Antonio de Jesus Sr. v. Sandiganbayan

Antonio De Jesus Sr. v.
Sandiganbayan
Facts
The Office of the Ombudsman charged the accused public officers Antonio Y. de Jesus, Sr. (De Jesus, Sr.),
Mayor of Anahawan, his Vice-Mayor, and Martina S. Apigo (Apigo), the Treasurer, of falsification of public
document before the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case 26764 and all three, along with Antonio de Jesus, Jr.
(De Jesus, Jr.), the mayor's son, of violation of Republic Act (R.A.) 3019 before the same court in Criminal
Case 26766.
First information alleged that De Jesus, Sr., Ang, and Apigo (accused local officials) falsified the Requests
for Quotation and Abstract of Proposal of Canvass by making it appear that Cuad Lumber and Hinundayan
Lumber submitted quotations for the supply of coco lumber, when they did not in fact do so, in violation of
Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.
Second information alleges that, taking advantage of their positions, the three municipal officers gave
unwarranted advantage to De Jesus, Jr., who operated under the name Anahawan Coco Lumber Supply, by
awarding to him the supply of coco lumber worth P16,767.00.
Sandiganbayan rendered judgment, convicting the accused local officials of the crimes charged. It, however,
acquitted accused De Jesus, Jr.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in finding the accused local officials guilty of the two
crimes charged when these referred to only one transaction
2. Whether or not the conviction of the accused is correct
Ruling:
1. Yes. The accused local officials contend that the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy among
them. The Sandiganbayan itself, they say, did not believe prosecution witness Maria Fe Lakilak's
testimony that she saw Ang and Apigo sign the Requests for Quotation for Hinundayan Lumber
and Cuad Lumber.
But the prosecution is not required to prove conspiracy by evidence that the three local officials sat
down and came to an agreement to commit the crimes of which they were charged. Such conspiracy
may be proved by a number of circumstances from which one may infer that the accused were
animated by a common criminal purpose.
2. Yes. The accused municipal treasurer certified by her signature that a canvass of suppliers was
undertaken and that their quotations on the Requests for Quotations were correct. This obviously
did not take place since the document lacked the required signatures of two supposed bidders.
Besides, the Cuad Lumber's owner testified that he took no part in the canvass and that his business
name was Cuad General Merchandise and not Cuad Lumber as stated in the Requests. During pre-
trial the defense admitted that the accused local officials signed the Requests for Quotation and the
Abstract of Proposal of Canvass despite the absence of bidders' signatures. The accused local
officials acted in concert.
Moreover, the Purchase Request 12 did not bear the signature of the local auditor. Additionally, the
accused municipal mayor signed the document as "Head of Department/Office" that executed the
purchase request in connection with the repair of the municipal building.
The accused local officials point out, citing Arias v. Sandiganbayan, 13 that "heads of offices have
to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinates and on the good faith of those who prepare bids,
purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations." But the documents and other circumstances of these
cases negate reliance on the competence and good faith of subordinates. First, the accused local
officials knew or could have known that the winning supplier was the accused mayor's son. Second,
the accused local officials signed the documents both in their official capacities and as witnesses
evidently to avoid, as stated above, exposing the deal to other eyes. And third, the rejected suppliers
did not sign the quotations they supposedly submitted. Indeed, the space for their signatures was
just above the space where the accused local officials signed
In sum, the Sandiganbayan proved that the accused acted in concert in committing the illegal acts
constituting their guild to the crime charged.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMSthe Sandiganbayan Decision
promulgated on March 7, 2007 and its Resolution dated April 16, 2008.

Antonio de Jesus Sr. v. Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antonio de Jesus Sr. v. Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Antonio de Jesus Sr. v. Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antonio De Jesus Sr. v.

You might also like