CASE DIGEST : J.R. NEREUS O. ACOSTA* v. PEOPLE GR Nos. 225154-57 GAERLAN

 FACTS : The petitioners, Nereus and Socorro Acosta, sought review of the Sandiganbayan’s March 28, 2016 Decision and June 14, 2016 Resolution convicting Socorro for violation of Section 3(h) of R.A. No. 3019 and both for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, in connection with the release of P5,500,000.00 from Nereus’ Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) to the Bukidnon Vegetable Producers Cooperative (BVPC). The Sandiganbayan found that both acted with manifest partiality and gross negligence, causing undue injury to the government and giving unwarranted benefits to BVPC, which was partly organized by Socorro and her relatives, and that Socorro, as Municipal Mayor, had prohibited financial interest in the transaction. The petitioners argued that the Sandiganbayan erred in excluding the BVPC Annual Report of December 2001, that the concurrence of the Sangguniang Bayan was unnecessary since the funds came from the national government, that they lacked the requisite elements of Sections 3(e) and 3(h) violations, and that Socorro no longer had financial interest in BVPC at the time. They also claimed that denial of their motion for new trial deprived them of presenting newly discovered evidence, including the Annual Report, which could rebut the prosecution’s witness, Engr. Pangan. The prosecution opposed, urging dismissal of the petition as devoid of merit.

ISSUE :  WON the Sandiganbayan erred when it anchored its factual conclusions with respect to the supposed existence of pecuniary interest in BVPC, on speculation, surmise, and conjectures

HELD : The Court held that Socorro O. Acosta cannot be convicted for violation of Section 3(h) of R.A. No. 3019 because she no longer had any pecuniary interest in BVPC when the P5,500,000.00 was released, and the prosecution failed to prove otherwise beyond reasonable doubt. Socorro’s prior involvement in organizing BVPC and her former position as Chairperson did not establish a continuing financial interest at the time of the disbursement, and her approval of the fund release did not constitute “actual intervention” under the law. Regarding Section 3(e), both Socorro and her son Nereus were acquitted because the disbursement of the P5,500,000.00 to BVPC was legally justified under the PDAF system, properly authorized by the DBM, and did not result in undue injury or confer unwarranted benefits, negating manifest partiality, bad faith, or gross negligence. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan’s decisions convicting them were reversed and set aside, and both petitioners were acquitted of the charges.