G.R. Nos. 146368-69. October 23, 2003.

MADELEINE MENDOZA-ONG, petitioner, vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. Mendoza-Ong vs. Sandiganbayan, 414 SCRA 181, G.R.
Nos. 146368-69 October 23, 2003

FACTS:
On february 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of Laoang, Northern Samar, passed
Resolution No. 93-132,5 authorizing the municipality to borrow heavy equipment from the
Philippine Army’s 53rd Engineering Battalion, to be utilized in the improvement of Laoang’s Bus
Terminal. Resolution No. 93-132 likewise mandated the municipal government to shoulder the
expenses for fuel, oil, and the subsistence allowances of the heavy equipment operators for the
duration of the project. Allegedly, however, the borrowed Army equipment was diverted by the
petitioner, who was then the town mayor of Laoang, to develop some of her private properties in
Rawis, Laoang, Northern Samar. A concerned citizen and ex-member of the Sangguniang
Bayan of Laoang, Juanito G. Poso, Sr., filed a complaint against petitioner and nine (9) other
municipal officers with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), Visayas, for violation of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Petitioner claims that in a criminal prosecution for violation of Section 3(c) of R.A. 3019
as amended, the law requires that the gift received should be “manifestly excessive” as defined
by Section 2(c) of the same Act. She adds that it is imperative to specify the exact value of the
five drums of diesel fuel allegedly received by Mayor Ong as public officer to determine whether
such is “manifestly excessive” under the circumstances.
ISSUE: Whether Mendoza-Ong is liable for the crime against Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act. (YES)

HELD: The court held that Mendoza-Ong is indeed liable under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.
The pertinent law that the petitioner violated provide:
SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.—In addition to acts or omissions of public officers
already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public
officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or material
benefit, for himself or for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or
capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government permit or license, in
consideration for the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.
Based on the foregoing, the elements of the offense charged in the assailed information are as
follows:
(1) the offender is a public officer;
(2) he has secured or obtained, or would secure or obtain, for a person any government permit
or license;
(3) he directly or indirectly requested or received from said person any gift, present or other
pecuniary or material benefit for himself or for another; and
(4) he requested or received the gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit in
consideration for help given or to be given.
In the instant case, the court found that the information in Crim. Case No. 23848 alleged that:
(1) accused Madeleine Mendoza-Ong, a public officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of
Laoang,
(2) committed the crime charged in relation to, while in the performance and taking advantage of
her official functions,
(3) did request or receive directly or indirectly, a gift, present or other pecuniary or material
benefit in the form of five drums of diesel fuel, for herself or for another, from spouses Mr. and
Mrs. Chupo Lao, persons for whom accused Mendoza-Ong,
(4) has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, a Municipal Government permit or license
anent the operation of the bus company, JB Lines, owned by said spouses, in consideration for
help given or to be given by the accused. After considering thoroughly this averment as
formulated by the prosecution, we are not prepared to say that the impugned information
omitted an element needed to adequately charge a violation of Section 3(c) of R.A. 3019.
Petitioner contends that pursuant to her reading of the above provision, the value of the alleged
gift must be specified in the information. But note that Section 2(c) above cited mentions a
situation where (1) the value of the gift is manifestly excessive; (2) from a person who is not a
member of the public officer’s immediate family; and (3) even on the occasion of a family
celebration or national festivity.
In contrast, Section 3 (c) earlier quoted in the present case applies regardless of whether the
gift’s value is manifestly excessive or not, and regardless of the occasion. What is important
here, in our view, is whether the gift is received in consideration for help given or to be given by
the public officer. The value of the gift is not mentioned at all as an essential element of the
offense charged under Section 3 (c), and there appears no need to require the prosecution to
specify such value in order to comply with the requirements of showing a prima facie case.
Thus, Mendoza-Ong is liable for the crime against Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.