REPUB^ JPPINES

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

-versus- SB-18-CRM-0010

FOR: Violation of Section 3(e)of R.A. No. 3019

LIONEL E. BACALTOS,

Accused. PRESENT:

Quiroz, J., ChairpersonCruz, J.

Jacinto, J.

Promulgated on: //

yuL {7 7m /:

RESOLUTION

QUIROZ,/.: •

For resolution are the following incidents: (1) the Entry of Appearancewith: Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration ofthe May 17, 2019 Decision andMotion for Quashal of the Information and Dismissal of the Case^ dated 26May 2019 and filed by accused through counsel on 27 May 2019; and (2) theComment/Oppositioff of the prosecution dated 04 June 2019 and filed on 07June 2019.

To recall, accused (now convict) was charged with violation of Section3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 in an Information^ dated 19 September 2017 forallegedly receiving an honorarium from the Philippine Health Insurance

' Records, Vol. 1, pp. 388-398.^ Records, Vol. I, pp. 408-416.^ Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1-2.

Resolution

SB-18-CRM-0010

People vs. BacaltosPage 2 of 6.

Corporation (PhilHealth) in the amount of Php 17,512.50, despite the fact thathe was not entitled thereto. Accused was then the Municipal Mayor ofSibonga, Cebu. Oh the other hand, the said honorarium was supposedlyexclusively given to and intended for the municipal health personnel, whichaccused was not a part of.

Ensuably, the Court promulgated its Decision"^ dated 17 May 2019,convicting the accused of the crime charged and sentencing hirn to suffer anindeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day, asminimum, to eight (8) years, as maximum, with perpetual disqualificationfrom holding public office. Accused was likewise ordered to pay theMunicipality of Sibonga, Cebu the amount of Php 17,512.50 as indemnity/The ya/Zo of the Decision reads as follows:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is herebyrendered finding accused Lionel Echavez Bacaltos GUILTY beyondreasonable doubt of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and is herebysentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6)years and one (1) day, as nunimiun, to eight (8) years, as maximum, withperpetual disqualification from holding public office. Accused LionelEchavez Bacaltos is also ORDERED to indemnify the Municipality ofSibonga, Cebu, the amount of Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred TwelvePesos and Fifty Centavos (Php 17,512.50).

SO ORDERED."

In the present Omnibus Motion^ accused prays for the reconsiderationof the 17 May 2019 Decision, the quashal of the 19 September 2017Information, and, consequently, the dismissal of the case against him Insupport thereof, accused raises the following arguments: (1) one of theelements off he crime, i.e., that the act was done through nianifest partiality,evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, is not present in this case;and (2) the 17 May 2019 Decision is void for lack of JurisdiGtion over thesubject matter of the case.

As regards the alleged absence of an element of the crime charged,accused argues that the prosecution was unable to show that he was either therequester or receiver of the subject Php 17,512.50 honorarium. Accused points^that prosecution's Exhibit "F-1," denominated as Municipality of Sibonga<if^PHIC Capitation for Personnel Honorarium, where accused's name maybe found (line number 16 thereof), was not formally offered and was, in fact,omitted in the 17 May 2019 Decision, No testimonial evidence was likewisepresented by the prosecution to establish the said element, Apcused furthercontends that the letter (Exhibit "D") of Mary Joefie P. Chan (''Chan") wasnot sufficient to prove that he was not entitled to the honorarilmi because Chan

' Records, Vol. 1, pp. 363-377.

r

Resolution

SB-18-CRM-0010

People vs. BacaltosPage 3 of 6.

was not presented to clarify the guidelines stated in the said letter. Moreover,according to the accused, his good faith was evident when he returned to themunicipality the total amount of Php 33,478.12 (Exhibit "1"), asacknowledged by the municipal auditor (Exhibit "2"), despite actuallyreceiving only Php 17,512.50.

With respect to the issue of jurisdiction, accused argues that with theadvent of R.A. No. 10660 entitled An Act Strengthening Further the Functionand Structural Organization of the Sandiganbayan, further AmendingPresidential Decree No. 1606, as amended, and Appropriated Funds therefor,the present case should have been filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC),and not this Court. Accused points out that his case only involved Php17,512.50, hence, within the jurisdiction of the RTC.^

For its part, the prosecution insists that it was able to prove all theelements of Section 3(e) beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution arguesthat its pieces of evidence, along with the stipulations it entered into with theaccused, prove the latter's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Its Exhibits "E,""F," and "F-l" show that accused certified the release of the honoraria,including the one that he received. As regards Exhibit "F-l," the prosecutioninsists that it was actually offered, it being a mere sub-marking of Exhibit "F."The prosecution clarified that Exhibit "F" was single document consisting oftwo (2) pages and that Exhibits "F-l" and "F-2" were mere sub-markingsthereof. Considering further accused's admission of his signature on thereceipt of the Php 17,512.50, the prosecution had established that accusedtook a portion of the PhilHealth honorarium, which he was not entitled to.

Further, the prosecution avers that the case is within the jurisdiction ofthis Court because Section 5 of R.A. No. 10660 states that Section 2 thereofwhich amended Section 4 of P. D. 1606, among others, shall apply to casesarising from offenses committed after the effectivity of the: said amendatorylaw. Hence, the subject Decision was rendered within the Court's jurisdiction.

The Court fmds no cogent reason to reverse the 17 May 2019 Decisionor to quash the 19 September 2017 Information.

the Motion to Quash theInformation and Dismiss the Case.

The prayer for the quashal of the Information (and the eonsequentdismissal of the case) is grounded upon the alleged lack of jurisdiction. At the

^ Section 2 of R.A. No. 10660 amended, among others. Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, and pl^ed vyithin the jurisdictionover the Regional Trial Courts those cases where the alleged damage to the government does not exceed One MillionPesos (Php 1,000,000.00).

/

Resolution

SB-18-CRM-OdlOPeople vs. BacaltosPage 4 of 6.

outset, it is worthy to mention that jurisdiction may properly be raised at mystage of the proceedings. Hence, no procedural defect exists, despite themotion for the quashal of the Information being filed only after thepromulgation of the judgment of conviction.

Proceeding from the above, the Court is not unaware of the amendatoryprovisions under R.A. No. 10660, specifically that which expanded thejurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts to include cases involving damage tothe government in the amount not exceeding Php 1,000,000.00.

To be sure, R.A. No. 10660 was passed by the Congress on 25 February2015,^ approved by then President of the Philippines Benignp S. Aquino IIIon 16 April 2015,"^ and became effective only after fifteen (15) days followingits complete publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers ofgeneral circulation.^ On the other hand, this case transpired "^Hn February2015, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, way before the effectivityof the said law. Thus, as correctly pointed out by the prosecution, R.A No.10660 does not find application in this case. Section 5 thereof specificallyprovides:

"SEC. 5. Transitory Provision. - This Act shall apply to all casespending in the Sandiganbayan over which trial has not begun: Provided,That: (a) Section 2. amending Section 4 of Presidftnrial Decree Nn.as amended, on "Jurisdiction*'! and (b) Section 3, amending Section's ofPresidential Decree No. 1606, as amended, on "Proceedings, HowConducted; Decision by M^ority Vote" shall apply to cases arising fromoffenses committed after the effectivitv of this Agt » VFrhphaQ^Q andunderscoring Ours)

Well-entrenched is the rule that when the law speaks in clear andcategorical language, there is no room for interpretation or construction, butonly for application. The primordial duty of the Court is merely to apply thelaw in such a way that it does not usurp legislative powers by judiciallegislation.'^ Ergo, this Court is convinced that it has properly takencognizance of this case pursuant to the applicable laws and jurisprudence.Consequently, the motion for the quashal of the Information on the ground oflack of jurisdiction must necessarily fail.

n the Motion for Reconsiderationof the 17 May 2019 Decision.

https://wvyw.officialgazette.gov.Dh/2015/04/16/renuhlic-act-no-lQ660/. Last visited on 24 June 2019''Ibid.

^ See Section 8 of R.A. No. 106$0.^ Supra dit3.'0 Barcellano vs. Banas, G.R. No. 165287, September 14, 2011, citing Cebu Portland Cement Co. v. Municinalitv ofNaga, 133 Phil. 695,699 (1968); Ruben E. Agpalo, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, p. 62 (2003).Dimakuta vs. People, G.R. No. 206513, October 20,2015.^^

Resolution

SB-18-CRM-0010

People vs. BacaltosPage 5 of 6.

With regard to the motion to reconsider and reverse the 17 May 2019Decision, this Court finds the same to be devoid of merit. In the said Decision,the Court held that all the elements of the crime charged are attendant.Particularly, the Court discussed the presence of the element of "manifestpartiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence" in this manneri

"From the above jurisprudence, it can be gleaned that the accusedacted with manifest pai^ality and evident bad faith when he received anhonorarium from PhilHealth in the amount of PhP 17,512.50,notwithstanding his knowledge that he was not entitled to receive the sameas the said honorarium was exclusively given to and intended for themunicipal health personnel, which he was not.

The accused knew that the PhilHealth provided for a specificdistribution and allocation of the Per Family Payment Rate (PFPR) as theletter informing the Municipal Health Office's entitlement to suchgrant was addressed to none other than the accused and it enumeratedtherein the following prescribed disposition of the PFPR.

X X X X

The accused was likewise the one who signed the PerformanceCommitments of the Municipality of Sibonga, Cehu, which alsocontained the above-enumerated aUocation. x x x x By his admission, theaccused was not a physician, a health professional staff, a non-healthprofessional staff, or a volunteer of the Municipal Health Office of Sibonga,Cebu from 2014 to 2015. In fact, there was never a time that he became amember or staff of the said health facility. However, despite not being apart of the Municipal Health Office Personnel and, therefore, notenable to receive an honorarium from PhilHealth, the accuseddeliberately and knowingly violated the guidelines set by PhilHealth inthe distribution of the PFPR and accepted sometime in Fehruary 2015the honorarium in the amount of PhP17,512.50. His acceptance of thesaid honorarium was clearly for a dishonest purpose and was motivated withmalice self-interest, and plain inclination to favor himself to th^ detrimentand prejudice of the government and the other Municipal Health OfficePersonnel who were eligible to receive the said honorarium." (EmphasesOurs)

To the Court, the prosecution evidence sufficiently proves with moral^rtainty that accused acted with manifest p^iality and evident bad faith. Hed^ot feign ignorance of the guidelines issued by PhilHealth, which weremade known to him. Neither can he claim good faith from his ̂ ct of returningthe mentioned amounts. In Kimpo vj. Sandiganbayan,^^ the Supreme Courtheld that restitution does not extinguish criminal liability, but in fact tightensa finding of guilt. Thus:

G.R. No. 95604,29 April 1994.

Resolution

SB-18-CRM-0010

People vs. BacaltosPage 6 of 6.

"Petitioner argues that the restitution made hy him of the fullamount should exonerate him from criminal liability. The argumentnot only is an inappropriate defense in criminal cases but it also evenat times tightens a finding of guilt. In malversation of public funds,payment, indemnification, or reimbursement of ftmds misappropriated,after the commission of the crime, does hot extinguish the criminal liabilityof the offender which, at most, can merely affect the accused's civilliability thereunder and be considered a mitigating circumstance beinganalogous to voluntary surrender." (Emphases supplied)

Finally, accused's contention that Exhibit "F-1" was not formallyoffered by the prosecution likewise does not hold water. A perusal of the saidexhibit reveals that it was indeed a mere part of Exhibit "F," which wasadmitted in evidence and considered by the Court in the 17 May 2019Decision. Be that as it may, Exhibit "F" was not the sole basis behind thefindings in the said Decision. Instead, the totality of the evidence presentedby the prosecution satisfied the quantum required by law and warranted hereinaccused's conviction.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Omnibus Motion forReconsideration of the May 17, 2019 Decision and Motion for Quashal of theInformation and Dismissal of the Case of accused LIONEL E. ̂̂ ACALTOSis DENIED for lack of merit. The Entry ofAppearance of Atty. Eusobio M.Avila as collaborating counsel for the accused, with the latter's conformity, ishereby NOTED.

SO ORDERED.

Chairperson/ Associate Jus

We Concur:

fALDO P, CRUZ

'^Associate Justice

JACINTO

Justice