REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES~anbtganba!,an

QUEZON CITY

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OFPHILIPPINES,

THE SB-16-CRM-O 100For: Violation of Section 3(b)of R.A.No. 3019Plaintiff,

Accused.

Present:CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.,ChairpersonFERNANDEZ, B. J. andMORENO, R. J.

- versus-

WILLIAM SOBIACO DUMA-AN,

Prom.ulgated on:

~~y '=1J~;zl,

1[-----------------.------------------------------------------------------------1[

RESOLUTION

CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.:

For resolution is accused William Sobiaco Duma-an'sMotion for Reconsideration dated November 29, 2019,1 seekinga reconsideration of the Court's Decision promulgated onNovember 15,2019, finding him guilty of a violation of Section3 (b)of Republic Act (R.A.)No. 3019.2

In his motion, the accused-movant argues that the Courterred in convicting him based on its finding that the loan wasin connection with a contract or transaction where he had aright to intervene; the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)was

__ Record '/?2 pp. 94-116, Vol. n, Record

fttJr

DECISIONPeople vs. William Sobiaco Duma-anSB-16-CRM-0100

- 2 -

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

already existing between the private complainant Roseller N.Macayra and the municipality of Caraga, Davao Oriental andhe did not intervene in its execution; the private complainantextended the loan to the accused-movant as he expected to bepaid with interest of five percent (5%) per month and notbecause the accused-movant would release the service feeunder the MOA; it is clear that the loan was not connectedwith the MOAas the same was given on the promise of theaccused-movant that he would repay the loan in ten (10) equalinstallments with interest and penalties and in case of default,to pay an additional interest of two (2%) percent and even anoption on the part of private complainant to institute a courtaction; the accused-movant testified that he was paying theloan to private complainant and identified the receipts markedas Exhibits "2" to "2- BB" as proof thereof; the letter- he sentto private complainant was only a reiteration of what wasalready in the MOAbetween the private complainant and themunicipality of Caraga; the prosecution did not introduce anyevidence to establish that the loan was a gift, a present, ashare, or a percentage of the service fee due the privatecomplainant or that the accused-movant obtained any benefittherefrom; and, that absent this elernent, the accused-movant's conviction for violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. No.3019 is erroneous."

The accused-movant further submits that the loan heobtained was a simple contract with a correspondingobligation to return the money with interest to privatecomplainant; that while he reiterated s the intent of themunicipality of Caraga to honor its obligation under the MOA,he did not receive any benefit from the loan; and, the assailedDecision's citation of the case of Peligrino v. People isimproper as the money received by the accused in that caseclearlyredounded to the said accused's bene/'7

. }t\Jrosecution

4 pp. 1-3, Motion for Reconsideration; pp. 123- U5; Vol. 11,Record5 Letter dated July 9,2010; Exhibit "8" for the prosecution6 p. 3, Motion for Reconsideration; p. 125, Vol. Il, Record

DECISIONPeople vs. William Sobiaco Duma-anSB-16-CRM -0100

- 3 -

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

The prosecution filed a Comment/ Opposition datedDecember 10, 2019.7 It argues that the arguments raised bythe accused-movant should be denied for lack of merit and forbeing contrary to the evidence on record; that despite theabsence of the direct testimony of private complainant, theprosecution was able to establish the existence of all theelements of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubtthrough circumstantial evidence which were furtherstrengthened by the accused-rnovant's own admissions; thatthe accused-movant himself admitted that he received a totalof Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) from the privatecomplainant as a loan; that the accused-movant's ownevidence only serves to establish his receipt of the saidamount for his own benefit from the private complainant; thatthe fact that the MOA between the private complainant'sconsultancy firm, RR Summit Consultants, Inc. and themunicipality of Caraga, was entered into by the accused-movant's predecessor in office, is irrelevant; that the accused-movant did not deny the genuineness and due execution of hisletter to the private complainant dated July 9, 2010, and evenconfirmed that he assured the payment of the 30/0 consultancyfee to the private complainant; that what is most glaring is thefact that on July 10, 2010, or a day after the date of theaforementioned letter, the accused-movant received the firstOne Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) from the privatecomplainant; and, that the accused-rnovant as the incumbentmayor of Caraga, Davao Oriental undoubtedly had the right tointervene in the payment of obligations of the municipality,being the approving authority for any disbursements of funds.

THE COURT'S RULING

After due consideration of the arguments raised by theaccused-movant in his motion for reconsideration, togetherwith the opposition thereto of the prosecution, the Court findsthe subject motion for reconsideration devoid of merit.

~

AD7 pp. 130-136, Vol. 11, Record

DECISIONPeople vs. William Sobiaco Duma-anS8-16-CRM-OIOOx----------------------------------------------------x

- 4 -

The accused-rnovant's principal contention in the presentmotion is that the loan he obtained from the privatecomplainant was not in connection with the release of theservice fee under the MOAbetween the municipality of Caragaand the private complainant's consulting firm. He insists thatthe loan was extended to him simply upon the expectation ofrepayment with interest by the private complainant.

The Court finds the above contention untenable.

To establish the existence of the fourth element of aviolation of Sec. 3 (b) of R.A. No. 3019, it has been held thatthe relation of the fact of requesting and / or receiving of anygift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, and that of thetransaction involved, must be clearly shown.f In the presentcase, the evidence on record clearly establishes this relation aswas discussed in the assailed Decision, to ioit:

Thud. That the said loan was «in connection witha contract or transaction in" which accused Duma-anhas a right to intervene in is likewise plain. The accusedadmitted that at the time he received the. amounts, themunicipality had an existing contract with thecomplainant's consultancy firm, RR SummitConsultants, Inc. (RR Summit}. Under theMemorandum of Agreement (MOA)dated June 1, 2009,the municipality of Caraga was obligated to pay a 30/0 feeto RR Summit in consideration of its financial advisoryservices in helping the municipality obtain a loan tofinance the municipality's priority projects. The fact thatthe said MOAwas entered into by accused Duma-an'spredecessor, mayor Alicia B. Mori, is irrelevant insofaras Section 3 (b)of R.A.No. 3019 is concerned.

8

Accused Duma-an was well aware of themunicipality's obligation to RR Summit. In fact, in ~

~!Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, 507 SeRA 258 (2006)

DECISIONPeople vs. William Sobiaco Duma-anSB-16-CRM-OlOO

- 5 -

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

letter addressed to the private complainant dated July9, 2010, he stated that "xxx the Municipality, throughthe undersigned binds and unconditionally commit[s] topay your Service Fee of Three Percent (3%) of thePhp110 Million Pesos right after the release xxx."During his cross-examination, accused Duma-an didnot deny the genuineness and due execution of thisletter and even confirmed that he assured the paymentof the 3% consultancy fee to the private complainant.?What is most glaring is the fact that on July 10,2010, or a day after the date of the aforementionedletter, accused Duma-an received the first OneMillion Pesos (P1,OOO,OOO.OO)from the privatecomplafnarrt.w

To be sure, the private complainant is neither a bank norin the business of regularly lending money, which fact couldperhaps be taken in support of the accused-movant'scontention. On the contrary, the circumstances establishedby the evidence on record demonstrate that the privatecomplainant lent money to the accused-movant after the latterunconditionally committed to pay the service fee which themunicipality owed to the private complainant.

In a last attempt to exculpate himself, the accused-movant also argues that he did not receive any benefit fromthe loan.

The Court finds the said argument bereft ofmerit.

It is a basic rule in statutory construction that when thewords or language of a statute are clear, there is no need tointerpret it in a manner different from what the word plainlyimplies.U The plain meaning of the word "benefit" as used in

~

11

pp. 12-13, TSN, January 10,2019pp. 20-21, Decision promulgated on November 15,2019; pp. 113-114, Vol.U, Record ~Tan v. Crisologo, 844 SCRA365 (2017) , - ()

910

DECISIONPeople vs. William Sobiaco Duma-anSB-16-CRM -0100

- 6 -

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

Section 3 (b) of R.A. No. 3019,12 is that of an advantage,privilege, profit, gain, or consideration. 13

In a contract of simple loan or mutuum, one of the partiesdelivers to another money or other consurnable thing upon thecondition that the same amount shall be paid.!" It is the veryreceipt and transfer of ownership of the money or otherconsumable thing that constitutes the consideration or benefiton the part of the borrower.

In the present case, the accused-rnovanr's receipt offunds by virtue of the loan agreement with the privatecomplainant undoubtedly falls within the plain meaning ofreceiving a "benefit" under Section 3 (g) of R.A. No. 3019 asruminated by the Court in its assailed Decision, to wit:

13

14

Second. Accused Duma-an himself admittedhis receipt of the total amount of Two Million Pesos(P2,000,000) from the private complainant as aloan. He even admitted the authenticity of the"Contract with Loan Confirmation and PromissoryNote"15 executed between himself and the privatecomplainant. Oddly, the only evidence he hasoffered in his behalf are the deposit receiptsevidencing partial payments of this amount /'"7Section 3 (g)of R.A.No. 3019 reads: Directly or indirectly requesting or ~receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for r .Vany other person, in connection with any contract or transaction betweenthe Government and any other part, wherein the public officer in hisofficial capacity has to intervene under the law.Black's LawDictionary, 9th Edition (2009)Article 1933 of the NewCivilCode provides, in part:By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to another, eithersomething not consumable so that the latter may use the same for al

certain time and return it, in which case the contract is calleda commodatum; or money or other consumable thing, upon the conditionthat the same amount of the same kind and quality shall be paid, inwhich case the contract is simply called a loan or mutuum.

12

.• 15 Exhibit "D"for the prosecution; pp. 16-17, TSN, January 10,2019.

DECISIONPeople vs. William Sobiaco Duma-anSB-16-CRM-OlOOx----------------------------------------------------x

- 7 -

fulfillment of a compromise agreement with theprivate complainant. To be sure, the accused's ownevidence only serves to establish the second elementor his receipt of amounts or benefit from the privatecomplainant. 16

WHEREFORE, accused-movant WILLIAM SOBIACODUMA-AN'SMotion for Reconsideration dated November 29,2019 is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Metro Manila

PARO M. @l\~JE-TAnQ'"Presiding Justice

Chairperson

WE CONCUR:

OR. FERNANDEZ_ \V==-Jl'8NAJl;ssbciate Justice

16 pp. 19-20, Decision promulgated on November 15,2019; pp. 112-113, r

Vol. 11,Record.