1/12/2020 G.R. No. 70332-43 November 13, 1986 - GENEROSO TRIESTE, SR. v.

SANDIGANBAYAN : NOVEMBER 1986 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME C…

| chanrobles.com™
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1986 > November 1986 Decisions > G.R. No. 70332-43
November 13, 1986 - GENEROSO TRIESTE, SR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN:

Custom Search Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 70332-43. November 13, 1986.]

GENEROSO TRIESTE, SR., Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION)., Respondent.

Arturo M. de Castro for Petitioner.

The Solicitor General for Respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW; ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT; VIOLATION THEREOF NOT PROVEN;
PETITIONER HAS DIVESTED HIS INTEREST WITH IMPUTED BUSINESS. — The new Solicitor General’s
Office after adopting the statement of facts recited in the consolidated comment of the former Solicitor
General’s Office moved for the acquittal of the petitioner, upon acknowledging and concluding that; . . .
"Petitioner has divested his interest with Trigen Petitioner sought to establish that before he assumed
office as mayor on March 3, 1980, he had already sold his shares with Trigen to his sister Mrs. Rosene
Trieste-Tuason. The sale was made by corresponding indorsements to her stock certificate which was
duly recorded in the stock and transfer book of the corporation." cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; EVIDENCE SHOWS NO PUBLIC BIDDING AND AWARD. — The prosecution’s lone witness,
Treasurer Aniceto Vega, testified that there never was a public bidding conducted because all the
transactions were made by direct purchases from Trigen. . . . In the absence of a public bidding and as
DebtKollect Company, Inc. emphatically declared by the prosecution’s sole witness Vega that all the transactions were on direct
purchases from Trigen, how can one ever imagine that petitioner has awarded the supply and delivery of
construction materials to Trigen as specifically charged in the twelve (12) information? The charges are
of course baseless and even contradict the evidence of the prosecution itself. Even the respondent Court
finally found that petitioner did not intervene during the bidding and award, which of course is a false
assumption because of Vega’s testimony that there was no public bidding at all.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PETITIONER SIGNED VOUCHERS AFTER DELIVERY OF
MATERIALS AND PAYMENT. — Treasurer Vega testified that petitioner signed the twelve (12) municipal
vouchers (Exhibits A to L) for the purchase and payment of construction materials. It was sometime after
delivery of the construction materials that he (Vega) signed and paid the twelve (12) municipal vouchers
(pages 5 to 7), decision of respondent Sandiganbayan dated November 2, 1984. The prosecution has not
presented evidence to show as to when petitioner signed the twelve (12) municipal vouchers. But it can
safely be assumed as a matter of procedure that petitioner had signed the voucher after Treasurer Vega
signed and paid them. (Rollo. pp. 301-303) . . . Testimonial and documentary evidence confirms that
petitioner signed vouchers after payment . . . .

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; "ACTUAL INTERVENTION UNDER SECTION 3(H) EXPLAINED. — In as much as Treasurer
Vega signed and paid the vouchers after the materials were delivered, petitioner’s signature on the
vouchers after payment is not , we submit, the kind of intervention contemplated under Section 3(h) of
the anti-graft law is the actual intervention in the transaction in which one has financial or pecuniary
ChanRobles Intellectual Property interest in order that liability may attach. (Opinion No. 306, Series 1961 and Opinion No. 94, Series 1972
Division of the Secretary of Justice). The official need not dispose his shares in the corporation as long as he does
not do anything for the firm in its contract with the office. For the law aims to prevent the dominant use
of influence, authority and power (Deliberation on Senate Bill 293, May 6, 1959, Congressional Record,
Vol. II, page 603)." There is absolutely no evidence that petitioner had, in his capacity as Mayor, used his
influence, power, and authority in having the transactions given to Trigen. He didn’t ask anyone - neither
Treasurer Vega nor Secretary Maravilla for that matter, to get the construction materials from Trigen.
Petitioner should not be faulted for Trigen’s transaction with the municipality, which by the way, has been
dealing with it even before petitioner has assumed the mayorship on March 3, 1980. Personal canvasses
conducted found that Trigen’s offer was the lowest, most reasonable, and advantageous to the
municipality. . . . (Rollo, pp. 307-308; Underlining supplied). It is also an acknowledged fact that there
was no complaint for non-delivery, underdelivery or overpricing regarding any of the transactions.

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1986novemberdecisions.php?id=330 1/5
1/12/2020 G.R. No. 70332-43 November 13, 1986 - GENEROSO TRIESTE, SR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN : NOVEMBER 1986 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME C…

D E C I S I O N

ALAMPAY, J.:

The present case relates to an appeal by way of a Petition for Review of the decision promulgated on
November 6, 1984, by the Sandiganbayan convicting the herein petitioner, Generoso Trieste, Sr., of
twelve (12) separate violations of Section 3 paragraph (h) of Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices-Act, which petitioner were accused of in Criminal Cases Nos. 6856-6867
of said Court. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and/or new trial was denied by the respondent
Sandiganbayan under its Resolution of March 11, 1985.

The twelve (12) separate Informations filed by the Tanodbayan against the herein petitioner for violation
of Section 3 (h) of the Anti-Graft Law are all similarly worded as the Information presented in Criminal
Case No. 6856 which is hereunder quoted: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the month of July, 1980 and sometime subsequent thereto, in the municipality of
Numancia, Aklan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named
accused, being then the Municipal Mayor and member of the Committee on Award of the Municipality of
Numancia, Aklan and as such, had administrative control of the funds of the municipality and whose
approval is required in the disbursements of municipal funds, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully
have financial or pecuniary interest in a business, contract or transaction in connection with which said
accused intervened or took part in his official capacity and in which he is prohibited by law from having
any interest, to wit the purchases of construction materials by the Municipality of Numancia, Aklan from
Trigen Agro-Industrial Development Corporation, of which the accused is the president, incorporator,
director and major stockholder paid under Municipal Voucher No. 211-90-10-174 in the amount of
P558.80 by then and there awarding the supply and delivery of said materials to Trigen Agro-Industrial
Development Corporation and approving payment thereof to said corporation in violation of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act." cralaw virtua1aw library

except only as to the dates of the commission of the offense, voucher numbers, and amounts involved.

Criminal Cases Nos. 6856, 6857, 6858, 6859, 6860, 6861, and 6862 were allegedly committed in July,

November-1986 Jurisprudence               1980; Criminal Cases Nos. 6863 and 6864, in August, 1980; and Criminal Cases Nos. 6865, 6866 and
6867 in October, 1980. The separate vouchers involved in the twelve (12) cases are said to be the
   following: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

G.R. No. L-32507 November 4, 1986 - PEOPLE OF

"Crim. Case #6856, Vchr #211-90-10-174 at P 558.80
THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO PANCHO, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-40945 November 10, 1986 - IGMEDIO Crim. Case #6857, Vchr #211-80-10-187 at 943.60
AZAJAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
Crim. Case #6858, Vchr #211-80-10-189 at 144.00
G.R. No. L-41811 November 10, 1986 -
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. Crim. Case #6859, Vchr #211-80-10-190 at 071.30
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
Crim. Case #6860, Vchr #211-80-10-191 at 270.00
G.R. No. L-42180 November 10, 1986 - CONCESO
DIAZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. Crim. Case #6861, Vchr #211-80-10-232 at 1,820.00
G.R. No. L-46392 November 10, 1986 - EMMA
Crim. Case #6862, Vchr #211-80-10-239 at 1,085.80
DELGADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-47276 November 10, 1986 - ESPERANZA Crim. Case #6863, Vchr #211-80-10-407 at 150.00
BUYCO v. SECRETARY OF LABOR
Crim. Case #6864, Vchr #211-80-12-494 at 500.00
G.R. Nos. L-50622-23 November 10, 1986 -
BERNARDO CARABOT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, Crim. Case #6865, Vchr #211-81-04-61 at 840.00
ET AL.
Crim. Case #6866, Vchr #211-81-04-62 at 787.00
G.R. No. L-60548 November 10, 1986 - PHILIPPINE
GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. BENJAMIN Crim. Case #6867, Vchr #211-81-04-63 at 560.00
RELOVA
—————
G.R. Nos. L-68523-24 November 10, 1986 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM ESLABON, ET AL.
Total P7,730.50
G.R. No. L-68789 November 10, 1986 - JOSE LEE,
ET AL. v. PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL =========
COURT OF LEGAZPI CITY, BRANCH I, ET AL.
(Consolidated Comment, pg. 4; Rollo, 325)
G.R. No. 74521 November 11, 1986 - BANK OF
AMERICA NT & SA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE After trial, the Sandiganbayan rendered the challenged decision dated November 6, 1984, convicting the
COURT, ET AL. petitioner in all the twelve (12) criminal cases, (Rollo, pp. 324-326) and in each case he was sentenced,."
. . to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from THREE (3) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY
G.R. Nos. L-68268 November 12, 1986 - FELIX as the minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as the maximum, to further suffer perpetual
VILLACORTA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.
disqualification from the public office, and to pay the cost of the action." (pp. 37-40, Decision; Rollo,
G.R. No. L-41315 November 13, 1986 - PILIPINAS 322).
SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. OIL INDUSTRY
COMMISSION, ET AL. After the petition for review was filed in this case and pending the submission by respondent of its
comment to the petition, herein petitioner presented to this Court on June 7, 1985, an urgent petition to
G.R. No. L-46573 November 13, 1986 - PABLO B. lift the order of the Sandiganbayan dated September 12, 1983, suspending him from Office as the
LOLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. elected Municipal Mayor of Numancia, Aklan. His term was to expire in 1986. No objection to the petition
for the lifting of the suspension order was interposed by the Solicitor General. Accordingly, and pursuant
G.R. Nos. L-55033-34 November 13, 1986 - PEOPLE to the resolution of this Court dated October 1, 1985, petitioner’s preventive suspension was lifted and
OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO M. ALDEMITA his reinstatement as Municipal Mayor of Numancia, Aklan was ordered to take effect immediately.
G.R. Nos. L-62654-58 November 13, 1986 - PEOPLE
A supplemental petition, dated October 10, 1985, was later filed by petitioner’s new counsel in
OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON DAGANGON, ET AL.
collaboration with the original counsel on record of petitioner. In this supplemental pleading, it was
G.R. No. L-69876 November 13, 1986 - PEOPLE OF
vigorously stressed that the petitioner did not, in any way, intervene in making the awards and payment
THE PHIL. v. PUTTHI NATIPRAVAT, ET AL. of the purchases in question as he signed the voucher only after all the purchases had already been
made, delivered and paid for by the Municipal Treasurer. It was further pointed out that there was no
G.R. No. 70145 November 13, 1986 - MARCELO A. bidding at all as erroneously adverted to in the twelve informations filed against herein petitioner
MESINA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL. because the transactions involved were emergency direct purchases by personal canvass.

G.R. No. 70332-43 November 13, 1986 - Upon leave of the Court given, the former Solicitor General filed a consolidated comment dated
GENEROSO TRIESTE, SR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN November 4, 1984, to the original petition filed in this case dated April 30, 1985 as well as on the
supplemental petition dated October 10, 1985. He argued the dismissal of the petition on the ground that
G.R. Nos. 71942-43 November 13, 1986 - PEOPLE the same raise factual issues which are, therefore, non-reviewable (Consolidated Comment, pg. 20;
OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO DE JESUS
Rollo, 341). The submission made by the Office of the Solicitor General in the Consolidated Comment
dated November 4, 1986, are hereunder quoted:
G.R. No. L-24856 November 14, 1986 - NATIONAL
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

POWER CORPORATION v. EIN CHEMICAL

CORPORATION, ET AL. x x x

G.R. No. L-43706 November 14, 1986 - NATIONAL

POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. "The impugned decision convicted petitioner for violation of Section 3 (h), paragraph (h) of the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act which reads as follows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

G.R. No. L-45255 November 14, 1986 - HEIRS OF

MARCIANA G. AVILA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. "SEC. 3. Corrupt Practices of Public Officers." — In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already
penalized by existing laws, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are
G.R. No. L-48787 November 14, 1986 - ABADESA hereby declared to be unlawful:
MUÑOZ HECHANOVA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS,
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

ET AL.
x x x

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1986novemberdecisions.php?id=330 2/5
1/12/2020 G.R. No. 70332-43 November 13, 1986 - GENEROSO TRIESTE, SR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN : NOVEMBER 1986 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME C…

G.R. Nos. L-57184-85 November 14, 1986 - PEOPLE

OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIA ABANO, ET AL. "(h) Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in
connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by
G.R. No. L-59604 November 14, 1986 - PEOPLE OF
the Constitution or by any law from having any interest."
THE PHIL. v. VICTORIO B. PIA
cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. No. 74243 November 14, 1986 - ASUNCION

"The elements essential in the commission of the crime are: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

SANTOS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

"a) The public officer has financial or peculiary interest in a business, contract or transaction;
G.R. No. L-50103 November 24, 1986 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO TOLENTINO "b) In connection with which he intervenes in his official capacity.

G.R. No. L-53834 November 24, 1986 - PEOPLE OF "Concurrence of both elements is necessary as the absence of one will not warrant conviction. (Rollo, pp.
THE PHIL. v. MANUEL E. TAN, JR., ET AL. 333-339).
G.R. No. L-54901 November 24, 1986 - PEOPLE OF The earlier view taken by the Solicitor General’s Office was that petitioner’s evidence of divestment of
THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ABUEG
interest in Trigen Corporation, which is said to have been effected on February 25, 1980, before the
petitioner assumed the Mayorship, should have been presented at the earliest opportunity before the
G.R. No. L-65629 November 24, 1986 - TERESITA
E. AGBAYANI, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. BELEN, ET AL.
Tanodbayan and because this was not done by him the resolution of the Tanodbayan finding a prima
facie case against petitioner should be sustained. Furthermore, petitioner was faulted because the
G.R. No. 71305 November 24, 1986 - MANUEL transfer of his interest in the corporate stock of Trigen Corporation should have been recorded in the
SOLIMAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL. Securities and Exchange Commission but no evidence of this sort was presented, The consolidated
comment also played up the advertisement of Trigen Corporation in the program of the Rotary Club of
G.R. No. 71381 November 24, 1986 - PEOPLE OF Kalibo, Aklan, showing the printed name of petitioner as the President-Manager of the said corporation.
THE PHIL. v. CONSTANTINO PECARDAL (Consolidated Comment; Rollo, pp. 340-341) chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

G.R. No. L-43182 November 25, 1986 - MARCIAL F. Petitioner filed a Reply controverting the allegations and arguments recited in the aforestated
SAMSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. Consolidated Comment of the Solicitor General.
G.R. No. L-56315 November 25, 1986 - CLEMENTE
After considering the pleadings filed and deliberating on the issues raised in the petition and
FONTANAR, ET AL. v. RUBEN BONSUBRE, ET AL.
supplemental petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Sandiganbayan, as well as the
G.R. No. L-68230 November 25, 1986 - consolidated comment and the reply thereto filed by petitioner’s counsel, the Court in its resolution of
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. January 16, 1986, gave due course to the petition and required the parties to file their respective briefs.
CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES OF ASIA, INC., ET AL.
Petitioner’s exhaustive and well-reasoned out Brief which was filed with the Court on April 14, 1986,
G.R. No. L-68298 November 25, 1986 - PEOPLE OF raised the following legal questions.
THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN BAÑARES
x x x
G.R. No. 71410 November 25, 1986 - JOSEFINO S.
ROAN v. ROMULO T. GONZALES, ET AL.
"From the foregoing recital of facts, the following legal questions arise:
G.R. No. 72182 November 25, 1986 - DEE HUA
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

LIONG ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION v.

ROMEO REYES, ET AL.
"1. Does the mere signing by a Municipal Mayor of municipal vouchers and other supporting papers
covering purchases of materials previously ordered by the Municipal Treasurer without the knowledge
G.R. No. L-23039 November 26, 1986 - RAMCAR, and consent of the former, subsequently delivered by the supplier, and, thereafter paid by the same
INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES Municipal Treasurer also without the knowledge and consent of the Municipal Mayor, constitute a violation
of the provisions of Section 3 (h) of Rep. Act No. 3019 otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
G.R. No. L-42230 November 26, 1986 - LAURO Practices Act?
IMMACULATA v. PEDRO C. NAVARRO
"2. Does the mere signing of the mere documents above constitute the kind of intervention of taking part
G.R. No. L-46145 November 26, 1986 - REPUBLIC in (his) official capacity within the context of the above-mentioned law?
OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
"3. Was damage or prejudice, as an element of the offense under Section 3 (h) of the said law, caused to
G.R. No. L-53692 November 26, 1986 - LOURDES
the Government or the Municipality of Numancia as a result of the contracts m question and as a
RAMOS, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO N. PABLO, ET AL.
corollary thereto, was undue advantage and gained by the transacting corporation?
G.R. No. L-55912 November 26, 1986 - HEIRS OF
DOMINGO P. BALOY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET "4. Was there divestment on the part of the herein petitioner of his shares in Trigen Agro-Industrial
AL. Development Corporation long before the questioned transactions? (Appellant’s Brief, page 15)

G.R. No. L-59919 November 26, 1986 - MALAYAN It was then discussed and argued by the petitioner that the prosecution failed to establish the presence
INSURANCE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. of all the elements of the offense, and more particularly to adduce proof that petitioner has, directly or
indirectly, a financial or pecuniary interest in the imputed business contracts or transactions.
G.R. Nos. 73184-88 November 26, 1986 -
ZAMBALES BASE METALS, INC. v. MINISTER OF Discussion of petitioner’s arguments in this regard will not however, be recited anymore as this was
LABOR, ET AL.
obviated when a new Solicitor General, after seeking and obtaining several extensions of time to file its
Brief in this case at bar, filed on October 7, 1986, a "Manifestation For Acquittal" (in lieu of the People’s
G.R. No. 75089 November 26, 1986 - LILIA LOPEZ-
JISON v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, ET AL.
Brief). Rollo, 293).

A.M. No. R-565-P November 27, 1986 - The new Solicitor General’s Office after adopting the statement of facts recited in the consolidated
CONSORCIA BALAIS v. FRANCISCO ABUDA comment of the former Solicitor General’s Office moved for the acquittal of the petitioner, upon
acknowledging and concluding that: chanrobles law library : red

A.M. No. R-586-P November 27, 1986 -

CONSTANCIA FABRIGARAS v. NORA B. NEMEÑO x x x

G.R. No. L-43195 November 27, 1986 - FIDEL

GUEVARRA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION "Petitioner has divested his interest with Trigen
COMMISSION, ET AL.
"Petitioner sought to establish that before he assumed office as mayor on March 3, 1980, he had already
G.R. No. L-48117 November 27, 1986 - BRICCIO B.
TENORIO v. ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO, ET AL.
sold his shares with Trigen to his sister Mrs. Rosene Trieste-Tuason. The sale was made by corresponding
indorsements to her stock certificate which was duly recorded in the stock and transfer book of the
G.R. No. L-55703 November 27, 1986 - PHILIPPINE corporation.
OVERSEAS DRILLING AND OIL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION v. MINISTRY OF LABOR, ET AL. "Respondent Sandiganbayan however doubts the sale because the same was not reported to the SEC.
SEC records, as the prosecution evidence show, do not reflect the sale and petitioner still appears as the
G.R. No. L-59213 November 27, 1986 - firm’s President.
CONGRESSIONAL COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, ET
AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. "The prosecution’s evidence to establish non-divestment of petitioner’s interest with Trigen is weak.
Anyway, Trigen has not updated its reports to the SEC since 1976. It have not even submitted its
G.R. No. L-45101 November 28, 1986 - ROSARIO C. financial annual report ever since. Absence of the sales report in the SEC does not mean that the sale did
MAGUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
not take place. Reporting the sale is not a mandatory requirement." cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. No. L-46158 November 28, 1986 - TAYUG

RURAL BANK v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES "Sales of stocks need not be reported to SEC

G.R. No. 73399 November 28, 1986 - PEOPLE OF "In any event, the law only requires submission of annual financial reports, not sales or disposal of stocks
THE PHIL. v. RAMON S. ABEDES (Section 141, Corporation Code of the Philippines).

"Upholding the evidence of petitioner’s divestment of his interest with Trigen would necessarily allow him
to act freely in his official capacity in the municipality’s dealings or transactions with Trigen. That in itself
is sufficient to acquit him of the crimes charged." (Rollo, pp. 299-300).

In the matter of the alleged intervention of petitioner, the Office of the Solicitor General itself subscribes
to and on its own volition place on record the following observations: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Prosecution failed to prove charges; evidence discloses absence of bidding and award.

"The prosecution’s lone witness, Treasurer Aniceto Vega, testified that there never was a public bidding
conducted because all the transactions were made by direct purchases from Trigen.

"Q. n other words, in all these transactions there never really was any public bidding?

"A. Yes, Sir. There was no public bidding.

"Q. And these purchases were made by direct purchases from the establishment of Trigen?

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1986novemberdecisions.php?id=330 3/5
1/12/2020 G.R. No. 70332-43 November 13, 1986 - GENEROSO TRIESTE, SR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN : NOVEMBER 1986 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME C…

"A. Yes, Sir. (pp. 36-37, Tsn., Oct. 26, 1983)

"In the absence of a public bidding and as emphatically declared by the prosecution’s sole witness Vega
that all the transactions were on direct purchases from Trigen, how can one ever imagine that petitioner
has awarded the supply and delivery of construction materials to Trigen as specifically charged in the
twelve (12) informations? The charges are of course baseless and even contradict the evidence of the
prosecution itself.

"Even the respondent Court finally found that petitioner did not intervene during the bidding and award,
which of course is a false assumption because of Vega’s testimony that there was no public bidding at all.
Respondent Court said: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . In short, Accused’s intervention may not be present during the bidding and award, but his liability
may also come in when he took part in said transactions such as signing the vouchers under certifications
1, 2 and 3 thereof, to make it appear that the transactions were regular and proper." (Resolution dated
March 11, 1985 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration/new trial, page 7).

"No evidence to prove petitioner approved payment

"Now, did petitioner intervene by approving payments to Trigen as also charged in the information? Can
there be intervention after payment.

"Vega testified that petitioner signed the twelve (12) municipal vouchers (Exhibits A to L) for the
purchase and payment of construction materials. It was sometime after delivery of the construction
materials that he (Vega) signed and paid the twelve (12) municipal vouchers (pages 5 to 7), decision of
respondent Sandiganbayan dated November 2, 1984). The prosecution has not presented evidence to
show as to when petitioner signed the twelve (12) municipal vouchers, But it can safely be assumed as a
matter of procedure that petitioner had signed the voucher after Treasurer Vega signed and paid them.
(Rollo, pp. 301-303)

x x x

Testimonial and documentary evidence confirms that petitioner signed vouchers after payment

"Additional facts which respondent Court failed to consider and which could have altered the outcome of
the case in the following uncontroverted testimony of Josue Maravilla: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. When these municipal vouchers were prepared by the municipal treasurer, as you said, and then
presented to Mayor Trieste for his signature, were the purchases in question already paid?

"A. They had already been paid for, sir.

"Q. Previously, prior to the signature of Mayor Trieste?

"A. Yes, sir.

"A.J. ESCAREAL: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. Under what authority were they paid?

"A. Under official receipt issued by Trigen.

"Q. Who authorized the payment?

"A. The municipal treasurer who paid the materials.

"ATTY. CONSULTA: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. You said they had already been paid for. Do you know of any receipts issued by Trigen to indicate
that at the time these municipal vouchers were signed by Mayor Trieste, the materials had already been
delivered and paid by the municipality to Trigen?

x x x

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Now, what exhibits particularly do you know were issued by Trigen to indicate that payments were
made prior to the signing of the municipal vouchers by Mayor Trieste?

"A. Exhibits A, G, B, F, C, D, Exhibit I and Exhibit H.

x x x

"Q. Now, Mr. Maravilla, aside from these prosecution’s exhibits which are Trigen receipts showing
payments long before the municipal vouchers were prepared, what can you say about the other
municipal vouchers in this case in reference to payments made by Trigen to the municipality?.

"A.J. ESCAREAL: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Payment made by Trigen?

"ATTY. CONSULTA: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I am sorry, Your Honor, made to Trigen by the municipality?

"A. Official receipts issued by Trigen also indicate that when municipal vouchers marked Exhibits E, B, C,
D, F, G, H, I were prepared, they had already been delivered and the amounts indicated therein were
already prepared by the municipal treasurer.

"Q. Did you say already made by the municipal treasurer — the amounts were already paid by the
municipal treasurer?

"A. Already paid.

"Q. Who disbursed the funds evidenced by the Trigen official receipts?

"A. The municipal treasurer, then Mr. Vega.

"Q. Now, do you know why Mr. Vega asked that those municipal vouchers be nevertheless signed in spite
of the fact that he knew that the amounts had already been disbursed and paid by him to Trigen?

"A. He said that the municipal vouchers for record purposes is necessary to be signed by the mayor."
(Tsn, Mar. 5, 1984, pp. 19-49).

"Inasmuch as Treasurer Vega signed and paid the vouchers after the materials were delivered,
petitioner’s signature on the vouchers after payment is not, we submit the kind of intervention
contemplated under Section 3 (h) of the Anti-Graft Law.

x x x

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1986novemberdecisions.php?id=330 4/5
1/12/2020 G.R. No. 70332-43 November 13, 1986 - GENEROSO TRIESTE, SR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN : NOVEMBER 1986 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME C…

"What is contemplated in Section 3(h) of the anti-graft law is the actual intervention in the transaction in
which one has financial or pecuniary interest in order that liability may attach. (Opinion No. 306, Series
1961 and Opinion No. 94, Series 1972 of the Secretary of Justice). The official need not dispose his
shares in the corporation as long as he does not do anything for the firm in its contract with the office.
For the law aims to prevent the dominant use of influence, authority and power (Deliberation on Senate
Bill 293, May 6, 1959, Congressional Record, Vol. II, page 603).

"There is absolutely no evidence that petitioner had, in his capacity as Mayor, used his influence, power,
and authority in having the transactions given to Trigen. He didn’t ask anyone — neither Treasurer Vega
nor Secretary Maravilla for that matter, to get the construction materials from Trigen.

"Trigen did not gain any undue advantage in the transaction.

"Petitioner should not be faulted for Trigen’s transaction with the municipality, which by the way, has
been dealing with it even before petitioner had assumed the mayorship on March 3, 1980. Personal
canvasses conducted found that Trigen’s offer was the lowest, most reasonable, and advantageous to the
municipality. . . . (Rollo, pp. 307-308; Emphasis supplied).

It is also an acknowledged fact that there was no complaint for non-delivery, under delivery or
overpricing regarding any of the transactions.

Considering the correct facts now brought to the attention of this Court by the Solicitor General and in
view of the reassessment made by that Office of the issues and the evidence and the law involved, the
Court takes a similar view that the affirmance of the decision appealed from cannot be rightfully
sustained. The conscientious study and thorough analysis made by the Office of the Solicitor General in
this case truly reflects its consciousness of its role as the People’s Advocate in the administration of
justice to the end that the innocent be equally defended and set free just as it has the task of having the
guilty punished. This Court will do no less and, therefore, accepts the submitted recommendation that
the decision and resolution in question of the respondent Sandiganbayan be reversed and that as a
matter of justice, the herein petitioner be entitled to a judgment of acquittal.

WHEREFORE, the decision rendered by the Sandiganbayan, dated November 2, 1984, in Criminal Cases
Nos. 6856 to 6867, finding the herein petitioner, Generoso Trieste, Sr. guilty of the violations of Section
3 paragraph (h) of Republic Act 3019, as amended, is hereby set aside and reversing the appealed
judgment, a new judgment is now rendered ACQUITTING Generoso Trieste, Sr., of said offenses charged
against him with costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Feria, Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz and Paras, JJ., concur.

Melencio-Herrera J., took no part.

Feliciano, J., is on leave.

Back to Home | Back to Main

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

 
Copyright © 1998 - 2020 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1986novemberdecisions.php?id=330 5/5