Title
People vs. Jeorge Ejercito Estregan, et al.
Case
G.R. No. 248699
Decision Date
Feb 5, 2025
Accused public officials of Pagsanjan convicted for unlawfully entering a MOA for accident protection, found guilty of corrupt practices, leading to imprisonment and disqualification from office.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 248699)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Complaint and Charges
    • In 2009, the United Boatmen Association of Pagsanjan (UBAP) filed a complaint against Jeorge Ejercito Estregan (Mayor of Pagsanjan), Vice-Mayor Crisostomo B. Vilar, Municipal Councilors including Arlyn Lazaro-Torres, Terryl Gamit-Talabong, Kalahi U. Rabago, Erwin P. Sacluti, Gener C. Dimaranan, and private individual Marilyn M. Bruel (proprietor of First Rapids Care Ventures – FRCV).
    • The complaint alleged unlawful entry into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for Accident Protection and Assistance (APA) services without public bidding and despite FRCV lacking a Certificate of Authority from the Insurance Commission.
    • After investigation, the Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict all accused for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
  • Accusatory Information before the Sandiganbayan
    • Filed on March 16, 2016, accused were charged for conspiring to unlawfully give unwarranted benefit to Bruel/FRCV by entering into the MOA without the requisite public bidding and despite FRCV’s lack of insurance license.
    • Accused-appellants pleaded not guilty.
  • Stipulations and Trial
    • Parties stipulated that accused public officials held their positions, Bruel was proprietor of FRCV, the Sangguniang Bayan passed ordinances authorizing Estregan to contract with a qualified entity for APA services.
    • FRCV submitted a proposal and MOA was entered on October 23, 2008, then ratified by the Sangguniang Bayan via resolution.
    • Prosecution presented a witness from the Insurance Commission who opined the MOA was an insurance contract.
    • Defense testimonies:
      • Councilors Torres and Talabong stated their votes were made in good faith, after deliberation, believing the ordinances were for the public benefit.
      • Estregan and other accused stated the need for an APA program, holding public consultations and presentations to justify FRCV’s capability.
      • The APA fees were sourced from boat ride service fees categorized as a special fund, collected and held in trust by the Municipal Treasurer.
      • UBAP’s new Board desisted from complaint, recognizing the APA services’ necessity.
  • Sandiganbayan Decision and Penalties Imposed
    • Found Estregan, Torres, Talabong, Rabago, Sacluti, Dimaranan, and Bruel guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
    • Acquitted Vilar for lack of evidence.
    • Held Estregan acted with bad faith, manifest partiality, and negligence, awarding FRCV unwarranted benefits.
    • Sentenced guilty parties to imprisonment of six years and one month to eight years, with perpetual disqualification from public office.
  • Appeals and Submissions
    • Accused-appellants appealed, raising arguments of good faith, lack of conspiracy, the nature of MOA as special services and not insurance contract, and absence of procurement irregularities.
    • OSP argued procedural defects and affirmed liability.
    • Estregan’s counsel filed appeals late; justification denied by the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Whether the MOA between the Municipality of Pagsanjan and FRCV constitutes a contract of insurance.
  • Whether public bidding was required for the procurement of APA services under the MOA.
  • Whether accused public officials and Bruel acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence under Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
  • Whether the accused caused undue injury to the Municipality or gave unwarranted benefits to FRCV.
  • Whether the members of the Sangguniang Bayan, aside from Estregan, were liable under Section 3(e).
  • The validity of procedural questions regarding the filing and admission of appeal briefs.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.