First Division: Notice Notice

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 219692. December 2, 2015.]
RENE MONDEJAR , petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ,

respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated
December 2, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 219692 — RENE MONDEJAR, petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent .
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court assailing Sandiganbayan's Decision 1 dated 7 November 2013, nding Mayor
Rene Mondejar (Mayor Mondejar) of Maasin, Iloilo guilty of violation of Section 3 (e) of
Republic Act (R.A.) 3019 2 otherwise known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
and Falsi cation of a Public Document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC). 3
As alleged by the prosecution, Mayor Mondejar, together with his co-accused
public of cials Arnaldo Partisala, 4 Francisco Tolentino, Ildefonso Espejo, Margarita
Gumapas, Manuel Piolo and Roberto Velasco, took advantage of their positions and
conspired with one another to falsify the minutes of the meeting of the Sangguniang
Bayan dated 21 June 1996 and fabricated municipal resolution to make it appear that
Resolution Nos. 30-A and 30-B were passed to authorize Mayor Mondejar to exercise
his emergency powers and enter in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with
International Builders Corporation (IBC) through its President Helen L. Tan (Tan) for the
rechanneling (Resolution No. 30-A) of Tigum River in Barangay Naslo, Maasin, Iloilo to
prevent further damage during the typhoon season. The falsi cation was resorted into
to justify the massive quarrying of IBC, in the guise of rechanneling of river, thereby,
giving unwarranted bene ts to IBC at the expense of the undue injury sustained by the
municipality.
On the other hand, Mayor Mondejar denied any conspiracy to commit
falsi cation of the Sangguniang Bayan Resolution as he was not a member of the
Sanggunian and did not participate in the session and preparation of the minutes. On
the same note, he also denied any form of bene ts given to IBC because the latter was
not handpicked by him but by barangay officials of Barangay Naslo.
Due to the circumstances tainting the legality of the MOA, Mayor Mondejar,
together with other public of cials of Maasin, Iloilo were charged by the of ce of the
Ombudsman for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Article 171 of the
Revised Penal Code on Falsification of Public Document.
On 7 November 2013, the Sandiganbayan found the accused public of cers
guilty and sentenced them to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one
(1) month as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum and to suffer perpetual
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
disquali cation from public service for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 and to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six months and one day of prision correccional as
minimum to eight years (8) and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum and to pay a
ne of P5,000.00 and to suffer perpetual special disquali cation from the right of
suffrage for violation of Article 171 of the RPC. In a Resolution 5 dated 30 June 2015,
the motion for reconsideration was denied by the Sandiganbayan.
Before this Court, petitioner Mayor Mondejar argues that the Sandiganbayan
committed an error in convicting him since there was no evidence that he falsi ed the
fraudulent minutes of the meeting and gave unwarranted bene ts to IBC when he and
the latter entered into a MOA allowing the rechanneling of the river.
We find that the elements of Section 3 (e) 6 and falsi cation of the minutes of the
meeting and resolution are present in this case to convict the charged officials.
As to the charge of falsification:
It is evident from the testimony of the witnesses particularly that of Jose S.
Navarra, a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Maasin, Iloilo that the contested
resolutions, Resolution Nos. 30-A and 30-B, were never passed nor deliberated upon on
the session day of 21 June 1996. He testi ed that when he and his fellow Sangguniang
Bayan members attended the said session, only two resolutions were tackled,
Resolution No. 30 pertaining to approval of Resolution No. 10 of the Municipal
Development Council and Resolution No. 31 referring to a re-alignment of budget. AScHCD
Navarra's testimony was af rmed by fellow Sangguniang Member Ernie Malaga

when he con rmed through his personal copy of the real minutes of the meeting dated
21 June 1996 that the matter of rechanneling of the Tigum River was not taken upon
during that session.
For this reason, Malaga, Navarra together with the two other members of the
Sangguniang Bayan Dr. Vicente Albecete and Elisa Torjillo refused to sign the falsi ed
minutes prepared by the Sangguniang Bayan Secretary Francisco Tolentino after 21
June 1996 to legitimize the MOA entered into by Mayor Mondejar. All the other accused
of cials signed the same despite knowledge that the Sangguniang Bayan did not
discuss the rechanneling nor give any authority to Mayor Mondejar to exercise
emergency powers.
Clearly, from the totality of evidence, it can inferred from the acts of the accused
of cials that there was a conspiracy to falsify the minutes of the meeting by making it
appear that there was two resolutions justifying the contract entered into by Mayor
Mondejar with IBC.
As to the graft charge, we find all the elements present to convict mayor
Mondejar.
First, Mayor Mondejar is a public officer who discharged his official function.
Second, Mayor Mondejar acted with manifest partiality and evident bad faith in
the discharge of his function. In Ambil, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan 7 we de ned partiality and
bias as follows:
"Partiality" is synonymous with "bias" which excites a disposition to see
and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are." Bad Faith
does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest
purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of
sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of
fraud." 8
In this case, manifest partiality and evident bad faith were evident on the part of
Mayor Mondejar when despite his lack of authority and knowledge of the spurious
character of the Resolutions, he entered into a MOA with Tan of IBC to rechannel the
Tigum River. In concurrence with the Sandiganbayan, the minutes and resolutions were
falsi ed in order to serve as a cover-up of the lack of authority of Mayor Mondejar to
exercise his emergency powers.
Lastly, from the foregoing transaction, it is apparent that Mayor Mondejar, in the
discharge of his of cial functions gave unwarranted bene ts, advantage and
preference to Tan and her company IBC. The MOA entered into not only allowed IBC to
rechannel the river, it even authorized the company to extract sand and gravel without
the necessary permit as a form of payment for the service performed. More so, the
MOA neither provide for any limitation for the allowable volume to be extracted nor any
requirement on regulation/supervision of municipality on IBC. Putting it differently,
Mayor Mondejar gave IBC absolute control of the conduct of the quarrying of river in
the guise of rechanneling without any permit as required by the provincial government.
Final note, the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3
(e) of R.A. 3019 is imprisonment for six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to ten
(10) years as maximum and perpetual disqualification from public.
Under Section 9 of R.A. 3019, the penalty provided for violation of Section 3 (e) is
punishable with imprisonment for not less than six (6) years and one (1) month to not
more than fteen (15) years and perpetual disquali cation from public of ce and
con scation and forfeiture in favor of the Government of any prohibited interest and
unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income.
Under Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW) or Act No. 4103, as
amended by Act No. 4225, if the offense is punished by a special law, the court shall
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall
not exceed the maximum xed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the
minimum term prescribed by the same. 9
Thus, in this case, the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan upon Mayor
Mondejar of imprisonment for six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to ten (10)
years as maximum and perpetual disquali cation from public of ce is in accord with
law.
On the other hand, the penalty imposed by Sandiganbayan for falsi cation is
imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to
eight (8) years and one day of prision mayor as maximum and payment of a ne of
P5,000.00 and perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage.
Article 171 of RPC penalizes falsi cation by a public of cer of single divisible
penalty of prision mayor and a ne not to exceed P5,000.00. In the absence of any
aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the imposable penalty will be in the medium
period or imprisonment for eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years, pursuant
to Article 64 of the RPC. 10 Applying further the ISLAW, the maximum penalty
imposable would be the medium period of prision mayor or eight (8) years and one (1)
day to ten (10) years while the minimum penalty will be one degree lower which is the
medium period of prision correccional which ranges from two (2) years, four (4)
months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months. 11
Thus, we modify the imposed penalty of Sandiganbayan from six (6) months and
one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years and one day of prision
mayor as maximum to imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day
to four (4) years and two (2) months as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day to
ten (10) years as maximum penalty. AcICHD
WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, the Decision and the Resolution of the
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Cases No. 25674 and No. 25675 dated 7 November 2013
and 30 June 2015, respectively, are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS . For
violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, petitioner Mayor Rene Mondejar is sentenced
to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum
to ten (10) years as maximum and perpetual disquali cation from public of ce.
However, the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan for violation of Article 171 of the
Revised Penal Code is amended to the following modi cations that Mayor Mondejar is
to suffer an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to
four (4) years and two (2) months as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten
(10) years as maximum penalty, fine of P5,000.00 and perpetual special disqualification
from the right of suffrage.
SO ORDERED ."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA

Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo with Associate Justices Roland B.
Jurado and Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang concurring; rollo, pp. 71-113.
2. Section 3 . Corrupt practices of public of cers . In addition to acts or omissions of public
of cers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt
practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any
private party any unwarranted bene ts, advantage or preference in the discharge of
his of cial administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident
bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to of cers and
employees of of ces or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses
or permits or other concessions.
3. Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister.
The penalty of prision mayor and a ne not to exceed P5,000.00 pesos shall be
imposed upon any public of cer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his
official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when
they did not in fact so participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements
other than those in fact made by them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;

5. Altering true dates;
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its
meaning;
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an

original document when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a
statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol,
registry, or of cial book. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical
minister who shall commit any of the offense enumerated in the preceding
paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of such character
that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons.
4. Remains at large.
5. Rollo, pp. 154-159.

6. The accused is a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;
That he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence; and
That his action has caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or
giving any private party any unwarranted bene ts, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions.
7. Ambil, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, et al., 669 Phil. 32 (2011).

8. Id. at 48, citing Sison v. People, 628 Phil. 573, 583 (2010).
9. Supra note 5, at 58.

10. Goma, et al. v. Court of Appeals, 596 Phil. 1, 13 (2009).
11. Id.

First Division: Notice Notice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

First Division: Notice Notice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

First Division: Notice Notice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 219692. December 2, 2015.]

RENE MONDEJAR , petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ,

Navarra's testimony was af rmed by fellow Sangguniang Member Ernie Malaga

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an

5. Rollo, pp. 154-159.

7. Ambil, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, et al., 669 Phil. 32 (2011).

9. Supra note 5, at 58.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like