REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SANDIGANBAYAN
Quezon City

FOURTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO. S8-11-CRM-022S*

Plaintiff,

-versus- For: Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the

Revised Penal Code

ROORIGO R. FLORES, and

CANDELARIA OM. MANGULABNAN,.*
Accused.

Present:

QUIROZ, J. Chairperson
CRUZ, J.
ECONG, J:**

Promulgated on:
GCT 0 6 2017

r
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION

CRUZ, J.

On 05 March 2014, an Amended lnforrnation' dated 03 January

2014, was filed before this Court charging accused Rodrigo R. Flores
("Flores" for brevity) and Candelaria OM. Mangulabnan ("Mangu-
labnan" for brevity) with the crime of direct bribery under Article 210 of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC), committed as follows:

• The case is submitted for decision with respect to accused Candelaria Mangulabnan per Court Agendum
dated 24 May 2017 .
•• Middle name of accused Mangulabnan is Oe Mesa (OM), noted in the Amended Information dated
January 2014, Records, p. 117
0j#
••• Sitting as Special Member per Administrative Order No. 024-2017 dated 01 February 2017.
1 Records, pp. 117-118. 1f
DECISION
Pp. vs. Flores and Mangulabnan
Case No. S8-11-CRM-0228

Page 2 of 12
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

"That on or about March 1998 or for sometime subsequent thereto,

in the City of San Fernando, Pampanga, Philippines, accused RO-
DRIGO R. FLORES, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, City of San Fernando, Pampanga, with Sal-
ary Grade 27, thus, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
together with CANDELARIA MANGULABNAN, Court Interpreter and
specially assigned as Chairman of the Revision Committee of the
same MTCC of San Fernando City, Pampanga, while in the perfor-
mance of their official functions, committing the offense in relation to
their office, taking advantage of their respective official positions, and
with grave abuse of authority, confederating together and mutually
helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and felo-
niously demanded and request the amount of P20,OOO.OOfrom Dario
Manalastas, a party to an election protest case filed by Alberto Guinto
against Dario Manalastas where accused Rodrigo R. Flores and Can-
delaria Mangulabnan have to intervene in their official capacities
since such case is pending before the Court where accused Rodrigo
R. Flores is the Presiding Judge and Candelaria Mangulabnan is the
Court Interpreter and Chairman of the Revision Committee, which
amount accused Candelaria Mangulabnan actually received for ac-
cused Rodrigo R. Flores in consideration of a decision in the case
favorable to Dario Manalastas which is unjust, since the decision
should be based on the merits of the case and not the monetary con-
sideration, the damage and prejudice of Dario Manalastas and public
service.

CONTRARY TO LAW."

After finding probable cause, this Court issued a Warrant of

Arrest- against accused Flores and Manquiabnan," and fixed the bail
at Php20,000.00 for each accused. On 30 June 2014, accused
Mangulabnan posted bail, and the Warrant of Arrest issued against her
was set aside."

Upon her arraignment on 14 July 2014, accused Mangulabnan

pleaded "NOT GUILTY" to the offense charqed."

During Pre-trial," the parties failed to enter into any stipulation of

facts." Nonetheless, they agreed on the following factual and/or legal
issues" for resolution, to wit:

1. Whether or not accused Candelaria Mangulabnan, in conspiracy

with Judge Rodriqo R. Flores demanded and requested the
amount of P20,OOO.OOfrom Dario Manalastas, a party to the
election protest case filed by Alberto Guinto with MTCC, Branch

2 Records, p. 125.
3 Records, p. 123.
4 Records, p. 130.
5 Records, p. 136
6 Records, pp. 180-185.
7 Records, p. 183.
8 Records, p. 184.
DECISION
Pp. vs. Flores and Mangulabnan
Case No. S8-11-CRM-0228

Page 3 of 12
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
2, City of San Fernando, Pampanga, in consideration of a
decision in the said case favorable to Dario Manalastas, in
violation of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code; and

2. Whether or not accused Candelaria Mangulabnan actually

received the amount of P20,OOO.OOfor accused Rodrigo R.
Flores in consideration of a decision favorable to Dario
Manalastas in the election protest case pending before the
MTCC, Branch 2, City of Pampanga.

In the interim, the prosecution filed a Motion to Suspend

Accused Pendente Lite," which this Court granted in its Resolution 10
dated 28 September 2015.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

During the hearing held on 02 March 2015, the prosecution

intended to present witnesses Daisy B. Baluyot and Prosecutor
Leoveminda A. Villanueva, but their respective testimonies were
dispensed with after the parties stipulated on the due execution of the
prosecution's Exhibits "0", "E", "F", "G", "H", "I", "J", "K" and "M" which
formed part of Administrative Case No. MTJ-02-1399 before the
Second Division of the Supreme Court."

Subsequently, the prosecution filed its Formal Offer of Evidence, 12

which this Court resolved" as follows:

(a) Exhibits D, E, F, G, H, J, I, K, and M are ADMITTED into evidence,

without prejudice to the Court's proper appreciation of their
respective probative values in relation to the facts for which they
were offered in evidence.

(b) Exhibits N (affidavit of Alberto Guinto) and 0 (affidavit of Danilo P.

Simeon) are DENIED admission into evidence on the ground that
the affiants were never presented as witnesses and none of the
prosecution witnesses even identified said affidavits or even
referred to them in their respective testimonies.

After the prosecution rested its case, accused Mangulabnan filed

a Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence." which this Court
denied."

9 Records, pp. 152-153.

10 Records, pp. 266-268.
11 Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) dated 02 March 2015, p. 9
12 See folder of Prosecution's Exhibits.
13 Records, p. 389.

14 Records, pp. 392-393

15 Records, p 400
DECISION
Pp. vs. Flores and Mangulabnan
Case No. S8-11-CRM-022B

Page 4 of 12
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

The defense did not present any evidence after accused

Mangulabnan waived the presentation of testimonial evidence on her
behalf in an Ex-Parte Manifestation" dated 31 March 2017.

Thereafter, the prosecution and accused Mangulabnan submitted

their respective Memoranda."

THE FACTS

The following narration of facts is based on the documentary and

testimonial evidence found on record, as well as on the stipulations
made between the parties:

Sometime in May 1997, private complainant Alberto Guinto

("Guinto" for brevity) filed an election protest against Dario Manalastas
("Manalastas" for brevity)." The case, docketed as Election Protest
No. 97-04, was raffled to the Municipal Trial Court (now Municipal Trial
Court in Cities), Branch 2 of the City of San Fernando, Pampanga,
wherein accused Flores was the Presiding Judge and accused
Mangulabnan worked as a court interpreter."

During the pendency of the election protest case, accused Flores,

on several occasions, visited private complainant Guinto at his
workplace asking for many favors like borrowing the amount of
Php5,000.00 pesos from him; asking him to purchase two bags of
sugar valued at Php1 ,000.00 each; and making him pay for their lunch
out at Lusing's Restaurant in Pampanga amounting to Php1, 100.00.20

Despite receiving these favors from private complainant Guinto,

accused Flores decided the election protest case in favor of
Manalastas." This prompted private complainant Guinto to file his
complaints before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA),
charging accused Flores for his failure to decide the election protest
case within the required period, and accused Mangulabnan for
releasing an unauthorized copy of the decision thereof. 22 These
administrative complaints, docketed as A. M. No. MTJ-02-1399, were
subsequently referred to Executive Judge Adelaida Ala-Medina
("Judge Medina" for brevity) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch

16 Records, pp. 424-425

17 Records, pp. 436-446, 447-454.
18 Records, pp. 6, 12; See Exhibits "G" and "H".
19 Records, p. 12, See Exhibits "G" and "H".
20 Records, p. 12, See Exhibits "F" (Annex "A"), "G" and "H".
21 Records, p. 12, See Exhibits "G" and "H".
22 Records, p. 12, See Exhibits "G" and "H".
 DECISION
Pp. vs. Flores and Mangulabnan
Case No. S8-11-CRM-0228

Page 5 of 12
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
45 of the City of San Fernando, Pampanga, for investigation, report
and recommendation."

The Report and Recommendation 24 dated 15 May 2003,

submitted by Judge Medina revealed that prior to the release of the
judgment in the election protest case, accused Flores also borrowed
Php20,000.00 from Manalastas, and that the said amount was
received by accused Mangulabnan who gave it to accused Flores. It
found accused Mangulabnan as having acted as accused Flores'
middleman in getting the Php20,000.00 from Manalastas. 25
Consequently, Judge Medina recommended accused Mangulabnan's
dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits except for her leave
credits.

In a Resolution 26 dated 10 August 2006, the Supreme Court,

Second Division, adopted the findings of Judge Medina, confirming
that accused Mangulabnan indeed acted as accused Flores' conduit
in soliciting money from the litigants. Considering that this appears to
be her first offense, the Supreme Court did not dismiss accused
Mangulabnan from service, but she was suspended for one (1) year.

Thereafter, copies of the Resolution dated 10 August 2006 were

furnished to the Office of the Ombudsman and the Department of
Justice, for investigation of accused Flores and Mangulabnan, for
violation of Republic Act (R. A.) No. 3019.27

In a Resolutiorr" dated 28 April 2009, the Office of the Provincial

Prosecutor of the City of San Fernando, Pampanga, found probable
cause for the indictment of accused Flores and Mangulabnan for
violation of R. A. No. 3019. However, upon review" of the said
resolution, the Office of the Ombudsman declared that the allegations
in the complaint make out a case for direct bribery, and the
corresponding information was filed.

Hence, this case.

DISCUSSION

The Information in the present case charges accused

Mangulabnan of conspiring with accused Flores in committing the
crime of direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code.

23 Records, p. 13, See Exhibits "G" and "H".

24 See Exhibit "G".
25 See Exhibit "G".
26 See Exhibit "H"
27 See Exhibit "H".
28 Records, pp. 6-10.
29 Records, pp. 11-16.
 DECISION
Pp. vs. Flares and Mangulabnan
Case No. SB-11-CRM-0228

Page 6 of 12
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
As a mode of incurring criminal liability, jurisprudence instructs that
conspiracy must be proven separately and with the same quantum of
proof as the crime itself. 30 Therefore, the question of whether accused
Mangulabnan has incurred criminal liability hinges on whether the
prosecution has successfully established the existence of the alleged
conspiracy.

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an

agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decided to
commit the sarne" Conspiracies are clandestine in nature." As such,
a conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence, as it may be
inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the
commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common
purpose and desiqn." In other words, conspiracy may be implied if it
is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the
accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that
their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other,
were, in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of
personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. 34 Thus, in order
to hold an accused as a eo-principal by reason of conspiracy, such
accused must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance
or furtherance of the complicity. 35 There must be intentional
participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the
common design and purpose."

In this case, the evidence on record showing accused

Mangulabnan's participation in the commission of the offense, acting
as the conduit of accused Flares in getting the money from Manalastas,
remains uncontroverted. As aptly observed by the investigating officer,
Judge Medina, accused Mangulabnan willingly undertook the unlawful
task of facilitating the transfer of money between accused Flores and
Manalastas. By acting as a conduit, accused Mangulabnan provided
the parties protection from suspicion and aided in the concealment of
the misdeed. The pertinent portion of Judge Medina's Report and
Recommendation." is hereby quoted:

"xxx It is on record that Mangulabnan acted as respondent judge's

middleperson in getting Php20,OOO.OOfrom Dario Manalastas. In a
manifestation dated September 1, 1999, she declared that respondent
judge instructed her to "borrow" Php20,OOO.OOfrom Manalastas. She
did as she was told. In her testimony before Branch 47 of RTC San
Fernando, in connection with the petition for injunction filed by
Manalastas, (SP Civil Case No. 11929) and which forms part of the

30 People of the Philippines vs. Edmar Aguilos, et aI., 405 SeRA 134, (2003), p. 145.
31 People of the Philippines vs. Johnny Bautista and Jerry Morales, 622 SeRA 524, (2010), p. 540
32 People of the Philippines vs. Johnny Bautista and Jerry Morales, 622 SeRA 524, (2010), p. 541
33 Id.
34 Id.
35 Id.
36 Id.
37 See Exhibit "G"
 DECISION
Pp. vs. Flores and Mangulabnan
Case No. S8-11-CRM-0228

Page 7 of 12
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
records of this case, Mangulabnan stated that she received the money
from Manalastas himself. She then gave it to respondent judge. This
was confirmed by Atty. Estrabillo, counsel of Dario Manalastas that his
client Manalastas had given Php20,OOO.OOto Judge Flores through
Mangulabnan.

Considering that in making such serious allegations against

Judge Flores, both Atty. Estabillo and Mangulabnan have made
themselves vulnerable to prosecution for their participation in this
criminal act, the undersigned finds that said amount was indeed paid
to Judge Flores. Atty. Estrabillo and Mangulabnan would have gained
nothing from making such allegation had they not been motivated by
the desire to reveal the truth.

Mangulabnan should have been aware that respondent judge, in

asking for money from a litigant, was engaging in an illicit activity and
she was being made party thereto. She facilitated the transfer of
money between the parties by acting as a conduit. thereby
protecting the parties from suspicion and concealing the
misdeed. She is well aware that the mission assigned to her by
Judge Flores was unlawful but she still undertook the task
willingly. That she did not desist from taking part therein. or
report the matter promptly to the authorities. constitutes grave
misconduct. xxx" (emphasis ours)

Judge Medina's findings were affirmed and adopted by the

Supreme Court in its Resolutiorr" dated 10 August 2006, viz.:

"xxx With respect to respondent Mangulabnan, we find that she,

indeed, acted as a conduit in the solicitation of money from the litigants.
While she claimed that she did so only under the instruction of
respondent judge, we believe, however, that respondent Mangulabnan
was not at all ignorant of what respondent judge had asked her to do.
She knew it was illegal for Judge Flores to "borrow" money from
litigants who had pending cases in his sa/a. She was aware that it was
wrong yet she still allowed herself to be a part of respondent judge's
immoral activities. xxx"

Significantly, these conclusions are corroborated by accused

Mangulabnan's own adrnission.P''when she testified in open court
during the hearing held on 21 September 1999 in Civil Case No.
11929, to wit

"xxx Atty. Lising

Q: Now, you identified a certain document denominated as

Manifestation or Explanation already marked into evidence as Exhibit
"F", for the record, will you please read to us paragraph 8.

A: "That it was after all the Presiding Judge who seemed to have
ordered the release of the decision he signed when he instructed me

38 See Exhibit "H".

39 See pages 9-11 of Exhibit "M"
DECISION
Pp. vs. Flores and Mangulabnan
Case No. SB-11-CRM-0228

Page 8 of 12
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
to borrow the amount of Php20,OOO.OO,from the protestee and which
amount was delivered by me to the presiding judge.

Q: Do you still affirm and confirm that statement of yours?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where did you get the money Php20,OOO.OOfrom the Protestee?

A: From Mr. Manalastas, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: You mean you met him in that place accidentally or was there
previous appointment to meet him in that place?

A: He called me, sir.

Q: Who called you?

A: Mr. Manalastas, sir.

Q: What did he tell you?

A: The money that the Judge was borrowing was already ready, sir.

Q: And he told you this by telephone, he was the one who called you
up?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Now, when did you receive this amount of Php20,OOO.OO,which this

respondent Judge was borrowing from the protestee Dario Manalastas?

A: I could not remember, sir.

Q: Was it before or after you handed the decision to the office of Atty.
Estrabillo?

A: Before, sir.

Q: And, this Php20,OOO.OO,what did you do with them?

A: I gave them to Judge, sir.

Q: Did he received them?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And when you gave the money to the respondent Judge, what did
you tell him?

A: None, sir.

Q: So do we understand that you did not even inform the Judge that
the money came from the Protestee?
DECISION
Pp. vs. Flores and Mangulabnan
Case No. S8-11-CRM-0228

Page 9 of 12
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

A: I just gave the money to him.

Q: Did he not ask where the money came from?

A: No, sir.

Here, there is no denying that conspiracy existed, as it can be

seen from accused Manqulabnan's overt act of receiving the bribe
money and delivering the same to accused Flores, which was done
in furtherance of the common design to get money from Manalastas.

Since conspiracy is proven, accused Mangulabnan becomes

liable for the crime as charged regardless of her participation therein.'?
It is doctrinal that the one who joins a criminal conspiracy in effect
adopts as his own the criminal designs of his eo-conspirators." If
conspiracy is established, all the conspirators are liable as eo-
principals regardless of the manner and extent of their participation
since in contemplation of law, the act of one would be the act of al1.42
As such, the responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the
accomplishment of a particular purpose of the conspiracy but extends
to collateral acts and offenses incident to and growing out of the
purpose intended. 43 In other words, conspirators are necessarily
liable for the acts of another conspirator even though such act differs
radically and substantially from that which they intended to commit."
Therefore, both accused Flores and Mangulabnan are eo-principals,
being eo-conspirators in committing the crime of direct bribery.

The crime of direct bribery as defined in Article 21045 of the

Revised Penal Code is committed when the following elements are

40 People of the Philippines vs. Edmar Aguilos, Odilon Lagliba and Rene Gayot Pilola, 405 SCRA 134, (2003),
p.146.
41 Id.

42 Id.
43 People of the Philippines vs. Johnny Bautista and Jerry Morales, 622 SCRA 524, (2010), p. 542.
44 Id.

45 Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code states:

"xxx Art. 210. Direct Bribery. - Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constitut-
ing a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties, in consideration of any
offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of
another, shall suffer the penalty of ptision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a
fine of not less than three times the value of the gift, in addition to the penalty corresponding
to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed.

If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does
not constitute a crime, and the officer executed said act, he shall suffer the same penalty
provided in the preceding paragraph; and if said act shall not have been accomplished, the
officer shall suffer the penalties of pttsion correccional in its medium period and a fine of not
less than twice the value of such gift.

If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain
from doing something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of ptision
correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine not less
than three times the value of the gift.

In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer the
penalty of special temporary disqualification. xxx"
 DECISION
Pp. vs. Flores and Mangulabnan
Case No. SB-11-CRM-0228

Page 10 of 12
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
present: (1) that the accused is a public officer; (2) that he received
directly or through another some gift or present, offer or promise; (3)
that such gift, present or promise has been given in consideration of
his commission of some crime, or any act not constituting a crime, or
to refrain from doing something which is his official duty to do; and (4)
that the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public
officer."

Here, there is no question that accused Flores and Mangulabnan

were public officers." as they were the Presiding Judge and Court
Interpreter, respectively, of the MTCC, Branch 2 of the City of San
Fernando, Pampanga, at the time material to this case. It is also
undisputed that accused Mangulabnan acted as a conduit of accused
Flores when she received the amount of Php20,OOO.OO from
Manalastas and delivered the same to accused Flores." Accordingly,
the said amount was given to accused Flores in consideration of the
rendition of a judqrnent'" in favor of Manalastas, who had a pending
election protest case before his sa/a. Such rendition of judgment,
being an act that does not constitute a crime, relates to the function of
accused Flores as a Presiding Judge.

With the concurrence of all the elements of the crime, and

considering the fact that accused Mangulabnan has incurred criminal
liability as a eo-conspirator of accused Flores in the commission
thereof, this Court finds the prosecution's evidence sufficient in
proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused CANOELARIA

OM. MANGULABNAN is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal
Code and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of
prision correcciona/ as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months and
, one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, and a fine in the amount of
Sixty Thousand Pesos (Php60,OOO.OO), with special temporary
disqualification from holding public office.

SO ORDERED.

46 Nazario N. Marifosque vs. People of the Philippines, 435 SCRA 322, (2004), p. 340
47 Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code states:

"Art. 203. Who are public officers. - For the purpose of applying the provisions of this and the
preceding titles of this book, any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election
or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions
in the Government of the Philippine Island, or shall perform in said Government or in any of
its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class,
shall be deemed to be a public officer." .

48 See Exhibits "G" and "H".

49 See Annex "A" of Exhibit "F".
DECISION
Pp. vs. Flores and Mangulabnan
Case No. SB-11-CRM-0228

Page 11 of 12
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

We Concur:

~~
GERALDINE FAITH A.~ONG*
Associate Justice

• Sitting as Special Member per Administrative Order No. 024-2017 dated 01 February 2017.
DECISION
Pp. vs. Flores and Mangulabnan
Case No. S8-11-CRM-0228

Page 12 of 12
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were

reached in consultation before the case was assigne to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

@f&.'J'rfJ{""7
Chairperson, Fourth Divisio

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and

the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified
that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.