Case Digest (G.R. No. 250951)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Henry M. Gelacio, G.R. Nos. 250951 and 250958, August 10, 2022, Supreme Court First Division, Gesmundo, C.J., writing for the Court.Henry M. Gelacio (accused-appellant) was the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), Region XII. On April 28, 2015 two Informations were filed in the Sandiganbayan (SB-15-CRM-0101 and SB-15-CRM-0102) charging him with (a) violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for extorting money and a tuna fish in exchange for issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) in DARAB Case No. XII-990-SC-2007, and (b) violation of Section 7(d) of R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards) for solicitation or acceptance of gifts in connection with his official duties.
At arraignment Gelacio pleaded not guilty. During pre-trial the parties stipulated, among other things, that he was the Regional Adjudicator and that a TRO and WPI were issued in DARAB XII-990-SC-2007. Trial followed. The prosecution presented four witnesses: Lorna Nietes Garte (DARAB clerk), Atty. Johnny Landero (counsel for the complainants), Herminigilda Garbo (co-complainant and spouse of the deceased private complainant), and Dominador Egagamao (co-complainant). Their testimonies described repeated meetings, cash payments (totaling P120,000 alleged), and delivery of a tuna fish to Gelacio or his aide in connection with securing provisional reliefs. The private complainant, Eduardito Garbo, died before trial and did not testify.
The defense presented Gelacio, Bebiano Egagamao (a complainant), and Atty. Noli Lechonsito. Gelacio denied the charges and pointed to prior litigations and a purported affidavit of retraction; Bebiano said contributions were given to the participants’ lawyer; and Atty. Lechonsito spoke to a drafted retraction filed with the Ombudsman. After memoranda, the Sandiganbayan, Sixth Division, found Gelacio guilty of both charges in a Decision promulgated April 29, 2019, sentencing him on R.A. No. 3019 and R.A. No. 6713 violations. A June 26, 2019 Resolu...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in relying on hearsay evidence and in finding the identity and commission of the crimes established beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in allowing prosecution and conviction under both Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Section 7(d) of R.A. No. 6713, given the interplay of penalties and Section 11(a) o...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)