GR 126995; (October, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 126995 December 15, 1997 and October 6, 1998
IMELDA R. MARCOS, petitioner, vs. The Honorable SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division), and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Imelda R. Marcos, then Minister of Human Settlement and ex-officio Chairman of the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA), and Jose P. Dans, Jr., then Minister of Transportation and Communication and ex-officio Vice-Chairman of LRTA, were charged with violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Information alleged that on or about June 8, 1984, in Makati, they conspired and entered into a Lease Agreement on behalf of LRTA with the Philippine General Hospital Foundation, Inc. (PGHFI) under terms manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government. Petitioner was also Chairman of the Board of Trustees of PGHFI. The Lease Agreement (Exhibit “B”) covered an LRTA property in Pasay City with an area of 7,340 square meters at a monthly rental of P102,760.00 for 25 years. Subsequently, on June 27, 1984, PGHFI, represented by petitioner as Chairman, entered into a Sublease Agreement (Exhibit “D”) with Transnational Construction Corporation for the same property at a monthly rental of P734,000.00 for 25 years. The Sandiganbayan convicted both accused. The Third Division of the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction against petitioner but acquitted Jose P. Dans, Jr. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether all elements of the offense under Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 have been proved beyond reasonable doubt to sustain petitioner’s conviction.
RULING
The Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. Petitioner Imelda R. Marcos is ACQUITTED.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt. First, the element that the accused acted as a public officer was not established. The Lease Agreement (Exhibit “B”) was signed by petitioner in her capacity as Chairman of PGHFI, a private entity, and not as a public officer or ex-officio Chairman of LRTA. There was no evidence showing she was present when the LRTA Board authorized the lease. Second, the element that the contract was manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government was not proven. The Sandiganbayan’s conclusion was based solely on comparing the rental in the Lease Agreement (P102,760/month) with the higher rental in the Sublease Agreement (P734,000/month). This comparison is speculative and violates due process, as many factors determine a reasonable rental rate. An impartial expert witness testified that the reasonable rental for the property at the time was only P73,000 per month, making the stipulated rental fair. The evidence did not satisfy the required moral certainty for conviction. When inculpatory facts are susceptible to interpretations consistent with innocence, the accused must be acquitted.