REPUBLIC OF THE FHILIFFINES Sandiganbayansb.judiciary.gov.ph/DECISIONS/2019/K_Crim_SB-16-CRM-0318-0321_People vs... · Diagnostic Laboratory, did then and there willfully, unlawfully

REPUBLIC OF THE FHILIFFINES

SandiganbayanQUEZON CITY

SEVENTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0318Plaintiff, to 0321

- versus -

Present:

Gomez-Estoesta, J., ChairpersonTrespeses, J., andHidalgo, J.

ELIZABETH A. MILANES,

DIGNA O. AMBAS, andEDGAR D. INDIONGCO,

Accused.

Promulgated: .

DECISION

GOMEZ-ESTOESTA, J.:

All the accused, P/S Supt. Elizabeth A. Milanes, P/Supt. Digpa O.Ambas, and Edgar D. Indiongco were charged with four counts of Violationof Section 3(e) of Republic Act ("RA") No. 3019, as amended* in thefollowing Informations:

Crifhinal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0318

That on or about November 2010 to December 2010, or sometimeprior or subsequent thereto, in Pampanga, and within the jurisdiction of thisHonorable Court, accused P/S SUPT. ELIZABETH ACEVEDOMILANES, SG 26, a high-ranking official of the Philippine National Police

• Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (1960). The relevant provision states:Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public oncers. - In addition to acts or omissions of public officersalready penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any publicofficer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

XXX XXX XXX

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party anyunwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative orjudicial fimctions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. Thisprovision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged withthe grant oflicenses or permits or other concessions.

r

People V. Milanes, et al. 21P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-03I8 to 0321

DECISION

(PNP) and P/SUPT. DIGNA OLIVARES-AMBAS, SG 25, a low-rankingofficial of the PNP, both assigned at the PNP Regional Health Service 3(RHS3), Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga, taking advantage of theirofficial positions and committing the offense in relation to office, withmanifest partiality, evident bad faith and/or gross inexcusable negligence,conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another with co-accused EDGAR D. INDIONGCO, owner/proprietor of E. IndiongcoDiagnostic Laboratory, did then and there willfully, unlawfully andcriminally give unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to said EdgarD. Indiongco, by allowing him to continue to operate his private medicallaboratory inside the office premises of the PNP RHS3 and to collectpayments from PNP applicants in the total amount of One Million EightHundred Sixty-Eight Thousand and Fifty Pesos (PI,868,050.00),without issuing corresponding receipts, thereby depriving the governmentof much needed revenue and income, to the damage, injury and prejudiceof the government

CONTRARY TO LAW?

Criminal Case No, SB-16-CRM-0319

That on or about November 2010 to December 2010, or sometimeprior or subsequent thereto, in Pampanga, and within the jurisdiction of thisHonorable Court, accused P/S SUPT. ELIZABETH ACEVEDOMILANES, SG 26, a high-ranking official of the Philippine National Police(PNP) and P/SUPT. DIGNA OLIVARES-AMBAS, SG 25, a low-rankingofficial of the PNP, both assigned at the PNP Regional Health Service 3(RHS3), Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga, taking advantage of theirofficial positions and committing the offense in relation to office, withmanifest partiality, evident bad faith and/or gross inexcusable negligence,conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another with co-accused EDGAR D. INDIONGCO, owner/proprietor of E. IndiongcoDiagnostic Laboratory, did then and there willfully, unlawfully andcriminally give unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to said EdgarD. Indiongco, by allowing him to continue to operate his private medicallaboratory inside the office premises of the PNP RHS3 knowing that theoperation of E. Indiongco Diagnostic Laboratory is without the benefit ofthe proper process of procurement, to the damage, injury and prejudice ofthe government.

CONTRARY TO LAW.^

Criminal Case No, SB-16'CRM'0320

That on or about November 2010 to December 2010, or sometimeprior or subsequent thereto, in Pampanga, and within the jurisdiction of thisHonorable Court, accused P/S SUPT. ELIZABETH ACEVEDOMILANES, SG 26, a high-ranking official of the Philippine National Police(PNP) and P/SUPT. DIGNA OLIVARES-AMBAS, SG 25, a low-rankingofficial of the PNP, both assigned at the PNP Regional Health Service 3(RHS3), Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga, taking advantage of theirofficial positions and committing the offense in relation to office, withmanifest partiality, evident bad faith and/or gross inexcusable negligence,conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another with co-

f^ Records, Vol. I, Information, pp. 1-2.Records. Vol. 1, Information, pp. 1-2.

/

\

People V. Milanes, et al. 31P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0318 to 0321

DECISION

accused EDGAR D. INDIONGCO, owner/proprietor of E. IndiongcoDiagnostic Laboratory, did then and there willfully, unlawfully andcriminally give imwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to said EdgarD. Indiongco, by allowing him to continue to use a 10 square meter spaceinside the oftice premises of the PNP RHS3 which space is used in theoperation of E. Indiongco Diagnostic Laboratory, free of rent, therebydepriving the government of beneficial use thereof, to the damage, injuryand prejudice of the government.

CONTRARY TO LAW.^

Criminal Case No. SB'I6-CRM-0321

That on or about November 2010 to December 2010, or sometimeprior or subsequent thereto, in Pampanga, and within the jurisdiction of thisHonorable Court, accused P/S SUPT. ELIZABETH ACEVEDOMILANES, SG 26, a high-ranking ofticial of the Philippine National Police(PNP) and P/SUPT. DIGNA OLIVARES-AMBAS, SG 25, a low-rankingofficial of the PNP, both assigned at the PNP Regional Health Service 3(RHS3), Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga, taking advantage of theirofhcial positions and committing the offense in relation to office, withmanifest partiality, evident bad faith and/or gross inexcusable negligence,conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another with co-accused EDGAR D. INDIONGCO, owner/proprietor of E. IndiongcoDiagnostic Laboratory, did then and there willfully, unlawfully andcriminally give unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to said EdgarD. Indiongco, by allowing him to continue to operate his private medicallaboratory inside the office premises of the PNP RHS3 and utilize On-The-Job Training Nursing students to conduct medical screening of PNPapplicants without the supervision of the organic medical personnel of theRHS3, and relying on the result of the medical screening conducted by E.Indiongco Diagnostic Laboratory owned by co-accused EDGAR D.INDIONGCO, disqualify PNP applicants Michael Angelo L. Basa, HarryD. Victorio, Wilfi*edo G. Castro, Michael N. Ciilala, Allen Lincoln C.Medrano, Sheila Marie Cruz, Jesse Carlos T. Malana, Joseph R. Cortez,John Paul M. Ramos, Raymundo C. Gatbonton, Francis Gil Navarro, BryanP. Raymundo, Jeffrey Enrile, Rafael F. Flores and Jaime M. Labarinto, Jr.,James B. Dancel, Christopher Tindugan and Edmar D. Cuntapay, withoutgiving them their medical results and despite the contrary findings andopinion from other government and private doctors attesting that they areall fit to undergo training, to the damage, injury and prejudice of said PNPapplicants and the government.

CONTRARY TO LAW.^

ANTECEDENTS

A Warrant of Arrest^ was issued against all the accused on June 1,2016.

Accused Ambas and Accused Milanes personally appeared before the

J^ Records, Vol. 1, Information, pp. 1-2.^ Records, Vol. 1, Information, pp. 1-2.® Records, Vol. I, Warrant of Arrest, p. 276. ^

r


DECISION

Court on June 23, 2016^ and June 30, 2016®, respectively, and posted a cashbond in the amount of PI20,000.00 each for their provisional liberty.Similarly, on June 23,2016, accused Indiongco was jested by operatives ofthe Santo Tomas Police Station, Brgy, San \^cente, Santo Tomas, Pampanga^d posted a cash bond also in the amount of P120,000.00 for his provisionalliberty.^

During her arraignment on July 5, 2016, accused Milanes, assisted byher counsel, entered a plea of not guilty.

Meanwhile, accused Indiongco filed a Motion to Dismiss with Motionto Defer Arraignment and Entry of Appearance^ ̂ on July 18, 2016 to whichthe prosecution filed its Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss with Motion toDefer Arraignment and Entry of Appearance filed by accused Edgard D.Indiongco^^ on August 1, 2016. On the other hand, accused Ambas filed aMotion to Quash Information^^ on July 26,2016 to which the prosecution filedits Opposition to the Motion to Quash Information filed by accused P/Supt.Digna Olivares-Ambas^"* on August 4, 2019. Accused Ambas filed her Replyto the Opposition (of the Prosecution to the Motion to Quashf^ on August 11,2016. In a Resolution dated August 31,2016, the Court denied both Motiofisfiled by accused Indiongco and accused Ambas. Dissatisfied with the August31, 2016 Resolution of the Court, accused Ambas filed her Motion forReconsideration^^ on September 19, 2016 while accused Indiongco filed hisMotion for Reconsideration^^ on September 21, 2016. The prosecution filedits Consolidated Opposition Re: (1) Motion for Reconsideration filed byaccused P/Supt. Digna Olivares-Ambas and (2) Motion for Reconsiderationfiled by accused Edgar D. Indiongco^ ̂ on September 26,2016. In di Resolutiondated October 7,2016,^® the Court denied both Motionsfor Reconsideration}^

During their arraignment on November 29, 2016, accused Ambas andaccused Indiongco, with the assistance of their respective counsels, pleadednot guilty.^^

Records, Vol. 1, Order, p. 289.at 312, Order.

' Id. at 299, Order.Mat 336, Order." M at 363-368, Motion to Dismiss with Motion to Defer Arraignment and Entry of Appearance.

Id at 397-401, Opposition." Records. Vol. /, Motion to Quash Information, pp. 389-394.

Id, Vol. 2, Opposition, pp. 17-22.Id. at 31-34, Reply to Ae Opposition (of the Prosecution to the Motion to Quash).Id at 39-51, Resolution." Id at 67-70, Motion for Reconsideration.

Id at 72-77, Motion for Reconsideration.Records, Vol. 2, Consolidated Opposition Re: (1) Motion for Reconsideration filed by accused P/Supt

Digna Olivares-Ambas and (2) Motion for Reconsideration filed by accused Edgar D. Indiongco, pp. 82-85.^® Id. at 90-904, Resolution.2' Accused Indiongco elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via petition for certiorari [See Records, Vol.2, Petition, pp. 115-129]. Thereafter, healed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings [Records, Vol. 2, Motion toSuspend Proceedings, pp. 299-301], which was, however, denied by the Court in an Order dated January 26,2018 [Records, Vol. 2, Order, pp. 315-316].^ Records, Vol. 2, Order, p. 112.


DECISION

Thereafter, the parties filed their Joint Stipulations of Fact and Issue?ôn March 8, 2018, which was adopted by the Court in its Pre-Trial Order^^dated March 9, 2018.

Trial then ensued.

The prosecution presented 13 witnesses, namely: (a) P/S Supt. ManuelM. Lukban, Jr., then Acting Chief of the Regional Investigation and DetectiveManagement Division ("RIDMD") at Camp Olivas, San Fernando City,Pampanga;^^ (b) P/SINSP. Elmer Arrogante, then investigator assigned to theRIDMD of Regional Office No. 3;^^ (c) P02 Zaldy L. Caraan, then PhilippineNational Police ("PNP") recruit of the Public Safety Field Training Program,Regional Training School 3, Pampanga;^^ (d) P02 Emerson E. Marila, thenPNP recruit of the Public Safety Field Training Program, Regional TrainingSchool 3, Pampanga;^® (e) P02 Joel G. Ladores, then PNP recruit of the PublicSafety Field Training Program, Regional Training School 3, Pampanga;^^P02 Aris A. Palioc, then PNP recruit of the Public Safety Field TrainingProgram, Regional Training School 3, Pampanga;^® (g) P02 Kenn Elmer V.Corpuz, then PNP recruit of the Public Safety Field Training Program,Regional Training School 3, Pampanga;^^ (h) P02 Joemel M. Fernando, thenPNP recruit of the Public Safety Field Training Program, Regional TrainingSchool 3, Pampanga;^^ (!) POl Ruby Ann C. Guinto, then PNP recruit of thePublic Safety Field Training Program, Regional Ti;aining School 3,Pampanga;^^ (j) Iluminada C. Sarmiento, former Chief of the RegionalAccounting Division of the PNP Region 3 at Camp Olivas, San Femiando,Pampanga;^^ (k) Nelia Rhoda G. Ortega, member of the RegionalHeadquarters Support Group of the PNP Region 3 at Camp Olivas, SanFernando, Pampanga;^^ (1) P/S Supt. Eduardo G. Tuazon, Jr., Chief of the

^ Records, Vol. 2, Joint Stipulations of Fact and Issue, pp. 40-451.^ Id. at 453-463, Pre-Trial Order.

Exhibit A, Complaint Affidavit; Records, Vol. 2, Minutes of the Session, p. 469; Records, Vol. 2, Order,pp. 471-472; Transcript of Stenographic Notes ("TSN") dated April 3, 2018, pp. 1-39; Records, Vol. 2,Minutes of the Session, p. 473; Records, Vol. 2, Order, p. 475; TSN dated April 4,2018, pp. 1-55.^ Records, Vol. 2, Judicial Affidavit, pp. 482-495; Records, Vol. 3, Minutes of the Session, p. 30; Records,Vol. 3, Order, p. 32; TSN dated May 8, 2018, pp. 1-68.Exhibit C-16-b, Sinumpaang Salaysay; Records, Vol. 3, Minutes of the Session, p. 42; Records, Vol. 3,

Order, p. 45; TSN dated June 6, 2018, pp. 6-47.^ Exhibit C-16-c, Sinumpaang Salaysay; Records, Vol. 3, Minutes of the Session, p. 42; Records, Vol. 3,Order, p. 45; TSN dated June 6, 2018, pp. 48-87.^ Records, Vol. 3, Judicial Affidavit, pp. 61-67; Records, Vol. 3, Minutes of the Session, p. IT, Records, Vol.3, Order, pp. 80-81; TSN dated July 4, 2018, pp. 5-103.Records, Vol. 3, Judicial Affidavit, pp. 53-59; Records, Vol. 3, Minutes of the Session, p. 77; Records, Vol.

3, Order, pp. 80-81; TSN dated July 4, 2018, pp. 105-132.Records, Vol. 3, Judicial Affidavit, pp. 102-112; Records, Vol. 3, Minutes of die Session, pp. 113-114;

Records, Vol. 3, Order, pp. 116-117; TSN dated August 7, 2018, pp. 6-58.^Records, Vol. 3, Judicial Affidavit, pp. 91-101; Records, Vol. 3, Minutes of the Session, pp. 113-114;

Records, Vol. 3, Order, pp. 116-117; TSN dated August 7, 2018, pp. 58-78.Records, Vol. 3, Judicial Affidavit, pp. 69-76; Records, Vol. 3, Minutes of the Session, pp. 113-114;

Records, Vol. 3, Order, pp. 116-117; TSN dated August 7, 2018, pp. 79-111.Records, Vol. 3, Judicial Affidavit (of Iluminada Cule Sarmiento), pp. 131-135; Records, Vol. 3, Minutes

of the Session, pp. 156-157; Records, Vol. 3, Order, pp. 159-160; TSN dated September 4,2018, pp. 10-22.Records. Vol. 3, Judicial Affidavit (of Nelia Rhoda G. Ortega), pp. 138-142; Records, Vol. 3, Minutes of

the Session, pp. 156-157; Records, Vol. 3, Order, pp. 159-160; TSN dated September 4, 2018, pp. 23-42.

•/


DECISION

RIDMD 3 at Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga;^^ and (m) P/C Supt.Alan L. Purisima, then Regional Director of the Police Regional Office 3 atCamp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga.^^

P/S Supt. Manuel M. Lukban, Jr.^® identified his Complaint-Affidavit^^ wherein he imputed that the accused caused undue injury and gaveadvantage or unwarranted benefits in the collection of fees from the PNPapplicants without issuing the corresponding official receipts; that the accusedmanipulated medical results and conducted illegal transactions; thatunauthorized nursing students were present during medical screenings at thelaboratory inside the Regional Health Service 3 ("RHS3") where serviceswere contracted out without any cloth of authority; that the entire laboratoryand its persoimel were private in nature and did not pass the normal biddingprocess; that the amount collected by the accused from the PNP applicants aspayment for services was overpriced, unconscionable, and oppressive; andthat the acts of taking advantage of the vulnerability of the PNP applicantsunjustly enriched the accused.

P/SINSP. Elmer Arrogante"^® testified that he conducted theinvestigation in December 2010 of the alleged anomaly involving the accusedbased on the complaints filed by several ¥NP applicants who were disqualifiedby accused Ambas, and PNP recruits who made payments to the accused butwere not issued receipts and were instructed by accused Ambas to collectpayment from the other applicants.

P02 Zaidy L. Caraan,"^^ P02 Emerson E. Marila,"^^ P02 Joel G.Ladores,"*^ P02 Aris A. Palioc,"^ P02 Kenn Elmer V. Corpuz,"*^ P02Joemel M. Fernando,"*^ and POl Ruby Ann C. Guinto"^^ all testified thatduring their training as PNP recruits in 2010 where they were appointed ClassMarchers of their respective units, they paid accused Indiongco for medical

Records, Vol. 3, Judicial Affidavit (of P/S Supt Eduardo Galang Tuazon, Jr.), pp. 144-150; Records, Vol.3, Minutes of the Session, pp. 156-157; Recor(b, Vol. 3, Order, pp. 159-160; TSN dated September 4, 2018,pp. 43-61.Records, Vol. 3, Judicial Affidavit (of Alan La Madrid Purisima), pp. 183; Records, Vol. 3, Minutes of the

Session, p. 199; Records, Vol. 3, Order, pp. 201-202; TSN dated December 3, 2018, pp. 6-49.Exhibit A, Complaint Affidavit; Records, Vol. 2, Minutes of the Session, p. 469; Records, Vol. 2, Order,

pp. 471-472; TSN dated April 3, 2018, pp. 1-39; Records, Vol. 2, Minutes of the Session, p. 473; Records,Vol. 2, Order, p. 475; TSN dated April 4, 2018, pp. 1-55.Exhibit A.

Records, Vol. 2, Judicial Affidavit, pp. 482-495; Records, Vol. 3, Minutes of the Session, p. 30; Records,Vol. 3, Order, p. 32; TSN dated May 8, 2018, pp. 1-68.Exhibit C-16-b, Sinumpaang Salaysay; Records, Vol. 3, Minutes of the Session, p. 42; Records, Vol. 3,

Order, p. 45; TSN dated June 6, 2018, pp. 6-47.Exhibit C-16-c, Sinumpaang Salaysay; Records, Vol. 5, Minutes of the Session, p. 42; Records, Vol. 3,

Order, p. 45; TSN dated June 6, 2018, pp. 48-87.Records, Vol. 3, Judicial Affidavit, pp. 61-67; Records, Vol. 3, Minutes of the Session, p. 77; Records, Vol.

3, Order, pp. 80-81; TSN dated July 4, 2018, pp. 5-103.^ Records, Vol. 3, Judicial Affidavit, pp. 53-59; Records, Vol. 3, Minutes of the Session, p. 77; Records, Vol.3,OT^.&[,^plp.ZO-U^,TSNdatedJuly 4, 2018,1^^. 105-132.

Records, Vol. 3, Judicial Affidavit, pp. 102-112; Records, Vol. 3, Minutes of the Session, pp. 113-114;Records, Vol. 3, Order, pp. 116-117; TSN dated August 7, 2018, pp. 6-58.^ Records, Vol. 3, Judicial Affidavit, pp. 91-101; Records, Vol. 3, Minutes of the Session, pp. 113-114;Records, Vol. 3, Order, pp. 116-117; TSN dated August 7, 2018, pp. 58-78.

Records, Vol. 3, Judicial Affidavit, pp. 69-76; Records, Vol. 3, Minutes of the Session, pp. 113-114;Records, Vol. 3, Order, pp. 116-117; TSN dated August 7, 2018, pp. 79-111.

// '

r


DECISION

examinations or laboratories to be undertaken within the RHS3 premises butthe latter failed to issue any official receipt covering the amount.

Iluminada C. Sarmiento'^^ testified that she received a subpoena fromthe Office of the Ombudsman to submit documents showing that E. IndiongcoDiagnostic Laboratory paid rent for the 10 square meter space inside the PNPRHS3 premises sometime in November to December 2010. She also receiveda Certification'^^ from the Regional Headquarters Support Group stating thatno such records were available.

Nelia Rhoda G. Ortega^® testified that she received a request fromSarmiento to submit documents in relation to the use of space by E. IndiongcoDiagnostic Laboratory inside the RHS3 sometime in November to December2010, and that she prepared the Certification^^ stating'that no such documentwas available.

P/S Supt. Eduardo G. Tuazon, Jr.^^ testified that he submitted severaldocuments to the Office of the Ombudsman {i.e.. Letter dated September 9,2016,^^ Letter dated August 3, 2018,^'* Certification dated August 2, 2018,^ând Memorandum dated May 15, 2018^^), which documents were destroyedby flood sometime in 2012 and could no longer be found.

Finally, P/C Supt. Alan L. Purisima^^ testified that he ordered P/SSupt. Lukban, Jr., Acting Chief of the RIDMD, to conduct an investigation onthe Molation of RANo. 3019 by some RHS3 personnel, which investigationyielded that some applicants were cleared to undergo training contrary to theinitial evaluation made by P/Supt. Ambas, that there were illegal transactionsin relation to the tests and procedures to be undertaken by the PNP applicants,and that there existed an imsanctioned laboratory inside the RHS3.

Thereafter, the Formal Offer of Prosecution's Documentary Evidence^^was filed on December 12, 2018 to which accused Indiongco filed hisComment and Opposition (To the Formal Offer of Prosecution's DocumentaryExhibits on December 28, 2018 and accused Ambas filed herComment/Opposition to the Formal Offer of Evidence ofthe Prosecution^^ on

Records, Vol. 3. Judicial Affidavit (of Iluminada Cule Sarmiento), pp. 131-135; Records, Vol .3, Minutesof the Session, pp. 156-157; Records, VoL 3, Order, pp. 159-160; TSN dated September 4, 2018, pp. 10-22.

Exhibit H.

Records, Vol 3, Judicial Affidavit (of Nelia Rhoda G. Ortega), pp. 138-142; Records, Vol 3, Minutes ofthe Session, pp. 156-157; Records, Vol 3, Order, pp. 159-160; 7SV dated September 4, 2018, pp. 23-42.

Exhibit H.

" Records, Vol 3, Judicial Affidavit (of P/S Supt. Eduardo Galang Tuazon, Jr.), pp. 144-150; Records, Vol3, Minutes of the Session, pp. 156-157; Records, Vol 3, Order, pp. 159-160; TSN dated September 4, 2018,pp. 43-61.Exhibit D.

^ Exhibit D-2.

Exhibit D-3.

Exhibit D-4.

Records, Vol 3, Judicial Affidavit (of Alan La Madrid Purisima), pp. 183; Records, Vol 3, Minutes of theSession, p. 199; Records, Vol 3, Order, pp. 201-202; TSN dated December 3, 2018, pp. 6-49.Records, Vol 3, Formal Offer of Prosecution's Documentaiy Evidence, pp. 204-221.Id at 335-351, Comment and Opposition (To the Formal Offer of Prosecution's Documentaiy Exhibits).^ Id at 356-358, Comment/Opposition to the Formal Offer of Evidence of the Prosecution.


DECISION

January 9,2019. In its Resolution dated January 17,2019,^^ the Court admittedall of the prosecution's offered exhibits except for Exhibit "C-20."

Accused Indiongco then filed a Motion for Leave to File Demurrer toEvidence^^ on January 28, 2019 to which the prosecution filed its OppositionTo the Motionfor Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence Filed hy Accused EdgarD. Indiongco^^ on January 31,2019. Similarly, accused Milanes filed aMoft'owfor Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence^"* on January 28, 2019 to which theprosecution filed its Comment/Opposition (Re: Accused Milanes' Motion forLeave to File Demurrer to Evidence)^^ on February 12, 2019. On the otherhand, accused Ambas filed a Demurrer to Evidence^^ on February 4, 2019 towhich the prosecution filed its Comment/Opposition with Manifestation (Re:Accused Ambas' Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence)^^ onFebruary 19,2019. In its Resolution dated March 4,2019,^® the Court deniedall the Motions filed by the accused. Accused Milanes and accused Ambasmoved to have the Resolution reconsidered by the Court;^^ however, the Courtdenied the same in a Resolution dated April 11,2019?^

Subsequently, the prosecution filed a Manifestation on October 23,2019.stating that all the accused have proposed to plea bargain to the lesseroffense of Violation of Section 7(a) of RA No. 6713^^

THE PLEA BARGAINING AGREEMENT

All three accused manifested their intention to plead to the lesseroffense of Violation of Section 7(a) of RA No. 6713. The proposal to pleabargain was thus entertained at today's hearing.

Accused Milanes, accused Ambas, and accused Indiongco were fullyapprised of the consequences of a plea bargain in open court. Each of the

Records, Vol. 3, Resolution, pp. 362-365.Id. at 378-382, Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence.

® Id at 390-395, Opposition To the Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence Filed by Accused EdgarD. Indiongco." Id at 401-405, Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence.

Id at 411-416, Comment/Opposition (Re: Accused Milanes' Motion for Leave to File Demurrer toEvidence)." Id. at 417-422, Demurrer to Evidence.

Records, Vol. 3, Comment/Opposition (Re: Accused Ambas' Motion for Leave to File Demurrer toEvidence), pp. 432-438.^ Id at 441-447, Resolution.^ See Records, Vol. 5, Motion for Reconsideration, pp. 458-466; Records, Vol. 3, Comment/Opposition (Re:Accusied Milanes' Motion for Reconsideration), pp. 470-472; Records, Vol. 3, Motion for Reconsideration,pp. 476-482; Records, Vol. 3, Comment/Opposition (Re: Accused Ambas' Motion for Reconsideration), pp.485-487.

™ Records, Vol. 5, Resolution, pp. 490-496.Otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (1989).

The relevant provision states:Sec. 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and omissions of public officials andemployees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constituteprohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to beunlawful:

(a) Financial and material interest. - Public officials and employees shall not, directly or indirectly,have any financial or material interest in any transaction requiring the approval of their office.

/• t


DECISION

accused was asked, and each answered in the affirmative, that she or heunderstood the nature of the change of plea and that it was inevitably ajudgment of conviction; that if she or he pleaded guilty to the charge, she orhe is deemed to have admitted all the accusations alleged in the relevantInformation and that the consequent penalty of imprisonment not exceedingfive years, a fine not exceeding F5,000.00, or both, and disqualification tohold public office may be imposed pursuant to Section 11(a) of RA No.6713''2.

On the other hand, the prosecution was in full support of the pleabargaining even if it had long rested its case.

THE COURTIS RULING

It is in the exercise of this Court's discretion whether to allow the

accused to make such a plea.^^

Section 2, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Court allows for pleabargaining when it provides:

Sec. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense, - At arraignment, theaccused, with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, may beallowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which isnecessarily included in the offense charged. After arraignment but beforetrial, the accused may still be allowed to.plead guilty to said lesser offenseafter withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the complaint orinformation is necessary.

The Supreme Court discussed the nature and rationale of pleabargaining in Estipona, Jr. v. Lobrigo^"* and held that it is a mutual agreementof the parties approved by the court which may be entered into duringarraignment, pre-trial, or even after the prosecution has rested its case, thus:

In this jurisdiction, plea bargaining has been defined as ''a processwhereby the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactorydisposition of the case subject to court approval." There is give-and-takenegotiation common in plea bargaining. The essence of the agreement

is that both the prosecution and the defense make concessions to avoid

potential losses. Properly administered, plea bargaining is to beencouraged because the chief virtues of the system — speed, economy,

and finality — can benefit the accused, the offended party, the

The relevant provision states:Sec. 11. Penalties. - (a) Any public official or employee, regardless of whether or not he holds officeor employment in a casual, temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity, committing anyviolation of this Act shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the equivênt of six (6) months'salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offenseafter due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agenr^. If the violation is punishable by a'heavier penalty under another law, he shall be prosecution under the latter statute. Violations ofSections 7,8 or 9 of this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, ora fine not exceeding five thousand pesos ̂ 5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court ofcompetent jurisdiction, disqualiflcation to hold public office.

^ See Daan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 163972-77, March 28,2008, 550 SCRA 233.G.R. No. 226679, August 15,2017, 837 SCRA 160,189-93 (emphasis supplied).

\

f


DECISION

prosecution, and the court.

Considering the presence of mutuality of advantage, the rules onplea bargaining neither create a right nor take away a vested right. Instead,it operates as a means to implement an existing right by regulating thejudicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantivelaw and for justly administering remedy and redress for a disregard orinfraction of them.

The decision to plead guilty is often heavily influenced by thedefendant's appraisal of the prosecution's case against him and by theapparent likelihood of securing leniency should a guilty plea be offeredand accepted. In any case, whether it be to the offense charged or to a lessercrime, a guilty plea is a "serious and sobering occasion" inasmuch as itconstitutes a waiver of the fundamental rights to be presumed innocent untilthe contrary is proved, to be heard by himself and counsel, to meet thewitnesses face to face, to bail (except those charged with offensespunishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong), to beconvicted by proof beyond reasonable doubt, and not to be compelled to bea witness against himself.

Yet a defendant has no constitutional right to plea bargain. No basicrights are infnnged by trying him rather than accepting a plea of guilty; theprosecutor need not do so if he prefers to go to trial. Under the present Rules,the acceptance of an offer to plead guilty is not a demandable right butdepends on the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, which is acondition precedent to a valid plea of guilty to a lesser offense that isnecessarily included in the offense charged. The reason for this is that theprosecutor has full control of the prosecution of criminal actions; his dutyis to always prosecute the proper offense, not any lesser or graver one, basedon what the evidence on hand can sustain.

XXX XXX XXX

The plea is further addressed to the sound discretion of the trial

court, which may allow the accused to plead guilty to a lesser offense whichis necessarily included in the offense charged. The word may denotes anexercise of discretion upon the trial court on whether to allow the accusedto make such plea. Trial courts are exhorted to keep in mind that a plea ofguilty for a lighter offense than that actually charged is not supposed to beallowed as a matter of bargaining or compromise for the convenience of theaccused.

Plea bargaining is allowed during the arraignment, the pre-trial,or even up to the point when the prosecution already rested its case. As

regards plea bargaining during the pre-trial stage, the trial court's exerciseof discretion should not amount to a grave abuse thereof. "Grave abuse ofdiscretion" is a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent andgross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal toperform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in anarbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility; it arises whena court or tribunal violates the Constitution, the law or existingjurisprudence.

7


DECISION

If the accused moved to plead guilty to a lesser offensesubsequent to a bail hearing or after the prosecution rested its case, therules allow such a plea only when the prosecution does not havesufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the crime charged. The onlybasis on which the prosecutor and the court could rightfully act in allowingchange in the former plea of not guilty could be nothing more and nothingless than the evidence on record. As soon as the prosecutor has submitted acomment whether for or against said motion, it behooves the trial court toassiduously study the prosecution's evidence as well as all thecircumstances upon which the accused made his change of plea to the endthat the interests of justice and of the public will be served. The ruling onthe motion must disclose the strength or weakness of the prosecution'sevidence. Absent any finding on the weight of the evidence on hand, thejudge's acceptance of the defendant's change of plea is improper andirregular.

An examination of the evidence presented by the prosecution shows thefollowing: first, P/S Supt. Lukban, Jr., P/SINSP. Arrogante, and P/C Supt.Purisima had ho personal knowledge of the alleged unauthorized transactionsor anomalous acts of the accused although said witnesses conducted theinvestigation or ordered the same; second, while the Class Marchers {i.e., P02Caraan, P02 Marila, P02 Ladores, P02 Palioc, P02 Corpuz, P02 Fernando,and POl Guinto) implicated accused Indiongco from having benefited inoperating a laboratory diagnostics inside the PNP RHS3, the conspiracy angleimplicating accused Milanes and accused Ambas only proceed from thelatter's positions and would require stronger proof to withstand the test ofproof beyond reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the Court notes that theCertification^^ from the Regional Headquarters Support Group is strongevidence that there was indeed unwanted benefit accorded to accused

Indiongco.

At this point, the earlier denial of accused's respective motions for leaveto file demurrer to evidence may have already evinced that sufficiency ofevidence existed to sustain the charges. The pronouncement, however, onlycomes insofar as the sufficiency of evidence is gauged from the duly admittedtestimonial and documentary evidence, without having explored theirevidentiary and probative weight. It would highly benefit the prosecution,therefore, if the accused be allowed to change their plea of not guilty from theoriginal charge of Violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 to \ôlation ofSection 7(a) of RANo. 6713.

The Court thus approves the plea bargaining agreement.

A comparison of the elements of a Violation of Section 3(e) of RANo.3019 vis-a-vis a Violation of Section 7(a) of RANo. 6713 yields the followingfindings:

Exhibit H.

People V. Milanes, et al.Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0318 to 0321

DECISION

121P a g e

Section 3(e), RANo. 3019^6 Section 7(a), RA No. 6713

(1) The accused is a public officerdischarging official, administrativeor judicisd functions or privatepersons in conspiracy with them;

(1) The accused is a public official oremployee;

(2) The public officer committed theprohibited act during theperformance of his official duty orin relation to his public position;

(2) The transaction involved requiresthe approval of the public official oremployee's office; and

(3) The public officer acted withmanifest partiality, evident bad faithor gross inexcusable negligence;and

(4) His action caused injury to theGovernment or any private party, orgave unwarranted benefit,advantage or preference

(3) The public official or employee,direcfiy or indirectly, has financialor material interest in the said

transaction

The common elements are found in the public position of the accusedand the fact that the violation of the relevant law occurred in the performanceof the official duty of the accused. Both offenses require that the accused is apublic officer. Necessarily^ the approval by the office of the accused of atransaction is made in the performance of his duty and is subsumedthereunder. On the other hand, the element of manifest partiality, evident badfaith, or gross inexcusable negligence resulting in undue injury or givingunwarranted benefit may be tantamount to the element of financial or materialinterest in the transaction.

Furthermore, the prosecution and the defense have both agreed to theplea bargaining. The Court cannot thus compel the parties to proceed with thelitigation process especially if entering into the plea bargaining agreement willresult in an expeditious administration ofjustice mutually agreeable to all theparties and is supported by the evidence on record.

Given the foregoing, the plea bargaining agreement is approved.Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Court, no amendmentof the Information is necessary.

Consequently, upon re-arraignment of accused Milanes, accusedAmbas, and accused Indiongco for the lesser offense of Violation of SectionSection 7(a) of RANo. 6713, they each entered a plea of guilty.

Let a plea of guilty be thus entered into the records of the case.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused P/S

Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 195962, April 18,2018, 861 SCRA500.


DECISION

Supt. Elizabeth A. Milanes, accused P/Supt. Digna O. Ambas, and accusedEdgar D. Indiongco GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the lesser offenseof Violation of Section 7(a) of Republic Act No. 6713 and sentencing each ofthem to suffer the following penalties:

1. In Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0318, to pay a FINE of FIVETHOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00);

2. In Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0319, to pay a FINE of FIVETHOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00);

3. In Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0320, to pay a FINE of FIVETHOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00); and

4. In Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0321, to pay a FINE of FIVETHOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).

SO ORDERED.

MA. THERESA DOLORES C. GOMEZ-ESTOESTA

Associate Justice

Chairperson

WE CONCUR;

Associ

SPESES GEORGINA ). HIDALGO

Justice Associat ? 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 theCourt's Division.

MA. THERESA DOI^RES C. GOMEZ-ESTOESTAChairperson, Seventh Division

People V. Milanes, et al.Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-03I8 to 0321

DECISION

141P a g e

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution and the DivisionChairman's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the aboveDecision were reached in consultation before the caseâs assigned to thewriter of the opinion of the Court's Division.

FARO

1y

f

Documents

REPUBLIC OF THE FHILIFFINES Sandiganbayansb.judiciary.gov.ph/DECISIONS/2019/K_Crim_SB-16-CRM-0318-0321_People vs... · Diagnostic Laboratory, did then and there willfully, unlawfully