G.R. No. 192951 - Aldersgate College, Inc. vs. Gauuan

Accused Henry M. Gelacio served as the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Region XII, Kidapawan City.
On April 28, 2015, two Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan for violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 and Section 7(d) of R.A. No. 6713.
The charges arose from allegations that Gelacio, in his official capacity, solicited and accepted an aggregate amount of ₱120,000.00 and a whole tuna fish as consideration for issuing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) in DARAB Case No. XII-990-SC-2007.

The accusatory portions of the Informations allege that between 14 August and 19 November 2007, Gelacio committed acts tantamount to extortion and solicitation in connection with the issuance of the TRO and WPI:

For the violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, it is alleged that he demanded and extorted money and a tuna fish, resulting in undue injury to the complainants.
For the violation of Sec. 7(d) of R.A. No. 6713, it is alleged that he solicited and accepted these gifts in the course of his official duties.

The acts involved multiple meetings with complainants, delivery of cash amounts on separate occasions, and a transaction involving a tuna fish, which was personally witnessed by certain parties.

The parties entered into pre-trial stipulations, confirming Gelacio’s official capacity and his role in handling the DARAB case.
Trial proceeded on the merits, where:

The prosecution presented four witnesses, including Lorna Nietes Garte (a clerk and supervising officer), Atty. Johnny Landero (the counsel of the complainants), Herminigilda Garbo (wife and co-complainant), and Dominador Egagamao (a co-complainant).
The evidence presented detailed the alleged meetings, cash exchanges amounting to ₱20,000.00 given at different times, and the procurement and delivery of a tuna fish as part of the corrupt transaction.
Although the private complainant, Eduardito Garbo, died prior to testifying, his written manifestations and the corroborative testimonies of other witnesses filled the evidentiary gap.

The defense presented three witnesses, including Gelacio himself, Bebiano Egagamao, and Atty. Noli Lechonsito, arguing:

That the money collected had been channeled through their lawyer.
That previous cases filed against Gelacio were dismissed or found unsubstantiated.
That an affidavit of retraction by the private complainant (filed with the Office of the Ombudsman) mitigated the allegations.

Found Gelacio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
Sentenced him to imprisonment—from a minimum of six years and one month to a maximum of eight years—and imposed perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

In a separate Information charging him under Sec. 7(d) of R.A. No. 6713, he was similarly found guilty.
On June 26, 2019, a motion for reconsideration was denied; however, after further procedural filings, the Sandiganbayan reversed its earlier Minute Resolution and accepted his appeal on January 10, 2020.
The appeal raised issues related to the sufficiency and admissibility of evidence, specifically challenging whether the conviction relied on hearsay evidence and whether the prosecution came to court with unclean hands.

Testimonies by Atty. Landero, Herminigilda, and others established that Gelacio solicited and accepted money and a tuna fish directly in relation to expediting the issuance of provisional remedies.
The transactions caused undue hardship and injury to the farmers involved in the DARAB case, which were documented in the testimony of several witnesses.

Gelacio denied the charges, attributing discrepancies in the evidence to hearsay and inconsistencies.
The defense argued that the funds might have been misappropriated by other parties (including possibly the private complainant himself) and maintained that previous exonerative decisions had been rendered against him.
The defense further contended that the exclusion of certain witnesses violated his right to equal protection under the law.

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in relying on testimonies that could be characterized as hearsay in establishing the elements of the crimes charged.
Whether the absence of direct testimony from the private complainant (due to his death) undermines the proof required for a conviction.

Whether there was grave doubt regarding the identification of the person who allegedly solicited and accepted gifts from the complainants in the DARAB case.
Whether the evidence supports that the acts attributed to Gelacio were indeed committed by him.

Whether the prosecution, by excluding the private complainant’s witnesses, came to court with unclean hands, thereby depriving Gelacio of his right to equal protection under the law.
Whether this alleged procedural and evidentiary defect merits overturning part or all of the conviction.