Title
Malig vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 71712
Decision Date
Apr 15, 1988
COA inspectors convicted for soliciting P20,000 from a contractor in exchange for a favorable report, upheld by the Supreme Court under RA 3019.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 71712)

Charges and Conviction Details

The petitioners were charged under Section 3(b) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019, as amended). They were found guilty of soliciting a bribe of P20,000.00 from Celso R. Halili, President of Halrey Construction, Inc., as a condition to favorably expedite the post-inspection report of the Bocaue-San Jose Road project. The Sandiganbayan sentenced them to three to six years of imprisonment, perpetual disqualification from public office, and required them to pay costs.

Evidence Summarization

The prosecution's case relied on testimonies from Danilo Francisco, the foreman of Halrey Construction, and Emiliana Gerona, the secretary, alongside documentation indicating prior similar transactions. Danilo Francisco recounted an instance when Malig solicited P20,000.00 after an inspection on March 15, 1983, and a follow-up request on March 21, 1983. Emiliana Gerona testified regarding the petitioners' previous demands for representation expenses during other inspections.

Petitioners' Testimonies and Defense

The petitioners, Malig and Lacson, denied soliciting any amount and asserted that their inspections were legitimate reviews of the contractor’s work. They claimed that any conversations with the witnesses did not involve bribery and highlighted discrepancies in the testimonies against them. They argued that their reports were based on an authorized inspection and that they were unaware of any revisions made to the project scope prior to their inspection.

Legal Arguments and Appeal

In their appeal, the petitioners contended that the Sandiganbayan erred by concluding that they had acted in bad faith, and that the hearsay evidence presented was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They took issue with the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses and maintained that their actions were consistent with the duties of their positions as auditors.

Sandiganbayan's Findings

Despite the petitioners' defense, the Sandiganbayan affirmed their conviction, stating that the evidence presented indicated a clear intent to solicit a bribe. Their inspection was deemed a pretext to cover their demand for money. The Sandiganbayan underscored the professional relationship the petitioners had established with Halrey Construction and previous incidents where similar requests were made.

Conclusion of the Court

The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, asserting that the combination of testimonial and documentary evidence pointed towards the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The petitioners' alleged prior actions and the nature

...continue reading

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