REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Sandiganbayan Quezon City
SIXTH DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SB-16-CRM-0334 Plaintiff, For: Violation of Section 7(d) of R.A. No. 6713
SB-16-CRM-0335 For: Direct Bribery - versus -
Present:
FERNANDEZ, SJ, JL, ANGELITO DURAN SACLOLO, JR., Chairperson BT AL. MIRANDA, J". and Accused. VIVERO, J.
Promulgated:
J tf
X- -X
DECISION
FERNANDEZ, SJ, J.
Accused Angelito Duran Saclolo, Jr. and Alfredo G. Ortaleza stand charged for violation of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code^ and of Section 7(d) of R.A. No. 6713,2 for demanding and accepting the amount of PhP300,000.00 / from Ma. Linda Moya of Richworld Aire and Technologie&V
'Republic Act No. 3815 2 Code ofConduct and Ethical Standardsfor Public Officials and Employees, Februaiy 20, 1989 DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 2 of63
X X
Corporation (Richworld), in consideration for the immediate passage of a Sangguniang Panlungsod Resolution authorizing the construction of Globe Telecoms cell sites in Cabanatuan City.
The Information in SB'16-CRM'0334 reads:
For: Violation ofR.A. No. 6713, Sec. 7(d)
That on April 10, 2013 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, Angelito Duran Saclolo, Jr. and Alfredo Garcia Ortaleza, both public officers, being then a Member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod and concurrent Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Communications and Secretaiy to the Sangguniang Panlungsod, respectively, of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, while in the performance of their official functions, committing the offense in relation to their office and taking advantage of their official positions, conspiring and confederating with one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally accept the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) from Ma. Linda S. Moya, representative of Richworld Aire & Technologies Corporation, in the course of their official duties relative to the passage of a Sangguniang Panlungsod Resolution authorizing the construction of Globe cell site tower/antennas within Cabanatuan City, to the damage and prejudice of public interest.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The Information in SB-IS-CRM-OSSS reads:
For: Violation ofArticle 210 ofthe Revised Penal Code
That on April 10, 2013 or sometime prior thereto, in the City of Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, Angelito Duran Saclolo, Jr. and Alfredo Garcia Ortaleza, both public officers, being then a Member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod and concurrent Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Communications and Secretaiy to the Sangguniang Panlungsod, respectively. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 3 of63
X
Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, while in the performance of their official functions, committing the offense in relation to their office and taking advantage of their official positions, conspiring and confederating with one another, did then and there willfully, xinlawfully and criminally demand, solicit and receive the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) from Ma. Linda S. Moya, representative of Richworld Aire & Technologies Corporation, in consideration for the immediate passage of a Sangguniang Panlungsod Resolution allowing or authorizing the construction of Globe cell site tower/antennas within Cabanatuan City, knowing fully well (a) that Richworld Aire 86 Technologies Corporation was applying for and securing a locational clearance for cell sites; and (b) that a Resolution from Sangguniang Panlungsod was not required for the issuance of a locational clearance for cell sites, which was executed and accomplished by the passage of an unapproved Ordinance, instead of a Resolution, to the damage and prejudice of public interest.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Accused Saclolo and Ortaleza, assisted by their respective counsels, each pleaded not guilty to both charges.^
During the Pre-trial, the parties stipulated as follows:
a. At the time material to the allegations in the Information, accused Saclolo and Ortaleza are public officers. Accused Saclolo was a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija and Chairman of its Committee on Public Utilities and Facilities, while accused Ortaleza was the Secretary to the Sanggunian Panlungsod.
b. Accused Saclolo is the Chairman of the Committee on Public Utilities and Facilities of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija.
c. At the time material to the allegations in the Information, Richworld Aire and Technologies Corporation filed with the office of the SP Secretary an application for the passage of a Resolution to allow the construction.
3 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 235 and 266, * Pre-Trial Order dated May 16, 2017, Record, Vol. 1, pp. 351-359. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 4 of63
X
maintenance, and operation of cell sites in Cabanatuan City.
d. SP enacted Ordinance No. 013-2013 allowing Globe Telecom, Inc. to construct, install, operate, and maintain cell site/cell towers in Barangay Bakero and Sapang and the same was deemed approved on May 6, 2013.
e. It was the private complainant who requested the SP of Cabanatuan City for the passage of a resolution to allow Globe Telecom, Inc. to construct, operate and maintain cell site towers in Barangay Bakero and Sapang, Cabanatuan City.
The parties raised the following issues:
a. The Prosecution
Whether the accused violated the provisions of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 7(d) of Republic Act No. 6713.
b. Accused Saclolo
Whether or not accused Saclolo is guilty as charged in the above-captioned cases.
Whether or not accused has indeed demanded or received the amount of PhP300,000.00 from the private complainant.
c. Accused Ortaleza
Whether or not the accused Ortaleza is guilty of the crimes charged in the Informations.
Whether or not there exists sufficient evidence to prove his complicity to the allegations in the Informations.
EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION
The prosecution presented as witnesses Atty. Romeo AlfredOy^ Linda S. l^oya,^ Grace Nilda T. Macallop,^ and Virginia M. Busog ^
5 TSN dated May 16, 2017 ® TSN dated September 19, 2017 DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 5 of63
Atty. Romeo C. Alfredo testified as follows:
1. He is the president and the legal counsel of Richworld Aire 85 Technologies Corp.^
2. Richworld is a service provider for telecommunication companies. Richworld is engaged in site acquisition and is tasked to apply for permits from the local government to allow construction of cell sites and radio signals,
3. Sometime in Januaiy or Februaiy 2013, Richworld filed an application for the issuance of locational clearance, building permit and Sangguniang Panlungsod Resolution for the construction and operation of cell sites for Globe Telecom Inc., in Cabanatuan City.
4. Linda S. Moya, the Operations Manager of Richworld, asked him to assist her on the "SOP" demanded by accused Ortaleza and accused Saclolo, both local officials of Cabanatuan City, in exchange for the issuance of an SP Resolution.12
5. Ms. Moya told him that accused Saclolo initially asked for PhP220,000.00 but she haggled to reduce the amount to PhP200,000.00.i3
6. "SOP" is a so called "unofficial amoimt" paid to the local officials of Cabanatuan City, as a standard practice, to accommodate applications and to issue a Resolution.
7. They were scheduled to meet accused Ortaleza on April 8, 2013 to negotiate the "SOP."
8. On April 8, 2013, a Monday, he and Ms. Moya went to Cabanatuan Cily. They waited for the flag ceremony to end before proceeding to the office of accused Ortaleza.
9. Accused Ortaleza invited them to his cubicle^ and there, they discussed the reduction of the "SOP."
^ TSN dated November 9, 2017. ®TSN dated November 22, 2017. 9 p. 8. TSN dated May 16, 2017. p. 18, TSN dated Jiine 6, 2017. "p. 9, TSN dated May 16, 2017. « p. 9, TSN dated May 16, 2017. » pp. 10, TSN dated May 16, 2017. pp. 9-10, TSN dated May 16, 2017. » pp. 9-10, TSN dated May 16, 2017. >6 pp. 34, TSN dated June 6, 2017. "pp. 35, TSN dated June 6, 2017. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 6 of63
10. He asked accused Ortaleza to reduce the "SOP" from PhP200,000.00 to PhP100,000.00 per cell site. Afterwards, Ortaleza excused himself and stepped out of his cubicle. He heard Ortaleza, who was about 3 to 4 meters away, talk to someone over the phone,
11. After three to four minutes, accused Ortaleza told him that he talked to accused Saclolo who agreed to reduce the "SOP" to PhPl50,000.00 per cell site, or PhP300,000.00 in total.
12. Finding the amount too high, he asked accused Ortaleza if he can personally talk to the mayor. Accused Ortaleza replied that the mayor was busy.^o
13. He and Ms. Moya agreed to pay PhP150,000.00 per cell site, or PhP300,000.00 in total. They told accused Ortaleza that they would return and pay after two days.21
14. After two days, Linda Moya returned to Cabanatuan Cily with Grace Macallop to deliver the money to accused Ortaleza. He did not return to Cabanatuan City. 22
15. A couple of weeks thereafter, Linda Moya showed him a copy of Ordinance No. 013-2013 signed by the members of the Sanggunian.^^
16. Linda Moya went back to Cabanatuan to follow up on the locational clearance. During that time, Virginia Busog of the Office of the City Planning and Development Office told Linda Moya that a Sanggunian Resolution was not necessary for the issuance of a locational clearance. 24
17. He wrote a letter addressed to accused Saclolo and accused Ortadeza demanding the return of the money paid by Richworld.25
18. Accused Saclolo and accused Ortaleza did not respond to their demand. Thus, Richworld filed a case for Estafa against both accused Saclolo and accused Ortaleza. 26
19. He knew that giving of an "SOP" is illegal. He only agreed to negotiate the reduction of the "SOP" because, as the
»®pp. 11-12, TSN dated May 16, 2017; pp. 10, TSN dated June 6, 2017. pl2, TSN dated May 16, 2017. 20 pl2, TSN dated May 16, 2017. pl2, TSN dated May 16, 2017. « p.15, TSN dated May 16, 2017. » p.20, TSN dated May 16, 2017. 24 p.21, TSN dated May 16, 2017. 25 p.21, TSN dated May 16, 2017. 26 p.25, TSN dated May 16, 2017. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 7 of63
President of Richworld, it was his duly to reduce the expenses of their company.27
20. He has never met accused Saclolo before April 8, 2013.28
Atly. Romeo C. Alfredo identified accused Saclolo and accused Ortaleza.^^ He also identified Exhibits H, I, M and Q.
Linda S. Moya testified:
1. She is the Chief Operating Officer of Richworld Aire & Technologies Corporation.^o
2. As the Chief Operating Officer, she oversees the overall operations of the company,
3. On January 7, 2013, Richworld submitted a letter application for the issuance of locational clearances and business permits to the Office of the Mayor, the Office of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, and Office of the City Planning and Development of Cabanatuan City. ^2
4. On February 14, 2013, she went to the Office of the Sangguniang Panlungsod Secretariat of Cabanatuan City and met accused Alfredo Ortaleza to follow up on their application. Accused Ortaleza asked her if she already knew about the "kalakaran" in their office. Accused Ortaleza asked her to wait for Councilor Angelito Saclolo, the Chairman of the Committee for Transportation and Communication.33
5. Later that day, she met accused Angelito Saclolo at Deluxe Restaurant, Cabanatuan City. Accused Saclolo explained to her that the "SOP" is PhP220,000.00 per cell site. Accused Saclolo also explained the proportionate share of concerned government officials in the "SOP." She asked accused Saclolo to lower the amount to PhP100,000.00 per cell site. Accused/ Saclolo only reduced the amount to PhP200,000.00.
p.6, TSN dated June 6, 2017. M p.22, TSN dated May 16, 2017. » p.19, TSN dated May 16, 2017. 30 p.6, TSN dated September 19, 2017. 3' p.8, TSN dated September 19, 2017. 32 p.8, TSN dated September 19, 2017. 33 pp. 10-11 8s 13, TSN dated September 19, 2017. 3< p.15, TSN dated September 19, 2017; p.10, TSN dated October 18, 2017. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 8 of63
-X
6. Finding the amount excessive, she went to the Office of the Vice Mayor to ask for further reduction. She asked the Vice Mayor if it were possible for them to issue the resolution without any "SOP". The Vice Mayor said he will do his best and will talk to the councilors. ^5
7. Their company did not approve the payment of P200,000.00 per site. Thus, on February 19, 2013, she again called accused Saclolo to ask for further reduction. Accused Saclolo told her that he could no longer reduce the amount.^6
8. She asked Atty. Romeo Alfredo to assist her in negotiating the "SOP" with accused Saclolo. ^7
9. On April 8, 2013, she and Atty. Alfredo went to Cabanatuan City. Together, they negotiated with accused Ortaleza.^s
10. During their meeting, they asked accused Ortaleza to reduce the amount of "SOP" to PhP100,000.00. Accused Ortaleza replied that he will have to seek the approval of accused Saclolo. Accused Ortaleza stepped out of his cubicle and talked to someone over the phone. At that point, she was around 2 meters away from accused Ortaleza.39
11. When accused Ortaleza came back, he told them that the least he could allow is PhP150,000.00 per cell site. She and Atty. Alfredo agreed and promised accused Ortaleza that they will deliver the money in two days.*^®
12. On April 10, 2013, around 1:00 pm she and Grace Macallop arrived at accused Ortaleza's office.
13. She gave accused Ortaleza a brown envelope containing 3 bundles each with 100 pieces of PhPl,000.00 bills. Accused Ortaleza opened the envelope, counted the bundles, and placed the envelope inside the drawer of his desk. Accused Ortaleza said that he will call her once the Resolution becomes available.
14. Later that day, accused Ortaleza told her that she needs to pay PhP6,000.00 for the gasoline and snacks of the
pp.16-17, TSN dated September 19, 2017. * pp.17-18, TSN dated September 19, 2017. ^ p.18, TSN dated September 19, 2017. sopp .18-19, TSN dated September 19, 2017. » pp. 18-20, TSN dated September 19, 2017. <®pp. 20-21, TSN dated September 19, 2017. p.27, TSN dated September 19, 2017. pp. 27-28, TSN dated September 19, 2017. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et al Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 9 of63
person who will transmit the Resolution for the necessary signatures. She returned to the session hall and gave accused Ortaleza PhP6,000.00.'*3
15. A few weeks later, accused Ortaleza gave her a photocopy of a Resolution. Said copy of the resolution was not yet signed by the mayor. Accused Ortaleza ssdd that he will give the signed copy on a later date.
16. Despite accused Ortaleza's assurance, she did not receive any copy of the Resolution signed by the mayor.
17. On April 23, 2013, she went to the Office of the Cily Planning and Development where she met CPDO Virginia Busog who told her that a Sanggunian resolution is not necessary for a locational clearance.
18. On April 24, 2019, the Office of the City Planning and Development issued a locational clearance.
19. Atty. Romeo Alfredo sent a demand letter to the office of accused Ortaleza for the return of the PhP300,000.00.'^®
20. Richworld filed a case against accused Ortaleza and accused Saclolo for Estafa at RTC-Makati City.
21. She met accused Saclolo during the preliminary hearing of the case, so
22.The criminal case was dismissed at the Makati City Prosecutor's Office and was referred to the Office of the Ombudsman, si
23. She first saw the copy of the ordinance marked as Exhibit E when the same was attached as an annex to accused Saclolo and accused Ortaleza's Counter-Affidavit.ss
Ms. Moya identified Exhibits A, C, F, G, L, Q and R.
Grace Nilda T. Macallop testified as follows:
« p.29, TSN dated September 19, 2017. ^ p.31, TSN dated September 19, 2017. p.31, TSN dated September 19, 2017. * p.33, TSN dated September 19, 2017. pp.33-34, TSN dated September 19, 2017; p.87, TSN dated October 18, 2017. '»®p.34, TSN dated September 19, 2017. ^ p.35, TSN dated September 19, 2017. 50 p.36, TSN dated September 19, 2017. 5» p.36, TSN dated September 19, 2017. 50 p.43, TSN dated October 18, 2017. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 10 of63
X X
1. She was the Finance Officer of Richworld Aire and Technologies Corporation in the year 2013. ^3
2. She prepared a voucher dated April 7, 2013, showing that PhP300,000.00 was allotted for the payment of the "SOP" of accused Ortaleza and Saclolo.S'^
3. She prepared a BDO check in the amount of PhP300,000.00.55
4. On April 10, 2013, she encashed the said BDO check.56
5. Upon the directive of Linda Moya, she went to Cabanatuan City with Linda Moya, on April 10, 2013, to witness the delivery of the PhP300,000.00 to accused Ortaleza. They went directly to the office of Sanggunian Secretary Ortaleza. 57
6. She saw Linda Moya give accused Ortaleza a brown envelope.58
7. Upon receiving the brown envelope, accused Ortaleza took the money out from the envelope, counted it by bundle and placed it inside the drawer of his table.59
8. Accused Ortaleza told Linda Moya that he will call her once the Sangguniang Panlungsod Resolution becomes available. 5°
9. She videotaped the delivery of the money to Ortaleza to show their office that the PhP300,000.00 was given to accused Ortaleza. 5i
10. She heard Linda Moya talk, through a phone call, to accused Saclolo to inform him that the money had been given to accused Ortaleza. 5^
11. Later that day, they returned to the Sanggunian pffice to give Ortaleza PhP6,000.00 for gas and snacks.
53 p.8, TSN dated November 9, 2017. 54 p.9, TSN dated November 9, 2017. 55 p.9, TSN dated November 9, 2017. 56 p.8, TSN dated November 9, 2017. 5* pp.11 and 23, TSN dated November 9, 2017. 58 pp.11, 27-29, TSN dated November 9, 2017; 59 p.12, TSN dated November 9, 2017. 60 p.12, TSN dated November 9, 2017. 6» p.26, TSN dated November 9, 2017. 60 p.12, TSN dated November 9, 2017. 63 p.14, TSN dated November 9, 2017. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et al. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 11 of63
X - - -X
Grace Nilda T. Macallop identified Exhibits K and R.
Virginia M. Busog testified as follows:
1. She is the City Planning and Development Coordinator and Zoning Administrator of Cabanatuan City.®"^
2. As the Zoning Administrator, she oversees the processing and approval of applications for the issuance of location^ clearance and/or zoning certificate for the construction, installation, sind operation of cellular sites within Cabanatuan City.®^
3. The Office of the Zoning Administrator has the exclusive authority to issue locational clearance and/or zoning certificate for the construction, installation, and operation of cellular sites.
4. Based on the HLURB Resolution No. R-626 Series of 1998, the requirements for the issuance of a locational clearance are the following:
a. Duly accomplished application form; b. Building and Site Development Plan; c. Location Plan with vicinity map; d. Transfer Certificate of Tide or Authority to Construct Contract of lease, if not the owner; e. Tax Declaration; f. Bill of Materials; g. Environmental Compliance Certificate or Certificate of Non- Coverage from DENR; and, h. Written Consent of Homeowner's Association, in case the cell site is to be constructed inside a subdivision.®"^
5. A Sangguniang Panlungsod Resolution is not required before a locational clearance or zoning certification is issued.®®
6. On April 23, 2013, she met a certain Linda Moya, who sought her help in connection with an application for locational clearance for the construction of Globe Telecoms cell sites in Cabanatuan Oily. She accompanied Linda Moya to meet the mayor.®® /
^ p.4, TSN dated November 22, 2017. ®s p.2, Judidcd AffidatnV, Record, Vol. 1, p. 396. fi® p.2, Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 1, p. 396. pp.2-3. Judicial Affidavit Record, Vol. 1, pp. 396-397. ®® p.3, Judicial Affuiaint; Record, Vol. 1, p. 397. p.4, Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 1, p. 398. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 12 of63
7. After Linda Moya talked to the mayor, she informed Linda Moya that a locational clearance can be easily obtained as long as the requirements are complete. She asked Linda Moya to show her their documents and she determined that the requirements were complete."^®
8. On April 24, 2013, she issued the Decisions on Zoning No. 125-01-13 and Zoning No. 052-01-13, granting the application for the issuance of locational clearances of Globe Telecom,
Virginia M. Busog identified her Judicial Affidavit and Exhibits F, G, O and S.
The following exhibits offered by the prosecution were admitted in evidence:'^^
Exhibit Document/Description Letter dated January 7, 2013 of Atty. Marino E. A Bermudez to Hon. Julius Cesar Vergara, Mayor, Cabanatuan City Letter of Ma. Linda S. Moya dated February 11, C 2013 to Hon. Marius A. Garcia, Vice Mayor of Cabanatuan City Excerpt from the minutes of the 11^ Regular Weekly Session of the SP of Cabanatuan City dated March 18, 2013, Re: Enactment of Ordinance No. 013-2013 which shows that said Ordinance lapsed into law on May 6, 2013
E With stamp on the 2^^ page, which reads:
DEEMED APPROVED effective May 06, 2013 pursuant to paragraph (b) Section 54, RA 7160
(signed) ALFREDO G. ORTALEZA SP Secretary Decision on Zoning No. 125-01-13 dated April 24, 2013 of the Office of the Zoning Administrator, and F the City Planning and Development Office, Cabanatuan City /
TO p.5, Judidal Affidavit, Record, Vol. 1, p. 399. pp.3-4, Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 1, pp. 397-398. TO TSN dated November 22, 2017. TO Resolution dated January 8, 2018; Record, Vol. 1, pp. 506-507. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et al Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 13 of63
X •X
G List of requirements in securing locational clearance H Demand letter dated May 30, 2013 of R.C. Alfredo Law Office addressed to Ortaleza I Demand letter dated June 7, 2013 of R.C. Alfredo Law Office addressed to Saclolo K Complaint Affidavit dated July 22, 2013 of Grace Nilda F. Macallop L Complaint Affidavit dated July 22, 2013 of Ma. Linda 8. Moya M Complaint Affidavit dated July 23, 2013 of Romeo C. Alfredo Excerpt from the minutes of the 11*^ Regular Q Weekly Session dated March 18, 2013 of the SP of Cabanatuan City Re: Enactment of Ordinance No 013-2013 EDO Bank Statement of Richworld Aire and R Technologies Corp. for the period ending April 30, 2013 Decision on Zoning No. 052-01-13 dated April 24, S 2013 of the Office of the Zoning Administrator, and the City Planning and Development Office, Cabanatuan Ci1y74
EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE
The defense presented as witnesses accused Angelito D. Saclolo, Jr.,75 Cherry G. Dilao,^^ Marius A. Garcia,^^ and accused Alfredo G. Ortaleza.^s
Accused Angelito D. Saclolo, Jr. testified as follows:
1. In the year 2013, he was a City Councilor of Cabanatuan City and the Chairman of the Committee on Public Utilities and Facilities. 79
2. He first learned about the application of Globe Telecom for the construction, operation and maintenance of cell sites on February 12, 2013, during the session of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, when Globe's applicatio
Record, Vol. 1, pp. 450-492. 75 TSN dated March 27, 2018, TSN dated May 29, 2018 76 TSN dated August 6, 2018 77 TSN dated September 5, 2018 78 TSN dated November 18, 2018, TSN dated November 28, 2018, TSN dated January 7, 2019 78 p.3. Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p. 36. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 14 of63
was referred to the Committee on Public Utilities and Facilities.
3. The letter dated January 7, 2013 of Globe Telecom requested for the issuance of antenna clearances and permits. In another letter dated February 11, 2013, addressed to the Vice Mayor, signed by one Ma. Linda S. Moya, Globe Telecom requested for the passage of a Resolution allowing it to construct, operate and maintain cell site towers in Brgy. Bakero and Brgy. Sapang, Cabanatuan City.®i
4. As the Chairman of the Committee, he reviewed the documents attached to the application and found that the requirements were complete.
5. On March 15, 2013, he conducted a public hearing at the barangay halls of Brgy. Bakero and Brgy. Sapang to determine whether there are oppositions to the application, or if there are residents who may be adversely affected by the construction of cell sites.
6. After the public hearing and ocular inspection, the Committee on Public Utilities and Facilities recommended the approval of the request of Linda Moya.
7. On March 18, 2013, the Sangguniang Panlungsod enacted Ordinance No. 013-2013, allowing Globe Telecom to construct, install, operate, and maintain cell sites in Brgy. Bakero and Brgy. Sapang.
8. On May 6, 2013, Ordinance No. 013-2013, imsigned by the Mayor, took effect and was deemed approved due to the lapse of time.
9. The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cabanatuan City have previously enacted a similar Ordinance in favor of Smart, Globe and Digitel. 10. In case of applications of th<'same nature, they usually require the submission of>
80 p.18, TSN dated March 27, 2018; p.4. Judicial Affidavit,fe rord. Vol. 3, p.37. 81 p.3, Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p. 36. 82 p.l8, TSN dated March 27, 2018; p.4. Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p.37. 83 p.4. Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p.37. 8« p.4. Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p.37. 83 p.5. Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p.38. 88 p.6. Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p.39. 8? p.6. Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p.39. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 15 of63
a. Certificate of Title of the properly; b. Authorization for Globe to construct in the property; and, c. Barangay resolution that there is no opposition to the construction of a cell site tower.ss
Accused Saclolo identified Exhibits 1 to 16.
Cherry G, Dilao testified as follows:
1. She was the Supervising Administrative Officer of the Records Management Division of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cabanatuan City from May 9, 2011 to Februaiy 2, 2017.®^
2. As such, she had custody of the records and documents of the Sanggunian.
3. She issued certified true copies of the documents marked as Exhibits 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 for accused Saclolo.
Marius A, Garcia testified as follows:
1. He was a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cabanatuan City from June 30, 1995 to June 30, 2004 and was the Vice Mayor of the same City from June 30, 2007 to June 30, 2016.^2
2. In response to the letters dated January 7, 2013 and Februaiy 11, 2013, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cabanatuan City enacted an Ordinance authorizing Globe Telecom to construct cell sites.
3. The letter dated January 7, 2013 sent to the office of the Mayor, Globe Telecom, through Atty. Marino Bermudez, Vice President of Richworld Aire and Technologies Corporation requested for antenna clearance and permits.
4. In the letter dated February 11, 2013, Ma. Linda S. Moya requested for the enactment of a Resolution to
88 p.26, TSN dated March 27, 2018. 89 TSN dated August 6, 2018; p.2, Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p. 150 9° p.3, Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p. 151. 9> p.4, Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p. 152. 92 p.2. Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p. 123. 93 p.2. Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p. 123. 94 p.2. Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p. 123. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 16 of63
allow Globe Telecom to construct cell site towers in Brgy. Bakero and Brgy. Sapang.^^
5. During the session of the Sanggunian on March 18, 2013, the Committee on Public Utilities and Facilities submitted a Committee Report recommending the approval of Globe^s application.^®
6. The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cabanatuan City enacted Ordinance No. 013-2013.
7. He only learned that the Ordinance was merely "Deemed Approved" when this case was filed.
8. It is a common practice of the Sanggunian to enact ordinances instead of resolutions in relation to applications to construct and operate cell sites.
9. He remembers talking to Linda Moya in his office, but Linda Moya never mentioned anj^ing about the "SOP" being requested from them,
Marius A. Garcia identified Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, and 16 of accused Saclolo.
Accused Alfredo G. Ortaleza testified as follows:
1. He was the former Secretary to the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cabanatuan City. He was dismissed from service by the Office of the Ombudsman; the Court of Appeals, in its Amended Decision dated June 22, 2017, reversed the Ombudsman's Decision.
2. He did not solicit or accept any gift from the private complainant,
3. His participation was not necessary ip granting the request of the private complainant,
95 p.2. Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p. 123. 95 p.3, Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p. 124. 97 p.3. Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p. 124. 98 p.4. Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p. 125. 99 p.6. Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p. 127. 100 pp,6-7. Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, pp. 127-128. '91 p.5, TSN dated November 14, 2018; p.4. Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p.2'05. »92 p.2. Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p.203. '93 p.3, Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p.204. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 17 of63
4. Ordinance No. 013-2013 dated March 18, 2013 was not falsified,
5. He was informed beforehand that the application will be granted since the applicant submitted all the necessary documents. Since Richworld complied with all the requirements, the Committee approved its application. The Vice Mayor instructed him to include Globe's application in the agenda for the next session. He drafted Ordinance No. 013-2013 dated March 18, 2013 before the session of even date. He drafted the ordinance after the public hearing was conducted by the Committee on Public Utilities and Facilities on March 15, 2013, but before the session on March 18, 2013.105
6. Sometime in April 2013, he met Linda Moya, who asked him if the Ordinance has been approved by the mayor. In response, he said that he has transmitted the Ordinance to the mayor. He gave Linda Moya a copy of the Ordinance but told her that it was just an "advanced copy" because it is not yet signed by the mayor.106
7. He transmitted the Ordinance to the Mayor on April 19, 2013.107
8. When securing an Ordinance to put up cell sites, the applicant files an application and, thereafter, is given a list of requirements. After the requirements are complied with, the application will be included in the agenda of the next regular session. The application will be assigned to the proper committee, which will conduct public hearings. If everything is in order, the committee will submit a report or recommendation to approve or disapprove the application. The recommendation will then be included in the agenda of the regular session of the Sangguniang Panlungsod. Once signed by the members of the Sanggunian, the Ordinance will be transmitted to the Mayor for signature.108
He identified his Exhibits 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12
p.3, Judicial A^davit, Record, Vol. 2, p.204. pp. 24 and 40 TSN dated January 7, 2019. pp.11-12, TSN dated January 7, 2019. p.17, TSN dated January 7, 2019. *08 pp. 31-33, TSN dated January 7, 2019. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 18 of63
The following exhibits offered by accused Saclolo were admitted in evidence:
Exhibit Document/ Description 1 Counter-Affidavit of accused Angelito D. Saclolo, Jr. 2 Rejoinder of accused Angelito D. Saclolo, Jr. Letter dated January 7, 2013 of Richworld Aire 85 3 Technologies Corp. to Hon. Mayor Julius Cesar V. Vergara Letter dated February 11, 2013 of Richworld Aire 85 4 Technologies Corp. to Hon. Mayor Julius Cesar V. Vergara 5 Report dated March 18, 2013 of the Committee on Public Utilities and Facilities 6 Ordinance No. 013-2013 Letter dated April 19, 2013 of Alfredo Ortaleza to Mayor 7 Julius Cesar V. Vergara 8 Ordinance No. 013-2013 Joint-Affidavit dated September 16, 2013 of Marius A. 9 Garcia, Joselito C. Roque, Froilan M. Valino, Jean Yasmin D. Cruz, Ariel G. Severino, Rosendo D. Del Rosario III, Mario R. Seeping and Serio J. Tadeo 10 Affidavit of Oscar M. Mendoza 11 Resolution No. 355-95 Ordinance No. 95-123-A dated November 13, 1995 12 Resolution No. 233-2005 Ordinance No. 2005-043 dated July 26, 2005 13 Resolution No. 263-2006 Ordinance No. 2006-073 14 Resolution No. 243-2007 Ordinance No. 2007-042 dated December 17, 2007 15 Resolution No. 158-2008 Ordinance No. 2008-026 dated May 5, 2008 16 Ordinance No 015-2010 dated October 6, 2010 17 Decision dated February 17, 2015 of the Office of the Ombudsman 18 Amended Decision dated June 22, 2017 of the Court of Appeals 19 Entry of Judgment dated July 23, 2018 issued by the Supreme Court
The following exhibits offered by accused Ortaleza were admitted in evidence:
109 Resolution dated January 25, 2019; Record, Vol. 2, pp.^76-377 110 Resolution dated January 25, 2019; Record, Vol. 2, pp. 376-377. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 19 of63
Exhibit Document/Description 1 Letter dated January 8, 2013 of Richworld Aire 8b Technologies 2 Letter dated February 11, 2013 of Ma. Linda S. Moya 3 Report of the Committee on Public Utilities dated March 18, 2013 Ordinance No. 013-2013 - An Ordinance 4 Authorizing Globe Telecom, Inc. to Construct, Install, Operate and Maintain Cell Site/Tower in Barangays Bakero and Sapang, Cabanatuan City 5 Letter dated April 19, 2013 of Alfredo Ortaleza to Mayor Julius Cesar V. Vergara Ordinance No. 013-2013 - An Ordinance Authorizing Globe Telecom, Inc. to Construct, Install, Operate and Maintain Cell Site/Tower in Barangays Bakero and Sapang, Cabanatuan City
With stamp on the 2"^ page, which reads: 6 DEEMED APPROVED effective May 06, 2013 pursuant to paragraph (b) Section 54, RA 7160
(signed) ALFREDO G. ORTALEZA BP Secretary Joint-Affidavit of Marius A. Garcia, Joselito C. 7 Roque, Froilan M. Valino, Jean Yasmin D. Cruz, Ariel G. Severino, Rosendo D. Del Rosario, III, Mario R. Seeping and Serio J. Tadeo 8 Afl5davit of Oscar M. Mendoza 9 Counter-Affidavit of Alfredo G. Ortaleza 10 Decision dated February 17, 2015 of the Office of the Ombudsman 11 Amended Decision dated June 22, 2017 of the Court of Appeals 12 Notice and Entry of Judgment dated July 23, 2018 issued by the Second Division of the Supreme Court
REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
For rebuttal, the prosecution presented Norberto D, Coronel^^^ and Ricardo A. Sopongco.i^^
Norberto D. Coronet testified as follows: 1. He is currently the Secretary to j the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cabanatuan City.^i^
in tSN dated April 1, 2019, TSN dated April 8, 2019, May 24, 2 112 TSN dated Jvily 2, 2019 113 Judicial Affidavit of Norberto D, Coronel, Record, Volume II, p. 388 DECISION People vs. Saclolo et al Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 20 of63
2. He became the Secretary to the Sangguniang Panlungsod on August 2016.ii'^
3. As the Sangguniang Panlungsod Secretary, he is in custody of the: a) journal of proceedings in the Sanggunian, b) minutes of the sessions of the Sanggunian and c) Resolutions or Ordinances being enacted. He is also in charge of issuing certified true copies or certified machine copies of the minutes of Sangguniang Panlungsod sessions lifted from the recordings of the Sangguniang Panlungsod sessions,
4. He issued certified copies of the minutes of the Sangguniang Panlungsod session held on March 18, 2013 upon the request of the Office of the Prosecutor.
5. After receiving the subpoena from the Office of the Special Prosecutor, they looked for the hard copy of the Minutes, but they did not find it.n^
6. He requested for the recording of the Sanggunian session held on March 18, 2013 from the Records Division, and asked their stenographer to transcribe the recording.118
7. He listened to the recording and was convinced that the transcription faithfully reflects the contents of the recording.il®
8. He was not present during the Sanggunian session on March 18, 2013. He was not the one who recorded the Sanggunian session on March 18, 2013. i^o
Norberto Coronel identified his Judicial Affidavit 121 and Exhibits T and U.
The parties stipulated that Exhibit T faithfully reflects the aij^dio recording saved in the USB marked as Exhibit U.122^ V
>14 Judicial AfSdavit of Norberto D.voronel. Record, Volume II, p. 388. us Judicial Affidavit of Norberto D. Coronel, Record, Voliune II, p. 388. "6 Judicial Affidavit of Norberto D. Coronel, Record, Volume II, p. 389. Judicial Affidavit of Norberto D. Coronel, Record, Volxime II, p. 389. p.18, TSN dated April 1, 2019; Judicial Affidavit of Norberto D. Coronel, Record, Volume II, p. 389. "9 p.l8, TSN dated April 1, 2019 »2o pp. 17-18, TSN dated April 1, 2019 121 TSN dated April 1, 2019 122 TSN dated April 8, 2019 DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 21 of63
Ricardo A. Sopongco testified as follows:
1. He was the Head of the Ordinances and Resolution Division. His duties include: a) attending sessions of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, b) drafting resolutions and ordinances, and c) preparing the Sangguniang Panlungsod bulletin board.^23
2. The Journal and Records Division is tasked to prepare the official records of the minutes and ordinances of the Sangguniang Panlungsod.^'^^
Ricardo A. Sapongco identified his Judicial Affidavit and Exhibit V.125
The following exhibits, offered by the prosecution in rebuttal, were admitted in evidence:126
Exhibit Document/Description Minutes of Proceedings of the March 18, 2013 T session of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cabanatuan City Bulletin of Legislative Proceedings 11*^ Regular V Weekly Session of the Sangguniang Panlungsod^ March 18, 2013
THE COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT
Accused Angelito Duran Saclolo, Jr. and Alfredo Garcia Ortaleza were public officers of Cabanatuan City in the year 2013 and during the period relevant to the instant cases. Accused Saclolo was a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija and was concurrently the Chairperson of the Committee on Public Utilities and Facilities. Accused Ortaleza was the Secretary of the same Sanggunian.^'^'^
>» p.7, TSN dated July 2, 2019 p.7, TSN dated July 2, 2019. 125 TSN dated July 2, 2019 126 Order dated July 2, 2019; Record, Vol. 2, p. 453. . Pre-Trial Order dated May 16, 2017, Record, Vol. ij pp. 351 -35; p. 3. Judicial Affidavit, Vol. 2, Record, p. 36. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 22 of63
Richworld Aire and Technologies Corporation (Richworld) is a corporation engaged in the business of assisting telecommunication companies in obtaining permits and licenses to construct cell site towers. One of its clients, Globe Telecom Inc., planned to construct cell site towers in Cabanatuan City.
On January 8, 2013, Richworld, through its Vice President, Atty. Marino Bermudez wrote a letter to the City Mayor of Cabanatuan City, asking for assistance in the issuance of locational clearances and business permits to allow Globe Telecom to install, operate and maintain cell sites in certain barangays in Cabanatuan City.^^s
On February 11, 2013, the Chief Operations Officer of Richworld, Linda Moya, wrote a letter to the Vice Mayor asking the Sanggunian to immediately act on their application.129
On February 14, 2013, Ms. Moya personally went to the Office of the Sangguniang Panlungsod Secretariat of Cabanatuan City to follow-up their application. There, she was introduced to accused Alfredo G. Ortaleza. Ms. Moya inquired firom accused Ortaleza about the status of their application. Ortaleza replied, "AZam mo na ha, Iha, ang kalakaran dito?" Accused Ortaleza explained that it is P220,000.00 per cellular tower. Ms. Moya requested him to lower the amount but accused Ortaleza instructed her to discuss the matter with the Chairperson of the Committee accused Angelito D. Saclolo, Jr.^^®
128 Exhibit A; Exhibit 1. The letter reads:
Dear Mayor: This letter is in my capaci^ as one of the business partners of RICHWORLD relaHve to my task in securing the needed Locational Clfaranres and Building Permits for the installation, operation and mamtenance of GLOBE TELECOM, INC. cell sites' Antenna within your locality. The basic Applications have to be filed at your Ofiice's specific departments, complete with all the requisite attachmoits. It is for this reason that 1 wrote you personally seeking for your kind and crucial assistance on the matter for the immediate issuance of the said documents in manner that is fully in accord with the ethical standards of good governance. Our Field Officer, Mr. Jim Royce Guerrero, shall be on-hand for the Applications, and to receive the said clearances and permits.
XXX
Thank you so much for your help.
Sincerely,
ATTY. MARINO E. BERMUDEZ \fice Preddent
129 Exhibit B. >30 p. 11, TSN dated September 19, 2017. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 23 of63
X - X
On even date, Ms. Moya met accused Saclolo at the nearby De Luxe Restaurant. During their meeting, Ms. Moya asked accused Saclolo for a reduction of the ""kaldkararf mentioned by accused Ortaleza. Accused Saclolo said that the *^kalakararC* is PhP220,000.00 per cell site.^^^
Ms. Moya requested accused Saclolo to reduce the amount. Initially, accused Saclolo refused and said that the amount cannot be lowered because it will be shared among several LGU officials. Later, however, accused Saclolo agreed to reduce the amount to PhP200,000.00 per cell site, or PhP400,000.00 for the two cell sites. 1^2
When Ms. Moya returned to the company, the officials found the amount to be exorbitant. Hence, on February 19, 2013, Ms. Moya called accused Saclolo to request for a lower amount but accused Saclolo denied the request.
Hence, on April 8, 2013, Ms. Moya and Atty. Romeo Alfredo, the President of Richworld, went to Cabanatuan City to further negotiate the amount for the ^kalakaranJ* Atty. Alfredo asked accused Ortaleza to reduce the amount of the ^kalakaran,^ Accused Ortaleza said he will ask accused Saclolo. Accused Ortaleza went out of his office and talked to someone over the phone. Upon returning, accused Ortaleza informed Atty. Alfredo and Ms. Moya that after discussing with accused Saclolo, the latter agreed to reduce the amount to PhPl50,000.00 per cell site. Atty. Alfredo and Ms. Moya requested accused Ortaleza to allow them to have an audience wi^ the mayor but accused Ortaleza said that he mayor was busy in view of the upcoming election. Left without any choice, Atty. Alfredo and Ms. Moya agreed and promised to deliver the money in two days.^^s
On April 10, 2013, Grace Macallop, the Finance Officer of Richworld, encashed Richworld's EDO check in the amount of PhP300,000.00. Ms. Moya ajsked Ms. Macallop to accompany her to Cabanatuan City.^^^
pp. 14-15, TSN dated September 19, 2017. >32 p. 15, tSN dated September 19, 2017. >33 pp. 18-20, TSN dated September 19, 2017. >34 Exhibit R. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et al Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 24 of63
X X
On even date, Ms. Moya and Ms. Macallop went to the office of accused Ortaleza in Cabanatuan City. Ms. Moya handed accused Ortaleza the brown envelope that contained the PhP300,000.00.i35 Accused Ortaleza opened the envelope, counted the money in bundles, and placed it inside his table drawer.136 Afterwards, accused Ortaleza said that he will call Ms. Moya once the resolution is ready. Later that day, Ms. Moya called accused Saclolo and informed him that the money has been delivered to accused Ortaleza. Accused Saclolo assured Ms. Moya that they will notify her as soon as the resolution is available. i37 Afterwards, Ms. Moya received a call from accused Ortaleza who told her to pay PhP6,000.00 for the gasoline and snacks of the person who will route the resolution for the necessary signatures of the councilors. Ms. Moya and Ms. Macallop returned to the session hall and gave accused Ortaleza PhP6,000.00.^38
Several days following the delivery of money to accused Ortaleza, Linda Moya returned to Cabanatuan City to follow up on the resolution, since they have not received anything from accused Ortaleza. Accused Ortaleza explained that the Sanggunian already enacted an ordinance authorizing the construction of the Globe cell sites. However, he said they cannot yet release the ordinance because the original was transmitted to the mayor for his signature. In the meantime, accused Ortaleza gave Ms. Moya a photocopy of Ordinance No. 13-2013 entitled An Ordinance Authorizing Globe Telecom Inc. to Construct, Install, Operate and Maintain a Cell Site/Cell Tower in Barangay Bakero and Sapang, Cabanatuan City. ^39 Accused Ortaleza said he will give Ms. Moya the original, signed by the mayor, as soon as it becomes available.
On April 23, 2013, Ms. Moya returned to Cabanatuan City. This time, she went to the City Planning and Development Office. Virginia Busog of the said office and as zoning official told her that a locational clearance may be issued to her even without a Sanggunian Resolution because such is not one of
>35 p. 10, TSN dated November 19, 2017. >36 p. 11, TSN dated November 19, 2017. >37 Exhibit R. >38 p.29, TSN dated September 19, 2017. >39 Ejdiibit G. >"« p.31, TSN dated September 19, 2017. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 25 of63
the requirements for the issuance of a locational clearance. Ms. Moya also talked to the city mayor about her concerns.
The next day, April 24, 2013, the City Planning and Development Office issued Decision on Zoning No. 125-01-13 and Decision on Zoning No. 052-01-13, both dated April 24, 2013, granting the issuance of locational clearances to Globe Telecom, Inc.^^^
In separate letters dated May 30, 2013 and June 7, 2013, Richworld demanded from accused Ortaleza and accused Saclolo the return of the amount of P300,000.00. But neither replied to the letters. Hence, Richworld filed a complaint for Estafa before the City Prosecutor's Office in Makati. The City Prosecutor of Makati dismissed the complaint and referred the matter to the Office of the Ombudsman,
DISCUSSION
SB-16-CRM-0335 Violation ofArticle 210 ofthe Revised Penal Code Direct Bribery
Accused Angelito Duran Saclolo, Jr. and accused Alfredo G. Ortaleza are charged for Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, for demanding, soliciting, and receiving P300,000.00 from Ma. Linda S. Moya of Richworld Aire fis Technologies Corporation, for the immediate passage of a Sangguniang Panlungsod Resolution, allowing or authorizing the construction, operation, and maintenance of Globe cell site towers/antennas in Cabanatuan City.
Article 210^44 of the Revised Penal Code reads:
Art. 210. Direct Bribery. — Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally oi
p.21, TSN dated May 16, 2017. »« Exhibits F and 8. i*" p.36, TSN dated September 19, 2017. as amended by B.P. Big. 871, May 29, 1985 DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 26 of63
through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not less than three times the value of the gift, in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed.
If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, and the officer executed said act, he shall suffer the same penaltv provided in the preceding paragraph: and if said act shall not have been accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prison correcdonal in its medium period and a fine of not less than twice the value of such gift.
If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain from doing something which was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of prision correcdonal in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine not less than three times the value of the gift.
In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer the penally of special temporary disqualification.
The elements of Direct Bribery are:
a. The accused is a public officer;
b. He/she received directly or through another some gift or present, offer or promise;
c. Such gift, present or promise has been given in consideration of:
i. His/her commission of some crime, or ii. Any act not constituting a crime, or iii. Refraining from doing something that is his/her official duty to do; and.
d. The crime or act relates to ihe exercise of his/her functions as a public officer.
'^5 Marifosque vs. People, G.R. No. 156685,(July 27, 2004], 479 PHIL 219 DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 27 of63
The Information alleges that the amount was demanded and received even when an ordinance and resolution was not necessary for issuance of a locational clearance for the construction of a cellular site or antenna.
The ultimate facts alleged in the Information in SB 16- CRM-0335 show that accused Saclolo and accused Ortaleza are actually being charged for violation of the second paragraph of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, ie., for soliciting or accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime.
Indeed, HLURB Resolution No. R-626, series of 1998 (Approving the Locational Guidelines for Base Stations of Cellular Mobile Telephone Service, Paging Service, Trunking Service, Wireless Loop Service and Other Wireless Communication Servicesf^^ confirm that while the Barangay Council's favorable endorsement is among the requirements, a provincial, city or municipal ordinance or resolution is not. Here, a locational clearance was issued by the Office of the Zoning Administrator in favor of Globe Telecom, Inc., even before the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cabanatuan City's ordinance lapsed into law.
Nonetheless, the fact that an ordinance or resolution from the Sangguniang Panlungsod is not necessary for the issuance of a locational clearance would only render as superfluities such ordinance or resolution and the concomitant participation of the Sangguniang Panlungsod for its enactment. But its superfluous character would not make the enactment of such ordinance or resolution a criminal act.
The HLURB specified the following requirements for the issuance of a locational clearance: a. Vicinity Map; b. Site Plan; c. Evidence of Ownership in the form of certified true copy of the original Transfer Certificate of Title. In the absence of the foregoing, a Contract to Sell or Lease; or written and duly notarized owner's consent to use; or tax declaration with proof of ownership from assessor's office; d. Certified True Copy of Nationed Telecommunications Commission's Provisional Authority (PA); e. Conversion Order from the Department of Agrarian Reform if the project is located withm the agricultxiral zone; f. Radiation Protection Evaluation Report from Radiation Health Service of the Department of Health; g. Written Consent; h. Barangav Council Resolution endorsing the base station; i. Bill of Materials and Estimated Cost; j. Locational Clearance Fees; k. Authorization of persons allowed to follow-up the clearance. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 28 of63
Hence, the following elements must concur in this case:
a. The accused is a public officer;
b. He/she accepted a gift;
c. Such gift was accepted in consideration of the execution of an act not constituting a crime;
d. The crime or act relates to the exercise of his/her functions as a public officer.
All the elements are present.
Accused Angelito D. Saclolo, Jr. and accused Alfredo G. Ortaleza were public officers during the time material to the case
Accused Angelito D. Saclolo, Jr. and accused Alfredo G. Ortaleza admit that they were public officers of Cabanatuan City during the period relevant to the instant cases. Accused Saclolo was an elected member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cabanatuan City in the year 2013, while accused Ortaleza was the Secretary to the same Sanggunian in the year 2013.^'^'^
Accused Angelito D. Saclolo, Jr. and accused Alfredo G. Ortaleza received, directly or through another, a gift in the amount of P300,000.00 in consideration of the passage of a resolution to allow the construction of Globe Telecom cellular towers in Cabanatuan City, an act not constituting a crime, and the said accused executed such act
147 Pre-Tqal^der dated May 16, 2017, Record, Vol. 1, pp. 351 -359. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et al Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 29 of63
The evidence convincingly shows that on different occasions, from February 14, 2013 to April 10, 2013, accused Saclolo and accused Ortaleza demanded, solicited, and received money from Ms. Linda S. Moya and/or Atty. Romeo Alfredo of Richworld, in consideration of the passage of a resolution allowing the construction of Globe cellular towers in Cabanatuan City.
Three (3) prosecution witnesses, all officials of Richworld, testified that they were present when accused Ortaleza demanded, solicited, negotiated and/or received the kalakaran in consideration of the passage of a resolution to allow Globe Telecom to put up cellular towers in Cabanatuan City.
Ms. Moya, the Chief Operations Officer of Richworld, initially talked to accused Ortaleza on Februaiy 14, 2013, and during their conversation, accused Ortaleza informed her that there is a kalakaran (during her testimony, Ms. Moya used it interchangeably with SOP) for such resolution. Accused Ortaleza told her that the kalakaran is P220,000.00 per cellular tower. When she tried to haggle for a lower amount, accused Ortaleza referred her to accused Saclolo.
On the same day, Ms. Moya met accused Saclolo in De Luxe Restaurant. During said meeting, accused Saclolo explained to Ms. Moya that the kalakaran is the amount of P220,000.00 per cellular site, or P440,000.00 for the two, which amount will be apportioned among the different local government officials, including the councilors, the vice mayor, the mayor, city development and planning official and the building official He explained that the proportion will be in ratio of 1:2:3, depending on the position held by the LGU official. When she tried to haggle with accused Saclolo for a more reasonable amount for the "kalakaran," he agreed to reduce it to P200,000.00 for each cellular site, or a total or P400,000.00, and again explained the need to apportion the amount among the LGU officials. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et al Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 30 of63
When the officials of Richworld found the amount to be exorbitant, Ms. Moya, through telephone, requested accused Saclolo for another reduction, but he did not agree. Hence, Atty. Alfredo was tasked to seek a reduction in the amount. He was present and participated in the negotiations on April 8, 2013 with accused Orlateza for the reduction of the amount of the "kalakaran" During their negotiations, accused Ortaleza claimed that he talked to accused Saclolo over the phone and the latter agreed to reduce the amount to PI50,000.00 per cellular site. Since Atty. Alfredo and Ms. Moya could not talk to the mayor and being left without any other choice, they agreed to the reduced amount of P150,000.00 per cellular site, and committed to deliver the money in 2 days, the next day, April 9, being a holiday.
Ms. Macallop, Richworld's Finance Officer, was present and witnessed accused Ortaleza receive the P300,000.00 that she (Ms. Macallop) encashed from Richworld's bank account with Banco de Oro. She also saw accused Ortaleza coimt the money, by bundle, and keep the same in his table drawer. She heard Ms. Moya inform accused Saclolo that the cash has been delivered to accused Ortaleza and she also saw accused Ortaleza receive, from Ms. Moya, the amount of P6,000.00 for fuel and snack expenses.
Ms. Macallop heard accused Ortaleza assure Ms. Moya that he will inform her as soon as the resolution is ready. Ms. Moya testified that accused Saclolo gave her the same assurance when she informed him that the cash has been received by accused Ortaleza.
The testimonies of Ms. Moya, Atty. Alfredo and Ms. Moya are straightforward and consistent on material points. The court sees no reason to doubt their credibility and the credence of their respective testimonies.
For easier reference, Ms. Moya's testimony detailing her conversations with accused Ortaleza and accused Saclolo on their solicitation of P440,000.00 which was later reduced to P300,000.00, and the delivery of the kalakaran, in consideration of the enactment of the Sanggunian Panlungsoi DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 31 of63
resolution authorizing the construction of cellular towers to be submitted for the approval of the needed locational clearance, are hereunder quoted:
Q: Okay. Then, after you filed the application letter which you just identified, what happened next, if any? A: After filing that letter, I made a personal appearance. I visited the LGU. I went there around February 14.
Q: Where exactly in the LGU did you go on February 14, 2013? A: Since I was told that it is a pre-requisite for us to have the Sanggunian Panlungsod, I immediately proceeded to the Office of the Sanggunian Panlungsod Secretariat, to the Office of then Mr. Alfredo Ortaleza.
XXX XXX XXX
Q: And, when you went to the office of the accused Ortaleza on February 14, 2013, were you able to meet him? A: Yes, sir.
Q: Then, what was your meeting all about. Madam Witness? A: When I went to his office, kumbaga kinumusta ko po yung tungkol sa application namin, that we have this requisite requirements na naka file sa kanila. I was told, ang ano niva kaagad is - "Alam mo na ba, Iha, ang kalakaran dito?" He told me the requisite requirements and ask him the status of our application with their office.
XXX XXX XXX Q: After Mr. Ortaleza explained to you this "kalakaran" for the Sangciunian Panlungsod, what else did he tell vou? A: I will just have to wait for Councilor Angelito Saclolo.
XXX XXX XXX
Q: Okay. When accused Ortaleza told vou that vou have to meet Mr. Saclolo, were vou able to actually meet Mr. Saclolo, Madam Witness?
'^pp.lO-ll,TSN dated September 19, 2017. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 32 of63
X - -
A: Yes, sir.
Q; And, when was that meeting. Madam Witness? A: Same day February llfsicl 2013.
Q: Okay. Where did you meet with accused Saclolo? A: We met at, it is called Deliuce Restaurant in Cabanatuan City.
Q: Okay. And, what was your meeting all about with accused Saclolo? A: It is a straightforward meeting. I asked him what is that "kalakaran.** What is that SOP all about?
Q: Then, what did accused Saclolo told you? A: He told me it is 220 per cell site and he eyen gaye me the term per sharing, one share, two shares, three shares depending on the position.
Q: May I just clarify. Madam Witness. What is this sharing that you just mentioned? A: Say the Sanggunian Panlungsod members are like 10. So, if it's 10,000 per councilor and then the Vice Mayor will be higher by two (2) shares, the City Planning also by 2 shares, the Office of the Building Official another and the Mayor was the highest. I was told.
Q: And, how much was the SOP they are asking from you. Madam Witness? A: 220,000 per cell site
Q: Okay. Then, what was your reaction when they asked for that A: Of course, we cannot giye that amount because we were only doing the leg work, the permitting works so I asked him if he can lower it and actually I asked him for if he can haye it maximum at 100,000 per cell site.
Q: Okay. And what was the reaction of Mr. Saclolo when you asked for the reduction? A: He reiterated again, as he said it is going to be shared by among the LGU officials, and the 220 per cell site, but I was given a discount. It is 200,000 per cell site. At that meeting we agreed at 200,000 per cell site. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et al Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 33 of63
Q: After that meeting, what did you do. Madam Witness? A: Hoping that they could have another discount, I went back to the City Hall and I proceeded to the Office of the Vice Mayor.
Q: Okay. Were you able to meet the Vice Mayor during that time? A: Yes, I was able to meet the Vice Mayor then but the Vice Mayor did not say anything about the ^'kalakaran" but I gave impression that I was asked for such amount and that if he could help me.
XXX XXX XXX
PROSEC. MATEO:
Q: Okay. When you went to the Office of the Vice Mayor, Madam Witness, what did you tell the Vice Mayor? A: I told him if he could be instrumental to the issuance of Sanggunian Panlungsod Resolution without any SOP.
Q: And what was the response of the Vice Mayor? A: I was told that he will do his best and talk to the councilors.
Q: Then, after you went to the office of the Vice Mayor, what happened next, if any? A: I went home already that day, sir.
Q: Okay. Madam Witness, you mentioned a while ago that your meeting with accused Saclolo, you closed that PhP200,000.00. A: Yes, sir.
Q: And, when you went home, was your company amenable to that 200,000 SOP? A: No, sir.
Q: Okay. Why is it that your company is not amenable to this PhP200,000 per cell site? A: We actually wanted the maximum at 100,000 per cell site.
Q: Okay. Then, what was the action made by your company with respect to that ^hP200,000 the accused was asking from you? DECISION People vs. SacloU) et at Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 34 of63
X X
A: I actually called Councilor Saclolo that was around February 19.
XXX
Q: Why did you call accused Saclolo? A: To ask him if he was able to have the Vice Mayor approve a lower amount for the SOP per site.
Q: And what was the answer of accused Saclolo? A: They could no longer lower that. That is the lowest that they could give us.
Q: Okay. Then, what did you do when the amount of 200,000 can no longer be lowered? A: I asked our Atty. Romeo Alfredo to meet with the Sangguniang Panlungsod Secretary.
Q: Okay. Why is it that you tasked Atty. Alfredo to talk with the Sanggunian Panlungsod Secretary? A: Being a lawyer by profession, I thought then that it would be best if he will be the one to talk to them and he could have more authority or they could give in to our plea. That's why I have Atly. Alfredo with me in April 8.
Q: Okay. What happened on April 8. 2013, Madam Witness? A: Atty. Alfredo and myself went to see and meet Secretary Ortaleza.
Q: And, were you able to meet Secretary Ortaleza on that day? A: Yes, sir.
Q: And, where was your meeting held. Madam Witness? A: At his cubicle in his office at the Sanaaunian Panlungsod building
Q: Okay. And, what happened during that meeting. Madam Witness? A: Straight forward, we asked if we could have the one that we are asking 100 per cell site SOP.
Q: Okay. Then, what was the reaction of accused Ortaleza? A: He told me that he would seek approval from Councilor Saclolo. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et al. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 35 of63
XXX XXX XXX
Q: Yes, Your Honors. When accused Ortaleza informed you that he has to seek the approval of Saclolo, what happened next, if any? A: He called over the phone Councilor Saclolo.
Q: Why do you know that accused Ortaleza talked to accused Saclolo oyer the phone? A: Because it is just in a hearing distance, sir. He just went afar outside his cubicle, sir.
Q: Then, how far is that, Madam Witness? A: Around two (2) meters, sir
Q: Then, what happened after the conyersation between accused Saclolo and Ortaleza? A: He went back telling us that the least that he could be giye is 150,000 per cell site.
Q: Okay. Then, what did you do when you were informed that accused Ortaleza and Saclolo already agreed to lower the amount to PhP150,000? A: We requested for an audience with the Office of the City Mayor.
Q: To whom did you make that request. Madam Witness? A: To Secretary Ortaleza
Q: And, what was the reaction of Secretary Ortaleza? A: He went out of his cubicle and I would supposed he went to the Office of the Mayor.
Q: Then, after that. Madam Witness, what happened next, if any? A: Secretary Ortaleza went back to us telling us that the mayor could not haye an audience because he was so busy meeting with the councilors also at that time. That was election time. I mean forth-coming election.
Q: Then, what was your reaction. Madam Witness? A: Feeling desperate, we know we could no longer do anything, Atty. Alfredo and myself committed that we will deliyer the 300,000 for the two [2) ceU sites in two (2) days time. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 36 of63
Q: Okay. And, when was your meeting with Secretary Ortaleza happened again. Madam Witness? A: That was April 8, 2013. That was a Monday.
Q: Okay, Madam Witness. And you committed to deliver the money two (2) days after. Madam Witness. A: Yes, sir, because supposed to be following day but that was a holiday, April 9.
Q: Okay. Then on the following day. Madam Witness, what did you do, if any? A: We went back to Sanggunian. But before that we encashed PhP300,000 through my Finance Officer, Grace Nilda Macallop.
XXX XXX XXX
PROSEC. MATEO:
Q: Madam Witness, after the check was encashed by Grace Nilda Macallop, do you know what happened next? A: We proceeded immediately to Cabanatuan City.
Q: When you say we, who are these persons you are referring to? A: My driver, myself and our Finance Officer Grace Nilda Macallop, sir.
Q: Okay. So, you went to Cabanatuan City on April 10, 2013. A: Yes, sir.
Q: Okay. Why is it that you have to go to Cabanatuan City on that day. Madam Witness? A: Because we promised the Secretary Ortaleza that we have to deliver the PhP300,000 in 2 days and that is the second day. April 10.
Q: Okay. What time did you arrive in Cabanatuan City, Madam Witness, on that day? A: Aroimd limch time, sir, that is almost 1:00 o'clock na.
Q: And, where exactly in Cabanatuan City did you go. Madam Witness? DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 37 of63
A: The two of us, Mr. Grace Nilda Macallop, and myself proceeded to the office of Secretary Ortaleza.
Q: Okay. And, was accused Ortaleza in his office during that time when you arriyed in his office? A: Yes, sir.
Q: Okay. When you arriyed in the office of accused Ortaleza, what happened there. Madam Witness? A: He was at his table. So, we handed to him the brown envelop that contains PhP300,000, three bundles at PhP1,000 bill each. Each bundle contains one hundred pieces.
Q: Okay. When you handed the envelope containing this three (3) bundles, what did accused Ortaleza do? A: He opened the envelope. He counted it by bimdles. He placed the envelope imder his desk inside his drawer.
THE CHAIRPERSON:
In what denomination? A: 1,000 peso bill. Your Honor
Prosecutor Moreno:
Q: After you handed the PhP300,000 to accused Ortaleza. what did you do next. Madam Witness? A: I asked, "When can we have the Sanaaunian Panlunasod Resolution?" He told me he will lust call me if it is already available.
Q: Okay. Then after that Madam Witness, what happened next? A: While we were in our late lunch, I called Councilor Saclolo to advise him that I already handed the PhP300,000 to Secretary Ortaleza.
Q: Okay. What was the reaction of accused Saclolo? A: He responded that okay Ate Linda, noted. We will just call you when the Sanggunian Panlungsod Resolution is available. Q: And then, after your conversation with accused Saclolo, what did you do next, if any? A: We proceeded back to Manila, sir.
pp.13-28, TSN dated September 19, 2017. DECISION People vs. SacloU) et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 38 of63
Q: Okay. And, during that day, Madam Witness, were you still able to talk to accused Otaleza? A: Yes, sir. I forgot. Actually.
ATTY. REYES:
Your Honor, we will object to that, misleading, your Honor.
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Reform the question.
Q: Okay, Madam Witness. Madam Witness, when was the next time you were able to talk to accused Ortaleza, if any? A: After our late lunch, we went back with my driver and my finance officer to the Office of the Sanggunian Panlungsod not at his cubicle but at the Sanggunian Panlungsod Session Hall. Q: Why did you have to go back to the office of accused Ortaleza? A: Secretary Ortaleza texted me to drop by the Sanggunian Office because we have to give him 6,000 to fund the gasoline and the snacks of the person who will do the signing of all the councilors. He will go house to house to the respective houses of the councilors,
When asked by the Court, Ms. Moya clarified that when she talked to him on February 14, 2013, accused Ortaleza said the "kalakaran" was P220,000.00 per cellular site tower and when she tried to negotiate for a lower amount, accused Ortaleza asked her to discuss the matter with accused Saclolo:
AJ MIRANDA Okay. Now, you were talking earlier of a "kalakaran." What, according to whoever you spoke to, was the ''kalakaran" relative to the passage of the Sangguniang Panlungsod resolution authorizing the construction of the cell site tower? L. MOYA No, the said amount, sir, depend to them.
pp.13-29, TSN dated September 19, 2017. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Crimirial Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 39 of63
AJ MIRANDA Come again? L. MOYA It^s a certain amount of money.
AJ MIRANDA No, no, you were testifying earlier that somebody told you. Who was it? About the "kalakaran"? L. MOYA Initially, sir, it's Secretary Ortaleza.
AJ MIRANDA And then, afterwards? L. MOYA I was referred to Councilor Saclolo just for the negotiation.
AJ MIRANDA Okay. Did Secretary Ortaleza tell you anything about the "kalakaran"? L. MOYA Yes, sir.
AJ MIRANDA What did he say? L. MOYA Per cell site, they ask for P220,000.00 per cell site, sir.
AJ MIRANDA That's it? L. MOYA Yes, sir.
AJ MIRANDA What about Ortaleza, you were referred to? L. MOYA Councilor Saclolo, sir.
AJ MIRANDA What did he say about the "kalakaran?" L. MOYA It's also P220,00.00 per cell site, sir, originally.
15J pp. 74- 76, TSN dated October 18, 2017. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 40 of63
Atty. Alfredo corroborated the testimony of Ms. Moya on the April 8, 2013 meeting during which accused Ortaleza and accused Saclolo agreed to reduce the amount of the ""kalakararf to P150,000.00 per cellular site or a total of P300,000.00, and they (Ms. Moya and Atty. Alfredo) committed to deliver the said amount in two (2) days. The material portions of Atty. Alfredo's testimony are hereunder quoted:
Q: And on April 8, 2013. where were you? A: I was in Cabanatuan City.
Q: Why are you in Cabanatuan City? A: Well. I was there because I was requested. I was tasked by our Operations Manager to accompany her for the reduction or to negotiate with the Secretary Alfredo Ortaleza for the reduction of the SOP that Ortaleza and Councilor Saclolo then was asking us to giye in exchange for the issuemce of the SP Resolution that we applied for.
JUSTICE MIRANDA:
What do you mean by SOP? A: That is the amount that you giye in exchange for their personal seryice that they demanded. That is unofficial amount that you giye for them to facilitate because they are asking for. They claim that it is a standard practice.
THE CHAIRPERSON:
The Court heard you official. A: Unofficial
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Okay.
Q: And who is with you when you went to Cabanatuan at that time, Mr. Witness? A: Ms. Linda S. Moya asked me to accompany her to Cabanatuan City. And, that's it- if 1 can help her negotiate for the reduction of the amount SOP that Mr. Alfredo Ortaleza and Councilor Saclolo then was asking from the company in exchange for the SP Resolution.
152 p. 9, tSN dated May 16, 2017. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 41 of63
Q: Okay. Then. Why would you haggle for the reduction in the amount of this? A: Well, that was April 8, 2013, and we went to the office of the SB Secretary Alfredo Ortaleza where he had a cubicle in the room and there were only three of us Mr. Ortaleza, Linda Moya and me in the cubicle.
Q: And what happened during your meeting with accused Ortaleza? A: After the preliminaries, I asked him because the amount is too much although previously I was informed by Linda that Mr. Saclolo was asking 220 in the previous meeting that she had with him, she was able to haggle it down to 200 and that this time when Ms. Linda Moya asked me to accompany her to Cabanatuan City and to negotiate it down further with the SP Secretary because it is the SP Secretary Saclolo (sic) only the person that Ms. Linda was talking to at that time.
XXX XXX XXX
Q: Yes, Your Honors. Who is this Saclolo you are referring to? A: Mr. Saclolo was at the time the SP Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Communication of the Sangguniang Panlunsod of Cabanatuan City.
Q: Okay. And, who is this Ortaleza that you are referring to? A: Mr. Ortaleza then the Sanggunian Panlungsod Secretary of Cabanatuan City.
Q: Okay. You mentioned a while ago that you had a meeting with accused Ortaleza for the reduction of this SOP. Then, what was the reaction of accused Ortaleza when you asked for the reduction of the SOP? A: Well, after that preliminaries, I casually asked him because that was the purpose if I could reduce further down the 200,000 per cell site to hundred thousand. And what he did, he excused himself stepped out of his cubicle maybe about 3 to 4 meters, he called up Mr. Saclolo and about 3 or 4 minutes thereafter, he DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 42 of63
came back and told us that okay Mr. Saclolo would haggle for 150,000 and that is what he said and I told him that because...
XXX XXX XXX
Q: Yes, Your Honors. Okay after Ortaleza talked to Saclolo over the phone, after that, what happened next, if any? A: WelL after talking to Mr. Saclolo. he came back into the cubicle and told us that Mr. Saclolo agreed with 150,000.00. To us, that is still too much for two (2) cell sites that is 300,000.00.
ATTY. GLEMAO:
Is the witness commenting or giving his opinion?
ATTY. REYES:
Your Honor, may we move to strike the answer of the witness.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Strike out, not responsive already, the last portion of the answer.
Q: Yes, Your Honor. When accused Ortaleza informed you that Saclolo agreed to reduce the amount from 200 to 150 thousand, what was your reaction? A: It is still too much. The company just cannot afford that much trying to pay 300 thousand for 2 cell sites. The company cannot afford. So, I suggested to Mr. Ortaleza if there is a way that I can talk personally to the mayor.
Q: Okay. Then, what did accused Ortaleza do when you asked for a meeting with the mayor? A: Again, he excused himself, stepped out of the cubicle, and I guess the room because we donT see him outside the cubicle, it is enclosed, he stepped out. And after I guess about 5-6 minutes, he came back and told us that the mayor is not available because he is busy with the City Council's kick qff meeting for political campaign at that time. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et al Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 43 of63
X X
Q: When you were informed that you could no longer meet the mayor, what did you do? A: Considering that there is no way to meet the mayor, and there is nothing more that we can do, so, we simply decided that okay we will be coming back with the 300 thousand in two (2) days. So, we left. I told him that we will come back in 2 days and giye the 300 thousand.
Grace Nilda T. Macallop, the then Finance Officer of Richworld, who encashed the P300,000.00 to be delivered, testified that she was present when Ms. Moya handed the brown envelop containing the P300,000.00 to accused Ortaleza, she saw him count the same by bundle, and saw him keep the money inside his table drawer. Ms. Macallop testified:
PROSECUTOR MATEO:
XXX XXX XXX Q And madam witness, after you encashed the check, what happened next, if any? A We proceeded to Cabanatuan City, sir.
Q Why do you have to go to Cabanatuan City? A To deliyer the P300,000.00 for the issuance of Sangguniang Panlungsod Resolution, sir.
Q And to whom did you deliver that P300,000.00, Madam witness? A With Madam Linda and the driver, sir.
COURT INTERPRETER
Kanino niyo daw po ibinigay yung P300,000.00?
WITNESS:
A Sa kay Secretary Ortaleza po.
153 pp. 9-14, tSN dated May 16, 2017 154 Exhibit R. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 44 of63
PROSECUTOR MATEO:
XXX XXX XXX
Q And what happened when you arrived there at? A Ma'am Linda and I approached him. Ma'am Linda made a brief talk before she gave the P300.000.00. The money was contained in the brown envelope and three (3) bundles of Pl.000.00 bills, sir.
Q And to whom did Linda Mova give the money, if you know? A Secretary Ortaleza, sir.
Q And what did Secretary Ortaleza do when he received the money? A He brought out the money to (sic) the envelope and coimted it by bimdle. sir. And after coimting the money, he placed the money under his drawer sir, of his table. He counted the money by bundle and placed the money under the drawer of his table.
Q Okay. After the money was given to accused Ortaleza, what happened, if any? A Ma'am Linda asked Ortaleza when can we have the SP Resolution?
Q And do you know what was the response of accused Ortaleza? A Ah, Ortaleza told Ma'am Linda that he will call Ma'am Linda once the SP Resolution is already available, sir.
Q And after the meeting with accused Ortaleza Madam witness, what happened next, if any? A While we are having our lunch. Ma'am Linda called Saclolo to inform that, the P300,000.00 that they are demanding was already given to Ortaleza, sir.
Q And why do you know that, Ms. Linda Moya told that to Saclolo? A Before Ma'am Linda made a call, she told me that she will call Saclolo to inform that, the P300,000.00 was already delivered to Ortaleza, sir. Hindi ko na po narinig yung response ni Saclolo kasi (INTERRUPTED) .w r DECISION People vs. Sacloh et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 45 of63
X -
CHAIRPERSON:
Don't narrate. Next for the next question, madam witness.
WITNESS:
Sony, your Honors.
PROSECUTOR MATEO:
Q And on that day Madam witness, were you again able to meet Ortaleza?
ATTY. REYES:
Leading, your Honors please.
CHAIRPERSON
Sustained.
PROSECUTOR MATEO:
Q And when was the next time were you able to see Ortaleza? A On the same day, sir.
Q Okay. And where did you meet accused Ortaleza on that day? A Also in the Sangguniang Office, sir.
Q And why did you met again accused Ortaleza on that day? A Because accused Ortaleza contacted Ma'am Linda to make additional P6.000.00 payment, sir.
Q And do you know the reason why accused Ortaleza demanded for additional P6,000? A Yes, sir.
Q And what is the reason of the accused?
I DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 46 of63
A The purpose of the P6,000.00 was for the circialation of the SP Resolution, for gasoline and for snacks« sir.^^s
The foregoing testimonies also show that the P300,000.00 was demanded, solicited and received for the immediate passage of an ordinance or a resolution that would allow Globe Telecom to put up cellular towers, an act not constituting a crime. Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 of accused Saclolo and Exhibits 7 and 8 of accused Ortaleza confirm that the acts necessary for the passage of the requested ordinance or resolution were executed. More specifically, the ordinance authorizing the construction of Globe cellular towers was routed to the councilors for their signature, and endorsed to the mayor for his approval after accused Ortaleza and accused Saclolo solicited the amount of P440,000.00 and later on received the amount of P300,000.00 from Ms. Moya for the purpose.
The timeline based on the prosecution and defense evidence, supports the accusation that the "kalakaran" was demanded or solicited for, and the amount of P300,000.00 was received in consideration of, the immediate passage of the ordinance or resolution for the sites of Globe cellular towers.
Submission of Richworld's Letter Request to the OfiBce of the January 20, 2013 Mayor for the construction of cellular towers in Cabanatuan City
Submission of Richworld's Letter Request to the OflBice of the February 11, 2013 Vice Mayor for the construction of cellular towers in Cabanatuan City
Separate meetings of Ms. Moya with accused Ortaleza and accused Saclolo in relation to Richworld's request for the pertinent resolution for the construction of Globe cellular February 14, 2013 towers during which accused Ortaleza brought up the need for a kalakaran in the amount of P220,000.00 for each cellular tower, and accused Saclolo agreed to the reduction of the kalakaran to P200,000 per cellular tower
Public Hearings held in Barangay Bakero and Barangay Sapang in relation to the construction of Globe's cellular towers. /
155 TSN dated November 9, 2017, pp.iO-lJ DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 47 of63
The Committee on Trsinsportation and Communication March 15, 2013 prepared a report recommending the approved the request of Richworld
The Committee on Transportation and Communication submitted to the Sangguniang Panlungsod a report March 18, 2013 recommending the approved the request of Richworld
Date of Ordinance
April 8, 2013 Meeting of Atty. Alfredo and Ms. Moya with accused Ortaleza to further negotiate the amount of the kalakaran
Ms. Moya delivered the P300,000.00 to accused Ortaleza. After keeping the money, accused Ortaleza told Ms. Moya that he will inform her as soon as the resolution is available.
After Ms. Moya left, accused Ortaleza called and asked her to give P6,000.00 for the fuel and snacks of the person who will bring the resolution to the councilors for their signatures. Ms. April 10, 2013 Moya returned to the oflSce of the Sanggunian and gave accused Ortaleza the additional P6,000.00
Ms. Moya informed accused Saclolo that she has delivered the P300,000.00 to accused Ortaleza. Accused Saclolo responded by telling Ms. Moya that they will get in touch with her as soon as the resolution is available.
April 10, 2013 to The copy of the Ordinance was signed by the members of the April 19, 2013 Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cabanatuan City.
April 19, 2013 Transmission of Ordinance to the mayor of Cabanatuan for his approval.
Between April 19 Follow-up visit of Ms. Moya with accused Ortaleza during and April 23, 2013 which the latter handed to Ms. Moya a copy of the ordinance that was awaiting the approval of the mayor.
April 23, 2013 Meeting of Ms. Moya with Ms. Virginia Busog and the mayor of Cabanatusin City
April 24, 2013 Issuance of Locational Clearance in favor of Richworld by the City Planning and Development Office and/or Office of the Zoning Administrator
The mayor returned the unapproved ordinance to the May 6, 2013 Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cabanatuan C^ty. The ordinance was considered to have lapsed into law^ / DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335
Page 48 of63
The copies of Ordinance No. 013-2013 show that it was enacted by the Sanggunian on March 18, 2013.1^6
• „ "AHMEi ft5jiaEX"A''A SANOGUNIANG PANLUNG80D, '
KXllloil & -Zl!!jBij5S55 HOHmOajMU VMMO maicusa.ca»oa KMJ03CU10CR00UC m^^ncmutem MeN.jtsusuoMZ(oa iob«,bwu«» HOMAMtYACkCNOCKUZ M.rae.f HON AMOCinOO atkOOAM u.mb.f HON ARKLO eSVBIMO tt.mB.J MOMROsaaoaocLROsMoa n.me.t * % HON.OSCARttUDOOZ* ll.HO.i JEANWOCIID •«H.IM«OR.«0Pia KM.e3noaj.TIU]EO M.oi»»f'AOCPl«.mn AOSEMT: HOMRUNEN* LAOANU M.nB.t HON aiARMVAXNlO StVCRMO — M B hBb riaCFlOnmn PuNMr. on RM laaMid w B» CRT OwaiAnPBNB* JTMKO ■HOtVSD, *« IT I* HeWBT RfKUVW. D» B» 8in8B«Bna PBHWOBOB •< •BMUrt mmbOM. e iraclMcMtH MakBoORMm- OnmAMCe MX DIMM! AM MOBiAHCfi AllTHORfflNO OUOSS TELfOOM. MC TO CONSTRUCT. BlSrAU. OPSRATS. AND lAUHTAM ACtU SITCOeU. TtAASR B« OARANOAVS BAXStOAND OAmNOk CAOANATUAN CRY OS IT ORMBCO DT THE SANOGUMANO IWAJUNCiCOa Bl StESMN AtStMOLIO. aignoHi.-aaiBT.NcB«,Bie.NiiiHtY»R«aBB«>g»«VRJ?^ c«mia. bK bwMmi b cbo iBbWB bnm bOw f» wobn AJaSeoon a cmiaiaB Ov Mad h BaanMT. RMNB Bnd SMMS lie iilenii«BB«cBAianB.BaiaNi|escnCN a - Onaat.! caririmNiIw«—'-y— f pala My*. agiiilM,_i« •«> Bib aiBa... |>f ra> / AtfawMwaS —■ Both accused testified that the Ordinance was approved and enacted by the Sangguniang Panlungsod during its session held on March 18, 2013. Even the then Vice Mayor Marius Garcia testified that on March 18, 2013, the Committee on Transportation and Communication submitted its report recommending the approval of the request of Globe Telecom, Inc.^s? The prosecution tried to prove that the ordinance was not enacted on said date by presenting the Minutes of the Session of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cabanatuan, the recording of the Sanggunian session 1^9 and the Bulletin of Legislative Proceedings for the said date, all of which confirm that the passage of Ordinance No. 013-2013 was not included in the businesses for said session and that the last Ordinance enacted on that day was Ordinance No. 011-2013. Exhibit Q; Exhibit 4 (Ortaleza) and Exhibit E; Exhibit G (Ortaleza) p.3, Judicial Affidavit, Record, Vol. 2, p. 124. »M Exhibit T. »» Exhibit U. »«> Exhibit V. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335 Page 49 of63 But the prosecution failed to disprove the authenticity of the Ordinance No. 013-2013, marked as its own Exhibits E and Q, public documents certified by Ms. Cherrie Dilao, Supervising Administrative Officer of the Records Section of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cabanatuan City, and which contained the signatures of the members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, including the vice mayor, and which ordinance was duly received by the Office of the Mayor. The enactment of said ordinance, thus, enjoys the presumption of regularity, which presumption the prosecution failed to overturn by any convincing evidence to' the contrary. Relevantly, Exhibits E and Q were offered by the prosecution to prove that "accused committed the offenses charged while in the performance of their official functions" and "to prove that accused issued an Ordinance instead of a Resolution as requested by Richworld." What is also clear from Exhibit 7 (Saclolo), as seen below, is that said ordinance was not transmitted by accused Ortaleza to the mayor until April 19, 2013, or after he received the P300,000.00 from Ms. Moya. SMVCKSUNtAm;PANLI f7ir 'PVAI 2QI3 REipOMte t.tf-a city >*vat citv moloo LllcutUlav Wt Ml tm ilpi Wttiewa:* m. tuiM uakno rvj M (10 riainrmat Cod* of lMl«i w* io l^rti o «Dictwn by iflo *olj »■'rg Pi®'-'**J iivi fc ItuLufidsed*/ ofv: Mfigynlh^ Msfw* pru^ntMt to _tb» proiflacUl b*yWf \tti*- : ctil(rf: «JWCuU** caacmnmA eipioWv W** ^ "7-'* ihiii.?-yU^ af t i II / ixk *' i tu**' oo .• t*ca i f » MIA MftMABOMAOAl** ^ rv ^ Tv«p« * Cui ky: ynf« CBtrmEo |ASM DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335 Page 50 of63 X X Accused Ortaleza's request from Ms. Moya for P6,000.00 to pay for the fuel and snacks of the person who will bring the documents to the members of the Sanggunian for their signatures show that the proposed ordinance was not yet signed by the members of the Sanggunian when the P300,000.00 was delivered on April 10, 2013, and confirm that the money was received for the immediate passage of the resolution or ordinance. Accused Ortaleza denies the accusations of Ms. Moya and insists that the testimonies of Ms. Moya and Ms. Macallop on how he counted and kept the P300,000.00 were inconsistent. He also bewails the absence of corroborative testimonies from the other employees of the LGU present during the delivery of the cash. His arguments are summarized hereimder: a. There was no evidence to support the allegations of the complainants that he received the amount of PhPSOO,000.00. The divider in his office was only breast level high. Other employees could have easily witnessed the giving of the bribe money. The prosecution could have easily requested other employees to testify and corroborate the testimony of Macallop. b. Other than the bare allegations of Atty. Romeo C. Alfredo, Linda S. Moya, and Grace F. Macallop, there is no evidence that he received the amount of PhP300,000.00. c. The testimony of Grace Macallop, as to what he did after the money was given to him, is inconsistent with the testimony of Linda Moya. Linda Moya said, "Ortaleza coimted (the money) before us." Meanwhile, Grace Macallop said, "the Secretary opened the envelope and individually lifted the three bundles, but slid them back right in, then he just laid it on top of his desk.i®^ The settled rule is that the prosecution determines who among its witnesses are to testify in court, and it is neither for the accused nor the court to override that prerogative. Corollarily, the failure of the prosecution to present a particular witness does not give rise to the presumption that "evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced" where that evidence is at the disposal of both parties or where p. 29, TSN dated September 19, 2017. tea pp.6-7, accused Ortaleza's Memorandum dated August 9, 2019. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et ah Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335 Page 51 of63 the only object of presenting the witness would be to provide corroborative or cumulative evidence, Besides, in Peligrino vs. People^ the Supreme Court recognized that in the crime of Violation of Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019, as in direct bribeiy, the giver or the briber is usually the only one who can provide direct evidence of the commission of the crime. On the other hand, the inconsistencies, if at all, in the testimonies of Ms. Moya and Ms. Macallop on accused Ortaleza's handling of the P300,000.00, refer to extraneous matters that do not detract from the established fact that on April 10, 2013 in the office of accused Ortaleza and in the presence of Ms. Macallop, Ms. Moya handed to accused Ortaleza the amount of P300,000.00, which money was accepted and kept by accused Ortaleza right there and then. In Merencillo vs. People of the PhilippineSy the Supreme Court held: Witnesses testifying on the same event do not have to be consistent in each and every detail. Differences in the recollection of the event are inevitable and inconsequential variances are commonly regarded as signs of truth instead of falsehood. Inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity or the weight of their testimony. In fact, such minor flaws may even enhance the worth of a testimony for they guard against memorized falsities. Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution's evidence as a whole or reflect on the witnesses' honesty. The test is whether the testimonies agree on essential facts and whether the respective versions corroborate and substantially coincide with each other so as to make a consistent and coherent whole. Thus, inconsistencies and discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the criipae cannot be successfully invoked as grounds for acquiti 163 People V. Padilla, G.R. Nos. 138472-73, August 9, 2001. G.R. No. 136266, August 13, 2001 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act >66 g.R. Nos. 142369-70, April 13, 2007 DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335 Page 52 of63 Accused Saclolo denies that he received PhP300,000.00 from Ms. Moya. He also denies that he met or talked to Ms. Moya on February 14, 2013 at De Luxe Restaursint. He also points out that Ms. Moya's narration merely focused on the alleged ^'kalakaran" and "sharing", without any direct testimony that he demanded or solicited any money in exchange for the passage of a resolution. 1^7 It is true that accused Saclolo was not present when Ms. Moya delivered the P300,000.00 to accused Ortaleza. However, the evidence is clear that he was complicit to the entire transaction. During the initial meeting of Ms. Moya with accused Ortaleza on February 14, 2013, the latter referred Ms. Moya to him (accused Saclolo), thus he and Ms. Moya had a face to face meeting on the same day, during which they discussed and negotiated on the amount of the kalakaran. When Richworld wanted to request for further reductions, Ms. Moya initially called him through phone to make the request, but he denied the request. When Ms. Moya and Atly. Alfredo talked to accused Ortaleza to request for further reduction on April 8, 2013, accused Ortaleza consulted him and together they agreed to lower the "kalakaran" to P150,000.00 per cellular tower. Finally, when Ms. Moya informed him that the money has been delivered to accused Ortaleza, he (accused Saclolo) assured Ms. Moya that he will immediately inform her once the requested resolution is available. Even when there is no direct proof of an express agreement between accused Saclolo and Ortaleza to demand, solicit and receive money from Richworld in consideration of the passage of the pertinent ordinance, their concerted individual and collective acts before, during and after the commission of the crime, as explained above, indubitably demonstrate their conspiracy and common intent towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object. In People vs. Evasco, citing Macapagal-Arroyo v. People, the Supreme Court clarified that the lack of direct w p.4, Memorandum for the accused Saclolo. 168 A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it (Art. 8 of the Revised Penal Code). G.R. No, 213415, September 26, 2018. i DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335 Page 53 of63 evidence is not a hindrance to a finding of conspiracy. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused towards a common goal. A conspiracy could be inferred, although no actual meeting among them is proved, when two or more persons are shown to have aimed by their acts towards accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. Thus, while only accused Ortaleza received the bribe money from Ms. Moya, accused Saclolo, by his acts before and immediately after the delivery of the money to Ortaleza, is deemed to have received the money tiirough his co- conspirator, accused Ortaleza. Accused Ortaleza argues that he did not commit any crime because the Sangguniang Panlungsod merely acceded to the request of Richworld for the issuance of a resolution. He points out that it was incumbent upon the Sanggunian to issue a Resolution and there was no reason to deny the application. As above discussed, under paragraph 2 of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, direct bribery is committed when the public official solicits and/or accepts a gift in consideration of the execution of an act that does not constitute a crime; while imder the first paragraph of Article 210, the promise or the gift is in consideration of an act that constitutes a crime. Clearly, accused Saclolo and accused Ortaleza solicited, demanded and accepted PhP300,000.00 from Richworld, through Ms. Moya, for the issuance of a resolution allowing Globe Telecoms to construct cellular towers in Cabanatuan City, an act not constituting a crime, and they executed the acts for the purpose. p.5, Memorandum for the accused Saclolo. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335 Page 54 of63 The enactment of an ordinance or approval of resolution and the transmission of the same to the mayor for approval relate to the exercise of the functions of accused Saclolo and accused Ortaleza, respectively, as a public officers. There is no question that the enactment of ordinances and approval of resolutions are part of the official functions of a sanggunian member under the Section 458 of Republic Act No. 7160.171 Accused Saclolo tries to cast doubt on the credibility of the testimony of Ms. Moya by arguing that it was highly improbable and unrealistic for him to have demanded an SOP from Ms. Moya considering that he only has on^ vote in, and cannot decide on behalf of, the Sanggunian,^'^^ 171 Local Qovemment Code SEC. 458. - Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation. - (a) The sanamniang panlimgsod. as the legislative body of the dtv. shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the dtv and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers of the dtv as provided for under Section 22 of this Code, and shall: XXX XXX XXX (3) Subject to the provisions of Book n of this Code, enact ordinances granting franchises and authorizing the issuance of permits or licenses, upon such conditions and for such purposes intended to promote the general welfare of the inhabitants of the dty and pursuant to this legislative authority shall: (!) Fix and impose reasonable fees and charges for all services rendered by the city government to private persons or entities; ^ Regulate or fix license fees for any business or practice of profession within the dty end the conditions under which the license for said btudness or practice of profession m^ be revoked and enact ordinances levying taxes thereon; (iii) Provide for and set the terms and conditions under which public utilities owned by the dty shall be operated by the dty government, and prescribe the conditions under which the some may be leased to private persons or entities, preferably cooperatives; ^v) Regulate the display of and fix the license fees for signs, signboards, or billboards at the place or places where the profession or business advertised thereby is, in whole or in part, conducted; (v) Any law to the contrary notwithstanding, authorise and license the establishment, operation, and maintenance of cockpits, and regulate cockfighting and commerdal breeding of gamecocks: Provided,That existing rights should not be prejudiced; (vi) Subject to the guidelines prescribed by the Department of Trtmsportation ond Communications, regulate the operation of tricycles and grant franchises for the operation thereof within the territorial Jurisdiction of the city; (vii) Upon approval by a m^ority vote of all the members of the sangguniang panlungsod: grant a firanchlse to any person, partnership, corporation, or cooperative to do business within the city; establish, construct, operate end maintain ferries, wharves, markets or slaughterhouses; or undertake such other activities within the city as may be allowed by existing laws; Provided, That, cooperatives shall be ^ven preference in the grant of such a franchise.xxx ^73 p.5, Memorandum for the accused Saclolo. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335 Page 55 of63 In Marifosque v. People, the Supreme Court held: In determining whether the act was committed in relation to the performance of one's official functions, the law only requires that the act, which the offender agrees to perform or execute, be ultimately related to or linked with the accused' performance of his official duties. It is sufficient that the officer has the apparent ability to bring about or contribute to the desired end or that his actions, affected by the payment of the bribe, were parts of any established procedure consistent with the authority of the government agency. That accused Saclolo cannot enact an Ordinance by himself is of no moment. It is sufficient that accused Saclolo, through his vote and by shepherding the resolution through his committee and the Sangguniang Panlungsod, had the apparent ability to bring about or contribute to the desired end or that his actions, affected by the payment of the bribe, were parts of any established procedure consistent with the authority of the government agency. On the other hand, under Section 469 or R.A. No. 7160, the Secretary to the Sanggunian is tasked to transmit ordinances and resolutions to the mayor for his/her signature, as accused Ortaleza admitted he did for Ordinance No. 013-2013.175 Accused Saclolo's contention that an entrapment should have been conducted to catch him and accused Ortaleza red- handedi76 deserves scant consideration. An entrapment is a usual means to apprehend an offender and, if done Babor v. People, 466 SCRA 474 (2005). 174 SEC. 469. Qualifications, Powers and Duties. - (a) There shall be a secretary to the sanggunian who shall be a career official with the rank and salary equal to a head of department or office. (c) The secretaiy to the sanggunian shall take charge of the office of the secretary to the san^unian and shall: (31 Forward to the governor or mavor. as the case mav be. for approval, copies of ordinances enacted bv the sanggunian and duly certified by the presiding officer, in the manner provided in Section 54 under Book I of this Code: femohasia supplied) "5 pp. 12-13, TSN dated January 7, 2019. p.5. Memorandum for the accused Saclolo. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335 Page 56 of63 successfully, the evidence acquired therefrom can be utilized in the prosecution of an accused; but it is not an element of the crime of Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, the absence of an entrapment does not disprove the complicity of the accused. Finally, the affirmance by the Supreme Court of the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of the administrative charges against accused Ortaleza would not necessarily result in the acquittal of both accused in the present criminal cases. In Flores v. People, the Supreme Court held: Lastly, petitioner insists that his exoneration from the administrative case arising out of the same act is already sufficient basis for his acquittal in the present case based on the doctrine of conclusiveness ofjudgment. We disagree. It is hornbook doctrine in administrative law that administrative cases are independent from criminal actions for the same acts or omissions. Thus, an absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to an administrative prosecution, or mce versa. Given the differences in the quantum of evidence required, the procedures actually observed, the sanctions imposed, as well as the objective of the two proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on the other. Hence, the exoneration in the administrative case is not a bar to a criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts which were the subject of the administrative complaint or vice versa. The case of Constantino vs. Sandiganbayan, which petitioner heavily relies on, finds no application in the case at bar. In Constantino, the Court dismissed the criminal action due to his exoneration in the administrative case because the same crucial evidence was presented and evaluated in both proceedings, and there was a categorical finding that the act from which the liability was based did not In Peligrino v. People, G.R. No. 136266,[August 13, 2001], the Supreme Court referririgJOv^crime cfinolation of Section 3(b) R. A. No. 3019 said: "Like bribery, this crime is usually proved by evidence acquired during an I entrapment, as the giver or briber is usually the only one who can provide direct evidence of the commission nf this rrimp. Thus, entrapment is resorted to in order to apprehend a public ofBcer while in the act of obtaining undue benefits." G.R. No. 222861, April 23, 2018 DECISION People vs. Saclolo et al. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335 Page 57 of63 actually exist. It shoiild also be noted tJiat it was the Court who dismissed the administrative complaint against Constantino and Lindong, and reversed the ruling of the Office of the Ombudsman. Thus: It may be true that the basis of administrative liability differs from criminal liability as the purpose of administrative proceedings on the one hand is mainly to protect the public service, based on the time-honored principle that a public office is a public trust. On the other hand, the purpose of the criminal prosecution is the punishment of crime. However, the dismissal bv the Court of the administrative case against Constantino based on the same subject matter and after examining the same crucial evidence operates to dismiss the criminal case because of the precise finding that the act from which liability is anchored does not exist. In the case at bar, the administrative case for grave misconduct filed against petitioner and the present case for simple robbery are separate and distinct cases, and are independent from each other. The administrative and criminal proceedings may involve similar facts but each requires a different quantum of evidence. In addition, the administrative proceeding conducted was before the PNP-IAS and was summary in nature. In contrast, in the instant criminal case, the RTC conducted a full blown trial and the prosecution was required to proffer proof beyond reasonable doubt to secure petitioner's conviction. Furthermore, the proceedings included witnesses who were key figures in the events leading to petitioner's arrest. Witnesses of both parties were cross examined by their respective counsels creating a clearer picture of what transpired, which allowed the trial I'udge to have a better appreciation of the attendant facts and determination of whether the prosecution proved the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt. Here, this court conducted a full blown trial. Witnesses of both parties were presented and cross examined by their respective counsels creating a clearer picture of what transpired, and the court was allowed to have a better appreciation of the attendant facts. More importantly, the Supreme Court, in affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals absolving accused Ortaleza, did not make a categorical finding that the act from which the liability was DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335 Page 58 of63 based did not actually exist. The Supreme Court's resolution reads: After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the June 22, 2017 Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C-A-G.R.SP No. 143138 for failure of petitioner Richworld Aire and Technologies Corporation (petitioner) to sufficiently show that CA committed any reversible error in absolving respondent Alfredo G. Ortaleza (respondent) from administrative liability after finding a dearth of substantial evidence to prove his alleged grave misconduct. As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner failed to present direct and convincing evidence, other than the self-serving affidavits of its employees, to prove its allegation of bribery. It is settled that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that respondent committed the acts complained of rests on the complainant. Thus, if the complainant fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which it bases its claim, respondent is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense. An accusation of bribery is easy to concoct but difficult to prove. Petitioner should have presented a panoply of evidence in support of its accusation. Indeed, bare allegation would not suffice to hold respondent liable, and he was, thus, properly absolved from administrative liability. SO ORDERED Hence, the exoneration of accused Ortaleza by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court in the administrative case, involving the same subject matter, will not automatically translate to their acquittal in the present cases. The penally for direct bribery under paragraph 2, Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code is prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not less than three times the value of the gift. The records show thai Richworld Aire and Technologies Corporation, represented by Ma. Linda 8. Moya v. Alfredo' G. Oi G.R. No. 232205, February 5, 2018 DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at Criminal Case Nos. SB'16-CRM-0334 to 0335 Page 59 of63 -X accused Saclolo and accused Ortaleza surrendered to the National Bureau of Investigation, Cabanatuan District Office (NBI-CABDO) even before they were arrested. Hence, they are each entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. As such, the maximum indeterminate sentence to be imposed upon each of them shall be within the range of 8 years and 1 day to 10 years, 2 months and 20 days of prision mayor. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty imposable upon each of them is within the range of from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional to 8 years of prision mayor. Further, since the value of the gift is P300,000.00, the fine to be imposed upon each of them shall not be less than P900,000.00. In addition, the proceeds and instrument of the crime, specifically the amount of P300,000.00 that accused Saclolo and accused Ortaleza accepted from Ms. Moya of Richworld, shall be forfeited in favor of the government. Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code reads: Article 45. Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime. — Every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools with which it was committed. Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated and forfeited in fayor of the Goyemment, unless they be the property of a third person not liable for the offense, but those articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed. The P300,000.00 accepted by accused Saclolo and accused Ortaleza from Richworld is an instrument and considered proceeds of the crime of direct bribery. In an obiter in US v. Bruhez,^®^ a case decided in 1914 under the old Penal Code, the Supreme Court said that had the accused therein been convicted of the crime of bribeiy, then the money paid as a bribe would have been forfeited by virtue of Article 389. Viz.: 180 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 86. »8i G.R. No. L-9268, October 30, 1914 DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335 Page 60 of63 It is our opinion that the court below should have resolved all of the questions presented by the issues, among them being the ownership of the P3,500. If that money was owned by Joaouin Lorenzo Uv Yio and was by him used to bribe a customs official to permit the illegal importation of opium, it became an instrument used in the commission of that crime and would be susceptible to the dispositions provided for in articles 25 and 62 of the Penal Code. Article 25 provides, among other things, that, as an accessory penalty, there shall be "a forfeiture of the provides that "every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall carry with the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instrument with which it was committed. Such proceeds and instruments shall be forfeited unless they be the property of a third person not liable for the offense." These articles constitute the law which governs the disposition of the money in question. If Joaouin Lorenzo Uv Yio had been convicted of the crime of bribery, then the money paid as a bribe would have been forfeited by virtue of article 389. The crime charged and prosecuted, however, being that of illegal importation of opium, the money became an instrument used in the commission of the crime and, therefore, became subject to the articles of the Penal Code already referred to. Violation ofSection 7(d) ofRepublic Act No, 6713 Accused Saclolo and Ortaleza were similarly charged for violation of Section 7 (d) of Republic Act No. 6713. The provision states: Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. — In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful: XXX XXX XXX (d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. — Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at. Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335 Page 61 of63 As discussed, the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Saclolo and accused Ortaleza solicited P440,000.00, and, after negotiations to reduce the amount, accepted P300,000.00, from Richworld through Ms. Moya, in the course of their official duties as a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cabanatuan City and as secretary to the said Sanggunian, respectively. Thus, accused Saclolo and accused Ortaleza clearly violated Section 7 (d) of Republic Act No. 6713. Under Section 11 R.A. No. 6713, the penally for violation of Section 7 thereof is imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court, disqualification to hold public office. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law,^®® if the offense is punished by a special law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. RULING WHEREFORE, this Court resolves as follows: 1. SB-16-CRM-0334 Accused ANGELITO DURAN SACLOLO, JR. and ALFREDO G. ORTALEZA are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 7(d) ofR.A. No. 6713, and each of them is sentenced to; 182 SECTION 11. Penalties. — (a) Any public official or employee, regardless of whether or not he holds office or employment in a casual, temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity, committing any violation of this Act shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months' salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency. If the violation is punishable by a heavier penalty under another law, he shall be prosecuted under the latter statute. Violations of Sections 7. 8 or 9 of this Act diall be punishable with imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos fPS.OOOl. or both, and, in the discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold public office, xxx Republic Act No. 4103, Section 1. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335 Page 62 of63 a. Suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of three (3) years, as minimum, to five (5) years, as maximum; b. Pay a fine in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00); and, 0. Suffer the penalty of disqualification to hold public office. 2. SB-16-CRM-0335: Accused ANGELITO DURAN SACLOLO, JR. and ALFREDO G. ORTALEZA are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code^ and each of them is sentenced to; a. Suffer an indeterminate penalty of five (5) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor^ as maximum; b. Pay a fine in the amount of Nine Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP900,000.00); and, c. Suffer the accessory penalty of special temporary disqualification from holding public office. The proceeds and instrument of the crime, in the form of the P300,000.00 accepted by accused Saclolo and accused Ortaleza from Richworld Aire and Technologies Corporation, through Miss Linda Moya, is forfeited in favor of the government. Accused Saclolo and accused Ortaleza are directed to turn over, jointly and severally, to the Sandiganbayan's Cashier's Office the amount of P300,000.00. The Sandiganbayan's Cashier is directed to remit said forfeited amount to the National Treasurer's Office in accordance with the usual accounting and auditing rules and procedures. SO ORDERED. DECISION People vs. Saclolo et at Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0334 to 0335 Page 63 of63 Associate Justiitise^ Chairperson We Concur: L !l/^ KARL/BUOIRANDA KIBVIN kARCE B. VIVERO Associate Justice Associate Justice ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. Associate Justi Chairperson CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13, of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. ANG