G.R. No. 182539 -40; February 21, 2011
ANTONIO Y. DE JESUS, SR., ANATOLIO A. ANG and MARTINA S. APIGO, Petitioners, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN-FOURTH DIVISION and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

The Office of the Ombudsman charged petitioners Antonio Y. de Jesus, Sr. (Municipal Mayor of Anahawan, Southern Leyte), Anatolio A. Ang (Vice-Mayor), and Martina S. Apigo (Municipal Treasurer) with two criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan. In Criminal Case 26764, they were charged with Falsification of Public Document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly making it appear in the Requests for Quotation and Abstract of Proposal of Canvass dated January 18, 1994, that Cuad Lumber and Hinundayan Lumber submitted quotations for the supply of coco lumber when they did not. In Criminal Case 26766, they, along with Antonio de Jesus, Jr. (the mayor’s son), were charged with violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for allegedly giving unwarranted advantage to De Jesus, Jr., who operated Anahawan Coco Lumber Supply, by awarding him the supply contract worth ₱16,767.00. After the prosecution rested its case, the petitioners filed a motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence, which the Sandiganbayan denied. They filed the demurrer anyway, effectively waiving their right to present evidence. The Sandiganbayan convicted the petitioners of both crimes but acquitted De Jesus, Jr. Their motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting the petitioners of two crimes arising from a single transaction.
2. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in denying the petitioners the opportunity to present their defense after denying their demurrer to evidence.
3. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding the petitioners guilty of falsification of public documents.
4. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding the petitioners guilty of violating R.A. 3019.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Sandiganbayan’s Decision and Resolution.
1. On the two charges from one transaction: The Court held that Section 3 of R.A. 3019 expressly allows the filing of charges under it “in addition to acts or omissions of public officials already penalized by existing laws.” Therefore, conviction for both falsification (under the Revised Penal Code) and graft (under R.A. 3019) based on the same transaction is permissible.
2. On the denial of the right to present evidence: The Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan correctly denied the petitioners’ motion for leave to file a demurrer. The court’s resolution explicitly stated that the denial was “without prejudice” to filing a demurrer without leave, subject to the consequences under Section 23, Rule 119 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure. By filing a demurrer without leave after their motion was denied, the petitioners waived their right to present evidence. The Sandiganbayan was thus justified in denying their subsequent motion to be allowed to present evidence.
3. & 4. On the merits of the convictions:
* Conspiracy and Falsification: The Court found conspiracy was established by circumstantial evidence. The petitioners admitted during pre-trial that they signed the Requests for Quotation and Abstract of Proposal of Canvass despite the absence of the bidders’ signatures. The owner of Cuad Lumber testified he did not participate, and his business name was inaccurately stated. The petitioners’ act of signing in multiple capacities (as approving officers and as witnesses) was irregular and suggested a concerted effort to limit exposure of the transaction. The Purchase Request also lacked the required signature of the local auditor.
Violation of R.A. 3019: The Court rejected the defense of good faith reliance on subordinates (Arias v. Sandiganbayan*), as the circumstances negated such reliance: (a) the petitioners knew or should have known the winning supplier was the mayor’s son; (b) they signed in dual capacities to avoid scrutiny; and (c) the purported quotations lacked the suppliers’ signatures. The claim of an “emergency purchase” was belied by the documents themselves, which indicated a canvass was conducted without stating any justifying emergency circumstances.
* Other Defenses Rejected: The Court also rejected the petitioners’ arguments regarding: (a) the admissibility of certified copies (secondary evidence was allowed as originals were lost, and petitioners adopted them as exhibits); (b) the absence of an adverse audit finding (not a requisite for graft prosecution); and (c) the superior quality of the supplied lumber (mere conjecture, as no quotation from other suppliers was genuinely submitted for comparison).
The Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s finding that the petitioners conspired to falsify documents to favor the mayor’s son, De Jesus, Jr., thereby committing both falsification and graft.