SC reverses Sandiganbayan, acquits ex-mayor of graft

BUGUEY, Cagayan -- The Supreme Court has reversed the Sandiganbayan as it acquitted former Buguey mayor Ignacio Taruc of violation of the anti-graft law for which he was sentenced to a maximum of 10 years in prison.

In a resolution released last week, the SC ruled that the prosecution failed to present evidence that would convict Taruc beyond reasonable doubt in the withholding of salaries of five municipal employees in 2007.

The SC said that the prosecution “failed to prove the elements of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and undue injury beyond reasonable doubt.”

“Absent these elements, petitioner (Taruc) cannot be found guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019,” the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the SC ruled.

Section 3(e) of RA 3019 punishes a government official or employee for “causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.”

In filing the graft case before the Sandiganbayan, prosecutors of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) said that Taruc withheld the salaries of five employees – Melchor Tabajero, Quirino Ayonayon Jr., Delia Nuevo, Nuelyn Pagay and Lilibeth Usigan – for two months in 2007.

During the trial, documents were presented that the five employees were entitled to receive their salaries since they had valid appointments and they rendered the services as shown in their daily time record and employee logbook.

Based on the evidence presented, the Sandiganbayan convicted Taruc with a ruling that the former mayor “demonstrated his perverse motive or ill-will to complainants, known appointees of his political rival, by his refusal to sign the check (representing their salaries).”

Taruc elevated the judgment of conviction before the SC. He told the SC that the five employees were not given their salaries because they did not report for work during the period.

Ruling in favor of Taruc, the SC said:

“We find that the records are bereft of any documentary or testimonial evidence showing that complainants timely provided petitioner with any basis proving that they have rendered services for the period they are claiming salaries for. On the contrary, documentary evidence shows that for the relevant period of time, or from July 1 to August 31, 2007, complainants have not been registering their office hours in the logbook for employees.

“All told, complainants’ contention that petitioner ‘showed manifest partiality and evident bad faith by his unauthorized/unjustified withholding of the salaries of the complainants’ is untenable. As clearly shown, the action taken by petitioner was not entirely without rhyme or reason.”