Title
Acosta vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 225154-57
Decision Date
Nov 24, 2021
Former Rep. Nereus Acosta and mother Socorro acquitted of graft charges; PDAF funds released to NGOs linked to family deemed lawful, no financial interest proven.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 225154-57)

Facts of the Case

Nereus served as a member of the House of Representatives from 1998 to 2007, utilizing his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) to allocate funds to non-profit organizations, specifically the Bukidnon Integrated Network of Home Industries, Inc. (BINHI) and the Bukidnon Vegetable Producers Cooperative (BVPC). The transactions linked to his PDAF included funding for a solar tunnel dryer and financial assistance to BINHI and BVPC, involving significant amounts disbursed by local government units.

Criminal Charges

Four criminal cases arose from the aforementioned transactions. Nereus faced three charges under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, and Socorro faced a charge under Section 3(h) of the same law. These charges claimed, among other things, that the petitioners disproportionately benefited these organizations at the public’s expense.

Procedures and Trial

The petitioners were arraigned and pleaded not guilty to all charges. The prosecution presented seven witnesses and introduced several pieces of evidence, while the defense also brought forth numerous witnesses. The Sandiganbayan ultimately resolved the case with a mix of acquittals and convictions.

Sandiganbayan Decision

On March 28, 2016, the Sandiganbayan convicted Socorro of violating Section 3(h) of R.A. No. 3019, sentencing her to imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office. It found Nereus guilty of violating Section 3(e) alongside Socorro in a separate case. Key to this decision was the Sandiganbayan's conclusion that the petitioners had acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and gross negligence, causing undue harm to government interests.

Disputed Elements in Court

The petitioners challenged the Sandiganbayan's findings, arguing the exclusion of certain evidence and asserting that no regulatory requirements—including those related to agreements with local councils—were breached, as the funds in question were national government funds.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found merit in the petition, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove the criminal intent neces

...continue reading

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