is private in nature.

40 p. 20 Ibid.41 p. 22 Ibid.42 pp. 24-25 Ibid.


On cross-examination, he said that he cannot show a certificate of accreditation from the Civil Service Commission. That it was REGATA’s mother association, PHALTRA, which was accredited.43

That the financial assistance extended by REGATA-02 to BLGF is in the nature of donation.44 He agreed that the financial assistance given to a public entity becomes public fund.45

Though it was his position that BLGF officers are automatic members of REGATA, there was no mention from the By-laws of REGATA that they were indeed the same.46

He affirmed that REGATA-02 doesn’t maintain any staff. That whenever staffs are needed, like during the June 24-26 conference, REGATA-02 utilizes BLGF staffs.47

When asked by the Court, he maintained that the P2,500.00 conference fee collected from the participants of the seminar was used for seminar expenses like food, lodging, honoraria of the resource speakers, supplies, rental of the training facilities and other related expenses. That REGATA-02 was authorized by the BLGF to conduct this particular seminar however only an invitation was shown/presented to the Court not an authorization.48 The Commission on Audit does not conduct audit of the funds of REGATA-02, it

43 p. 29 Ibid.44 p. 35 Ibid.45 p. 36 Ibid.46 p. 38 Ibid.47 p. 39 Ibid.48 pp. 43-44 Ibid.


conducts audit only to the funds of the BLGF49.

To further rebut the evidence submitted by the prosecution, accused offered the following documentary evidence:

Exhibits Description

“1” to “1-e” Certificate of Registration of the Articles of Incorporation, and By-laws of REGATA-02, Inc. issued by Securities and Exchange Commission;

“2” Memorandum Circular of the Civil Service Commission signed by the Patricia A. Sto. Tomas, Chairman dated October 14, 1993;

“3” National Budget Circular No. 442, March 29, 1995;

“4” to “4-e” Certification dated February 21, 2002 signed by Benjamin Geronimo; Certification dated February 1, 2002 signed by Manuel E. Leycano, Jr.; Certification dated February 20, 2002 signed by Ricardo G. Laron; Certification dated February 11, 2001 signed by Ma. Ana A. Cabiso; Certification dated February 19, 2002 signed by Rodel Santos; Certification dated February 19, 2002 signed by Amelia L. Barongan;

“4-f” to “4-f-4” Certification dated February 18, 2002 signed by Gilbert G. Pagulayan, REGATA-02 Treasurer as to amount and purposes of financial assistance REGATA o2 extended to theBureau

49 P. 44 Ibid.


of Local Government Finance, Region II through Director Camhit and the corresponding vouchers related thereto;

“5” Letter dated May 15, 2000 addressed to REGATA-02 President Perfecto Martinez signed by Peregrino G. Cornel, Jr.;

“6” Resolution dated March 10, 2000 signed by Ismaela B. Boco and approved by Ombudsman Desierto;

DISCUSSION

Accused allegedly violated Section 3(e) Republic Act No. 3019 as amended which provides:

“Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. – In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

x x x

(e) Causing 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. x x x”


To fall thus within the parameters of the aforequoted law, the following indispensable elements must be clearly established:

1. that the accused is a public officer discharging administrative or official functions or private persons charged in conspiracy with them;

2. that he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and

3. that his action has caused undue injury to any party including the government or has given any party unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. (Pacifico C. Velasco vs. Sandiganbayan, et.al., 452 SCRA 593)

There was no dispute as to the existence of the first element. It was stipulated upon by the parties as contained in their Joint Stipulations of the Facts and Issues dated March 18, 2002 that “Accused GEORGE D. CAMHIT and PERFECTO B. MARTINEZ, JR. were public officers, being the Regional Director of the Bureau of Local Government Finance and Provincial Treasurer of Nueva Vizcaya, respectively, during the period alleged in the Information”.


Moreover, Regional Memorandum Circular No. 99-15 dated June 1, 1999 (Exhibit B) as well as Regional Office Order No. 99-09 dated June 21, 1999 (Exhibit H), concerning the 2nd Quarter Regional Conference-Seminar in question, shows that accused Camhit was discharging his official function as Regional Director at the time he issued and signed the same orders. As a matter of fact, he used official letter heads and used the heading pertaining to the Bureau of Finance, Bureau of Local Government Finance.

In discussing the second and the third element, let us keenly travail on the evidence presented by the parties viz-a-viz the duties and function of the Bureau of Local Government Finance office in order to arrive at a proper perspective of determining whose project or work was the 2nd Quarter Regional Conference-seminar in question. This factual issue could be crucial since it will give us the proper and clear view anent the propriety of the act of turning over to the REGATA-02 the amount collected as conference-seminar fee from the participants supposedly for BLGF. In essence, the determination of the alleged unwarranted benefit causing undue injury to the government thru the Bureau of Local Government and Finance could revolve around this incident.


At first glance, if WE are to peruse the records on hand giving preferential attention to the stipulation of facts of the parties that:

“5. The REGATA-02 conducted a conference/seminar on June 24-26, 1999”

further disquisition on the charge herein may somehow be needless. The word “conduct” implies a leader’s supervision, his responsible guidance in a course which he determines; It is synonymous with the words “manage, control, direct”(Webster Third New International Dictionary). Hence, when the prosecution sweepingly stipulated such with the defense, it follows then that it had recognized the role of REGATA -02 in the seminar in question as if the latter was the one who managed, controlled and/or directed the said seminar for the benefit of its individual members. Where then is the unwarranted benefit and the undue injury to BLGF in particular and to the Government in general as a result of the turning over to the REGATA-02 of the P320,000.00 collections when these proceeds of the seminar should properly be turned over to the one who conducted the same.?

In connection with this matter, allow US to quote pertinent manifestation of the prosecution that the People, impliedly, did not deny the fact that


it was REGATA-02 who indeed conducted, albeit supposedly illegal, the seminar in question, viz:

ATTY. CORPUZ:

Your Honor, may I invite the attention of your Honors to the fact that the parties have already stipulated to the fact that it was the REGATA II who conducted conference/seminar, No. 5 of the Joint Stipulation of Facts, that REGATA II conducted a conference/seminar on June 24-26, 1999.

PROS. LUCERO:

We are not proving, Your Honors that on those dates, the REGATA II was not allowed to conduct the seminar, your Honor. It is the Department of Finance, Your Honors and not REGATA II.

AJ VICTORINO:

Is that in your joint stipulation? Is that your manifestation alone, counsel?

ATTY. CORPUZ:

Your Honor, no, Your Honor. That is part of the Joint stipulation of Facts.

PROS. LUCERO:

Yes, Your Honors, and now we are proving that what the REGATA-II did in conducting a conference and


seminar on June 24-26, 1999, Your Honor is illegal. That is what our witness is testifying now, Your Honors. Regata II was not allowed to conduct the seminar.

AJ VICTORINO:

So, you mutually agreed that the seminar was conducted by REGATA II.

ATTY. CORPUZ:

Yes, Your Honor. (emphasis ours; p. 11-12, TSN dated March 19, 2002)

Premising from the said manifestation, it was the stand of the prosecution that REGATA-02 was not allowed to conduct the seminar hence the conduct of the same was illegal. We are not persuaded. There is no law nor circular and the prosecution has not attempted to show, prohibiting the REGATA-02 to conduct a seminar for the benefit of its members. In the absence of any law or statute, we are not prepared to conclude that REGATA-02 was prohibited from doing so. In fact, the Department of Finance thru Assistant Secretary Benjamin A. Geronimo even certified that REGATA-02 “has been conducting quarterly conferences in coordination with the Regional Office (Region II) of this Bureau, and as such is authorized to receive registration fees and disburse the same subject to the regulations prescribed by its Constitution and By-laws.” (see Exhibit 4).


Aside from these, we cannot just disregard which even Exhibit A50 of the prosecution affirmed, that the seminar in question was not that of REGATA-02, viz:

“IV. New Business4.1 2nd Quarter Regional

ConferenceDate: June 24 to 26,

1999Venue: x x x

Note: After consultation with the Chairman the venue was changed to Claveria, Cagayan.

The Information charging accused herein only mentioned, as unwarranted benefit, the act of REGATA-02 in collecting and receiving the conference fee of the participants supposedly for BLGF. We feel there is nothing wrong nor irregular thereat since REGATA-02 conducted the said seminar.

In a nutshell, the prosecution’s stance that BLGF toiled and troubled the said seminar, and yet the fruits thereof were turned over to REGATA-02 has no leg to stand on.

50 MINUTES OF THE REGATA II BOARD MEETING HELD AT THE GOVERNOR’S GARDEN HOTEL, SOLANO, NUEVA VIZCAYA ON MAY 25, 1999.


The defense had moreover satisfactorily explained and clarified the alleged clouds of irregularity and illegality pointed out by the prosecution. The People had alleged that it was BLGF who paid P2,000.00 to CLaveria Grassroots Cooperative, the place where the seminar in question was held, as evidenced by a Disbursement Voucher (Exhibit G) but looking at the said Exhibit G alone does not establish that the amount of P2,000.00 was debited from the funds of BLGF. The Disbursement Voucher was not even signed by accused George D. Camhit. Be it noted that the certification portion of the said Disbursement Voucher acknowledging that the amount requested was necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision indicated the name of accused Perfecto B. Martinez, Jr., REGATA President, as signatory. More so, the certification portion of the same as to the adequacy of the fund requested contains the name of Gilbert Pagulayan, REGATA Treasurer, as signatory. Those portions were not signed by the signatories indicated therein but it conclusively showed that the said Disbursement Voucher pertains to REGATA-02 expenses and affair. These facts may lead to the conclusion that the money came from the fund of REGATA-02, and not from BLGF, only that the Disbursement Voucher Form (a government form) of the office of BLGF was used. The use of the said form, though improper, could properly be explained when the prosecution


witnesses testified that REGATA-02 holds office in the office of BLGF. Moreover, the defense had established that REGATA-02 is consistent in the use of the said form in disbursing its funds. (see Exhibits 4-f-1, 4-f-2, 4-f-3 & 4-f-4 which pertains to funds of REGATA-02 extended as financial assistance to BLGF through Regional Director Camhit.) The undue injury suffered by BLGF in giving the alleged unwarranted benefit in the amount of P2,000.00 is thus bereft of basis and foundation.

Moreover, the issue that BLGF staffs were utilized in the seminar as evidenced by Exhibit H as well as the issue that the Certificate of Attendance given to the participants were signed by Regional Director Camhit alone, can not be considered as “unwarranted” benefit accorded to REGATA-02. The term “unwarranted” is defined as “lacking adequate or official support; unjustified; unauthorized” (Webster Third International Dictionary, p. 2514); or “without justification or adequate reason” (Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. vs. U.S. Department of Justice, C.D. Pa 405 F Supp. 8, 12, cited in Words and Phrase, Permanent Edition, vol. 43-A 1978, Cumulative Annual Pocket Part, p. 9). It must not be forgotten that the seminar had was conducted by REGATA-02 in coordination with the Regional Office of the Department of Finance (Exhibit 4).


Even if it be considered “unwarranted” for the sake of argument, the giving of the alleged unwarranted benefit must be characterized with manifest partiality and evident bad faith as mentioned in the Information. Under the law, to be punishable, the actuation of the accused must have been characterized by manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. In other words, mere absence of good faith on the part of the accused does not expose them to liability. If accused acted with manifest partiality, it must be palpable, easily, readily and instantly perceived by the senses and to quote from Marcelo vs. Sandiganbayan, 185 SCRA 356, “clear, notorious or plain inclination or predeliction to favor one side rather that the other.” And if they acted in bad faith it must be manifest deliberate intent to do wrong or cause damage.

A cursory perlustration of the prosecution’s evidence shows that the supposed benefit, accorded to REGATA-02 as aforestated is justified. The Court is not persuaded that accused Camhit, in allowing some of his staff to be the secretariat for the said seminar and signing the Certificate of Attendance alone, which after all is in accord and incumbent with his position as Regional Director of BLGF, is characterized by manifest partiality and evident bad faith. The records do not bear out that accused was actuated with dishonest purpose or ill will partaking of a fraud or some furtive design to do wrong and


cause damage as the records were replete of proofs that BLGF and REGATA-02 are coordinates in their plans and programs affecting the local treasury and assessment operations of the local government units within Camhit’s jurisdiction. Exhibit I-1 of the prosecution says so:

“The xxx REGATA-II in coordination with this Office, has scheduled our Second Quarter Regional Conference-Seminar on June 24-26, 1999 at Claveria, Cagayan, with the theme: ‘Developing Strategies for Effective Implementation of the Revenue Generation Programs of LGUs”.

The coordination between the two proved well

and effective. In fact, as previously discussed, it was even recognized by the Department of Finance thru Assistant Secretary Benjamin A. Geronimo. Moreover, no suspensions/disallowances were found by the Commission on Audit at the respective local government units concerned anent the seminars held by REGATA-02 particularly this seminar at bar (see Exhibits 4-C to 4-e).

As an observation, the prosecution had mentioned the use by REGATA-02 of the office of the BLGF as its office and the use of government form, particularly the Disbursement Form, of BLGF but that alone would not suffice to tar and feather it


as unwarranted benefit and could not have possibly caused undue injury to the government. Admittedly, REGATA-02 has no complements or staff. The use of the government office of BLGF anyway, if such is the case, is tolerated by the government. The tolerance practiced and effected by the government dissipates any possible undue injury supposedly visited upon to BLGF.

With the above discussion, this Court is bound to acquit both accused. The prosecution’s evidence must stand by themselves to sustain a verdict of conviction. It may be that the proofs marshaled by the prosecution casts some suspicion that herein accused had perpetrated the offense as charged, but the oft-repeated principle that has been dinned into the ears of the bench and bar has always been:

“. . . Accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt, the prosecution must overthrow the presumption of innocence with proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. To meet this standard, there is need for the most careful scrutiny of the testimony of the State, both oral and documentary, independently of whatever defense is offered by the accused. Only if the judge below and the appellate tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the crime had been committed precisely by the person on trial under such an exacting test should the sentence be one of conviction. It is thus required that every circumstance favoring his innocence be


duly taken into account. The proof against him must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment.

To emphasize, the foundation of the ruling of acquittal is reasonable doubt, which simply means that the prosecution's evidence was not sufficient to sustain the guilt of the accused-petitioner beyond the point of moral certainty — certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and the conscience of those who are to act upon it. It is such proof to the satisfaction of the court, keeping in mind the presumption of innocence, as precludes every reasonable hypothesis except that which it is given to support it. An acquittal based on reasonable doubt will prosper even though the accused's innocence may be doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense. And, if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction, and, thus, that which is favorable to the accused should be considered.

For (a)ll experience has shown that a

party may be wholly innocent to the offense of which he is accused, although appearances may be against him. The law, therefore, to guard against injustice, requires that the offense be established by evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It is a serious matter, not only to a party, but to the state as well to take a person


from the ordinary avocations of life, brand him a felon, and deprive him of his liberty, appropriate his labor, and cast a cloud upon his future life, and humiliate his relatives and friends, and to authorize the state in doing this, there should be no reasonable doubt of his guilt.” (Amelita dela Cruz vs. People of the Philippines. G. R. No. 150439 July 29, 2005)

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court renders judgment ACQUITTING both accused GEORGE D. CAMHIT and PERFECTO B. MARTINEZ, JR. on the basis of reasonable doubt with cost de oficio.

The facts from which civil liability might arise not being indubitable, there is no pronouncement as to the same.

The Hold-departure Order issued by this Court in this case as against both the accused are hereby lifted and aside. Let the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation be notified accordingly. The bailbonds posted by them are hereby ordered cancelled.

SO ORDERED.Quezon City, Philippines.

EDILBERTO G. SANDOVALAssociate Justice


Chairman

We concur:

FRANCISCO H. VILLARUZ, JR. SAMUEL R. MARTIRES Associate Justice Associate Justice

EGS/onie07/04/06

A T T E S T A T I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the


case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

EDILBERTO G. SANDOVALAssociate Justice

Chairman

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution and the Division Chairman’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTROPresiding Justice

EGS/onie

republic of the philippines -...

Documents