G.R. No. 120391 September 24, 1997
Simplicio Amper, petitioner, vs. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Simplicio Amper, the Assistant City Engineer of Davao City, was charged with violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Information alleged that on or about August 7, 1988, in Davao City, he used a city government-owned Allis Backhoe for personal treasure hunting without the knowledge, consent, and authority of the city government, causing undue injury to the Republic of the Philippines. The prosecution presented witnesses, including Filemon Cantela and Mayor Rodrigo Duterte. Cantela testified that he saw Amper at a lot in Matina District on August 6, 1988, directing the operation of the city-owned backhoe for treasure hunting. Mayor Duterte arrived at the scene in the early morning of August 7, confirmed the unauthorized use, and arrested Amper and the backhoe operators. The backhoe operator, Tobias Porta, testified that Amper ordered him to excavate the area for gold under the pretext of installing culverts. The defense claimed the backhoe was officially leased to a construction company and its use on private property was proper, but failed to present the alleged lessee or property owner to corroborate this.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted petitioner Simplicio Amper of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 .

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision. The conviction was based on the positive and categorical testimonies of prosecution witnesses who saw Amper directing the unauthorized use of the city-owned backhoe for personal treasure hunting. The Court found no ill motive for these witnesses to falsely testify. The defense of denial could not prevail over positive identification. The factual findings and credibility assessments of the Sandiganbayan are accorded great respect and finality, as they are supported by substantial evidence. The petitioner’s attempt to obtain a new trial based on alleged newly discovered evidence (testimonies of the purported lessee and property owner) was denied, as he failed to prove the evidence was discovered after trial, could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence, and would probably change the judgment. By using government equipment for personal gain without authority and without payment, Amper caused undue injury to the Davao City government through undue wear and tear and uncompensated use. The penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan was affirmed.