REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES~anoiBanhalJ an

QUEZON CITY

SPECIAL FOURTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

SB-14-CRM-031S

- versus -FOR: Violation of Section 3 (e),Republic Act No. 3019, as amended

FRANCIS L. NEPOMUCENO (SG 30)ABELARDO C. PAMINTUAN, JR.

Accused.x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xPEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,SB-14-CRM-0316

- versus -FOR: Violation of Section 3 (g),Republic Act No. 3019, as amended

FRANCIS L. NEPOMUCENO (SG 30)ABELARDO C. PAMINTUAN, JR.

Accused.PRESENT:QUIROZ, J., ChairpersonCRUZ, J.ECONG, J.*MUSNGI, J.**CALDONA, J.***

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xRESOLUTION

QUIROZ, J.:

For resolution are the respective motions for reconsideration of accusedFrancis L. Nepomuceno ' and Abelardo C. Pamintuan", Jr., assailing theDecision" of the Court finding the accused guilty of violation of Section 3 (e) andSection 3 (g) of Republic Act No. 3019.

Accused Nepomuceno imputes error on the Court's finding that thedonation to Kapanalig, Inc. was attended with manifest partiality and evident badfaith. He points out that the grant was in accord with his mandate to extendassistance, financial or otherwise, to non-governmental organizations, asembraced under Sections 34, 35, and 36 of the Local Government Code. It is inthe same vein that accused Pamintuan asserts that the donation could not becharacterized as unwarranted.

1 Records, Volume 2, pp. 108 - 158; pp. 167 - 178.2 Records, Volume 2, pp. 102 - 107.3 Records, Volume 2, pp. 43 - 94.* Sitting as Special Member per Administrative Order No. 024-2017 dated February 1, 2017.•• Sitting as Special Member per Administrative Order No. 18-C-2017 dated December 4, 2017.*.* Sitting as Special Member per Administrative Order No. 18-C-2017 dated December 4,2017. -:iJ

\

RESOLUTIONPeople v. Nepomuceno, et.al.SB-14-CRM-0315 and 0316Page 2 of 3

The prosecution filed its joint opposition to the motions on June 2, 2017.4On June 27,2017, accused Nepomuceno filed his reply thereto.5

The incidents were submitted for resolution on June 28, 2017.

We resolve.

A motion for reconsideration does not only provide an opportunity for themovant to raise findings and conclusions in the Court's disposition which are notsupported by the law or evidence." but also an occasion for the Court to correctany actual or perceived error attributed to it through a re-examination of the legaland factual circumstances of the case.' With this in view, the Undersignedhereby revisits his concurrence to the conviction of accused Nepomuceno andPamintuan.

A perusal of the Information in S8-14-CRM-0315 shows that the chargeagainst accused Nepomuceno was solely based on the alleged ineligibility ofdonee Kapanalig, Inc. To counter accused's invocation of his power underSection 455 (b)( 1)(vi) of the Local Government Code, the ponencia citedCommission on Audit (COA) Circular No. 92-386 to underscore that a donation oflocal government property is permissible only if the donee is a charitable,scientific, educational, or cultural organization. The Court's assailed judgment,however, failed to take into consideration Section 36 of the Local GovernmentCode explicitly stating that the local chief executive is merely required to securethe concurrence of the sanggynian concerned in providing assistance to non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This, the accused complied with. On May21, 2010, the Sangguniang Panlungsod issued Resolution No. 5925, Series of2010 authorizing accused Nepomuceno to execute a Deed of Donation in favorof Kapanalig, Inc.; thus, aptly entitled as a "Resolution Authorizing the City MayorFrancis L. Nepomuceno to Execute a Deed of Donation of Vehicles Owned bythe City Government of Angeles to the Different Non-Government and CivilSociety Organizations in Angeles City. ,,8

It having been shown that under Section 36 of the Local GovernmentCode (1) Kapanalig, Inc. is eligible to' receive the donation and that (2) thedonation was with the concurrence of the sanggunian concerned, and it havingbeen further shown that the sanggunian subsequently ratified the donationthrough Resolution No. 5937, Series of 2010,9 bad faith cannot simply beattributed to the accused, whether for violation of Section 3(e) or of Section 3(g)of the anti-graft law, because as stated in the ponencia, "bad faith" does notsimply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose orsome moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of a sworn dutythrough some motive or intent or ill will it partakes the nature of fraud.

After due consideration, based on the documentary and testimonialevidence vis-a-vis Section 36 of the Local Government Code, moral certainty,or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind, islacking. In view of which, the ruling of the Court in these cases must be reversed.

4 Records, Volume 2, pp. 192 - 210.5 Records, Volume 2, pp. 216 - 225.6 Siy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-39778, September 13,1985,138 SCRA 536.

Saint Louis University, et.al. v. Baby Nellie M. Olairez, et.al., G.R. No. 162299, March 26, 2014.8 Exhibit "4"; Records, Volume 1, pp. 261 - 262.9 Exhibit "23"; Records, Volume 1, pp. 263 - 264.

RESOLUTIONPeople v. Nepomuceno, et.a!.SB-14-CRM-0315 and 0316Page 3 of 3

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration (ofthe Decision Promulgated on March 27, 2017) filed by accused Francis L.Nepomuceno and the Motion for Reconsideration (on the DecisionPromulgated on 27 March 2017) filed by accused Abelardo C. Pamintuan areGRANTED.

The Decision promulgated on March 27, 2017 is hereby REVERSED andSET ASIDE and a new judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0315, accused FRANCIS L.NEPOMUCENO and accused ABELARDO C. PAMINTUAN, JR., arefound NOT GUILTY of violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No.3019.

2. In Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0316, accused FRANCIS L.NEPOMUCENO and accused ABELARDO C. PAMINTUAN, JR., arefound NOT GUILTY of violation of Section 3 (g) of Republic Act No.3019.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Philippines, January 19, 2018.

CONCUR:

~~ ~ .4AltiflJ'JGERALDINE FAITH A. EeONG

Associate JusticeMICHAEL'AA€M~''ttt(

Associate Ju

~~..4izs ~U.l. CtUk,,--_L-L.l"",,,RDOM. CALDO~A

ssociate Justice

DISSENT:

")/,/

RE ALD~CRUZAssociate Justice

/

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSANDIGANBAYAN

Quezon City

SPECIAL FOURTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

CRIM. CASE No. S8-14-CRM-0315and S8-14-CRM-0316

For Violation of Sections 3(e) and 3(g) ofR A No. 3019, as amended.

-versus-

FRANCIS L. NEPOMUCENO, ET AL.,Accused.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DISSENTING OPINION

CRUZ, J.:

I respectfully maintain my vote for the denial of the respectiveMotions for Reconsideration 1 filed by accused Francis L.Nepomuceno ("Nepomuceno" for brevity) and Abelardo C.Pamintuan, Jr., ("Pamintuan" for brevity), assailing the Decisfon 'dated 27 March 2017.

An exhaustive evaluation of these motions has provided nocompelling reason to reconsider, much less reverse, the ruling in theassailed Decision. In their respective motions, both accusedNepomuceno and Pamintuan claim that an error was committedwhen the donation of the Mitsubishi Adventure with red plate no. SHL124 in favor of Kapanalig, Inc., was declared unwarranted.Essentially, accused Nepomuceno argues that the said donationwas valid as it was within his mandate to provide assistance,"financial or otherwise" to non-governmental organizations like

1 Records, Vol. II, pp. 102-107, 108-1582 Records, Vol, II, pp. 43-67

RESOLUTIONPP VS. Francis L. Nepomuceno, et aI.,Case Nos. S8-14-CRM-0315 to 0316

Page 2 of 3

x------------------------------------------------------------x

Kapanalig, Inc. Accused Nepomuceno further states that the Deedof Donation for the said motor vehicle was approved and authorizedvia a resolution issued by the Sangguniang Pang/ungsod. In asimilar way, accused Pamintuan points out that the benefit,advantage and preference received by Kapanalig, Inc. was notunwarranted as it was granted by virtue of a Deed of Donation fromthe Angeles City Government, and ratified by the resolution of theSangguniang Pang/ungsod. Accused Pamintuan also implies thatKapanalig, Inc., as one of the accredited non-governmentalorganizations from Angeles City, may enlist the assistance and helpof the said city government to support and assist its members andconstituents.

At the outset, it must be emphasized that the contentions raisedin the herein motions were mere repetitions of the defensesproffered by both accused Nepomuceno and Pamintuan in theirprevious pleadings. Stated differently, neither of the herein accusedprovided a persuasive justification to permit a reconsideration of theassailed Decision. Verily, it should be stressed that the donation inthis case was invalid because only property of the city governmentwhich has become unserviceable or was no longer needed may bedisposed." Therefore, the donation of a serviceable or functioningmotor vehicle of the city government is not allowed."

And, even if the said motor vehicle is no longer needed by thecity government, the donation is still improper for non-observance ofthe disposal procedures provided under Section 167, Rule 22 ofCOA Circular 92-386.5 Although, the same COA Circular has aprovision on donation with the approval of the Sanggunian, it onlyallows donations of disposable government property." By definition,disposable government property refers to property reported fordisposition by a department or head." Here, the donated motorvehicle was never reported for disposition prior to the donation; thus,the donation is clearly irreqular."

It is in the context of these established irregularities that theactions of accused Nepomuceno and Pamintuan were evaluated. Inthis case, the hasty manner in which the donation was made,coupled with the fact that the procedures for disposal of citygovernment property were by-passed, shows the predisposition of

3 Records, Vol. II, p. 5741d.Sid.6 Records, Vol. II. pp. 57-5871d.BId.

RESOLUTIONPP VS. Francis L. Nepomuceno, et aI.,Case Nos. S8-14-CRM-0315 to 0316

Page 3 of 3

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

accused Nepomuceno to accommodate the request of his co-accused Pamintuan as the President and representative ofKapanalig, lnc." In the same vein, Kapanalig, Inc., represented byaccused Pamintuan, is not entitled to receive the donation since theproperty donated is still in use, and thus, such donation is notallowed."

Considering all the matters raised herein, there is no reason todisturb the findings in the assailed decision in the absence of anynew and substantial issue that would allow a reversal thereof."

R AL P. CRUZAssociate Justice

9 Records, Vol. II, pp. 59-6210 Records, Vol. II, p. 6311 In the case of Madeleine Mendoza-Ong vs. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines (440 SCRA423, p. 425), it was held that it would be a useless ritual for the Court to reiterate itself when there are nonew and substantial arguments raised that would warrant a reconsideration of the Court's resolution.