G.R. No. 94955 August 18, 1993
JUAN CONRADO, petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Juan Coronado, a newly hired Process Server in the office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, was charged with violation of Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The amended information alleged that from August 31, 1984, to February 21, 1985, he willfully and unlawfully neglected and refused to serve within a reasonable time a copy of an Order dated July 11, 1984, issued by Executive Judge Antonio V. Benedicto in Civil Case No. 290-A, denying the plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration, upon plaintiffs’ counsel, Atty. Patrocinio Palanog, despite due demand by defendant Mariano Lim. The Order was served only on February 22, 1985. The chronological events showed that after learning of the unserved Order on August 31, 1984, Lim made representations with the Judge to have it served. The petitioner attempted service twice in early September 1984 but was unsuccessful—first due to an inability to locate the address, and second because Atty. Palanog and his family were out, with only a house watcher present, so the Order was not left. On February 22, 1985, Lim discovered the case had been archived. On February 25, 1985, he found a return dated September 4, 1984, signed by the petitioner stating Atty. Palanog could not be contacted, an entry showing service on February 25, 1985, and a corresponding return. The Sandiganbayan convicted the petitioner based on the 5-month delay, imposing an indeterminate penalty of six years and one month to nine years and one day.

ISSUE

Whether the failure of the petitioner to successfully serve the July 11, 1984, Order, under the given circumstances, warrants his conviction under Section 3(f) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, specifically regarding the element of purpose for obtaining a benefit or discriminating against a party.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the judgment of the Sandiganbayan and ACQUITTED the petitioner. The Court outlined the elements of the offense under Section 3(f): (a) the offender is a public officer; (b) the officer neglected or refused to act without sufficient justification after due demand; (c) reasonable time elapsed without action on the pending matter; and (d) such failure was for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage in favor of an interested party, or discriminating against another. While the first three elements were present, the fourth indispensable element was lacking. The record was bereft of evidence showing that the petitioner’s failure to act was motivated by any gain or benefit for himself or knowingly for the purpose of favoring an interested party or discriminating against another. The law requires the purpose to be the cause of the neglect or refusal, not merely a consequential advantage. The petitioner’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that while the petitioner’s misconduct was not condoned and prejudice may have been sustained by the private respondent, the legal remedies lie elsewhere, not in the instant action under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.