SC Acquits Barangay Official in Graft Case Due to Lack of Corrupt Intent

  • Post last modified:March 7, 2025

Key Takeaways:

  • Mere acceptance of money, without clear corrupt intent, does not automatically constitute a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
  • The appellate courts should facilitate proper case referrals rather than dismiss appeals on procedural grounds.
  • Public servants must be held accountable, but this ruling ensures they are not unjustly penalized without sufficient legal basis.

The Supreme Court, in Bigcas v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 265579), overturned the conviction of a barangay official, Joel Pancho Bigcas, for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019). The ruling emphasized the necessity of proving corrupt intent in graft cases and highlighted the importance of due process in appellate jurisdiction.

Background of the Case

Joel Pancho Bigcas, a barangay kagawad and chairperson of the Council of Environment and Natural Resources of Barangay Lacson, was charged under Section 3(c) of R.A. 3019. The case arose from allegations that he solicited PHP 200.00 from a resident, Lorlene Gonzales, to expedite her application for an earth-moving permit.

The trial court found Bigcas guilty, sentencing him to six years and one month to seven years of imprisonment, along with perpetual disqualification from holding public office. His appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals (CA) for lack of jurisdiction, and he subsequently sought relief from the Supreme Court.

Issues

Did the prosecution establish all elements of the offense under Section 3(c) of R.A. 3019?

Supreme Court’s Ruling

No. To convict under Section 3(c) of R.A. 3019, the prosecution must establish that:

  • The accused is a public officer;
  • The officer secured or attempted to secure a permit for another person;
  • The officer requested or received a gift, present, or pecuniary benefit in connection with such assistance; and
  • The benefit was given in consideration of the help rendered.

The Court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 3(c) of Republic Act No. 3019, the prosecution must establish not just the receipt of money but also the corrupt intent behind it. In this case, the evidence presented failed to prove that Bigcas acted dishonestly or with fraudulent purpose.

First, the Court highlighted that the PHP 200.00 given by Lorlene Gonzales was not solicited by Bigcas but was voluntarily offered by Gonzales to cover his transportation expenses when checking on her permit application. Bigcas initially refused the money but eventually accepted it as a loan to pacify Gonzales. This voluntary nature of the transaction negated any presumption that the money was received in exchange for an undue favor. Moreover, if Bigcas had dishonest motives, he would not have openly acknowledged receiving the money or documented his expenses related to the matter.

Second, the Court underscored that Bigcas made multiple attempts to return the PHP 200.00 to Gonzales, her son, and other family members, which they refused to accept. Even the barangay secretary testified that Bigcas tried to return the money, further proving his lack of corrupt intent. The Court reasoned that an individual engaged in graft would not persistently attempt to give back an illicit benefit. Instead, his actions demonstrated transparency and a willingness to correct any misunderstanding about the nature of the transaction.

Third, the Supreme Court noted that Bigcas performed his duties as a barangay official without self-interest. His visit to the City Planning Office to verify Gonzales’s application was part of his role as the chairperson of the Council of Environment and Natural Resources. The documents he secured revealed that Gonzales’s application was not viable because the land in question was classified as an agro-forestry non-tillage zone, where quarrying was strictly prohibited. The Court found that this discovery, which ultimately led to the rejection of the permit, contradicted claims that Bigcas had intended to secure an improper benefit for Gonzales. Instead of facilitating approval, he ensured due diligence in verifying the information, acting in the interest of public service rather than personal gain.

Furthermore, the Court stressed that there was no proof that Bigcas personally benefited from the transaction. He did not exert influence to expedite Gonzales’s application nor did he manipulate the process to extract a bribe. The ruling reinforced that to establish a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, there must be both an irregular action and a deliberate intention to secure an undue advantage. In this case, neither was present.

Disclaimer: This article may have been created with the assistance of artificial intelligence. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy and clarity, readers are encouraged to verify information independently.