THE Sandiganbayan has reversed the January 8, 2024 decision of the Tagum City Regional Trial Court Branch 2 and set aside the conviction of a former barangay official for graft in connection with the use of the local government’s rescue vehicle for personal purposes.
The anti-graft court’s Sixth Division held that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of the crime charged, particularly the allegation that the defendant acted with evident bad faith and that the government suffered undue injury from his actions.
Case records showed that accused Eduardo Moratilla, acting barangay chairman of Magugpo Poblacion, Tagum City used the barangay’s rescue vehicle on February 6, 2021 to attend the interment of his sister-in-law in another town, estimated to be 40 kilometers away.
Prosecutors said Barangay Maugpo Poblacion suffered undue injury since the vehicle depreciated due to wear and tear from the trip, that the defendant did not compensate the local government, and that he did not pay the cost of fuel.
In the assailed ruling, the RTC sentenced Moratilla to six to ten years imprisonment with perpetual disqualification from public office.
The accused appealed the ruling on two points: that the elements of the alleged violation of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act was not proven, and that the court erred in imposing jail term and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
The Sandiganbayan sustained the prosecution’s argument that the trip was personal in nature and that it was contrary to Circular No 75-6 issued by the Commission on Audit, which states that “government motor vehicles shall be used strictly and exclusively for official business.”
However, it agreed with the defense that the element of undue injury was not sufficiently proven since there was no specific and detailed computation of the injury.
Also, the defendant’s driver testified that Moratilla gave him P100 for fuel when they returned from the burial.
“Clearly, while there were expenses incurred by Barangay Magugpo Poblacion, we cannot determine the actual amount that is directly attributable to the improper trip,” the court said.
