G.R. No. 110353 May 21, 1998
TOMAS H. COSEP, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Tomas Cosep was the Municipal Planning and Development Coordination Officer of Olutanga, Zamboanga del Sur. In 1987, the Municipality contracted private complainant Angelino E. Alegre to construct an artesian well under a “pakyaw” arrangement for P5,000.00. Petitioner monitored the project. After completion, petitioner secured P5,000.00 from the Municipal Treasurer but gave only P4,500.00 to Alegre, allegedly withholding P500.00 as reimbursement for processing expenses. Alegre filed a complaint, resulting in an information before the Sandiganbayan charging petitioner with violating Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019 for demanding and receiving P500.00 as consideration for awarding the project and facilitating the money claim. Petitioner pleaded not guilty. At trial, petitioner claimed Alegre was not a contractor but a head laborer entitled only to a daily wage, and the P4,500.00 represented the total salary for Alegre and thirteen other workers, so no amount was withheld. He presented a Time Book and Payroll Sheet and a Mayor’s Memorandum as evidence. The Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner. Petitioner appealed, contending he was not accorded an impartial trial and his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Sandiganbayan Justices’ active participation in propounding questions during petitioner’s testimony deprived him of an impartial trial.
2. Whether the prosecution proved petitioner’s guilt for violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019 beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

1. No, the Sandiganbayan Justices’ questioning did not deprive petitioner of an impartial trial. While an accused is entitled to a fair trial before an impartial judge, judges are not required to remain passive. They may ask questions to clarify points, elicit additional relevant evidence, expedite proceedings, and prevent unnecessary waste of time. The Court scrutinized the questions propounded and found they were aimed at ferreting out the truth regarding the monitoring procedure, identities of workers, and facts of another case. These questions did not cross the limits of propriety or indicate partiality. Petitioner was free to object but did not.
2. No, the prosecution failed to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court re-examined the proceedings and found the prosecution’s case inherently weak. Private complainant Alegre’s testimony was not credible. He claimed to be a contractor but could not name any of his workers, even though six shared his surname, and he presented no documentary evidence like project studies, purchase orders, or receipts. His behavior in paying workers without any payroll or voucher receipts defied logic and standard practice. Conversely, the Time Book and Payroll Sheet, a public document signed by Alegre, indicated he was a head laborer, making it prima facie evidence of that fact. This presumption was not rebutted by competent evidence. Therefore, Alegre and the other workers were entitled only to P4,475.00 in total salaries, and the P4,500.00 he received was even in excess. Consequently, the essential element of demanding or receiving money in connection with a government contract or transaction was not proven. The constitutional presumption of innocence must prevail. The Sandiganbayan’s decision was set aside, and petitioner was ACQUITTED on grounds of reasonable doubt.