G.R. No. 175750 -51, April 2, 2014
SILVERINA E. CONSIGNA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), and EMERLINA MOLETA, Respondents.

FACTS

On or about June 14, 1994, petitioner Silverina E. Consigna, the Municipal Treasurer of General Luna, Surigao del Norte, together with Jose Herasmio, obtained a loan of ₱320,000.00 from private respondent Emerlina Moleta. The purpose was to pay municipal employees’ salaries and construct a municipal gymnasium, as the municipality’s Internal Revenue Allotment had not arrived. As payment, petitioner issued three Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) checks signed by Mayor Jaime Rusillon. Moleta deposited the checks on August 18, 1994, but they were dishonored, with the reason “Signature Not on File” and because the municipal account was already closed and transferred. Consequently, two Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan against Consigna and Rusillon: one for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and another for Estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. After trial, the Sandiganbayan found petitioner Consigna guilty of both charges but acquitted Rusillon. Petitioner filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, but her arguments alleged grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan, which is a jurisdictional error proper for a Rule 65 petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in convicting petitioner for Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code and for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 .

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Sandiganbayan Decision. The Court clarified that the petition was filed under Rule 45, but petitioner raised issues of grave abuse of discretion, which pertain to errors of jurisdiction and are proper for a Rule 65 petition. Certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal. On the merits, the Court found all elements of the crimes present. For Estafa under Article 315(2)(a), the elements are: (a) false pretense, fraudulent act or means; (b) such false pretense, fraudulent act or means was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or means and was induced to part with money or property; and (d) the offended party suffered damage. Petitioner’s act of obtaining a loan by issuing municipal checks, knowing the account was closed, constituted fraudulent means. For violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 , the elements are: (a) the accused is a public officer; (b) the act was done in the discharge of official, administrative, or judicial functions; (c) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (d) the act caused undue injury or gave unwarranted benefits. Petitioner, as Municipal Treasurer, acted with evident bad faith by obtaining a personal loan using municipal checks, causing undue injury to Moleta. The Sandiganbayan’s findings were supported by evidence, and petitioner failed to show any cogent reason for reversal.