G.R. No. L-7544 - Joaquin vs. Navarro

On April 21, 1976, Aquilino Encarnacion – barangay captain of barrio Sagurong, Pili, Camarines Sur; farm manager of Hacienda Sta. Rita; and attorney-in-fact of former Congressman Apolonio Marasigan – filed a sworn complaint with the Secretary of Justice.
The complaint charged Crispin I. Peralta, a deputy provincial sheriff of Camarines Sur, with (a) graft and corruption, and (b) ignorance of the law, gross inefficiency, and abuse of authority.
The Secretary of Justice forwarded the complaint to the Supreme Court, leading to a review en banc.

On September 30, 1976, the Court, sitting en banc, dismissed the charges of ignorance of the law, inefficiency, and abuse of authority as premature.
The charge for graft and corruption was referred to the Executive Judge of Camarines Sur for investigation, report, and recommendation.

The Executive Judge conducted an investigation and submitted a report recommending that the case be dropped and considered closed.

The report noted that there was no appreciable evidence of the respondent receiving P60.00 from the complainant.
The petty cash voucher (Exhibit A) was considered self-serving.
The testimony of witness Simeon Hernandez lacked evidentiary value.
The alleged eyewitness account originated from a biased and coached witness.
The overall complaint was deemed retaliatory – a revenge by Encarnacion against the sheriff.

The Acting Judicial Consultant also recommended the dismissal of the charge due to insufficiency of evidence.

In a separate matter involving RO6 WCU Case No. A-104 of the Workmen’s Compensation Unit of the Department of Labor, Hacienda Sta. Rita was adjudged to pay P5,600.00 to Carmen Vda. de Marasigan.

When the award was not satisfied, a writ of execution was issued.
Respondent Peralta subsequently levied upon a jeepney bearing the markings “Hacienda Sta. Rita” by virtue of that writ.

A subsequent dispute arose when former Congressman Apolonio V. Marasigan filed a third-party claim asserting sole ownership of the jeep.

This led to the filing of Civil Case No. P-437 in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, which remains pending.

The charge arose from events on or about January 24, 1976, when, during a snack at the Garden Restaurant in Naga City, Peralta proposed that he would refrain from pursuing the levy on the passenger jeep if Encarnacion would pay him Two Hundred Pesos.
Encarnacion testified that he gave Peralta only P60.00 at that time and, prior to February 12, 1976, was unable to provide the balance of P140.00 due to lack of funds and former Congressman Marasigan’s refusal.
On the afternoon of February 12, 1976, while the jeepney was parked by Encarnacion near the capitol building, Peralta levied and confiscated the jeepney.
Testimony by Jaime Baldovia corroborated that during the meal, Peralta had demanded P200.00, stating that if he received that amount, he would not proceed with the levy.

Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the allegation that deputy sheriff Peralta received P60.00 from complainant Encarnacion as part of a bribery or graft scheme.
Whether the inconsistencies between the complainant’s earlier request for P60.00 and his later testimony regarding the demand of P200.00 undermine the credibility of the bribery allegation.

The reliability of the petty cash voucher (Exhibit A) and its self-serving nature.
The lack of value attributed to the testimony of witness Simeon Hernandez.
The potential bias and coaching of the alleged eyewitness testimony.

Whether the graft and corruption charge was sustainable given that the evidence simply did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that a bribery took place.
Whether the complaint was merely retaliatory in nature rather than grounded in fact.