G.R. No. 164891 ; June 6, 2011
VIRGINIA M. GUADINES, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

On September 8, 1992, the contract to supply materials for the repair of Navotas Bridge in Polillo, Quezon, was awarded to petitioner Virginia M. Guadines’s V.M. Guadines Construction Supply after a public bidding. A Purchase Order was issued on October 19, 1992. On November 13, 1992, the lumber materials were delivered and received by Bernie H. Azaula, the Barangay Chairman and a Sangguniang Bayan member. On November 20, 1992, DENR officials, led by Herminio M. Salvosa, confiscated 73 pieces of Macaasim lumber (valued at P41,172.00) stockpiled near the bridge for lack of required documents. The lumber was marked “DENR CONFISCATED” and, as no owner was apprehended, was placed in the custody of Azaula, who signed a Seizure Receipt. The Sangguniang Bayan later debated using the confiscated lumber for the bridge, with Azaula opposing and insisting the contractor be paid. On January 28, 1993, Municipal Treasurer Naime Ayuma and Mayor Rosendo H. Escara signed an Inspection Report stating the materials under the Purchase Order were delivered and received in good condition. The bridge was completed by February 5, 1993. A Disbursement Voucher was prepared upon Azaula’s request, and on February 18, 1993, petitioner received payment of P83,228.00 from the provincial government. DENR officials subsequently reported that the confiscated lumber had been used in the bridge construction without authorization. A Commission on Audit investigation confirmed the lumber used was the confiscated stock and recommended a refund and the filing of charges. An Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan against petitioner, Azaula, Escara, and Ayuma for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, alleging conspiracy to cause undue injury to the government by paying for confiscated lumber. The Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioner Virginia M. Guadines of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Sandiganbayan’s Decision and Resolution. Petitioner was ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Specifically, the evidence did not establish that petitioner, a private individual, conspired with the public officials with evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. The prosecution’s case rested on the premise that the lumber used was the confiscated stock, but it did not conclusively prove that the lumber petitioner delivered under her contract was the same lumber that was confiscated. The Inspection Report signed by the municipal officials attested that her materials were delivered and received. Petitioner presented evidence of having purchased lumber from legitimate sources. The mere fact that confiscated lumber was later found at the site does not, without more, prove she did not deliver the contracted materials or that she conspired to defraud the government. The element of causing undue injury was not proven, as the government received the benefit of the bridge construction. Payment to petitioner, as the obligee under the contract, was valid under Article 1240 of the Civil Code. Conspiracy must be proven as clearly and convincingly as the offense itself, which the prosecution failed to do. Hence, petitioner’s guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt.