TWO years after confronting the possibility of being thrown into prison for at least 12 years, Rodolfo Geronimo, chairman of Barangay Calendola, San Pedro City in Laguna, can now heave a sigh of relief.
The Sandiganbayan third division, in a decision dated August 28, 2025, granted his appeal and set aside the ruling of the San Pedro, Laguna Regional Trial Court that convicted him of two separate charges of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019).
The RTC had sentenced Geronimo to imprisonment of six to seven years for each count of the criminal offense after pronouncing him guilty of engaging the services of a barangay tanod (village watchman) to undertake the repair or replacement of street signs from October to December 2015.
He was accused of unlawfully awarding a “labor only” contract to barangay tanod Regino Lutero because of a prohibition in the Local Government Code of such a practice.
The assailed RTC decision held that Lutero should not have been awarded the contract because he is considered a public officer hence barred from engaging in any business transaction with the local government unit in which he is an employee.
In reversing Geronimo’s conviction, the Sandiganbayan held that neither the element of evident bad faith nor gross inexcusable negligence was present in the appellant’ cases.
Contrary to the allegation in the information and the finding of the local court, the Sandiganbayan said the prohibition in the Local Government Code is not applicable to Lutero.
“Lutero was not disqualified from transacting with Barangay Calendola as he was not covered by the prohibition under the Local Government Code. Given that he was qualified for the transaction and that his offer was the lowest, the court does not see any violation of the law here,” the anti-graft court pointed out.
The Sandiganbayan explained that a barangay tanod is not considered an employee of a local government unit but only as a contract of service or job order personnel because he is a volunteer.
“The RTC erroneously ruled that there was a Violation of Sections 3( e) and 3(j) ofR.A. No. 3019 because upon review, the court found that Lutero was not prohibited from transacting with Brgy. Calendola as he was not considered an official or employee of that LGU,” it added.
