REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES...

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSANDIGANBAYAN

Quezon City

FOURTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

CRIM. CASE NO. S8-11-CRM-022S*

-versus- For: Direct Bribery under Article 210 of theRevised Penal Code

ROORIGO R. FLORES, andCANDELARIA OM. MANGULABNAN,.*

Accused.

Present:

QUIROZ, J. ChairpersonCRUZ, J.ECONG, J:**

Promulgated on:

GCT 0 6 2017 rx- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION

CRUZ, J.

On 05 March 2014, an Amended lnforrnation' dated 03 January2014, was filed before this Court charging accused Rodrigo R. Flores("Flores" for brevity) and Candelaria OM. Mangulabnan ("Mangu-labnan" for brevity) with the crime of direct bribery under Article 210 ofthe Revised Penal Code (RPC), committed as follows:

• The case is submitted for decision with respect to accused Candelaria Mangulabnan per Court Agendumdated 24 May 2017 .•• Middle name of accused Mangulabnan is Oe Mesa (OM), noted in the Amended Information dated 0j#January 2014, Records, p. 117••• Sitting as Special Member per Administrative Order No. 024-2017 dated 01 February 2017.1 Records, pp. 117-118. 1f

DECISIONPp. vs. Flores and MangulabnanCase No. S8-11-CRM-0228

of 12x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

"That on or about March 1998 or for sometime subsequent thereto,in the City of San Fernando, Pampanga, Philippines, accused RO-DRIGO R. FLORES, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court inCities (MTCC), Branch 2, City of San Fernando, Pampanga, with Sal-ary Grade 27, thus, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,together with CANDELARIA MANGULABNAN, Court Interpreter andspecially assigned as Chairman of the Revision Committee of thesame MTCC of San Fernando City, Pampanga, while in the perfor-mance of their official functions, committing the offense in relation totheir office, taking advantage of their respective official positions, andwith grave abuse of authority, confederating together and mutuallyhelping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and felo-niously demanded and request the amount of P20,OOO.OOfrom DarioManalastas, a party to an election protest case filed by Alberto Guintoagainst Dario Manalastas where accused Rodrigo R. Flores and Can-delaria Mangulabnan have to intervene in their official capacitiessince such case is pending before the Court where accused RodrigoR. Flores is the Presiding Judge and Candelaria Mangulabnan is theCourt Interpreter and Chairman of the Revision Committee, whichamount accused Candelaria Mangulabnan actually received for ac-cused Rodrigo R. Flores in consideration of a decision in the casefavorable to Dario Manalastas which is unjust, since the decisionshould be based on the merits of the case and not the monetary con-sideration, the damage and prejudice of Dario Manalastas and publicservice.

CONTRARY TO LAW."

After finding probable cause, this Court issued a Warrant ofArrest- against accused Flores and Manquiabnan," and fixed the bailat Php20,000.00 for each accused. On 30 June 2014, accusedMangulabnan posted bail, and the Warrant of Arrest issued against herwas set aside."

Upon her arraignment on 14 July 2014, accused Mangulabnanpleaded "NOT GUILTY" to the offense charqed."

During Pre-trial," the parties failed to enter into any stipulation offacts." Nonetheless, they agreed on the following factual and/or legalissues" for resolution, to wit:

1. Whether or not accused Candelaria Mangulabnan, in conspiracywith Judge Rodriqo R. Flores demanded and requested theamount of P20,OOO.OOfrom Dario Manalastas, a party to theelection protest case filed by Alberto Guinto with MTCC, Branch

2 Records, p. 125.3 Records, p. 123.4 Records, p. 130.5 Records, p. 1366 Records, pp. 180-185.7 Records, p. 183.8 Records, p. 184.


of 12x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

2, City of San Fernando, Pampanga, in consideration of adecision in the said case favorable to Dario Manalastas, inviolation of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code; and

2. Whether or not accused Candelaria Mangulabnan actuallyreceived the amount of P20,OOO.OOfor accused Rodrigo R.Flores in consideration of a decision favorable to DarioManalastas in the election protest case pending before theMTCC, Branch 2, City of Pampanga.

In the interim, the prosecution filed a Motion to SuspendAccused Pendente Lite," which this Court granted in its Resolution 10

dated 28 September 2015.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

During the hearing held on 02 March 2015, the prosecutionintended to present witnesses Daisy B. Baluyot and ProsecutorLeoveminda A. Villanueva, but their respective testimonies weredispensed with after the parties stipulated on the due execution of theprosecution's Exhibits "0", "E", "F", "G", "H", "I", "J", "K" and "M" whichformed part of Administrative Case No. MTJ-02-1399 before theSecond Division of the Supreme Court."

Subsequently, the prosecution filed its Formal Offer of Evidence, 12

which this Court resolved" as follows:

(a) Exhibits D, E, F,G, H, J, I, K, and M are ADMITTED into evidence,without prejudice to the Court's proper appreciation of theirrespective probative values in relation to the facts for which theywere offered in evidence.

(b) Exhibits N (affidavit of Alberto Guinto) and 0 (affidavit of Danilo P.Simeon) are DENIED admission into evidence on the ground thatthe affiants were never presented as witnesses and none of theprosecution witnesses even identified said affidavits or evenreferred to them in their respective testimonies.

After the prosecution rested its case, accused Mangulabnan fileda Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence." which this Courtdenied."

9 Records, pp. 152-153.10 Records, pp. 266-268.11 Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) dated 02 March 2015, p. 912 See folder of Prosecution's Exhibits.13 Records, p. 389.14 Records, pp. 392-39315 Records, p 400

DECISIONPp. vs. Flores and MangulabnanCase No. S8-11-CRM-022B

of 12x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

The defense did not present any evidence after accusedMangulabnan waived the presentation of testimonial evidence on herbehalf in an Ex-Parte Manifestation" dated 31 March 2017.

Thereafter, the prosecution and accused Mangulabnan submittedtheir respective Memoranda."

THE FACTS

The following narration of facts is based on the documentary andtestimonial evidence found on record, as well as on the stipulationsmade between the parties:

Sometime in May 1997, private complainant Alberto Guinto("Guinto" for brevity) filed an election protest against Dario Manalastas("Manalastas" for brevity)." The case, docketed as Election ProtestNo. 97-04, was raffled to the Municipal Trial Court (now Municipal TrialCourt in Cities), Branch 2 of the City of San Fernando, Pampanga,wherein accused Flores was the Presiding Judge and accusedMangulabnan worked as a court interpreter."

During the pendency of the election protest case, accused Flores,on several occasions, visited private complainant Guinto at hisworkplace asking for many favors like borrowing the amount ofPhp5,000.00 pesos from him; asking him to purchase two bags ofsugar valued at Php1 ,000.00 each; and making him pay for their lunchout at Lusing's Restaurant in Pampanga amounting to Php1, 100.00.20

Despite receiving these favors from private complainant Guinto,accused Flores decided the election protest case in favor ofManalastas." This prompted private complainant Guinto to file hiscomplaints before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA),charging accused Flores for his failure to decide the election protestcase within the required period, and accused Mangulabnan forreleasing an unauthorized copy of the decision thereof. 22 Theseadministrative complaints, docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-02-1399, weresubsequently referred to Executive Judge Adelaida Ala-Medina("Judge Medina" for brevity) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch

16 Records, pp. 424-42517 Records, pp. 436-446, 447-454.18 Records, pp. 6, 12; See Exhibits "G" and "H".19 Records, p. 12, See Exhibits "G" and "H".20 Records, p. 12, See Exhibits "F" (Annex "A"), "G" and "H".21 Records, p. 12, See Exhibits "G" and "H".22 Records, p. 12, See Exhibits "G" and "H".


of 12x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x45 of the City of San Fernando, Pampanga, for investigation, reportand recommendation."

The Report and Recommendation 24 dated 15 May 2003,submitted by Judge Medina revealed that prior to the release of thejudgment in the election protest case, accused Flores also borrowedPhp20,000.00 from Manalastas, and that the said amount wasreceived by accused Mangulabnan who gave it to accused Flores. Itfound accused Mangulabnan as having acted as accused Flores'middleman in getting the Php20,000.00 from Manalastas. 25

Consequently, Judge Medina recommended accused Mangulabnan'sdismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits except for her leavecredits.

In a Resolution 26 dated 10 August 2006, the Supreme Court,Second Division, adopted the findings of Judge Medina, confirmingthat accused Mangulabnan indeed acted as accused Flores' conduitin soliciting money from the litigants. Considering that this appears tobe her first offense, the Supreme Court did not dismiss accusedMangulabnan from service, but she was suspended for one (1) year.

Thereafter, copies of the Resolution dated 10 August 2006 werefurnished to the Office of the Ombudsman and the Department ofJustice, for investigation of accused Flores and Mangulabnan, forviolation of Republic Act (R. A.) No. 3019.27

In a Resolutiorr" dated 28 April 2009, the Office of the ProvincialProsecutor of the City of San Fernando, Pampanga, found probablecause for the indictment of accused Flores and Mangulabnan forviolation of R. A. No. 3019. However, upon review" of the saidresolution, the Office of the Ombudsman declared that the allegationsin the complaint make out a case for direct bribery, and thecorresponding information was filed.

Hence, this case.

DISCUSSION

The Information in the present case charges accusedMangulabnan of conspiring with accused Flores in committing thecrime of direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code.

23 Records, p. 13, See Exhibits "G" and "H".24 See Exhibit "G".25 See Exhibit "G".26 See Exhibit "H"27 See Exhibit "H".28 Records, pp. 6-10.29 Records, pp. 11-16.

DECISIONPp. vs. Flares and MangulabnanCase No. SB-11-CRM-0228

of 12x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------xAs a mode of incurring criminal liability, jurisprudence instructs thatconspiracy must be proven separately and with the same quantum ofproof as the crime itself. 30 Therefore, the question of whether accusedMangulabnan has incurred criminal liability hinges on whether theprosecution has successfully established the existence of the allegedconspiracy.

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to anagreement concerning the commission of a felony and decided tocommit the sarne" Conspiracies are clandestine in nature." As such,a conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence, as it may beinferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after thecommission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a commonpurpose and desiqn." In other words, conspiracy may be implied if itis proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards theaccomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so thattheir combined acts, though apparently independent of each other,were, in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness ofpersonal association and a concurrence of sentiment. 34 Thus, in orderto hold an accused as a eo-principal by reason of conspiracy, suchaccused must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuanceor furtherance of the complicity. 35 There must be intentionalparticipation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of thecommon design and purpose."

In this case, the evidence on record showing accusedMangulabnan's participation in the commission of the offense, actingas the conduit of accused Flares in getting the money from Manalastas,remains uncontroverted. As aptly observed by the investigating officer,Judge Medina, accused Mangulabnan willingly undertook the unlawfultask of facilitating the transfer of money between accused Flores andManalastas. By acting as a conduit, accused Mangulabnan providedthe parties protection from suspicion and aided in the concealment ofthe misdeed. The pertinent portion of Judge Medina's Report andRecommendation." is hereby quoted:

"xxx It is on record that Mangulabnan acted as respondent judge'smiddleperson in getting Php20,OOO.OOfrom Dario Manalastas. In amanifestation dated September 1, 1999, she declared that respondentjudge instructed her to "borrow" Php20,OOO.OOfrom Manalastas. Shedid as she was told. In her testimony before Branch 47 of RTC SanFernando, in connection with the petition for injunction filed byManalastas, (SP Civil Case No. 11929) and which forms part of the

30 People of the Philippines vs. Edmar Aguilos, et aI., 405 SeRA 134, (2003), p. 145.31 People of the Philippines vs. Johnny Bautista and Jerry Morales, 622 SeRA 524, (2010), p. 54032 People of the Philippines vs. Johnny Bautista and Jerry Morales, 622 SeRA 524, (2010), p. 54133 Id.34 Id.35 Id.36 Id.37 See Exhibit "G"


of 12x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

records of this case, Mangulabnan stated that she received the moneyfrom Manalastas himself. She then gave it to respondent judge. Thiswas confirmed by Atty. Estrabillo, counsel of Dario Manalastas that hisclient Manalastas had given Php20,OOO.OOto Judge Flores throughMangulabnan.

Considering that in making such serious allegations againstJudge Flores, both Atty. Estabillo and Mangulabnan have madethemselves vulnerable to prosecution for their participation in thiscriminal act, the undersigned finds that said amount was indeed paidto Judge Flores. Atty. Estrabillo and Mangulabnan would have gainednothing from making such allegation had they not been motivated bythe desire to reveal the truth.

Mangulabnan should have been aware that respondent judge, inasking for money from a litigant, was engaging in an illicit activity andshe was being made party thereto. She facilitated the transfer ofmoney between the parties by acting as a conduit. therebyprotecting the parties from suspicion and concealing themisdeed. She is well aware that the mission assigned to her byJudge Flores was unlawful but she still undertook the taskwillingly. That she did not desist from taking part therein. orreport the matter promptly to the authorities. constitutes gravemisconduct. xxx" (emphasis ours)

Judge Medina's findings were affirmed and adopted by theSupreme Court in its Resolutiorr" dated 10August 2006, viz.:

"xxx With respect to respondent Mangulabnan, we find that she,indeed, acted as a conduit in the solicitation of money from the litigants.While she claimed that she did so only under the instruction ofrespondent judge, we believe, however, that respondent Mangulabnanwas not at all ignorant of what respondent judge had asked her to do.She knew it was illegal for Judge Flores to "borrow" money fromlitigants who had pending cases in his sa/a. She was aware that it waswrong yet she still allowed herself to be a part of respondent judge'simmoral activities. xxx"

Significantly, these conclusions are corroborated by accusedMangulabnan's own adrnission.P''when she testified in open courtduring the hearing held on 21 September 1999 in Civil Case No.11929, to wit

"xxx Atty. Lising

Q: Now, you identified a certain document denominated asManifestation or Explanation already marked into evidence as Exhibit"F", for the record, will you please read to us paragraph 8.

A: "That it was after all the Presiding Judge who seemed to haveordered the release of the decision he signed when he instructed me

38 See Exhibit "H".39 See pages 9-11 of Exhibit "M"

DECISIONPp. vs. Flores and MangulabnanCase No. SB-11-CRM-0228

of 12x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

to borrow the amount of Php20,OOO.OO,from the protestee and whichamount was delivered by me to the presiding judge.

Q: Do you still affirm and confirm that statement of yours?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where did you get the money Php20,OOO.OOfrom the Protestee?

A: From Mr. Manalastas, sir.

xxx xxx xxxQ: You mean you met him in that place accidentally or was thereprevious appointment to meet him in that place?

A: He called me, sir.

Q: Who called you?

A: Mr. Manalastas, sir.

Q: What did he tell you?

A: The money that the Judge was borrowing was already ready, sir.

Q: And he told you this by telephone, he was the one who called youup?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Now, when did you receive this amount of Php20,OOO.OO,which thisrespondent Judge was borrowing from the protestee Dario Manalastas?

A: I could not remember, sir.

Q: Was it before or after you handed the decision to the office of Atty.Estrabillo?

A: Before, sir.

Q: And, this Php20,OOO.OO,what did you do with them?

A: I gave them to Judge, sir.

Q: Did he received them?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And when you gave the money to the respondent Judge, what didyou tell him?

A: None, sir.

Q: So do we understand that you did not even inform the Judge thatthe money came from the Protestee?


of 12x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

A: I just gave the money to him.

Q: Did he not ask where the money came from?

A: No, sir.

Here, there is no denying that conspiracy existed, as it can beseen from accused Manqulabnan's overt act of receiving the bribemoney and delivering the same to accused Flores, which was donein furtherance of the common design to get money from Manalastas.

Since conspiracy is proven, accused Mangulabnan becomesliable for the crime as charged regardless of her participation therein.'?It is doctrinal that the one who joins a criminal conspiracy in effectadopts as his own the criminal designs of his eo-conspirators." Ifconspiracy is established, all the conspirators are liable as eo-principals regardless of the manner and extent of their participationsince in contemplation of law, the act of one would be the act of al1.42

As such, the responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to theaccomplishment of a particular purpose of the conspiracy but extendsto collateral acts and offenses incident to and growing out of thepurpose intended. 43 In other words, conspirators are necessarilyliable for the acts of another conspirator even though such act differsradically and substantially from that which they intended to commit."Therefore, both accused Flores and Mangulabnan are eo-principals,being eo-conspirators in committing the crime of direct bribery.

The crime of direct bribery as defined in Article 21045 of theRevised Penal Code is committed when the following elements are

40 People of the Philippines vs. Edmar Aguilos, Odilon Lagliba and Rene Gayot Pilola, 405 SCRA 134, (2003),p.146.41 Id.42 Id.43 People of the Philippines vs. Johnny Bautista and Jerry Morales, 622 SCRA 524, (2010), p. 542.44 Id.45 Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code states:

"xxx Art. 210. Direct Bribery. - Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constitut-ing a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties, in consideration of anyoffer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation ofanother, shall suffer the penalty of ptision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and afine of not less than three times the value of the gift, in addition to the penalty correspondingto the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed.

If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which doesnot constitute a crime, and the officer executed said act, he shall suffer the same penaltyprovided in the preceding paragraph; and if said act shall not have been accomplished, theofficer shall suffer the penalties of pttsion correccional in its medium period and a fine of notless than twice the value of such gift.

If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrainfrom doing something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of ptisioncorreccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine not lessthan three times the value of the gift.

In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer thepenalty of special temporary disqualification. xxx"


of 12x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------xpresent: (1) that the accused is a public officer; (2) that he receiveddirectly or through another some gift or present, offer or promise; (3)that such gift, present or promise has been given in consideration ofhis commission of some crime, or any act not constituting a crime, orto refrain from doing something which is his official duty to do; and (4)that the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a publicofficer."

Here, there is no question that accused Flores and Mangulabnanwere public officers." as they were the Presiding Judge and CourtInterpreter, respectively, of the MTCC, Branch 2 of the City of SanFernando, Pampanga, at the time material to this case. It is alsoundisputed that accused Mangulabnan acted as a conduit of accusedFlores when she received the amount of Php20,OOO.OOfromManalastas and delivered the same to accused Flores." Accordingly,the said amount was given to accused Flores in consideration of therendition of a judqrnent'" in favor of Manalastas, who had a pendingelection protest case before his sa/a. Such rendition of judgment,being an act that does not constitute a crime, relates to the function ofaccused Flores as a Presiding Judge.

With the concurrence of all the elements of the crime, andconsidering the fact that accused Mangulabnan has incurred criminalliability as a eo-conspirator of accused Flores in the commissionthereof, this Court finds the prosecution's evidence sufficient inproving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused CANOELARIAOM. MANGULABNAN is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt ofthe crime of Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the Revised PenalCode and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ofimprisonment from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day ofprision correcciona/ as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months and

, one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, and a fine in the amount ofSixty Thousand Pesos (Php60,OOO.OO), with special temporarydisqualification from holding public office.

SO ORDERED.

46 Nazario N. Marifosque vs. People of the Philippines, 435 SCRA 322, (2004), p. 34047 Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code states:

"Art. 203. Who are public officers. - For the purpose of applying the provisions of this and thepreceding titles of this book, any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular electionor appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functionsin the Government of the Philippine Island, or shall perform in said Government or in any ofits branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class,shall be deemed to be a public officer." .

48 See Exhibits "G" and "H".49 See Annex "A" of Exhibit "F".


of 12x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

We Concur:

~~GERALDINE FAITH A.~ONG*

Associate Justice

• Sitting as Special Member per Administrative Order No. 024-2017 dated 01 February 2017.


of 12x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above decision werereached in consultation before the case was assigne to thewriter of the opinion of the Court's Division.

@f&.'J'rfJ{""7Chairperson, Fourth Divisio

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, andthe Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certifiedthat the conclusions in the above decision were reached inconsultation before the case was assigned to the writer of theopinion of the Court's Division.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES...

Documents

Transcript of REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES...