Case Digest (G.R. No. 198162)
Facts:
Corazon M. Lacap v. Sandiganbayan [Fourth Division] and the People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 198162, June 21, 2017, First Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court. The petition arose from Criminal Case No. SB 08-CRM-0030 before the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division, which convicted petitioner Corazon M. Lacap (then Municipal Mayor of Masantol, Pampanga) of violating Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti‑Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for allegedly refusing, after due demand, to act within a reasonable time on Fermina Santos’s application for a mayor’s/business permit for 1999–2000; the Sandiganbayan sentenced Lacap to an indeterminate prison term (six years and one month to ten years) and perpetual disqualification from public office by Decision dated February 21, 2011.The prosecution's theory was that Santos timely submitted a complete application and supporting documents which were forwarded to Mayor Lacap by Atty. Julita Santos Manalac Calderon of the Office of the Ombudsman (transmittal letter, Exh. N) with a request that action be taken "with dispatch," but Mayor Lacap received the transmittal and instead referred it to her private counsel (Atty. Andres Pangilinan) and took no official action to approve or disapprove the permit. The prosecution presented witnesses including Santos, Ombudsman officer Atty. Calderon, the municipal treasurer Marina Paras, Santos’s husband Alejandro, a relative Tomas Manansala, and businessman Andres Onofre, Jr., recounting past closures of Santos’s store, prior issuance of permits, the submission of documentary requirements, and alleged disparate treatment of other vendors.
The defense presented Lacap and former municipal bookkeeper Belinda Trinidad, who produced certifications (Exhs. 6 and 7) suggesting no application was on file or that a required SSS clearance was missing; Lacap testified she referred the Ombudsman letter to counsel because of pending related cases filed by Santos and her husband and therefore claimed she did not refuse to act. The Sandiganbayan, however, found that Lacap received the transmittal with supporting documents, that referral to private counsel was not the official action required, that the lawyer’s reply (Exh. P) was inconsistent and failed to show a genuine withdrawal of application, and that motive to discriminate could be inferred from admissions and supporting exhibits; it convicted Lacap and denied her motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated August 4, 2011.
Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court. The Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombu...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan commit serious misapprehension of facts in finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of official inaction under Section 3(f) of RA 3019?
- Does petitioner’s act of referring the Ombudsman’s transmittal letter to her private lawyer constitute a felony under Section 3(f) of RA 3019?
- Was the Sandiganbayan correct in inferring criminal intent to discriminate against the complainant...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)