G.R. No. L-71712 April 15, 1988
HONORATO MALIG and ANTONIO LACSON, petitioners, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (Second Division), and PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Honorato Malig and Antonio Lacson, Senior Technical Property Inspectors of the Commission on Audit (COA) for Region III, were convicted by the Sandiganbayan for violating Section 3(b) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act ( Republic Act No. 3019 ). The Amended Information alleged that on March 15 and 21, 1983, in Sta. Maria, Bulacan, they requested P20,000.00 from Celso Halili, President of Halrey Construction Inc., which had a contract with the Provincial Government of Bulacan for road construction. The prosecution presented Danilo Francisco, the construction foreman, who testified that on March 15, after inspecting the project site with the petitioners, Malig instructed him to inform his boss to prepare P20,000.00 so that their report would be finished. Francisco relayed this to secretary Emiliana Gerona. On March 21, the petitioners returned and inquired if Francisco had told his boss about the amount; when told Halili had not yet arrived, they left appearing displeased.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting the petitioners of violating Section 3(b) of R.A. 3019 based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centered on the sufficiency of evidence to establish the elements of the crime under Section 3(b), which penalizes the request or receipt of any gift, present, or other pecuniary benefit in connection with any government contract or transaction in which the public officer has to intervene. The Court found the testimony of foreman Danilo Francisco to be credible, straightforward, and consistent. His account of Malig’s direct request for P20,000.00, coupled with the petitioners’ return visit to follow up, constituted a clear “demand” or “request” for money related to their official function of inspecting the government project. The petitioners’ defense of denial could not prevail over this positive testimony. The Court also held that the lack of direct testimony from Celso Halili was not fatal, as the crime of bribery is consummated by the mere demand or request, regardless of whether the money was actually given. The Sandiganbayan’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect. The petitioners, as COA auditors with interventionist authority over the project, violated the law by soliciting money from the contractor. The penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan was thus sustained. Justice Gutierrez, Jr., dissented, arguing that Francisco’s bare testimony, without corroboration, was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence was consistent with innocence.