Title
Supreme Court
Cadiao-Palacios vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 168544
Decision Date
Mar 31, 2009
A mayor and official demanded and received payments from a contractor under threat of withholding project funds, violating anti-graft laws; conviction upheld.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 168544)

Applicable Law

The core legal framework governing the case is Republic Act No. 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, specifically Section 3(b), which penalizes public officers who request or receive gifts or any form of benefit in connection with government contracts.

Indictment and Charges

Petitioner and Venturanza were indicted for demanding and receiving money associated with infrastructure contracts, which totaled P2 million, despite the municipality's existing obligations to the contractor, L.S. Gamotin Construction. The indictment stated that on or about January 1999, both accused conspired to demand and receive sums of money from Grace Superficial, representing L.S. Gamotin.

Court Proceedings and Testimonies

Petitioner and Venturanza surrendered voluntarily and entered a plea of "Not Guilty" to the charges. During trial, the prosecution's primary witness, Grace Superficial, testified that she was coerced into paying a "kickback" under the threat of withheld payments from the municipality. Specifically, she detailed that she gave P15,000 to the petitioner’s husband and later delivered a check for P162,400.

In contrast, the defense presented the testimonies of several witnesses, including both accused, who denied the allegations. Petitioner claimed that she dealt directly with Engr. Leobardo Gamotin, the contractor, and stated there was no direct link between Superficial and the alleged extortion. Venturanza insisted that the check he received was a loan from Superficial, not a bribe.

Sandiganbayan's Decision

On January 28, 2005, the Sandiganbayan rendered a guilty verdict against both accused, imposing a sentence of six years and one month to nine years of imprisonment, reflective of the crime of receiving and demanding a "grease money." The court found substantial evidence that both had conspired to execute the offense, establishing their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Legal Standards and Burden of Proof

To secure a conviction under Section 3(b) of R.A. 3019, the prosecution must demonstrate that the accused was a public officer, received a gift or benefit in connection with a government transaction, and that such actions were done in their official capacity. The Sandiganbayan maintained that these elements were satisfied by the evidence presented, particularly the damning testimony of Superficial combined with the involvement of Venturanza.

Appellate Review

Upon review, the higher court upheld the findings of the Sandiganbayan, c

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.