Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Amelia R. De Pano, Angelito A. Rodriguez, Noel G. Jimenez, and Jose Joel B. Baldeo
Case
G.R. No. 254639
Decision Date
Oct 21, 2024
The case involved accused public officers found guilty of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act but were acquitted on appeal due to lack of evident bad faith while still liable for civil indemnification.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 159730)

Background of the Case

The accused were charged with violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 stemming from a corrupt transaction regarding the construction of a perimeter fence at Palili Elementary School in Samal, Bataan. The prosecution alleged that the accused facilitated payment for work that was never completed, resulting in undue injury to the Provincial Government of Bataan.

Judicial Findings and Charges

On August 6, 2020, the Sandiganbayan found the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges, wherein it ruled there was manifest partiality and evident bad faith exhibited by the accused in the performance of their official duties. The case initially included a co-accused, Jose Joel B. Baldeo, whose case was dismissed following the presentation of his death certificate.

Admission of Public Duties and Responsibilities

During pre-trial conferences, both the prosecution and defense stipulated the positions held by the accused at the time of the alleged crime, confirming their roles as provincial engineers and affirming their signatures on documents related to the project, which served to facilitate the disbursement of public funds.

Prosecution's Argument

The prosecution, through various witnesses, constructed a narrative chronicling the timeline and events surrounding the supposed construction project, illustrating how the accused misrepresented the status of the perimeter fence to enable payment. Evidence included testimonies from members of the General Parents Teachers Community Association and officials from the Commission on Audit who documented discrepancies between the executed works and the official certifications provided by the accused.

Defense and Explanations Provided

The defense argued a lack of intent to commit wrongdoing, attributing their actions to procedural errors. They claimed misunderstandings regarding project documents due to the simultaneous existence of two construction projects in the area. The defense highlighted the absence of direct evidence proving the accused acted with malevolent intent or in bad faith.

Court's Assessment of Guilt

The Court concluded that, while it validated the prosecution's claims of negligence in oversight on the part of the accused-appellants, there was insufficient evidence exhibited to prove that they acted with evident bad faith or manifested partiality towards Baldeo Construction. The Court articulated the necessity for proof of malicious intent as integral to uphold a conviction for violations under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Acquittal and Civil Liability

The Court overturned the decision of the Sandiganbayan concerning the accused-appellants, deeming them not guilty based on the failure of the prosecution to establish the

...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.