Case Summary (G.R. No. 122166)
Factual Background
Petitioner, as Municipal Mayor, was charged for refusal to sign and approve the payrolls and vouchers for the salaries and other emoluments of private complainant Leticia G. Fuertes within the said period, allegedly causing her undue injury. Fuertes had been detailed to various municipalities but was returned to Sindangan in July 1990 without office provisions or work assignments. The Sangguniang Bayan, presided by petitioner, passed a resolution objecting to Fuertes’ assignment. Fuertes filed a petition for mandamus to compel payment, which resulted in a court-approved compromise agreement obliging petitioner to sign and approve Fuertes’ vouchers. However, delays in payment continued, leading to the criminal charges.
Prosecution’s Version of the Facts
The prosecution argued that petitioner willfully and unlawfully withheld Fuertes’ salaries and benefits without due process or valid cause. Evidence showed that Fuertes was only partially paid during the period and that payment of some benefits was delayed until the enactment of supplemental budgets and issuance of certificates of fund availability, which were allegedly under petitioner’s control. The delay allegedly caused financial difficulties to Fuertes and her family.
Defense’s Version of the Facts
Petitioner admitted some payment delays but asserted that the withholding was due to Fuertes’ failure to submit required money and property clearances mandated by regulations. Further, approval of vouchers required the enactment of appropriations ordinance by the Sangguniang Bayan and certification of fund availability, which delayed payments. Petitioner also justified the delay due to a pending reimbursement claim from another municipality against Fuertes. Petitioner emphasized good faith efforts, including instructions for preparation and submission of supplemental budgets, and that Fuertes had been receiving regular salaries since 1991.
Ruling of the Sandiganbayan
The Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019, concluding that the delay in payment was unjustified and caused undue injury to Fuertes. It rejected petitioner’s defenses, holding that (a) the clearance requirement was not properly imposed or communicated, (b) the funds to pay the claims were available as evidenced by appropriations and supplemental budgets, and (c) petitioner’s bad faith was demonstrated by instructions to exclude Fuertes from duties and his purported intent to replace her politically. The Court sentenced petitioner to imprisonment, perpetual disqualification from public office, and costs.
Issues Presented for Review
- Whether petitioner’s failure or refusal to sign and approve vouchers constitutes a violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, which typically addresses positive acts, or falls under Section 3(f) relating to neglect or refusal to act.
- Whether the refusal to approve vouchers was justified by the absence of an appropriations ordinance and whether Fuertes actually suffered undue injury given eventual payment of all claims.
- Whether petitioner acted in good faith in delaying approval pending submission of clearances and budgetary appropriations.
Supreme Court’s Analysis – Undue Injury Requirement
Section 3(e) of RA 3019 penalizes causing undue injury through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross negligence. The Court stressed that "undue injury" means actual and quantifiable damage and cannot be presumed or based on speculative or incidental inconvenience. The prosecution failed to prove such actual injury because all monetary claims were eventually paid in full, and Fuertes’ testimony about family financial difficulty was vague and unsubstantiated by specific evidence. Accordingly, the element of undue injury necessary for conviction was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court’s Analysis – Bad Faith and Justification for Delay
The Court found petitioner’s defense credible, noting the valid legal requirements petitioner relied upon: (a) the mandatory submission of money and property clearances by employees transferring between offices per Local Government Code Implementing Rules; (b) the procedural requirement for the enactment of appropriations ordinances and certification of fund availability before disbursements per the Local Government Code; and (c) the need to clarify pending reimbursement claims from a different municipality. The failure of Fuertes to submit requisite clearances partially justified the delay, as did the lack of supplemental appropriations approved by the Sangguniang Bayan. These legal and procedural prerequisites evidenced the absence of eviden
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 122166)
Case Background and Charge
- Cresente Y. Llorente, Jr., then Municipal Mayor of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, was charged with violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
- The charge stemmed from petitioner’s alleged willful, unlawful, and bad faith refusal to sign and approve payrolls and vouchers representing the payment of salaries and other emoluments of Leticia G. Fuertes, Assistant Municipal Treasurer.
- The refusal purportedly caused "undue injury" to Fuertes, a notion central to the case.
- Petitioner entered a plea of not guilty after arraignment.
- The Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner and sentenced him to imprisonment, perpetual disqualification from public office, and costs.
- The petition sought review of that conviction and the denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Facts of the Case According to Prosecution
- Fuertes was a duly appointed Assistant Municipal Treasurer of Sindangan, detailed to other municipalities in Zamboanga del Norte intermittently before returning to Sindangan in July 1990.
- Upon return, complainant was not provided office equipment nor given work assignments; her time and leave records were not acted upon; she was subject to a Sangguniang Bayan resolution opposing her assignment.
- Fuertes filed a petition for mandamus with damages to compel payment of her salaries and emoluments from various periods, citing refusal by Llorente to approve payrolls without just cause and due process.
- A compromise agreement was reached requiring Llorente to sign and approve all vouchers/payrolls due to Fuertes and to cease further claims or counterclaims.
- Despite the settlement, delays and partial payments continued. A writ of execution was served on Llorente to enforce compliance.
- Fuertes was eventually paid all her monetary claims except her Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA), which was settled later.
- In 1993, the Municipality of PiAan demanded reimbursement from Sindangan for overpayment to Fuertes, which was eventually settled.
- Fuertes only fully received payments after a supplemental budget and certifications of fund availability were secured at the end of 1992 and payments made immediately thereafter.
Defense Version and Explanation for Delays
- Petitioner acknowledged some delays but asserted good faith, citing:
- Failure of Fuertes to submit required money and property clearances.
- Delay in the Sangguniang Bayan’s enactment of supplemental budget to cover claims.
- Legal and procedural obstacles, including a demand by Municipality of PiAan for reimbursement from Fuertes.
- Petitioner allowed Fuertes’ name in the regular annual budget beginning 1991, ensuring receipt of regular monthly salaries from that year.
- Compromise agreement was made, but the writ of execution was served only on him, not the Sangguniang Bayan, limiting enforcement power.
- Petitioner tasked budget officers to prepare necessary supplemental budget proposals.
- Municipal Treasurer and Accountant issued certification of fund availability only in late 1992 due to provincial delays.
- Petitioner only approved the voucher payments after certifications, at which time Fuertes received all claims except RATA.
- The requirement for clearances was grounded in local government regulations; Fuertes failed to submit these documents despite this requirement being stated on the vouchers themselves.
- The defense claimed petitioner’s actions and administrative delays lacke