Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32287)
Facts:
Judge Arturo Juliano, Petitioner, vs. The Sandiganbayan and The People of the Philippines, Respondents; Renato Vera Cruz y Legasto, Petitioner, vs. The Sandiganbayan and The People of the Philippines, Respondents, G.R. Nos. 100487 and 100607, March 03, 1997, the Supreme Court En Banc, Torres, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Judge Arturo Juliano (the presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna) and Renato Vera Cruz (Clerk of Court) were criminally charged before the Sandiganbayan following a complaint by spouses Romeo de la Cruz and Salvacion Erese, lessees/owners involved in an ejectment action (Civil Case No. 2217) concerning rented commercial premises. The underlying incident began when the tenants failed to pay rents for August–October 1983; the tenants had consigned rentals with the court. On August 2, 1984, de la Cruz filed an ex parte motion to withdraw consigned rentals of P10,000; no resolution issued until December 26, 1984. The trial court later rendered a decision on February 5, 1985 ordering the tenant to vacate and to pay back rentals.
On January 2, 1986, de la Cruz filed a complaint with the Office of the Tanodbayan accusing Judge Juliano and Clerk Vera Cruz of (1) refusing or neglecting to act within a reasonable time on the motion to withdraw the consigned rentals for the purpose of obtaining a pecuniary benefit, and (2) causing undue injury through bad faith, partiality, negligence or ignorance of the law. De la Cruz alleged that the P10,000 consigned rentals were produced and that P9,500 was handed to Judge Juliano (with P500 to Vera Cruz and Alberto Almeda for snacks) as the agreed “share” in exchange for acting on the motion; he claimed Vera Cruz acted as intermediary. At the preliminary conference and at trial, de la Cruz testified to these events. Witness Alberto Almeda initially corroborated but later gave inconsistent testimony; Mario Faraon testified he saw Vera Cruz hand a document to the treasurer and saw de la Cruz count and wrap the money.
At trial Judge Juliano admitted the order was delayed because only one copy of the motion existed and because of his heavy docket, denied receiving money, and explained a procedural reason for an initial version of the decision lacking back-rent award. Vera Cruz likewise denied the extortion allegation. The Sandiganbayan convicted both accused as co-principals of violating Section 3(f) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019), finding the complainant’s testimony credible, the delay unexplained, and the defense unsupported; it imposed imprisonment, perpetual disqualification from public office, and ordered payment of P9,500 jointly and severally (Decision dated April 5, 1991).
Both petitioners filed separate petitions for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court (Rule 45), principally contesting the Sandiganbayan’s factual findings and credibilit...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan err in finding the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(f) of R.A. No. 3019?
- Should the proceedings against petitioner Renato Vera Cruz be terminated because of his alleged death (motion to quash filed ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)