WO - sb.judiciary.gov.phsb.judiciary.gov.ph/DECISIONS/2018/K_Crim_SB-16-CRM-0768_People vs Lo... ·...

(lANfl

W KARAMOAUUI W C

WO

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SANDIGANBAYANQuezon City

FOURTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

Crim. Case No. SB-16-CRM-0768

For: Violation of Section 3 (e) of R. A. 3019,otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and

Corrupt Practices Act. as amended.

-versus-

PEPITO PAJARILLO LO,JANE SOLITARIO CARAS,JIMMY CALICA SOLITARIO,

Accused.

Present:

QUIROZ, J., ChairpersonCRUZ, J.JACINTO, J.

Promulgated on:

MQV12

X-

DECISION

CRUZ, J.

On 04 October 2016, accused Pepito Pajarillo Lo ("Lo"), JaneSolitario Caras ("Caras") and Jimmy Calica Solitarlo, ("Solitario")were charged in an Information^ for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R. A.) No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft andCorrupt Practices Act, as amended, the accusatory portion of whichreads:

"xxx That on March 10, 2009, or sometime prior or subsequentthereto, in Mercedes, Camarines Norte, Philippines, and withinthe jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-namedaccused, PEPITO PAJARILLO LO, also known as PEPITOPAJARILLO,^ then the Municipal Mayor of Mercedes, CamarinesNode, committing the crime herein charged in relation to his officeand taking advantage of his position, and in conspiracy with JANE

^ Records, Vol. I, pp. 1-3, Vol. II, p. 2182 Records. Vol. II, p. 284

DECISION

PP vs. Lo, et al.Grim. Case No. SB-16-CRM-0768

of 13

SOLITARIO CARAS^ and JIMMY CALICA SOLITARIO,'^ siblingsof Lo's legal wife Brenda Solitario Lo, did then and there willfully,unlawfully and criminally, through evident bad faith, manifestpartiality or gross inexcusable negligence, give unwarrantedbenefits to Golasi Mini-Hydro Electric Power Corporation, whosetwo incorporators are accused Garas and Solitario, by enteringinto a Memorandum of Agreement with said Golasi Mini-HydroElectric Power Corporation, granting the latter the exclusive right,with right of first refusal, to explore, develop and utilize the GolasiFalls area, sans any competitive bidding, thereby showingmanifest partiality and preference in favor of said corporation, inthe discharge of his official administrative functions.

CONTRARY TO LAW. xxx"

On 07 October 2016, a Hold Departure Order (HDO) wasissued against the herein accused.^ Then, on 14 October 2016, awarrant of arrest was issued against them . ® On 02 November 2016,said warrant of arrest was set aside after each of the accusedposted their respective bail in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos(Php30,000.00).^ Thereafter, all of the accused were arraigned on15 March 2017, whereby they separately entered a plea of "NOTGUILTY" to the offense charged.®

During Pre-trial, ® the parties adopted the Joint Stipulations(With Prayer to Submit the Case for Decision Upon SimultaneousSubmission of MemorandumY^ dated 18 April 2018, filed before thisCourt on 23 April 2018, containing, among others, the followingstipulation of facts:

1. That at the time material and relevant to this case. AccusedPepito Pajarillo Lo was a public officer being then the Mayor of theMunicipality of Mercedes, Gamarines Norte.

2. That whenever referred to orally or in writing by the HonorableGourt and the prosecution and/or its witnesses. Accused PepitoPajarillo Lo admits that he is the same Pepito Pajarillo Lo, theaccused in this case.

3. That whenever referred to orally or in writing by the HonorableGourt and the prosecution and/or its witnesses, Accused JaneSolitario Garas admits that she is the same Jane Solitario Garas,the accused in this case.

^ Records, Vol. II, p. 218Vd.

^ Records. Vol. I, p. 523® Records, Vol. I, pp. 527-533^ Records, Vol. II. p. 14® Records, Vol. II, pp. 214-216, 218® Records, Vol. Ill, pp. 127-13410 Records, Vol. Ill, pp. 13-21

I'

DECISION

PP vs. Lo, et al.Grim. Case No. SB-16-GRM-0768

of 13

4. That whenever referred to orally or in writing by the HonorableCourt and the prosecution and/or its witnesses, Accused JimmyAgapito Galica Solitario admits that he is the same Jimmy AgapitoCalica Solitario, the accused in this case.

5. That accused Jane Solitario Garas and Jimmy Agapito GalicaSolitario are incorporators of Golasi Mini Hydro Electric Power PlantCorporation.

6. That accused Pepito Pajarillo Lo is married to Brenda Solitario.

7. That Brenda Solitario is a sister of accused Jane Solitario Garas

and Jimmy Agapito Galica Solitario.

8. On July 11, 2001, the Sangguniang Bayan of Mercedes,Gamarines Norte passed SB Resolution No. 70-2001 authorizingaccused Pepito Pajarillo Lo to solicit and negotiate with anygovernment agency or prospective investors for the development ofthe Golasi water falls into a hydro power plant.

9. That in his capacity as Mayor and upon authority of theSangguniang Bayan of Mercedes, Gamarines Norte, accusedPepito Pajarillo Lo entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)dated March 10, 2009 and notarized on March 20, 2009, with GolasiMini Hydro Electric Power Plant Corporation giving the latter theexclusive right, with right of first refusal, to explore, develop andutilize the Golasi Falls area located in Mercedes, Gamarines Norte,without the benefit of public bidding.

10. That neither accused Garas nor Solitario took part in theexecution and signing of the Memorandum of Agreement datedMarch 10, 2009.

11. That the General Information Sheets of Golasi Mini HydroElectric Power Plant Corporation starting 2007 and subsequentyears no longer show that accused Garas and Solitario asstockholders or officers of the corporation.

12. That Article 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1067 (The Water Codeof the Philippines) provides that all waters belong to the State andthat the utilization, exploration, development, conservation andprotection of water resources shall be subject to the control andregulation of the government through the National Water ResourcesBoard.

13. That Water Permit No. 020450 dated September 25, 2005 wasissued by the National Water Resources Board in favor of the GolasiMini Hydro Electric Power Corporation covering the utilization,exploration, development, conservation and protection of waterresources covering the area along the Golasi River/Falls in Golasi,Mercedes, Gamarines Norte.

14. That the shareholdings of Jane Garas and Jimmy Solitario inGolasi Mini Hydro Electric Power Corporation were both transferredto Eduardo Malasaga, pursuant to separate Deeds of Sale bothdated December 19, 2005.

r

DECISIONPP vs. Lo, et al.Grim. Case No. SB-16-CRM-0768

of 13

The parties also agreed on the following issues'"^ for resolution:

1. Whether or not accused Pepito Pajarillo in his capacity as Mayor,had the authority to control the exploration, development andutilization of the Colasi Falls area located in Mercedes, CamarinesNorte;

2. Whether or not'accused Pepito Pajarillo, in his capacity as Mayor,gave unwarranted benefit and preference through manifest partialitywhen he entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with ColasiMini-Hydro Electric Power Plant Corporation, whose twoincorporators are his in-laws;

3. Whether or not conspiracy exits between and among theaccused in this case.

After the filing of their Joint Stipulations,''^ the parties likewisemanifested that they would no longer present their respectiveevidence in court; instead they prayed that they be given time tosubmit their respective Formal Offers of Exhibits and Memoranda.

Accordingly, accused Lo filed his Formal Offer of Exhibits^"^dated 02 May 2018, on 03 May 2018. Meanwhile, accused Carasand Solitario filed their Formal Offer of Evidence''® dated 25 April2018, on 10 May 2018, and their Supplement to Formal Offer ofEvidence''® dated on 15 May 2018, on 21 May 2018. TheProsecution also filed its Prosecution's Formal Offer of Exhibitsdated 22 June 2018 on the same day.^^

Acting on the respective formal offers of the parties, the Courtresolved''® to admit as follows:

"(1) XXX The Prosecution's Formal Offer of Exhibits (Exhibits "A" toL') are hereby ADMITTED despite the fact that the defense did not

file its comment/opposition thereto as agreed upon in the Order^^ ofthis Court dated April 18, 2018 that they would no longer file thesame in view of the joint stipulation of facts they entered into;

(2) Formal Offer of Exhibits by accused Pepito Pajarillo, Exhibits "1-6" with their sub-markings are hereby ADMITTED despite the factthat the prosecution did not file its comment/opposition thereto asthe Court NOTES the Order^o dated April 18, 2018 that partieswould no longer file the same in view of the joint stipulation of facts

Records, Vol. Ill, p. 132Supra, footnote 10

^ Records, Vol. Ill, p. 6Records, Vol. Ill, pp. 37-38

^ Records, Vol. Ill, pp. 65-69® Records, Vol. Ill, pp. 77-82' Records, Vol. Ill, pp. 85-89

® Records, Vol. Ill, pp. 136-137® Supra, footnote 1320 Id.

fl ^

DECISION


of 13

they entered into; and

(3) Formal Offer of Evidence by accused Caras and Solitario, theirSupplement to Formal Offer of Evidence and after duly consideringthe prosecution's Comment/Opposition (Re: Formal Offer ofEvidence dated April 25, 2018 filed by accused Jane 8. Caras andJimmy C. Solitario), the Court RESOLVES to ADMIT into evidenceaccused Caras and Solitario's Exhibits "2" to "8", Exhibits "10" to"14", Exhibits "20" to "21". "23" and "25" to "25-H". The CourtNOTES that there are no Exhibits "1", "19" and "24" marked andoffered by accused Caras and Solitario.

The above-mentioned formal offers of exhibits are all ADMITTEDfor the purposes for which they were offered but subject to theCourt's proper appreciation of their respective probative values, xxx"

All of the parties submitted their respective memoranda.^''

THE FACTS

The following narration of facts is based on the documentaryand testimonial evidence found on record, as well as on thestipulations made between the parties:

On 11 July 2001, the Sangguniang Bayan of Mercedes,Camarines Norte passed SB Resolution No. 70-2001,^^ authorizingaccused Lo to solicit and negotiate with any government agency orprospective investors for the development of the Colasi water fallsinto a hydro power plant.^^

On 21 September 2005, Water Permit No. 020450^4 was issuedby the National Water Resources Board ("NWRB") in favor of ColasiMini Hydro Electric Power Corporation ("Colasi Power Corporation")for the utilization, exploitation, development, conservation andprotection of water resources covering the area along the ColasiRiver/Falls in Colasi, Mercedes, Camarines Norte. This grant ispursuant to the provision of Article 3 of Presidential Decree (P. D.)No. 1076 (The Water Code of the Philippines) which provides thatall waters belong to the State and that the utilization, exploration,development, conservation and protection of water resources shallbe subject to the control and regulation of the government throughthe National Water Resources Board.

Records, Vol. Ill, pp. 119-126,173-179, 220-227Records, Vol. I, pp. 242-243Records, Vol. Ill, pp. 18-19, 131-132Records, Vol. Ill, p. 39, Exhibit "1" for accused LoSupra, footnote 23 f

DECISION


of 13

On 10 March 2009, accused Lo, vested with authority from theSangguniang Bayan, in his capacity as Mayor and acting for and inbehalf of Mercedes, Camarines Norte, entered into a Memorandumof Agreement^® (MOA) with Colasi Power Corporation, giving thelatter the exclusive right, with right of first refusal, to explore, developand utilize the Colasi Falls area located in Mercedes, CamarinesNorte, without the benefit of public bidding.

The controversy began when it was discovered that the two (2)incorporators of Colasi Power Corporation, accused Caras andSolitario, were siblings^® of accused Lo's wife,^® Brenda Solitario.^°To negate this apparent conflict of interest, it was pointed out thatprior to the execution of the assailed MOA, accused Caras andSolitario had transferred their respective shareholdings to EduardoMalasaga, in separate Deeds of Sales^^ both dated 19 December2005.^^ Consequently, the General Information Sheets^^ (G'S) ofColasi Power Corporation starting 2008 and subsequent yearsshowed that accused Caras and Solitario were no longerstockholders or officers of the said corporation.^"^ Moreover, neitheraccused Caras nor Solitario took part in the execution and signingof the MOA dated March 10, 2009.^®

This notwithstanding, the Field Investigation Office ("FIO"),Office of the Ombudsman ("Ombudsman") filed a Complaint-Affidavit^® dated 03 February 2010, against the herein accused andseveral others before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman forLuzon ("Ombudsman for Luzon"). After the preliminaryinvestigation, the Ombudsman for Luzon issued a Resolution®®dated 15 August 2014, finding probable cause to indict accused Lo,Caras and Solitario for violation of Section 3 (e) of R. A. No. 3019 inrelation to Section 10, Rule IV of R. A. No. 9184, and thecorresponding Information was filed.

Hence, this case.

Records, Vol. Ill, pp. 94-98, Exhibit "E"Supra, footnote 23Records, Vol. Ill, pp. 43-62, Exhibits "H", "I", "J"

29 Records, Vol. Ill, pp. 111-112, Exhibit "G"2° Supra, footnote 2321 Records, Vol. Ill, pp. 40-41, 63-64, Exhibits "2" and "6" for accused Caras22 Supra, footnote 2322 Records, Vol. Ill, pp. 113-115, Exhibits "3", "4", "5" for accused Caras2'' Supra, footnote 2322 Id.

2® Records, Vol. I, pp. 38-742^ Supra, footnote 232® Records, Vol. I, pp. 6-32, Vol. Ill, pp. 19, 13229 Supra, footnote 23 p

DECISION


of 13

DISCUSSION

The Information herein charges accused Lo, acting inconspiracy with accused Caras and Solitario, with the violation ofSection 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, which states:

"Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers—In addition to actsor omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law,the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officerand are hereby declared to be unlavi^ul:

XXX XXX XXX

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest impartiality, evident badfaith or gross inexcusable negligence, xxx."

Significantly, a conviction under the above-quoted provisionrequires the concurrence of the following elements:

(a) The accused must be a public officer dischargingadministrative, judicial or official functions;

(b) He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faithor gross inexcusable negligence; and

(c) His action caused undue injury to any party, including thegovernment, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits,

advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions."^®

Here, the presence of the first element is undisputed. It wasalready admitted that accused Lo was a public officer, as he washolding the position of "Municipal Mayor" at the time material to thiscase. Furthermore, it was also stipulated that accused Lo enteredinto a MOA with Colasi Power Corporation, in his capacity asMunicipal Mayor of Mercedes, Camarines Norte.'^^

The second element provides the different modes by which thecrime may be committed, that is, through manifest partiality, evidentbad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. Jurisprudencedescribes "partiality" as something synonymous with "bias" whichExcites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wishedfor rather than as they are."^^ There is "manifest partiality" when

Melchor G. Maderazo and Dionesio R. Veruen, Jr. vs. People of the Philippines and Sandiganbayan (GR. No. 209845, July 01. 2015)

Records, Vol. Ill, p. 127Records, Vol. III. p. 128People ofthe Philippines vs. ArlsteoE.Atienza. etal. (G. R. No. 171671. June 18, 2012)Rolando E. Sison vs. People of the Philippines (G. R. Nos. 170339, 170398-403, March 9, 2010) /

DECISION


of 13

there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favorone side or person rather than another."^® On the other hand, "badfaith" does not sinnply connote bad judgment or negligence; itimputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and consciousdoing of a wrong; a breach of a sworn duty through some motive orintent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud."^® As such, the term"evident bad faith" contemplates a state of mind affirmativelyoperating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest orill will or for ulterior purposes."^^ "Gross inexcusable negligence"refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightestcare, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty toact, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with consciousindifference to consequences insofar as other persons may beaffected."^®

Mainly, the prosecution imputes manifest partiality againstaccused Lo, implying that he disregarded the requirements ofcompetitive bidding provided under R. A. No. 9184 (GovernmentProcurement Reform Act) and entered into a MOA with ColasiPower Corporation because he favored the latter, considering thattwo (2) of its incorporators - accused Caras and Solitario - are hiswife's siblings. After a review of the records, the Court finds noevidence to support the prosecution's assertion. To note, althoughaccused Caras and Solitario remain listed in the Articles of

Incorporation (AO!) as incorporators, the GIS confirms that they areno longer stockholders or officers of the said corporation. In fact,the prosecution, being a party to the joint stipulations submitted incourt, acknowledges that accused Caras and Solitario were neitherstockholders nor officers of Colasi Power Corporation at the time ofthe execution of the assailed MOA on 10 March 2009, since theyhad sold and transferred their respective shares therein to EduardoMalasaga on 19 December 2005. This admission"^® effectivelyweakens the prosecution's argument as it contradicts the corruptintent ascribed against accused Lo that he was motivated to enterinto a contract with Colasi Power Corporation solely for the reasonthat he was related by affinity to two (2) of its incorporators.

Grasping at straws, the prosecution harps on the admission inthe joint stipulations that accused Lo entered into a MOA with ColasiP^er Corporation without the benefit of competitive bidding.

Supra, footnote 43Supra, footnote 44Supra, footnote 43Id.

Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Revised Rules on Evidence states:

Section 4. Judicial admission. An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the courseof the proceedinQs in the same case, does not recjuire proof. The admission may becontradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no suchadmission was made." .

t

DECISION


of 13

intimating that said accused did not comply with such requirementbecause he was allegedly aware that Colasi Power Corporationwould be disqualified outright on the ground that two (2) of itsincorporators are related to his wife. This piecemeal appreciationof the prosecution of the admissions stated in the joint stipulationsis erroneous. Parenthetically, a reading of the joint stipulationsreveals that prior to the execution of the MOA, accused Lo had beenauthorized by the Sangguniang Bayan of Mercedes, CamarinesNorte to solicit and negotiate with any government agency orprospective investors for the development of the Colasi water fallsinto a hydro power plant. Armed with such authorization, accusedLo, in his capacity as mayor, subsequently entered into a MOA withColasi Power Corporation, without the benefit of public bidding. Inaddition to these uncontroverted statements, other evidence onrecord indicates that Colasi Power Corporation is a logical choiceon account of its water permit, which allows it to utilize the water atthe Colasi Falls area. Taken together, all these exculpatory factsdiminish the prosecution's claim that accused Lo acted withmanifest partiality when he executed the MOA with Colasi PowerCorporation.

. It bears stressing that it is the primordial duty of the prosecutionto present its side with clarity and persuasion, so that convictionbecomes the only logical and evitable conclusion. What isrequired of it is to justify the conviction of the accused with moralcertainty.^'' Thus, where the inculpatory facts and circumstancesare capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistentwith the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his

guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty.®^This is dictated by the equipoise rule, which affirms that if theevidence admits of two interpretations, one of which is consistentwith guilt, and the other with innocence, the accused must be giventhe benefit of the doubt and should be acquitted. The basis of theacquittal is reasonable doubt, which simply means that the evidenceof the prosecution was not sufficient to sustain the guilt of theaccused beyond the point of moral certainty.

Finally, the third element enumerates the two (2) ways in whichSection 3 (e) of R. A. No. 3019 may be violated: (1) by causingundue injury to any party, including the government, or (2) by givingany private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or

erence.^® In this case, the prosecution posits that under theassailed MOA, accused Lo gave unwarranted benefits to Colasi

People of the Philippines vs. Fabian Urzais y Lanurias. et al. (G. R. No 207662 April 13 2016151/d. . K . /52/d.55 People of the Philippines vs. Willington Rodreiguez y Hermosa (G. R. No. 211721. September 20,2017)5*1 Supra, footnote 50 ' ' JjtA/'55 Supra, footnote 44 jl

DECISION


of 13

Power Corporation by granting the latter the exclusive rights, withright of first refusal, to explore, develop and utilize the Colasi Fallsarea. But, upon careful evaluation, the Court discovers that thiscontention of the prosecution is skewed.

Jurisprudence defines the word "unwarranted" as lackingadequate or official support; unjustified, unauthorized or withoutjustification or adequate reason; while, the term "benefit" denotesprofit or gain of any kind, or benefit from some course of action.^®Here, the action of accused Lo in entering into a MOA with ColasiPower Corporation is not "unwarranted," considering that the latteris the holder of a water permit,^^ which grants the same with the"water right" essential for the appropriation and use of the waterlocated at the Colasi Falls area.®® This is consistent with Article 13

of Presidential Decree (P. D.) No. 1067, otherwise known as theWater Code of the Philippines, which declares that only the holderof a water right, as evidenced by a water permit, is granted theprivilege to appropriate and use water from a designated source.Under the circumstances, it does not appear that Colasi PowerCorporation was benefited by the act of accused Lo since the saidcorporation, by virtue of its water permit issued on 21 September2005, already had the right to utilize the water at the Colasi Fallsarea even before the assailed MOA was executed on 10 March

2009. Verily, this right bestowed upon the said corporation isadmitted and was actually recognized by the prosecution in the jointstipulations, whereby the parties agreed that the water permit ofColasi Power Corporation not only covers the utilization but alsoincludes the exploration, development, conservation and protectionof the water resources along the Colasi Falls area. This establishedfact, in effect, refutes the prosecution's statement that accused Loextended unwarranted benefits in favor of Colasi Power

Corporation.

With regard to the prosecution's allegation of conspiracy, theCourt must emphasize the settled rule that conspiracy exists onlywhen two or more persons come to an agreement concerning thecommission of a felony and decide to commit it.®® Jurisprudencestates that the essence of conspiracy is the unity of action andpurpose.®® So, for conspiracy to be present, there must be acommon design to commit a felony.®^ "What is determinative is

of establishing that the accused were animated by one and the

^ Supra, footnote 44Supra, footnote 42Article 13 of Presidential Decree (P. D.) No. 1067, otherwise known as the Water Code of the Philippines,

states, "except as othenwise herein provided, no person, including the government instrumentalities orgovernment-owned or controlled corporations, shall appropriate water without a water right, which shallbe evidenced by a document known as a water permit. Water right is the privilege granted by thegovernment to appropriate and use water."People of the Philippines vs Oscar Gimpaya, et al. (G. R. No. 227395 January 10 2018)Id. y ' >Jesus O. Typoco, Jr., vs. People of the Philippines (G. R. No. 221857, August 16, 2017) % /

DECISION

PP vs. Lo, et al.Grim. Case No. SB-16-GRM-0768

of 13

same purpose."®^ An accepted badge of conspiracy is when theaccused by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing onepart and the other performing another so as to complete it with aview to the attainment of the same object, and their acts althoughapparently independent were, in fact, concerted and cooperative,indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action andconcurrence of sentiments.®^ Therefore, "to hold an accused guiltyas a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to haveperformed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of thecomplicity."®"^ "There must be an intentional participation in thetransaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design andpurpose."®® In this case, there is no showing that the hereinaccused were animated by the same purpose, neither was it proventhat they employed a common design to commit the crime imputedagainst them. Quite the opposite, the acts of accused Caras andSolitario in selling their respective shares and divesting themselvesof any interest in Colasi Power Corporation, as well as their non-participation in the execution of the assailed MOA militate againstthe prosecution's supposition that they performed any overt acts tofacilitate the execution thereof or that they influenced accused Lointo entering in a contract with Colasi Power Corporation.Consequently, sans proof of cooperation or agreement to cooperateto commit the crime charged, the fact that accused Caras andSolitario .are incorporators ®® of Colasi Power Corporation andsiblings of accused Lo's wife,®^ are not enough evidence to sustaina finding of conspiracy among the herein accused.

All told, a successful prosecution of a criminal case must reston proof beyond reasonable doubt.®® As such, the State must provebeyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged aswell as the participation of the accused.®® The burden of proof is onthe prosecution, as the accused enjoys a constitutionally enshrineddisputable presumption of innocence.^® It is this presumption ofinnocence of an accused in every criminal case which places on theprosecution the task of proving that an accused is guilty of theoffense charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Corollarythereto, conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution'sevidence and not on the weakness of the defense.^^ In this case,the prosecution's evidence failed to overcome such presumption ofinnocence, and thus, acquittal of all of the accused must follow as a

Rosie Quidet vs. People of the Philippines (G. R. No. 170289, April 08, 2010)Supra, footnote 62

®'' Raymund E. Zapanta vs. People of the Philippines (G. R. Nos. 192698-99, April 22, 2015)65 /d.

66 Supra, footnote 426^ Supra, footnote 4266 People of the Philippines vs. Alexis Dindo San Jose y Suico (G. R. No. 179148, July 23, 2018)66 People of the Philippines vs. Zafra Maraorao y Macabalang (G. R. No. 174369, June 20, 2012)

Supra, footnote 62Supra, footnote 70 -'2 Id. ^

DECISION


of 13

matter of course.^^

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused PepitoPajarillo Lo, Jane Solitario Caras, and Jimmy Calica Solitarioare hereby ACQUITTED of the charge of violation of Section 3 (e)of R. A. No. 3019, for failure of the prosecution to prove their guiltbeyond reasonable doubt.

As the act or omission from which the civil liability might arisedid not exist, no civil liability may be assessed against the accused.

The hold departure order issued against all of the accused byreason of this case is hereby LIFTED and SET ASIDE, and theirrespective bonds RELEASED, subject to the usual accounting andauditing procedures.

SO ORDERED.

I^ALQCrp. CRUZAssociate Justice

We Concur:

Chairperson/Associate Justice

BAYANm. JACINTO

Ass oclate Justice

Capistrano Daayata, et al., vs. People of the Philippines (G. R. No. 205745, March 08. 2017)

DECISION


of 13

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusion in the above decision were

reached in consultation before the case was assigned tothe writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

Chairperson, Fourth Divisron

CERTIFICATION

Pursuantto Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, andthe Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certifiedthat the conclusions in the above decision were reached

in consultation before the case was assigned to the writerof the opinion of the Court's Division.

'AMPARO M. (52AB0^JE-TAIPresiding Justice

WO - sb.judiciary.gov.phsb.judiciary.gov.ph/DECISIONS/2018/K_Crim_SB-16-CRM-0768_People vs Lo... ·...

Documents

Transcript of WO - sb.judiciary.gov.phsb.judiciary.gov.ph/DECISIONS/2018/K_Crim_SB-16-CRM-0768_People vs Lo... ·...