Linda Cadiao-Palacios vs.

People of the Philippines

FACTS:
 The case involves a violation of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act allegedly committed by
Petitioner Linda Palacios and Vic Ventura.
 Petitioner was the Mayor of the municipality of Culasi, while Venturanza was the Municipal Security Officer.
 Private Complainant is Grace Superficial, who was charged with the collection of the unpaid billings of the
municipality on behalf of L.S. Gamonitin.
 During the tenure of Petitioner’s predecessor, several infrastructure projects were initiated.
 At the time of Petitioner’s administration, these projects remained partially unpaid.
 Said projects were contracted by L.S. Gamotin.
 The municipality still owed L.S. Gamotin the amount of Php 791, 047.00.
 An Information was later filed against Petitioner and Venturanza for violation of Sec. 3(b) of RA 3019.
 During trial, the Prosecution presented Superficial as its sole witness.
 Superficial testified that Petitioner demanded money from her under threatening not to release the final
payment to L.S. Gamonitin if she did not comply. She initially gave Petitioner Php 15,000.00, but Petitioner
later demanded the full payment of her total “kickback” which should be 10% of the project cost. Venturanza
later picked up the check bearing the amount of Php 162,400.00 promised to the Petitioner. As per Petitioner’s
instructions, the check was made payable to Venturanza.
 Petitioner denied these allegations, insisting that she had only dealt with the owner of L.S. Gamonitin in relation
to the projects and it was thus improbable for her to demand money from Superficial. Petitioner further claimed
that the filing of the case against her was politically motivated.
 Venturanza, for his part, admitted to receiving the check from Superficial. However, he claimed that it was not
“grease money.” Rather, he contends that he received the money in the form of a loan to finance his trip to
Australia.
 The Sandiganbayan rendered a decision convicting both Petitioner and Venturanza of the crime charged,
giving credence to the testimony of Superficial.
 Petitioner and Venturanza filed separate appeals before the Supreme Court. The case concerning Venturanza
has already been denied. The present case concerns Petitioner.

ISSUE: Whether Petitioner is guilty of violating Sec. 3(b) of RA 3019. – YES.

HELD:
Sec. 3(b) of RA 3019 penalizes 3 distinct acts: (a) demanding or requesting; (b) receiving; or (c) demanding, requesting,
and receiving – any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit for oneself or for any other person, in connection with
any contract or transaction between the Government and any other party, wherein a public officer in an official capacity
had to intervene under law.

To be convicted of violation of the abovementioned Section, the Prosecution has the burden of proving the following
elements:
1. The offender is a public officer;
2. The offender received or requested a gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit;
3. on behalf of the offender or any other person;
4. in connection with a contract or transaction with the Government;
5. in which the public officer, in an official capacity under law, has the right to intervene

At the time material to the case, Petitioner was the mayor of Culasi, Antique. As such, Petitioner’s signature on the
vouchers and checks issued by the municipality was necessary to effect payment to L.S Gamonitin. As the case
involved the payment of the unpaid obligations of the municipality to L.S. Gamonitin, it cannot be disputed that Petitioner
had the right to intervene in her official capacity. Thus, the 1st, 4th, and 5th elements are present.

The Sandiganbayan found Superficial’s testimony to be worthy of credence. The assessment of the credibility of a
witness is the primary function of the trial court, as it has the benefit of observing first-hand the demeanor or deportment
of the witness. Thus it was within the Sandiganbayan’s discretion to weigh the evidence presented, accepting the
credible and rejecting the perjurious or fabricated. The factual findings of the lower courts will be respected by the SC,
subject to exceptions. However, in the present case, these exceptions are not present. It must also be noted that a sad
reality in cases of this nature is that no witnesses can be called to testify since no 3rd party is ordinarily involved to
witness it.
Petitioner further contends that having dealt only with the owner of L.S. Gamonitin, it was improbable for her to
demand such money from Superficial. However, it is irrelevant from whom an offender demands such benefit, be it
the principal or the agent/representative. That the offender made such a demand is all that is required under Sec.
3(b) of RA 3019. Further, While there is no direct evidence of the crime, the testimony of Superficial, corroborated by
the documentary evidence and the fact that the amount on the check corresponds to 10% of the contract price,
establishes that Venturanza received the money on behalf of the Petitioner.