REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Sanbißdllbapan
Quezon City

FIFTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE Nos. SB-14-

Plaintiff, CRM-0329

For: Violation of Sec. 3(e),

-versus- R.A. No. 3019, as amended

Present:
Lagos, J. , Chairperson,
JOSE O. ALBA, JR.,
Accused. Mendoza-Arcega, J. , and
Pahimna, J. *

Promulgated:

Decemb« 07,

x x

DECISION

MENDOZA-ARCEGA, J.:

Charged with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as

amended ("Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act") is Jose O. Alba, Jr., then
Municipal Mayor of the Municipality of Mambusao, Capiz. The accusatory
portion of the Information reads as follows..1

"That on or about the 30th day of June 2005, and for sometime prior or
subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Mambusao, Province of Capiz,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329 Page 2
of 32
* Sitting as Special member per Administrative Order No. 274-2017 dated August 9, 2017. Records, Volume
(Vol.) l, pp. 1-3.
x x
Court, above-named accused JOSE O. ALBA, JR., a public officer, being the
Municipal Mayor, Municipality of Mambusao, Province of Capiz, in such
capacity and committing the offense in relation to office, with deliberate intent,
with evident bad faith and manifest partiality in the exercise of his
administrative and official functions, did then and there wilfully (sic),
unlawfully and criminally refuse to sign both the Performance Evaluation
Report for the period January I to June 30,
2005, and the Performance Target for the period July I to December 3 1, 2005 of Alma D.
Moises, Muncipal Budget Officer, Muncipality of Mambusao, Province of Capiz, without any
legal or valid reason, which refusal of the accused resulted to the deprivation of Mrs. Moises'
Productivity Incentive Bonus in the amount of TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2,000.00),
Philippine Currency, thereby causing undue injury to Alma D. Moises in the aforementioned
amount.

CONTRARY TO LAW."

On August 8, 2014, a hold-departure order was issued against the

accused.1 A warrant of arrest was then issued against him on August I l , 2014. 2
On August 22, 2014, the accused voluntarily surrendered and posted a cash
3
bond for his provisional liberty.

Arraigned on September I l, 2014, accused Alba pleaded not guilty to the

charge. 45 On October l, 2014, the preliminary conference was held whereby the
parties agreed on the following..6

a. That accused Jose O. Alba, Jr. is the same Jose O. Alba, Jr. who was arraigned
on September I l, 2014.

b. That at all times material and relevant to this case, accused Jose O. Alba,
Jr. was the Municipal Mayor of the Municipality of Mambusao, Province
of Capiz.

c. That accused Jose O. Alba, Jr. is the immediate supervisor of Alma D.

Moises in the local government of the Municipality of Mambusao,
Province of Capiz.

The pre-trial was terminated on the same date.

1 Ibid.
2 Ibid., p. 133.
3 Ibid., pp. 139-140.
4 Ibid., p. 160.
5 Ibid., pp. 174-181; pp. 184-188.
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 3 of 32x x

On October 24, 2014, the accused filed a Motion to Dismiss 6 on the ground that
his constitutional rights to due process and to speedy disposition of cases were
violated but it was denied by the Court in a Resolution7 dated January 22, 2015.

On July 22, 2015, the prosecution filed a Motion to Suspend Accused Jose O.
Alba, Jr. pendente lite9 and the same was granted in Our Resolution 10 dated November
2, 2015. Trial forthwith ensued.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

1. ALMA DARIA MOISES ("Moises")

Alma Daria Moises is the municipal budget officer of the Municipality of

Mambusao, Province of Capiz. She is employed at the local government of
Mambusao since 1995. Her duties and official functions include the giving of
advice and guiding the mayor in the budget preparation of the municipality. The
immediate superior of Moises is the municipal mayor. 8

The witness recalled that accused Alba was elected as the municipal mayor
of Mambusao sometime in 2004. Sometime in 2005, Moises was instructed by
Mayor Alba to prepare the budget for the salary increase of certain local
government employees. The mayor was advised by the prosecution witness that it
is not possible to increase the salary of certain employees only since the salary
increase should apply to all the employees and that the rules prohibit the same. As
a consequence, the accused issued a memorandum order 910 directing Moises to
prepare a salary increase proposal. The second paragraph of the said memorandum
stated, "You are also directed to coordinate with Mr. Lito Reyes, HRMO for the
total amount needed and submit the said proposal to this office on or before
Friday, June 24, 2005.

After the aforesaid memorandum was issued, the witness prepared the
budget proposal, despite her earlier advice that it is not possible to increase the
salary of certain employees only. She feared that she would be charged with
insubordination. Thereafter, Mayor Alba submitted the budget proposal to the
Sangguniang Bayan for legislation, although it was not signed by

6 Ibid., pp. 191-200.

7 Ibid., pp. 238-245. 9 Ibid., pp. 283-286.
Ibid., pp. 320-325.
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329 Page 4
of 32
x----------—-------------------——--------x

Moises. Consequently, the proposal for the said salary increase was disapproved by
the Sangguniang Bayan. 11

Subsequently, accused Alba transferred and reassigned her to the Office of

the Mayor without any specific function. She filed an appeal before the Civil
Service Regional Office 6 questioning the said transfer and the latter ordered her
reinstatement to her original office. Yet, the prosecution witness was not
immediately reinstated. She prepared her performance evaluation form 12 ("PEF")
and submitted it to the Office of the Mayor. Mayor Alba, nonetheless, did not sign
the said form. As a result, Moises did not receive her productivity incentive
bonus.16

During the cross-examination, Moises admitted that she prepared her own
17
PEF for the rating period January l , 2005 up to June 2005. She clarified that her
reassignment took effect sometime in July 1, 2005. 13

It was explained by the witness that should the mayor agree on the prepared
performance evaluation, the latter must affix his signature on the said form. As part of
the procedure, the employees would prepare the PEF including their own ratings but
these can be changed or commented by the employee's immediate supervisor even
through a handwriting. Moises further averred that she did not ask Mayor Alba why
he did not sign the subject PEF 19 since they were not in a good working relationship.
14

When inquired by the Court, the witness stated that there are no other
signatories required to sign in her PEF 15 since Mayor Alba is her immediate superior.
Sometime in 2008, Moises recounted that she was reinstated as the municipal
budget officer. Since 2008, Moises did not claim any performance bonus as she
already waived it to the municipality. The witness also divulged before the Court that
she executed and signed an Affidavit of Desistance in relation to the instant case. 16

On re-direct examination, the prosecution emphasized that the aforesaid

Affidavit of Desistance was prepared by a certain Atty. Emilie Arboleda Dipon,
who works for the provincial government. Witness Moises
8 TSN dated September 22, 2015, pp. 4-7.
9 Exhibit (Exh.)
E
10 Supra note Il, pp. 7-10.
11 Ibid., pp. 10-11.
12 Exh. "C". (O 16
Supra note I l, pp. 1 1-14. 17 Supra note 15.
13 Supra note I l, pp. 17-19.
Supra note 15.
19

14 Supra note 1 1, pp. 19-22.

15 Supra note 15.
16 TSN dated September 22, 2015, pp. 23-26; TSN dated September 23, 2015, pp. 4-7.
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 5 of 32x x

insisted 17that Atty. Dipon is not assisting the mayor but all the municipal
government employees.23

2. RIO CAPE GARCIA ("Garcia")

The prosecution and the defense dispensed with the testimony of witness
Garcia, the Human Resource Management Officer and Administrative Officer V of
the Local Government Unit of Mambusao, and stipulated on the following facts, to
wit: (a) Garcia is the official custodian of the PEF 18 of Alma Moises for the rating
period of January l, 2005 to June 30, 2005; (b) After diligent search of the said
document, the witness failed to locate the same; and (c) Garcia is not yet the
custodian of the said document in the year 2005.19

3. FLORENCE GAY BALAD-ON MURGUIA ("Murguia")

Florence Gay Balad-On Murguia is the municipal accountant of Mambusao,

Capiz. Her main functions are accounting and conducting an internal audit service.20

The witness identified the general payr01121 of the local government unit
for the year 2005. It was related by the prosecution witness that the name of Alma
Moises is not indicated in the payroll; thus, Moises was not paid of the
productivity incentive bonus for the calendar year 2005 and on the succeeding
year.22

When cross-examined, Murguia recalled that Alma Moises was reinstated

sometime in 2007 or 2008 but up to the present, the latter did not claim her
productivity incentive bonus. As a municipal accountant of Mambusao since
September 2005, Murguia is familiar with the performance evaluation system of the
municipality. The performance evaluation is conducted twice a year, i.e., the first
rating period is from January I to June 30 and the second rating period is from July I to
December 31 of every year. The employees of the municipality must first accomplish
the performance evaluation form issued by the Civil Service Commission whereby
they set their targets and performance standards for a particular rating period.
Thereafter, the said form is submitted to the immediate supervisor of the employee.

17 TSN dated September 23, 2015, pp. 8-10.

18 Supra note 15.
19 TSN dated Januaw 20, 2016, pp. 4-6.
20 Ibid., pp. 6-8.
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329 Page 6
of 32
The witness further expounded that the targets and standards will be discussed with the

respective supervisors of the employees. As a head of

21 Exh. "N" with sub-markings.

22 Supra note 25, pp. 9-1 1
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 7 x x
of26

office, Murguia stated that her immediate supervisor or rater is the municipal
mayor. Moreover, it was detailed by the prosecution witness that at the end of
each rating period, she and the municipal mayor would discuss again to determine
whether the targets have been duly accomplished.23

The witness further explained that failure to submit the PEF would result
into sanctions. For instance, the employees should not be given scholarship
grants, promotions or productivity incentive bonus ("PIB"). As an internal auditor,
Murguia reviewed the payroll of the employees and found out that the name of
Alma Moises is not included therein. Accordingly, the prosecution witness asked
Mr. Angelito Reyes of the Human Resource Management Office ("HRMO") why
the name of Moises is not included in the said payroll. The HRMO informed the
witness that the PEF of Moises was not submitted. 24

Finally, Murguia clarified that when an employee is not satisfied with the
ratings given by the rater-supervisor, the matter should be brought to the
Performance Evaluation Review Committee ("PERC"). The PERC is incharge in
handling the grievances and dissatisfied employees as regards the rating given by
their supervisor. The witness could not recall the period within which to file an
appeal before the PERC.25

4. MARIVIC MANUA HINOLA (Hifiola)

Marivic Hifiola is the municipal treasurer of Mambusao, Capiz. As a

municipal treasurer, she is the custodian of the local government funds. The
witness is likewise tasked to manage, collect and disburse public funds. 26

The witness identified a general payr011 27 that reflects the PIB received by
the local government employees for the year 2005. The certification of the Local
Chief Executive in the aforementioned payroll indicates the approval for payment
and that services were duly rendered by the employees. It was confirmed by
Hifiola that the name of Alma Moises is not indicated in the general payr01128
which shows that the latter was not able to claim her PIB for the year 2005.
Likewise, the general payr01129 was signed by the witness.30

23 Ibid., pp. 12-15.

24 Ibid., pp. 16-18.
25 Ibid., pp. 18-19.
26 TSN dated April 26, 2016, pp. 4-6.
27 Supra note 27.
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid.
30 Supra note 32, pp. 6-7.
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 8 of 32x x

On cross-examination, the witness asserted that the PIB for a particular

year is paid on the subsequent year, i.e., the PIB for the year 2005 will be paid on
2006. The PIB is being paid to qualified employees whose names were submitted
by the HRMO to the municipal accountant. After which, the municipal accountant
will prepare the payroll and the PIB will be paid to the said employees.31

The witness testified that the Performance Evaluation Sheet is submitted

twice a year or for two (2) semesters, i.e., either on June 30 or December 31 of
each year. Before a Performance Evaluation Sheet is prepared, a target worksheet
or a "PTWA" is accomplished. The target worksheet is where the supervisor and
the employee discuss on the duties to be performed by the latter for a certain
semester and the said discussion must take place prior to the rating period. It was
further clarified by the prosecution witness that the Performance Evaluation
Sheets for the two (2) semesters must be submitted before an employee can claim
the PIB. 32

When asked if Alma Moises can already claim her PIB after the first
semester compliance, Hifiola responded that she is not in the position to testify on
the matter since her job is only to disburse funds. Lastly, the witness recalled that
Alma Moises neither claimed nor wrote the former regarding the payment of the
PIB in dispute. 33

There being no other witness to be presented, the prosecution rested its

case and filed its Formal Offer of Evidence with Motion34 on June 27, 2016.
The Court resolved to admit the following exhibits, to wit. 35
Exhibit/s as the municipal budget officer for the
period January l , 2005 to June 30,
"C" 2005
Description

Performance Evaluation
Form of Alma D. Moises

31 Ibid., pp. 8-9.

32 Ibid., pp. 9-13.
33 Ibid., p. 14.
34 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 6-10.
35 Ibid., pp. 83-84.
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 9 of 32x x
"E" Memorandum of Mayor Alba
dated June 21, 2005 directing
Municipal Budget Officer Alma D.
Moises to prepare a supplemental
budget proposal
"N" to "N-IO"
Payroll of the different offices in
the Local Government of
Mambusao, Capiz consisting of I l
pages showing payment of
Productivity Incentive Bonus
On September 9, 2016, the accused filed a Motion for Leave of Court to
File Demurrer to Evidence, and Motion to Admit Attached Demurrer to Evidence.
36
Consequently, the Demurrer to Evidence was denied by the Court in its Minute
Resolution dated November 16, 2016.37

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

1. ROBERTO AYCO BARANDA ("Baranda")

From 2004 to 2016, Roberto Ayco Baranda worked as the executive

assistant of accused Mayor Alba. One of the tasks of the defense witness is to
receive communications for the Office of the Mayor.38

The witness recounted that he received the PEF of Alma Moises for the
first semester of 2005. On July 7, 2005, after receiving the said form, he placed it
on the table of the accused and told the latter that Moises already filed her PEF.
Subsequently, Mayor Alba called Baranda and instructed him to ask Alma Moises
for her performance target for the first semester since she did not include the same
to her PEF. Mayor Alba asked Baranda for the said performance target so that the
former can rate Moises based on the said document.45

Thereafter, the defense witness went to the Office of the Budget Officer
and told Alma Moises to submit her performance target so that the mayor can rate
her accordingly. The witness told Moises that he would wait for her Performance
Target on that day so that he could submit it to Mayor Alba. However, Moises
took the PEF and informed Baranda that she will be the one to submit it together
with the perforrnance target. Then, the witness instructed

36 Ibid., pp. 88-101.

37 Ibid., p. 1 17.
38 TSN dated February 7, 2017,
pp. 5-7. Ibid., pp. 8-10.
45
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 10 of 32x x

Moises to set an appointment with Mayor Alba so that they could discuss the
ratings of Moises. Moises, nonetheless, did not file the performance target and did
not return the PEF. As proof, Baranda asseverated that he read the certification 39
of Mr. Rio Garcia, the Human Resource Management Officer of Mambusao. The
HRMO keeps the records of all the PEFs that are submitted to the accounting
department for the release of the bonus. Witness Baranda further testified that
aside from the failure of Moises to file her PEF for the first semester, the latter
also did not file her PEF and performance target for the second semester of the
year 2005 as there are no records of the said documents in the Office of the Mayor
and the 1--1RMO. 40

On cross-examination, the prosecution underscored that Mayor Alba did

not personally call the attention of Alma Moises regarding the latter' s PEF for the
first semester and instead it was Baranda who was called by the mayor. It was
emphasized that the said incident took place sometime in July 2005, which is
likewise the same time when Mayor Alba issued a reassignment order or a detail
order to Moises to relieve her from her duties as a budget officer and to transfer
her to the Mayor's Office. The defense witness admitted that Mayor Alba did not
approve any performance rating of Alma Moises for January I to June 30, 2005;
hence, Moises was not able to receive any productivity incentive bonus for the
year 2005, More so, the witness professed that Moises filed a complaint before
the Civil Service Commission assailing her reassignment whereby the latter ruled
in her favor and ordered her reinstatement. 41

On re-direct examination, the witness clarified that the transfer of Moises

to the Mayor's Office took place after Mayor Alba talked to him regarding the
disputed performance target of Moises. 42

2. JOSE ONG ALBA, JR. ("Mayor Alba")

Mayor Alba served as the municipal mayor of Mambusao, Capiz from

2004 to 2016.

The prosecution and the defense stipulated that Mayor Alba was the
municipal mayor from 2004 to 2005 and that Alma Moises filed her PEF only on
July 7, 2005. 43

39 Exh. "2" with sub-markings.

40 Supra note 44, pp. 10-23.
41 Ibid., pp. 24-25.
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 11 of 32x x
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 12 x x
of26

The witness enumerated the requirements before an employee qualifies for

the PIB. First, the employee needs to submit his/her performance target and the
PEF for the first and second semesters. The first semester starts from January to
June of a particular year while the second semester starts from July to December.
It was specified by the defense witness that within fifteen (15) days from the
beginning of each semester, the employees must submit their Performance Target,
i.e., within January I to January 15. Thereafter, the department heads shall submit
the Performance Target to the Office of the Mayor. Mayor Alba will take a look at
the Performance Target of the employees and he and the department head
concerned will discuss the target indicated. Next, the Performance Target will be
sent to the HRMO for filing. 44

After the filing to the HRMO, the employees will be required to

accomplish and submit their PEF. Mayor Alba will review the said form to
determine whether the employees met their respective targets. Consequently, the
employees will be rated "outstanding," "very satisfactory," "satisfactory,"
"unsatisfactory," or "poor" as the case maybe. Subsequently, the PEF will be
forwarded to the HRMO for the possible inclusion of the employee to the
payment of the PIB. The aforementioned procedure is similar with the procedure
to be followed for the second semester. The witness stressed that to be qualified
for the PIB, the employees must submit their performance target and PEF for the
two (2) semesters. Subsequently, the I-IRMO will forward all the pertinent
documents and the names of the qualified employees to the accounting
department. The employee may appeal to the Performance Evaluation Review
Committee if he/she is dissatisfied or aggrieved with the rating given within ten
(10) days. 45

Mayor Alba recalled that Alma Moises did not file her Performance Target
within the required fifteen (15) day period, i.e., within January I to 15, 2005, but
she filed her PEF on July 7, 2005. So, Moises was not rated by the mayor. To
help Moises, the defense witness instructed his executive assistant to go to
Moises and to ask the latter to file her Performance Target. It was reiterated that
Alma Moises did not file her PEF and performance target for the first semester.
Likewise, the performance target and PEF for the second semester of the year
2005 were not filed by Moises. The mayor claimed that Moises did not file the
said documents as the latter already filed a case against him sometime in 2005
before the Civil Service and the Ombudsman for denying the disputed incentive
bonus.46

42 Ibid., pp. 26-27.

43 TSN dated February 8, 2017, pp. 11-15.
44 Ibid. pp. 22-23.
45 Ibid., pp. 23-28.
46 Ibid., pp. 28-34.
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 13 of 32x x
It was further testified by the witness that the local government of Mambusao

followed a Performance Evaluation System47 for the year 2005.

The mayor claimed that Alma Moises is aware of the said system since the latter
is one of the signatories therein.48

On cross-examination, the witness confirmed that he received the first

semester PEF of Moises on July 7, 2005 but his office does not have a file of the
latter's Performance Target. Mayor Alba stated that the Performance Rating Form
will not reach the Personnel Section of the HRMO if he did not sign it. Moreover,
it was affirmed by the witness that he issued an executive order reassigning
Moises to the Office of the Mayor effective July l, 2005; thus, Moises started
reporting to the said office on the same date. It was further insisted that despite
her transfer to the Office of the Mayor, Moises did not submit her Performance
Target. 49

Moreover, the prosecution underscored that Mayor Alba designated Ms.

Andaya as an OIC in the Office of the Municipal Budget Officer after Moises was
transferred to the Office of the Mayor. It was established that the witness did not
talk to Moises regarding her failure to submit the said performance target. Since
there was no rating given by the mayor, Moises did not receive her PIB. Mayor
Alba likewise insisted that it is the duty of Moises to submit her PEF for the
second semester of 2005. 5051

3. FLORENCE GAY BALAD-ON MURGUIA ("Murguia")

Florence Gay Balad-on Murguia served as the municipal accountant of

Mambusao, Capiz for almost twenty-one (21) years. She retired on June 30,
2016.58

The defense witness recounted that she was one ofthe department heads
who adopted the performance evaluation system agency test, otherwise known as
the "agency test." The agency test was used in gauging the performance of the
employees for their promotion, trainings, scholarship grants, rewards, incentives
and the like. The said agency test 52 was submitted to the Civil Service
Commission sometime in June 2000 and it took effect on July l, 2000. Murguia
47 Exh. "3" with sub-markings.
48 Supra note 50, pp. 36, 44.
49 Ibid., pp. 46-50.
50 Ibid., pp. 50-58.
51 TSN dated April 3, 2017, pp. 5-9.
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 14 x
signed53 in the agency test as one of the department heads who adopted the
performance evaluation system of Mambusao. The witness explained that Alma
Moises also signed54 in the said document as the municipal budget officer of
Mambusao. Being her colleague, Murguia is

familiar with the signature of Alma Moises since the documents being processed
for payment pass first through the office of the latter before the

of26

same are forwarded to the Office of the Municipal Accountant. It was further
stated by the defense witness that the original of the performance evaluation
system form is kept by the HRMO and the other twelve (12) departments are only
given a photocopy for reference.55

Murguia maintained that she is familiar with the PEF since it is the one
provided by the Civil Service Commission to be adopted by all the government
agencies. She identified the PEF56 being filled-up in the year 2004. The rating
given to a particular employee would be the basis of his/her PIB. The employee
should first prepare the performance target before the start of the rating period
which is twice a year, i.e., from January to June and from July to December. The
said target is accomplished by the employees as discussed with his/her supervisor
within the six-month period; thereafter, the supervisor will rate the employee. The
witness added that the employee must have at least a satisfactory rating for the
two (2) rating periods prior to the release of the PIB. 57

Furthermore, the witness stated that Alma Moises and accused Alba did
not discuss or agree on the performance target of the former as the PEF 58 for the
rating period January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2005 was undated and unsigned by the
latter. As a result, no rating was given by the accused to Moises. Witness Murguia
likewise explicated that if there is no agreed performance target and if there is no
rating given, the aggrieved party can appeal to the PERC as stated in the PEF. 59

On cross-examination, the prosecution established that Alma Moises did

not receive her PIB for the year 2005 as the certified list forwarded by the HRMO
to Murguia does not include the name of Moises. Moreover, no PEF was
forwarded by the HRMO to the PERC. Murguia

52 Exh. 3.
53 Exh. "3-a".
54 Exh. "3-b".
55 Supra note 58, pp. 9-13.
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 15 of 32x x
added that Moises was re-assigned to the Office of the Mayor sometime in the
year 2005. 60

On April 24, 2017, the defense filed its Formal Offer of Exhibits 61 and the
Court resolved to admit the following exhibits: 69

Exhibit/s Description

56 Exh. 4
57 Supra note 58, pp. 15-17.
58 Exh. "4-a", "4-b".
59 Exh. "3-c"•, TSN dated April 3, 201 7, pp. 17-21.
60 Supra note 58, pp. 22-25.
61 Supra note 40, pp. 145-150. 69
Ibid., pp. 176.
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 16 x x
of26

Certification issued by Mr. Rio C.

Garcia, Administrative Officer
V/HRMO of Mambusao, Capiz
dated April 23, 2015.

"2-a" Entry in the certification stating,

"ratee Alma D. Moises, Municipal
Budget Officer, at the Municipal
Budget Department this
Municipality, has no record of her
PEF for the period of 01 January 2005 to
30 June 2005, that based on the knowledge
of the undersigned she has not submitted
her PEE"

"2-b Signature of Mr. Rio C. Garcia

Performance Evaluation System of

2000 as adopted by the
Municipality of Mambusao, Capiz

"3-a" Signature of Ms. Florence Gay B.

Murguia, Municipal Accountant

"3-b Signature of Ms. Alma D. Moises,

Municipal Budget

Entry in Section XII on Appeal that

states, "Employees who feel
aggrieved or dissatisfied with their
final performance ratings can file an
appeal with the PERC within ten
(10) days from the date of their PEF
or after the appraisal discussion
with his supervisor"

"4" Performance Evaluation Form of

Ms. Alma D. Moises

"4-a" Entry in the PEF of Ms. Alma D.

DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 17 of 32x x
Moises stating "DISCUSS AND
AGREE ON THE ABOVE TARGETS"
and above the printed name JOSE O.
ALBA, JR. (rater), there is no signature
and no date

"4-b" Entry in the PEF of Ms, Alma D.

Moises stating "DISCUSS AND
AGREE ON THE ABOVE
RATINGS" and above the name JOSE O.
ALBA, JR., (rater) there

is no signature and no date

Subsequently, the prosecution filed its Memorandum62 on July 13, 2017,

while the accused filed his Memorandum63 on July 28, 2017.

Thereafter, the instant case was deemed submitted for decision.

FINDINGS OF FACT

A conscientious sifting of the pertinent records and pieces of evidence

reveals the following:

Since 1995, Alma D. Moises works as a municipal budget officer of Mambusao,

Capiz. During the incumbency of Mayor Jose O. Alba in 2005, Moises was
directed by the mayor to prepare a salary increase proposal. A salary increase
proposal was prepared by Moises but the same was not approved by the
Sangguniang Bayan. On July l , 2005, Moises was reassigned by Mayor Alba to
the Office of the Mayor.

Thereafter, Moises prepared her PEF for January to June 2005 or for the
first semester of the said year. On July 7, 2005, she submitted the said form to the
Office of the Mayor and it was received by the executive assistant of Mayor Alba,
Roberto Baranda.

Upon receipt of the PEF of Moises, Mayor Alba instructed Baranda to ask
Moises to submit her performance target for the first semester of 2005 as the latter
did not include it to the said PEF. Moises was then instructed by Baranda to
submit her performance target but the former merely took her PEF. However,
Moises did not submit the aforementioned documents for the first semester of
2005 to the Office of the Mayor. Moises and the accused never

62 Ibid., pp. 185-194.

63 Ibid., pp. 195-210.

Supra note
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 18 of 32x

discussed the said matter; consequently, Moises did not receive her productivity
incentive bonus for the year 2005.

As culled from the Performance Evaluation System 64 of the Municipality

of Mambusao, Capiz, the following are the procedures to be followed in
evaluating the performance of the local government employees:

l. Performance evaluation is done every six (6) months ending on June 30

and December 31 of every year. However, if there is a need for a
shorter or longer period, the minimum appraisal period is at least
ninety (90) calendar days or three (3) months while the maximum is no
longer than one (l) calendar year.

2. Each employee prepares a performance target using the prescribed

Performance Evaluation Form based on the organizational target set by
the agency and work program the division or organizational unit where
he/she belongs. All targets relate to job duties and organizational needs.

3. It is a must that the supervisor and the employee agree on the targets
set. They should affix their signatures in the space provided for in the
PEF.

4. At the end of the evaluation period, the supervisor and the employee
meet to discuss the latter's accomplishments against established targets
and standards. They both give their ratings in the prescribed form and
settle/discuss differences, if there is any.

5. Accomplished PEFs with the final ratings are submitted to the Agency
HRMO/Personnel Office/Department not later than the 15 th day after
the end of the rating period. The HRMO/Personnel Office/ Department
shall consolidate all the employee rating and prepare the report to the
PERC containing the statistics on PEF submission, distribution of
rating and list of protested or appealed ratings, if any, including all
documents relative thereto. It shall submit all the above documents to
the PERC within thirty (30) days after the end of each rating period.

6. Non-submission to the PERC of the performance targets within fifteen

(15) days before the start of the rating period and the PEFs within (30)
days after the end of each rating period, unless justification for such
has been accepted by the PERC, is a ground for the employees'
disqualification for performance-based personnel actions which would

64 54.
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 19 of 32x x
require the rating of each for the given period such as promotion,

training or scholarship grants, and

productivity incentive bonus if the failure of the submission of the report

form is the fault of the employees.

7. Grant of incentives like the productivity incentive bonus or other

performance based incentives and awards shall likewise be based on
the final ratings of employees as approved by the PERC.

8. Employees who feel aggrieved or dissatisfied with their final

performance ratings can file an appeal with the PERC within ten (10)
days from the date of their PEF or after the appraisal discussion with
his supervisor.

ISSUE

The question that comes to fore is whether or not accused Mayor Jose O.
Alba, Jr. is liable for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as
amended.

THE COURT'S RULING

Congress in 1960 enacted the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act to

deter public officials and employees from committing acts of dishonesty and
improve the tone of morality in public service. 73 It was declared to be the state
policy "in line with the principle that a public office is a public trust, to repress
certain acts of public officers and private persons alike which constitute graft or
corrupt practices or which may lead thereto.

In line with this, the provision of R.A. No. 3019 for which herein accused
is being indicted is Section 3(e) thereof which states:

"Section 3. Corrupt practices ofpublic 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:

(e) 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. This provision shall

Supra note
 DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 20 of 32x
apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged
with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions."

73
Morfe v. Mutuc, G.R. No. L-20387, January 31, 1968. Also see: Reyes, Luis B. The Revised Penal code -
Criminal Law, Book 2, 17th edition, 2008, p. 398.
74
Ibid., citing Section I ofR.A. 3019, as amended, Statement of Policy.
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329 Page
21 of 32

The 6566following are the elements of Section 3(e) of RSA. No. 3019 which
must be established by the prosecution to warrant a conviction..75

1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or

official functions;

2. The accused must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
gross inexcusable negligence; and

3. The action of the accused caused undue injury to any party, including the
government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference in the discharge of the functions of the accused.76

The first element. As stipulated upon by the parties during the preliminary
conference, 67 accused Alba was the municipal mayor of the Municipality of
Mambusao, Province of Capiz at the time material and relevant to the instant
case. It is beyond cavil, therefore, that herein accused is a public officer
discharging official functions at the time of the alleged commission of the offense.

Since the first element is not disputed, the Court shall now determine
whether the second and third elements are extant in this case.

The second element. The second element provides the different modes by
which the crime may be committed, that is, through manifest partiality, evident
bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. 68 Section 3(e) ofR.A. 3019 may be
committed either by dolo, as when the accused acted with evident bad faith or
manifest partiality, or by culpa as when the accused committed gross inexcusable
negligence. 69 Additionally, Section 3(e) poses the standard of manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence before liability can be had under
the provision. 70 In Atienza,81 the High Tribunal expounded the meaning of
"manifest partiality", "evident bad faith" and "gross inexcusable negligence", viz:

"There is manifest partiality when there is a clear, notorious, or plain

inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another.
Evident bad faith connotes not only bad judgment but also

65 Bacasmas v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 189343, July 10, 2013.

66 Ibid., citing Albert v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 164015, February 26, 2009, 580 SCRA 279,
289290.
67 Supra note 1, pp. 174-181; pp. 184-188.
68 People v. Atienza, et al., G.R. No. 171671, June 18, 2012.
69 Uriarte v. People, G.R. No. 169251, December 20, 2006.
70 Constantino v. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 140656, September 13, 2007.
81
78.
Supra note
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 22 x

of2671

palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or

conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. Evident bad faith
contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with
some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. Gross inexcusable
negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest
care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to
consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. "82 (Emphasis supplied.)

At this juncture, the Court notes that the information indicting the accused
alleged that he acted with evident bad faith and manifest partiality by refusing to
sign both the Performance Evaluation Report for the period January I to June 30,
2005, and the Performance Target for the period July I to December 31, 2005 of
Alma Moises. To establish the presence of the second element, the facts and
pieces of evidence of the case should meet the degree required by the law and
jurisprudence. Mere bad faith or partiality and negligence per se are not enough
for one to be held liable under the law since the act of bad faith or partiality must
in the first place be evident or manifest, respectively, while the negligent deed
should both be gross and inexcusable. 72

In her direct examination,73 Alma Moises testified that she was instructed
by Mayor Alba to prepare a salary increase proposal for certain local government
employees. Moises advised the mayor that it is not possible to increase the salary
of certain employees only as the rules prohibit the same. Consequently, Alba
issued a memorandum74 directing Moises to prepare the said salary proposal and
she obeyed the same due to her fear that she might be charged with
insubordination. However, the said budget proposal was disapproved by the
Sangguniang Bayan and Moises was reassigned to the Office of the Mayor
without any specific function. These circumstances, to the belief of Moises,
indicate her strained relationship with Mayor Alba which eventually led to the
latter' s refusal to sign her Performance Evaluation Report and Performance
Target.

71 Ibid., citing Albert v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 76.

72 Constantino v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 80 citing Sistoza v. Desierto, 437 Phil. 1 1 7, 130
(2002).
Supra note
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 23 of 32x x
Nevertheless, We believe that the pieces of evidence adduced by the
prosecution are not sufficient to establish the second element, i.e., that the
accused acted with evident bad faith and manifest partiality.

Foremost, it is important to stress that no other than Moises herself

admitted that as part of the municipality's practice, the employees would prepare
the PEF including with their own ratings. Should the mayor agree on

the ratings indicated in the performance evaluation prepared, he should affix his
signature. Hence..86

ATTY. CATALAN

Q: And since the Mayor is the rater and all the inputs here are already here, so
the Mayor as a rater has no more thing to do but to sign your performance
rating, is that what this document would implied (sic)?

WITNESS

A: He is supposed to sign that document if he agrees on the performance

evaluation that I prepare (sic) for the period January 1, 2005 to June 2005, since I am
still the Municipal Budget Officer during that time, Sir, because the reassignment took
effect sometime in July 1, 2005, Sir.

ATTY. CATALAN

Q: But all the inputs o (sic) rating were already supplied by you?

WITNESS

A: Yes, that is the regular procedure on the preparation of the Performance

Evaluation, Sir.

ATTY. CATALAN

Q: So you mean to say that it is not the Mayor who evaluates you or give you
the rating but you yourself?

73 Supra note I l, pp. 7-1 1 .

74 12.
Supra note
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 24 x
WITNESS

A: He can change that as soon as he reviews my rating because there is an

employee/employer agreement, Sir.

ATTY. CATALAN

Q: What is that agreement?

WITNESS

86
I l, pp. 19-20.

Supra note
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 25 x
of26

A: That they will agree on the performance rating that I rated to myself,
Sir. (Emphasis supplied.)

The admissions made by Moises only show that the rater or the immediate
supervisor has the sole discretion whether to sign the said form depending on the
ratings indicated by the employees. In other words, Mayor Alba, as the immediate
supervisor of Moises, has the prerogative not to sign the PEF if he disagrees with
the ratings indicated by the latter. Assuming for the sake of argument that it has
been the practice in the municipality for the employees to rate themselves, the
same is still subject to the approval of their respective immediate supervisor. More
in point is the declaration of Moises that the employee and the immediate
supervisor must agree on the targets and ratings indicated in the PEF: 75

ATTY. CATALAN

Q: So, in short this Performance Evaluation is rate (sic) by employees?

WITNESS

A: Based on this PEF it is stated here that we discussed and agreed about rating
then if we agreed we just signed it but if we don't agreed then we change the
rating, Sir. (sic)

xxx xxx

ATTY. CATALAN

Q: Just to make it clear, from this document that you presented Exhibit C (sic),
all the items which the raters filled up was already filled up when you submitted
this Performance Rating?

WITNESS

A: Yes, as what I said before this rating can be change (sic) by the immediate
supervisor if he wants, he can change it even through his hand writing if he
wants and he can also comment and recommend or write a recommendation on
this part, Sir.

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that there must be a mutual agreement between
the employee and his/her immediate supervisor; therefore, the employee cannot and

75 Ibid., pp. 20-21.

DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 26 of 32x x
should not compel the immediate supervisor to sign the PEF if the latter is not amenable

to the ratings indicated by the employee.

Besides, the Performance Evaluation System76 of the Municipality of Mambusao

clearly states that at the end of the evaluation period, the supervisor and the
employee should meet to discuss the latter's accomplishments against established
targets and standards and that they both give their ratings in the prescribed fonn
and settle/discuss differences, if there is any. The said system77 likewise defines
"performance standard" as a measure if yardstick against which performance
level is assessed. It is the product of mutual agreement among members of the
organization or between the supervisor and the employee.

The Court cannot subscribe to the claim of the prosecution that there is
evident bad faith and manifest partiality in the instant case since there is no other
evidence presented to prove the same. Other than bare allegations and insistence
of strained relationship between Moises and the accused, the exhibits proffered
by the prosecution miserably failed to establish that Mayor Alba's failure to sign
the subject PEF is deliberate and intended to cause undue injury to Moises. The
second element is further negated by Moises' admission that she did not ask the
accused why he did not sign the PEF 78 in question. When cross-examined, Moises
stated: 91

ATTY CATALAN

Q: And did you discuss with the mayor why he did not sign this
Performance Rating?

WITNESS

A: I did not, when I prepare (sic) that Iwas no longer functioning as

Municipal Budget Officer but instead I was just there in my office the
whole day just waiting for the mayor to discuss the matter, Sir.

AJ GESMUNDO

Q: Did you not write him a letter or communication calling his attention?

WITNESS

76 Supra note 54.

77 Ibid.
78 Common exhibit: Exhi "C" for the prosecution; Exh. "4" for the defense. 91 1 1,

p. 22.
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 27 of 32x x
A: I did not, your Honor.

AJ GESMUNDO

Q: Why not?

WITNESS

A: Because during that time we were not in a good working relationship and I
was also... (interruption)

xxx xxx

It is evident from the above that Moises failed to communicate or exert any
effort to clarify the matter with Mayor Alba. By her own failure, neither evident
bad faith or manifest partiality can be ascribed to the accused. As culled from the
testimonies of the witnesses, Moises was reassigned to the Office of the Mayor on
July l, 2005 while her PEF92 for the first semester of 2005 was stamped received
on July 7, 2005. Moises could have approached Alba and discussed the matter
with him since she was already reassigned at the Office of the Mayor at the time
she submitted the said form. The inaction of Moises negates any evident bad faith
and manifest partiality on the part of Mayor Alba. Be that as it may, the records
are also bereft of any showing that Moises submitted her performance target for
the period of July I to December 3 1 , 2005. Neither Moises nor the other
prosecution witnesses testified that the former submitted the aforesaid
performance target. To Our mind, Moises camot blame the accused for not being
able to claim the productivity incentive bonus.

Supra note
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 28 of 32x x
In a similar case,79 the Supreme Court maintained the innocence of the
accused for the prosecution's failure to establish the second element, to wit:

"As bad faith is a state of mind, the prosecution must present evidence of the
overt acts or omissions committed by Ysidoro showing that he deliberately intended
to do wrong or cause damage to Doller by withholding her RATA. However. save
from the testimony of Doller of the strained relationship between her and Ysidoro, no
other evidence was presented to support Ysidoro's bad faith against her. We note that
Doller even disproved Ysidoro's bad faith when she admitted that several cases had
been actually filed against her before the Office of the Ombudsman. It bears stressing
that these purported anomalies were allegedly committed in office which Ysidoro
cited to justify the withholding of Doller's RATA.

xxx xxx

Similarly, we find no inference of bad faith when Doller failed to receive

the productivity bonus. Doller does not dispute that the receipt

92 Supra note 90.

79 Ysidoro v. Hon. Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, et al., G.R. No. 171513, February 6,
2012.
DECISION
People Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 29 of 32x x
v,

of the productivity bonus was premised on the submission by the employee of

his/her Performance Evaluation Report. In this case, Doller admitted that she did
not submit her Performance Evaluation Report; hence, she could not have
reasonably expected to receive any productivity bonus. Further, we cannot agree
with her self-serving claim that it was Ysidoro's refusal that led to her failure to
receive her productivity bonus given that no other hard evidence supported this
claim." (Emphasis supplied.)

Again, "evident bad faith" connotes not only bad judgment but also
palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or
conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. 80 "Evident bad faith"
contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with
some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. 818283 "Bad faith does
not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or
some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty
through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud. "96
Measured against these legal standards, We find that the second element is
wanting in the instant case.

The third element. The third element of the offense penalized in Section
3(e) is satisfied when the questioned conduct causes undue injury to any party,
including the government, or gives any unwarranted benefit, advantage or
preference in the discharge of his functions to any private party." The High Court's
pronouncements in Cabrera, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, et al. 8485 are germane:

"The use of the disjunctive term "or" connotes that either act qualifies as a
violation of Section 3, paragraph (e), or as aptly held in Santiago, as two (2)
different modes of committing the offense. This does not, however, indicate that
each mode constitutes a distinct offense, but rather, that an accused may be
charged under either mode or under both. 99"

Undue injury means actual damage. 86 It must be established by evidence 87

and must have been caused by the questioned conduct of the

80 Consigna v. People, et al., G.R. No. 175750-51, April 2, 2014.

81 Ibid., citing Uriarte v. People, supra note 79, citing Air France v. Carrascoso, 124 Phil.
722, 737 (1966).
82 Ampil v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 192685, July 31, 2013.
83 People v. Pajaro, et al., G.R. Nos. 167860-65, June 17, 2008.
84 G.R. Nos. 162314-17, October 25, 2004 citing Evangelista v. People, 337 SCRA 671
(2000).
85 Ibid.
86 Bacasmas v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 75 citing Llorente v. Sandiganbayan, 350 Phil. 820
(1998).
87 Ibid., citing Pecho v. Sandiganbayan, 33 1 Phil. 1 (1996).
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0329
Page 30 of 32x x
offenders. 102 On the other hand, unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference
means giving a gain of any kind without justification or adequate reasons.103

It is the prosecution's submission that the refusal of the accused to sign the
documents in dispute resulted to the deprivation of Moises' PIB in the amount of
Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00), thereby causing undue injury to the latter.

The contention is unavailing.

A perusal of the records indicates that the third element was not duly
established since Moises admitted in open court that she already waived the
aforementioned PIB, hence. 104

AJ GESMUNDO

Q: And since 2008 up to the present, you did not claimed (sic) any Performance
Bonus?

WITNESS

A: I did not, Sir.

AJ GESMUNDO

Q: In short you already waive that?

WITNESS

A: Yes, I already waived that to the Local Government Unit, Sir.

(Emphasis supplied.)

The concept of undue injury is inconsistent with the waiver made by

Moises. Indeed, there was negligence on the part of Moises when she opted not to
ask the accused regarding her PEF. She could have approached Mayor Alba and
discussed with the latter her predicament. As shown above, Moises neither talked
to the accused nor wrote him a communication. Besides, government employees
are not automatically entitled to the PIB since it will depend on his/her ratings
upon approval of the immediate supervisor/rater. Grant of incentives like the
productivity incentive bonus or other performance based incentives and awards
shall likewise be based on the final ratings of

Ibid., citing Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 50691, December 05, 1994, 238 SCRA 655. Ibid.,
citing Gallego v. Sandiganbayan, 201 Phil. 379 (1982). 104 Supra note I l, p. 24.
SB- 14-CRM-0329
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. Page 31 of 32x x

employees as approved by the PERC. In Llorente, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, et al. 106

it was pronounced:

"Unlike in actions for torts, undue injury in Sec. 31el cannot be

presumed even after a wrong or a violation of a right has been established. Its
existence must be proven as one of the elements of the crime. In fact, the causing
of undue injury, or the giving of any unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence constitutes the very act punished under this section. Thus, it is
required that the undue iniury be specified, quantified and proven to the point of
moral certainty." (Emphasis supplied.)

In light of these premises, it is beyond clarity that the prosecution failed

to prove the third element, i.e., that the action of the accused caused undue injury
to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of the functions of the accused.

It is apropos to repeat the doctrine that an accusation is not, according

to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt; the prosecution must overthrow
the presumption of innocence with proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 107 As
aptly ruled in People v. Lagmay.. 108

"The constitutional presumption of innocence is not an empty platitude

meant only to embellish the Bill of Rights. Its purpose is to balance the scales in
what would otherwise be an uneven contest between the lone individual pitted
against the People of the Philippines and all the resources at their command. Its
inexorable mandate is that, for all the authority and influence of the prosecution,
the accused must be acquitted and set free if his guilt cannot be proved beyond
the whisper of a doubt. That mandate shall be enforced. 109

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Jose O. Alba, Jr. is hereby

ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt of the crime
charged beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the hold-departure order issued by the Court against

accused Jose O. Alba, Jr. is hereby LIFTED and SET ASIDE, and the cash

Supra note 54.

106
Supra note 100.
107
People v. Baulite, et al., G.R. No. 137599. October 8, 2001 citing People v. Dismukem, 234
SCRA 51, 61 (1994), citing People v. Dramayo, 149 Phil. 107 (1971); People v. Garcia, 215
SCRA 349 (1992).
108
G.R. No. 125310, April 21, 1999.
109
Ibid., citing People v. De Guzman, 194 SCRA 601, 606.
DECISION
People v. Jose O. Alba, Jr.
Criminal Case No. Page 32 of 32x x
SB-14-CRM-0329

bond posted by him is ordered RELEASED, subject to the usual accounting and
auditing procedures.

SO ORDERED.

-ARCEGA

WE CONCUR:

AEL R. LAGOS
Associate Justice Chairperson

ATTESTATION

I attest 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.

FAEL R. LAGOS
Chairperson, Fifth Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIll, 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.

ANG
Presiding Justice