SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 238815. March 18, 2019.]

RAQUIL-ALI M. LUCMAN , petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

and SANDIGANBAYAN 2ND DIVISION , respondents.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE , J : p

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari 1 are the Decision 2 dated March
9, 2018 and the Resolution 3 dated April 23, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan (SB) in Crim.
Case No. SB-13-CRM-0595, which found petitioner Raquil-Ali M. Lucman (Lucman)
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3 (c) of Republic Act No. (RA)
3019, 4 entitled the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act."

The Facts

The instant case stemmed from an Information 5 charging Lucman of violation of

Section 3 (c) of RA 3019, the accusatory portion of which states:
On 8 September 2009 to 16 October 2009, or sometime prior or
subsequent thereto in General Santos City, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, RACQUIL-ALI M.
LUCMAN, a public o cer being then the OIC-Regional Executive Director of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Region XII, committing the
offense in relation to and in abuse of his o ce, did then and there [willfully],
unlawfully, and criminally request for himself the amount of Two Million Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00) from Sergio Balolong, Aladin
Saydala, and Hadji Abdulwahid D. Bualan, and actually receive the amount of
One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,500,000.00) from the said
parties, in consideration for the assistance of accused Lucman in the
investigation, processing, and approval of the aforementioned parties'
application over two (2) parcels of alienable and disposable public lands
located at Brgys. Olympog and Tambler, General Santos City.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
The prosecution alleged that sometime in August 2009, private complainants
Hadji Abdulwahid D. Bualan (Bualan), Sergio Balolong (Balolong), and Aladin Saydala
(Saydala; collectively, private complainants) went to the o ce of Lucman, then the
O cer-in-Charge (OIC)-Regional Executive Director (RED) of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Region XII, to discuss with the latter their
intended applications for the issuance of Free Patent title. During the said meeting,
Lucman allegedly demanded Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P2,500,000.00) from them as consideration for the grant of their applications. Private
complainants acceded but asked to pay in installments. 7 Subsequently, on September
4, 2009, Bualan applied for Free Patents on behalf of Balolong and Saydala before the
Community Environment and Natural Resources O ce (CENRO) of General Santos City.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 On September 8, 2009, Lucman called up Bualan and demanded Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) as part of their agreement, as the former needed the
money for his trip to Manila. Complying with Lucman's demand, Bualan proceeded to
Tambler International Airport where he gave Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00) to Lucman's driver for which the latter signed a cash voucher. 8
Thereafter, Bualan regularly followed up their applications with Lucman, but the latter
told him to wait for two (2) to three (3) months for approval. 9 On October 16, 2009,
Lucman again called up Bualan and told him to go to the house of Balolong for the
payment of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00). Thereat, Balolong allegedly issued a
check worth One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) for which Lucman signed a check
voucher. 1 0 However, despite the payment of a total of One Million Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P1,500,000.00), their applications remained pending. Thus, private
complainants led a joint complaint before the O ce of the City Prosecutor of General
Santos City. 1 1 CAIHTE

Pleading "not guilty" to the charge, 1 2 Lucman denied demanding and receiving
money from private complainants for and in consideration of the approval of their Free
Patent applications. He claimed that Bualan merely wanted to destroy his honor and
integrity. 1 3 He further claimed that Bualan's testimony cannot be given any weight
since it was not corroborated either by other witnesses or by supporting documents. 1 4

The SB Ruling

In a Decision 1 5 dated March 9, 2018, the SB found Lucman guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment for a period of six (6) years and one (1) month with perpetual
disqualification to hold public office. 1 6
The SB found that the prosecution had established all the elements for violation
of Section 3 (c) of RA 3019, considering that: (a) Lucman was the OIC-RED of the DENR,
Region XII at the time of the commission of the offense; (b ) as the OIC-RED, he had
authority to grant applications for Free Patent, such as the ones applied for by private
complainants; (c) he demanded Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P2,500,000.00) and actually received One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P1,500,000.00) from private complainants; and (d) the amount was for and in
consideration of the grant of such applications. 1 7
Aggrieved, Lucman moved for reconsideration, 1 8 which was, however, denied in
a Resolution 1 9 dated April 23, 2018; hence, this petition.

The Issue before the Court

The primordial issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the SB correctly
convicted Lucman for the crime of violation of Section 3 (c) of RA 3019.

The Court's Ruling

The petition is without merit.

Section 3 (c) of RA 3019 states:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Section 3. Corrupt practices of public o cers. — In addition to acts
or omissions of public o cers already penalized by existing law, the following
shall constitute corrupt practices of any public o cer and are hereby declared
to be unlawful:
xxx xxx xxx
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or
other pecuniary or material bene t, for himself or for another, from any person
for whom the public o cer, 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.
DETACa

As may be gleaned from above, the elements of the crime charged are as
follows: (1) the offender is a public o cer; (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 bene t for himself or for another; and (4) he requested or received the gift,
present or other pecuniary or material bene t in consideration for help given or to be
given. 2 0
After a judicious review of the case, the Court is convinced that the SB correctly
convicted Lucman for violating Section 3 (c) of RA 3019. It is undisputed that Lucman
was a public o cer at the time the offense was committed, then being the OIC-RED of
the DENR, Region XII. As the OIC-RED, he had the authority to grant applications for Free
Patents, such as the ones led by private complainants. 2 1 It was likewise established
through the testimony of Bualan and the evidence on record that Lucman demanded
Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00) and actually received One
Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,500,000.00) 2 2 from private complainants,
and that these amounts were for and in consideration of the grant of their applications.
23

In view of the foregoing, the Court nds no reason to overturn the SB's ndings,
as there is no showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the
surrounding facts and circumstances of this case, and considering further the fact that
it was in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the parties'
witnesses. 2 4 As such, Lucman's conviction for violation of Section 3 (c) of RA 3019
must stand.
As regards the proper penalty to be imposed on Lucman, Section 9 (a) 2 5 of RA
3019, as amended, 2 6 states that the prescribed penalties for a violation of the said
crime includes, inter alia, imprisonment for a period of six (6) years and one (1) month
to fteen (15) years and perpetual disquali cation from public o ce. Taking into
consideration the provision of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, 2 7 which states that "in
imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by acts of the Philippine
Legislature, otherwise than by the Revised Penal Code, the court shall order the
accused to be imprisoned for a minimum term, which shall not be less than the
minimum term of imprisonment provided by law for the offense, and for a maximum
term which shall not exceed the maximum xed law," 2 8 the Court deems it proper to
modify Lucman's sentence to imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) years
and one (1) month, as minimum, to nine (9) years, as maximum, with perpetual
disqualification to hold public office.
WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED . The Decision dated March 9, 2018 and the
Resolution dated April 23, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan in Crim. Case No. SB-13-CRM-
0595 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION . Petitioner Raquil-Ali M. Lucman is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 3 (c) of
Republic Act No. 3019 or the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," and accordingly,
sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6)
years and one (1) month, as minimum, to nine (9) years, as maximum, with perpetual
disqualification from public office.
SO ORDERED .
Carpio, * Caguioa, J.C. Reyes, Jr. and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
* Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2644 dated March 15, 2019.

1. Rollo, pp. 5-30.

2. Id. at 31-39. Penned by Associate Justice Lorifel L. Pahimna with Chairperson Oscar C.
Herrera, Jr. and Associate Justice Michael Frederick L. Musngi, concurring.
3. Id. at 41-43.
4. (August 17, 1960).

5. Not attached to the rollo.

6. See rollo, pp. 31-32.

7. See id. at 33-34.

8. See id. at 34.

9. See id.
10. See id.
11. See id. at 34-35.

12. Id. at 32.

13. See id. at 35.

14. Id. at 16.

15. Id. at 31-39.

16. See id. at 38.

17. See id. at 35-36.
18. See motion for reconsideration dated March 19, 2018; id. at 45-58.

19. Id. at 41-43.

20. Mendoza-Ong v. Sandiganbayan, 460 Phil. 311, 318 (2003); and Tecson v. Sandiganbayan,
376 Phil. 191, 201 (1999).
21. See rollo, pp. 35-36.

22. See id. at 34.

23. See id. at 36.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 24. See Cahulogan v. People, G.R. No. 225695, March 21, 2018; citing Peralta v. People, G.R. No.
221991, August 30, 2017, 838 SCRA 350, 360.
25. Section 9. Penalties for violations. — (a) Any public officer or private person committing any
of the unlawful acts or omissions enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall
be punished with imprisonment for not less than six years and one month nor more than
fifteen years, perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation or forfeiture
in favor of the Government of any prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly
out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income.

xxx xxx xxx

26. Batas Pambansa Blg. 195, entitled "AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS EIGHT, NINE, TEN,
ELEVEN, AND THIRTEEN OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED THIRTY HUNDRED AND
NINETEEN, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT"
(March 16, 1982).

27. Act No. 4103, entitled "AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND
PAROLE FOR ALL PERSONS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES BY THE COURTS OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS; TO CREATE A BOARD OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND TO
PROVIDE FUNDS THEREFOR; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES" (December 5, 1933).
28. See Act No. 4103, Section 1.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com