THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 177105-06. August 4, 2010.]

JOSE REYES y VACIO,
PHILIPPINES, respondent.

petitioner,

vs.

PEOPLE

OF

THE

DECISION
BERSAMIN, J :
p

The petitioner appeals by petition for review on certiorari the decision dated January
15, 2007 rendered by the Sandiganbayan, nding him guilty in Criminal Case No.
24655 of a violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, 1 and in Criminal
Case No. 24656 of usurpation of judicial functions as dened and penalized under
Article 241, Revised Penal Code. 2
Antecedents
Belen Lopez Vda. de Guia (Belen) was the registered absolute owner of two parcels
of agricultural land with an area of 197,594 square meters located in Santa
Barbara, Baliwag, Bulacan and covered by Transfer Certicate of Title (TCT) No.
209298 of the Register of Deeds of Bulacan. On March 19, 1975, Belen's son, Carlos
de Guia (Carlos), forged a deed of sale, in which he made it appear that his mother
had sold the land to him. Consequently, the Register of Deeds of Bulacan cancelled
TCT No. 209298 by virtue of the forged deed of sale and issued TCT No. 210108 in
Carlos' name.
On March 20, 1975, Carlos sold the land to Ricardo San Juan (Ricardo). On the same
date, Ricardo registered the deed of sale in the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan, which
cancelled TCT No. 210108 and issued TCT No. 210338 in Ricardo's name.
Subsequently, Ricardo mortgaged the land to Simeon Yangco (Simeon).
Upon learning of the transfers of her land, Belen led on December 20, 1975 an
adverse claim in the Register of Deeds of Bulacan. Her adverse claim was annotated
on TCT No. 210338. She also led in the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of
Baliwag, Bulacan a civil action for cancellation of sale, reconveyance, and damages
against Carlos, Ricardo and Simeon, docketed as Civil Case No. 655-B.
On January 20, 1981, the CFI decided Civil Case No. 655-B, dismissing Belen's
complaint and arming the validity of the deeds of sale between Belen and Carlos
and between Carlos and Ricardo. Belen led a motion for reconsideration but her
motion was denied.
TaCDAH

Belen appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), docketed as AC-G.R. CV

No. 5524-UDK.

On April 19, 1983, the IAC dismissed Belen's appeal due to non-payment of docket
fees. The dismissal became nal on May 17, 1983, and entry of judgment was
issued on June 21, 1983. The records were remanded to the CFI on July 6, 1983. 3
Thereafter, the tenants of the land, namely, Paulino Sacdalan, Leonardo Sacdalan,
Santiago Sacdalan, Numeriano Bautista and Romeo Garcia (tenants), invoked their
right to redeem pursuant to Section 12 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended. 4
Acting thereon, Ricardo executed a deed of reconveyance in favor of the tenants on
October 24, 1983. 5
Upon registration of the deed of reconveyance, TCT No. 210338 was cancelled, and
TCT No. 301375 was issued in the names of the tenants. The land was subdivided
into several lots, and individual TCTs were issued in the names of the tenants.
In the meanwhile, Belen discovered for the rst time through a letter-inquiry to the
IAC Clerk of Court that her appeal in AC-G.R. CIV No. 5524-UDK had been dismissed
for non-payment of docket fees. She thus led in the IAC a motion to reinstate her
appeal. The IAC granted her motion. 6 The reinstated appeal was re-docketed as ACG.R. CV No. 02883.
On February 20, 1986, the IAC promulgated its decision in AC-G.R. CV No. 02883,
granting Belen's appeal, 7 thus:
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE and another one entered:
(1)
declaring as null and void and without any eect whatsoever the deed
of sale executed by and between appellant Belen Lopez vda. De Guia and
defendant Carlos de Guia, Exhibit "A;"
(2)
declaring defendant-appellant Ricardo San Juan as a purchaser in bad
faith and ordering him to reconvey to appellant the two (2) parcels of land
described in the complaint;
(3)
ordering the Register of Deeds of Bulacan to cancel and/or annul TCT
No. 210338 in the name of defendant-appellee Ricardo San Juan as well as
TCT No. 210108 in the name of defendant-appellee Carlos de Guia for being
null and void and to reinstate TCT No. 209298 in the name of appellant as
the true and valid title over the lands described therein; and
(4)

ordering the defendants-appellees to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

IDEScC

The IAC decision became nal on March 15, 1986, and entry of judgment was made
on November 7, 1986. 8 The records were remanded to the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Baliwag, Bulacan (RTC).
On December 18, 1986, Belen led in the RTC a motion for execution vis- -vis
the decision in AC-G.R. CV No. 02883. The RTC granted her motion. However, when
the writ of execution was about to be executed, Belen learned that Ricardo had sold

the land to the tenants through a deed of reconveyance. Thus, Belen led in the
RTC a motion to declare Ricardo and the tenants in contempt of court for
circumventing the final and executory judgment in AC-G.R. CV No. 02883.
On October 12, 1987, the RTC held Ricardo and the tenants in contempt of court
and ordered each of them to pay a ne of P200.00. It directed Ricardo and the
tenants to reconvey the land to Belen and to deliver to her the share in the harvest.
Ricardo and the tenants appealed the RTC order to the Court of Appeals (CA),
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 14783 entitled Mariano Bautista, et al. vs. Hon. Felipe N.
Villajuan, Jr. as Judge RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch XIV and Belen Lopez Vda. De
Guia.
STIHaE

On November 8, 1988, Belen, through her daughter and attorney-in-fact, Melba G.

Valenzuela (Melba), led in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) a complaint for ejectment and collection of rents against the tenants,
entitled Belen Lopez Vda. De Guia thru her Attorney-in-Fact, Melba G. Valenzuela vs.
Paulino Sacdalan, Romeo Garcia, Numeriano Bautista, Leonardo Sacdalan and
Santiago Sacdalan and docketed as DARAB Case No. 034-BUL'88. 9
On July 6, 1989, the CA rendered its decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 14783, 10 arming
the RTC order dated October 12, 1987 with modication. It ruled that the RTC
correctly ordered Ricardo and the tenants to reconvey the land to Belen, but held
that the RTC erred in nding Ricardo and the tenants in contempt of court. This
decision became final and executory on July 31, 1989.
On March 16, 1993, the petitioner, as Provincial Adjudicator, rendered a decision in
DARAB Case No. 034-BUL'88 entitled Belen Lopez vda. De Guia thru her Attorneyin-Fact, Melba G. Valenzuela v. Paulino Sacdalan, Romeo Garcia, Numeriano
Bautista, Leonardo Sacdalan and Santiago Sacdalan, 11 dismissing Belen's complaint
for ejectment and collection of rents and arming the respective TCTs of the
tenants, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Board nds the instant case
wanting of merit, the same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the Transfer
Certicate of titles Nos. T-307845, T-307846, T-307856, T-307857, T307869, T-307870, T-307871, T-307873 and T-307874 issued in the name
of Numeriano Bautista, Romeo Garcia, Leonardo Sacdalan, Paulino Sacdalan
and Santiago Sacdalan respectively are hereby AFFIRMED. The plainti and
all other persons acting in their behalf are hereby ordered to permanently
cease and desist from committing any acts tending to oust or eject the
defendants or their heirs or assigns from the landholding in question.
SO ORDERED.

12

Belen filed a notice of appeal in the DARAB on March 26, 1993.

On March 31, 1993, the petitioner granted the tenants' motion for execution in
DARAB Case No. 034-BUL'88. 13

Aggrieved, Belen, through Melba, led an urgent motion to set aside the writ of
execution in DARAB Case No. 034-BUL'88, 14 but her motion was denied.
On October 24, 1994, the DARAB Central Office affirmed the petitioner's ruling. 15
After her motion for reconsideration was denied, Belen lodged an appeal to the CA
(CA-G.R. SP No. 39315).
In due course, the CA reversed and set aside the decision of the DARAB Central
O ce, 16 and ordered the tenants: (a) to vacate the land; (b) to deliver its
possession to Belen; and (c) to pay to Belen the rents on the land corresponding to
the period from 1981 until they would have vacated.
The tenants filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CA denied their motion.

TAEDcS

Thus, the tenants appealed to this Court (G.R. No. 128967), which affirmed the CA's
decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 39315. 17
On May 13, 1998, the Oce of the Ombudsman led two informations in the
Sandiganbayan, one charging the petitioner with a violation of Section 3 (e) of RA
3019, and the other with usurpation of judicial functions under Article 241 of the
Revised Penal Code, 18 as follows:
Criminal Case No. 24655
(for violation of section 3 (e) of RA 3019)
That on or about 16 March 1993, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto,
in Malolos, Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused Jose V. Reyes, a public ocer being then
employed as Provincial Adjudicator of the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Malolos, Bulacan, while in the performance of
his ocial function as such and acting with evident bad faith and manifest
partiality, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally render his
decision in DARAB Case No. 034-Bul-88 favorable to the tenants who were
respondents in said agrarian case, thereby ignoring and disregarding the
nal and executory decision of the Court of Appeals in AC-GR CV-02883
which declared complainant Belen de Guia as the true owner of the lands
subject of the litigation in both cases, thus causing undue injury and damage
to the said Belen de Guia and to the public interest. 19
Criminal Case No. 24656
(for usurpation of judicial functions under
Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code)
That on or about 16 March 1993, or immediately prior or subsequent
thereto, in Malolos, Bulacan, Philippines, above-named accused Jose V.
Reyes, a public ocer being then employed as Provincial Adjudicator of the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Malolos,
Bulacan, while in the performance of his ocial function as such and taking
advantage thereof, with full knowledge of a Decision in AC-GR CV-02883 of
the Court of Appeals, which declared Belen de Guia as the true owner of the

lands litigated in said case, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously disregard, obstruct and ignore the said nal and executory
decision of the Court of Appeals, by rendering a decision in DARAB Case No.
034-Bul-88 thereby favoring and emboldening the tenants-respondents in
said DARAB case to unlawfully continue occupying the lands of Belen de
Guia, the complainant, to her damage and prejudice, as well as to the public
interest. 20

Arraigned on August 8, 2000, the petitioner, assisted by counsel de parte, pleaded

not guilty to each information. 21
After trial, on January 15, 2007, the Sandiganbayan rendered its assailed decision,
22 nding the petitioner guilty of both charges; and sentencing him to suer: (a) in
Criminal Case No. 24655 (for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019), an
indeterminate sentence of imprisonment from six years and one month, as
minimum, to 10 years as maximum, with perpetual disqualication from holding
public office; and (b) in Criminal Case No. 24656 (for usurpation of judicial functions
under Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code ), imprisonment of four months of
arresto mayor.
HSaIDc

The Sandiganbayan denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration on March 15,
2007. 23
Hence, this appeal by petition for review on certiorari.
Issues
The issues raised herein are:

a)

Whether the petitioner was guilty of violating Section 3 (e) of RA

3019 in rendering his decision in DARAB CASE NO. 034 BUL'88;
and

b)

Whether the petitioner was guilty of usurpation of judicial

functions under Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code. 24

Anent the rst issue, the petitioner maintains that there was no evident bad faith,
manifest partiality, and gross inexcusable negligence on his part when he decided
DARAB Case No. 034-BUL'88; that his decision therein had been solely based on
what he had perceived to be in keeping with the letter and spirit of the pertinent
laws; and that his decision had been rendered upon a thorough appreciation of the
facts and the law. 25
As to the second issue, the petitioner insists that his rendition of the decision did not
amount to the felony of usurpation of judicial functions.
Ruling
The petitioner was correctly held guilty of and liable for violating Section 3 (e) of RA
3019 in rendering his decision in DARAB Case No. 034 BUL'88, but his conviction for

usurpation of judicial functions under Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code is
reversed and set aside.
A.
Elements of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019,
established herein
RA 3019 was enacted to repress certain acts of public ocers and private persons
alike that constitute graft or corrupt practices or may lead thereto. 26 The law
enumerates the punishable acts or omissions and provides their corresponding
penalties.
Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, under which petitioner was charged and found guilty,
relevantly provides:
Section. 3.
Corrupt practices of public ocers. In addition to acts or
omissions of public ocers already penalized by existing law, the following
shall constitute corrupt practices of any public ocer 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 unwarranted benets, advantage or preference in
the discharge of his ocial, administrative or judicial functions through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This
provision shall apply to ocers and employees of oces or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions.
CScTED

xxx xxx xxx

The essential elements of the offense under Section 3 (e) are the following:
1.

The accused must be a public ocer discharging administrative,

judicial, or official functions;

2.

He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or

gross inexcusable negligence; and

3.

His action caused any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or gave any private party unwarranted benets,
advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions. 27

The rst element was established. The petitioner was a public ocer when he
rendered his decision in DARAB Case No. 034 BUL'88, being then a Provincial
Adjudicator of the DARAB discharging the duty of adjudicating the conicting claims
of parties.
The second element includes the dierent and distinct modes by which the oense

is committed, that is, through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross
inexcusable negligence. Proof of the existence of any of the modes suces to
warrant conviction under Section 3 (e). 28
Manifest partiality exists when the accused has a clear, notorious, or plain
inclination or predilection to favor one side or one person rather than another. 29 It
is synonymous with bias, which excites a disposition to see and report matters as
they are wished for rather than as they are. 30
Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to
do wrong or to cause damage. 31 It contemplates a breach of sworn duty through
some perverse motive or ill will. 32
Gross inexcusable negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want of even
the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act,
not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with conscious indierence to
consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. 33
The decision rendered on February 20, 1986 in AC-G.R. CV No. 02883 nullifying
the forged deed of sale between Belen and Carlos; declaring Ricardo a purchaser in
bad faith; ordering Ricardo to reconvey the land to Belen; directing the Register of
Deeds of Bulacan to cancel the respective TCTs of Ricardo and Carlos; and
reinstating Belen's TCT became nal on March 15, 1986. After the entry of
judgment was made on November 7, 1986, the records were remanded to the RTC
in Baliwag, Bulacan, which eventually granted Belen's motion for execution.
Due to its nality, the decision in AC-G.R. CV No. 02883 became immutable, and
could no longer be modied in any respect, whether the modication was to correct
erroneous conclusions of fact or law, whether made by the court that rendered it or
by the highest court of the land. 34 The reason for such immutability is that a
litigation must end sometime, and an eective and ecient administration of
justice requires that the winning party be not deprived of the fruits of the verdict
once a judgment becomes final. 35
aDATHC

The petitioner was fully aware of the nality of the decision in AC-G.R. CV No.
02883 prior to his promulgation of the decision in DARAB Case No. 034 BUL'88.
Indeed, he actually admitted having read and examined the following documents
(adduced by the Prosecution) prior to his rendition of the decision, 36 namely:
(1)

(2)
(3)

Belen's position paper dated August 7, 1992 submitted to him in

DARAB Case No. 034 BUL'88, in which Belen stated that the
decision in AC-G.R. CV No. 02883 had become nal and
executory; 37
The entry of judgment issued in AC-G.R. CV No. 02883;

38

Belen's TCT No. 209298, reecting the entry of judgment issued

in AC-G.R. CV No. 02883 and the cancellation of the TCTs of the
tenants-lessees by virtue of the decision in AC-G.R. CV No.

02883;
(4)

39

and

Addendum to Belen's position paper, mentioning the decree in

the decision in AC-G.R. CV No. 02883. 40

Yet, the petitioner still rendered his decision in DARAB Case No. 034 BUL'88 that
completely contradicted and disregarded the decision in AC-G.R. CV No. 02883 by
invalidating Belen's title on the land and upholding the TCTs of the tenants. He
thereby exhibited manifest partiality, for such decision of his was a total and willful
disregard of the nal decision in AC-G.R. CV No. 02883. His granting the tenants'
motion for execution made his partiality towards the tenants and bias against Belen
that much more apparent.
Similarly, the petitioner's evident bad faith displayed itself by his arrogant refusal to
recognize and obey the decision in AC-G.R. CV No. 02883, despite his unqualied
obligation as Provincial Adjudicator to abide by the CA's ruling that was binding on
him as Provincial Adjudicator and on all the parties in DARAB Case No. 034-BUL'88.
Worthy of note is that the CA, in CA-G.R. SP No. 39315, and this Court, in G.R. No.
128967, had characterized the petitioner's aforementioned conduct as "an utter
disrespect to the judiciary," as vested with a "dishonest purpose," and as
constituting "a contumacious attitude which should not be tolerated." 41 These
acute characterizations fortify the holding that he harbored a deliberate intent to do
wrong to Belen.
Correctly did the Sandiganbayan nd that the petitioner had displayed manifest
partiality and evident bad faith in rendering his decision in DARAB Case No. 034BUL'88.
The third element of the offense when the act of the accused caused undue injury
to any party, including the Government, or, gave any private party unwarranted
benet, advantage or preference in the discharge of the functions of the accused
was also established. In this regard, proof of the extent or quantum of damage was
not essential, it being sucient that the injury suered or the benet received could
be perceived to be substantial enough and was not merely negligible. 42
acIHDA

Belen was constrained to engage the services of a lawyer and to incur other
expenses in order to protect and prosecute her interest in DARAB Case No. 034
BUL'88. In all, her expenses were in the substantial sum of P990,000.00. 43
Moreover, the petitioner's stubborn refusal to recognize and obey the decision in ACG.R. CV No. 02883 forced a further but needless prejudicial delay in the prompt
termination of the cases. The delay proved very costly to Belen, for, in that length of
time (that is, from March 16, 1993 up to the present), Belen has been unduly
deprived of her exclusive ownership and undisturbed possession of the land, and the
fruits thereof. The injury and prejudice surely equated to undue injury for Belen.
Likewise, the petitioner's ruling in DARAB Case No. 034 BUL'88 gave unwarranted
benet, advantage, or preference to the tenants by allowing them to remain in
possession of the land and to enjoy the fruits.

Given the foregoing considerations, the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted the

petitioner in Criminal Case No. 24655 for violating Section 3 (e) of RA 3019.
B.
Usurpation of judicial functions
Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code states:
. . . The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional
in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any ocer of the executive
branch of the government who shall assume judicial powers or shall
obstruct the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge
within his jurisdiction.

In usurpation of judicial function, the accused, who is not a judge, attempts to

perform an act the authority for which the law has vested only in a judge. 44
However, the petitioner's task as Provincial Adjudicator when he rendered judgment
in DARAB Case No. 034 BUL'88 was to adjudicate the claims of the opposing parties.
As such, he performed a quasi-judicial function, closely akin to the function of a
judge of a court of law. He could not be held liable under Article 241 of the Revised
Penal Code, therefore, considering that the acts constitutive of usurpation of judicial
function were lacking herein.
C.
Penalties
The Sandiganbayan appreciated the mitigating circumstance of old age in favor of
the petitioner by virtue of his being already over 70 years old.
The Sandiganbayan thereby erred. The mitigating circumstance of old age under
Article 13 (2) of the Revised Penal Code applied only when the oender was over 70
years at the time of the commission of the oense. 45 The petitioner, being only 63
years old when he committed the oenses charged, 46 was not entitled to such
mitigating circumstance.
TCHEDA

Under Section 9 of RA 3019, the penalty for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 is
imprisonment for not less than six years and one month nor more than 15 years,
and perpetual disqualication from public oce. Pursuant to Section 1 of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, if the offense is punished by a special law, the accused
is punished with an indeterminate sentence the maximum of which does not
exceed the maximum xed by the law violated, and the minimum is not less than
the minimum term prescribed by the law violated.
Accordingly, in Criminal Case No. 24655, the Sandiganbayan correctly imposed on
the petitioner the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from six years
and one month, as minimum, to 10 years as maximum. The penalty of perpetual
disqualification from public office was also correctly imposed.
WHEREFORE, the Court arms the conviction of the petitioner in Criminal Case

No. 24655 (for violation of section 3 (e) of RA 3019), but reverses and sets aside his
conviction in Criminal Case No. 24656 (for usurpation of judicial functions as
defined and penalized under Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code).
No pronouncement on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio Morales, Brion, Abad * and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1.

The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

2.

Penned by Associate Justice Godofredo L. Legaspi (retired), with Associate Justice

Efren N. Dela Cruz and Associate Justice Norberto Y. Geraldez (later Presiding
Justice of the Sandiganbayan, now deceased) concurring; rollo, pp. 64-98.

3.

Rollo, pp. 66-67.

4.

RA 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code):

Section 12. Lessees Right of Redemption. In case the landholding is sold to a third
person without the knowledge of agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right
to redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration: Provided, That where
there are two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of
redemption only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of
redemption under this Section may be exercised within one hundred eighty days
from notice in writing which shall be served by the vendee on all lessees aected
and the Department of Agrarian Reform upon the registration of the sale, and shall
have priority over any other right of legal redemption. The redemption price shall
be the reasonable price of the land at the time of the sale. Upon ling of the
corresponding petition or request with the department or corresponding case in
court by the agricultural lessee or lessees, the said period of one hundred and
eighty days shall cease to run. Any petition or request for redemption shall be
resolved within sixty days from the ling thereof; otherwise, the said period shall
start to run again.
5.

Sandiganbayan records, Volume 2, p. 181.

6.

Folder of Exhibits for the Prosecution, Exhibit Q, p. 3.

7.

Penned by Associate Justice Ramon G. Gaviola, Jr. (retired), with Associate Justice
Eduardo P. Caguioa (retired), Associate Justice Ma. Rosario Quetulio-Losa (retired),
and Associate Justice Leonor Ines Luciano (retired), concurring; Folder of Exhibits
for the Prosecution, Exhibit B.

8.

Folder of Exhibits for the Prosecution, Exhibit E-1.

9.

Folder of Exhibits for the Prosecution, Exhibit D.

10.

Folder of Exhibits of the Prosecution, Exhibit A; penned by Associate Justice

Seran E. Camilon (retired), with Associate Justice Segundo G. Chua (retired) and
Associate Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr. (later a Member of this Court, since retired),
concurring.
11.

Folder of Exhibits for the Prosecution, Exhibit G.

12.

Id.

13.

Folder of Exhibits for the Prosecution, Exhibit K.

14.

Folder of Exhibits for the Prosecution, Exhibit L.

15.

Sandiganbayan records, Volume 2, p. 185.

16.

Penned by Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez (later a Member of this

Court, since retired), with Associate Justice Arturo D. Buena (later a Member of
this Court, since retired) and Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez (later a
Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals, since retired), concurring; Folder of
Exhibits for the Prosecution, Exhibit C.

17.

Folder of Exhibits for the Prosecution, Exhibit Q.

18.

Sandiganbayan records, Volume 2, pp. 1-4.

19.

Sandiganbayan records, Volume 2, p. 3.

20.

Sandiganbayan records, Volume 2, p. 1.

21.

Sandiganbayan records, C-Volume 2, pp. 69-70.

22.

Rollo, pp. 64-98.

23.

Id., p. 119.

24.

Id., pp. 39-40.

25.

Id., pp. 41-43.

26.

Section 1, RA 3019.

27.

Albert v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 164015, 26 February 2009, 580 SCRA 279,
289-290; Velasco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 160991, 28 February 2005, 452
SCRA 593, 601.

28.

Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 50691, 5 December 1994, 238 SCRA 655,
688.

29.

Albert v. Sandiganbayan, supra, note 27.

30.

Supra, note 28, p. 687.

31.

Reyes v. Atienza, G.R. No. 152243, 23 September 2005, 470 SCRA 670, 683.

32.

33.

Villanueva v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105607, 21 June 1993, 223 SCRA 543,
550, citing Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 69983, 14 May 1990, 185 SCRA
346, 349-350.
Supra, note 28.

34.

Philippine Veterans Bank v. Estrella, G.R. No. 138993, 27 June 2003, 405 SCRA
168, 172.

35.

Salva v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132250, 11 March 1999, 304 SCRA 632, 645.

36.

TSN, 17 August 2006, pp. 18 and 27-34.

37.

Folder of Exhibits for the Prosecution, Exhibit E.

38.

Supra, note 89.

39.

Folder of Exhibits for the Prosecution, Exhibit E-2.

40.

Folder of Exhibits for the Prosecution, Exhibit F.

41.

Supra, note 16 and 17.

42.

Supra, note 28.

43.

Folder of Exhibits for the Prosecution, Exhibit O.

44.

Mioso v. Pamulag, A.M. No. P-05-2067, 31 August 2005, 468 SCRA 407, 415;
Pace v. Leonardo, A.M. No. P-03-1675, 6 August 2003, 408 SCRA 359, 362.

45.

People v. Nacional, G.R. Nos. 111294-95, 7 September 1995, 248 SCRA 122, 131.

46.

Sandiganbayan records, C-Volume 2, pp. 277-282.

Additional member per Special Order No. 843 dated May 17, 2010.