Conrado was a process server in the Office of the Clerk of Court of a Regional Trial Court (RTC). One of the cases filed in said court was a civil case filed against Leo. This case was already dismissed by the RTC on January 23, 1984. While a motion for reconsideration was filed, the said motion was also denied by the RTC on July 11, 1984.
On August 31, 1984, Leo learned that the order of July 11, 1984 has not yet been served on the plaintiffs which filed the case against him. He thus made representations with the executive judge to have the order served on the plaintiff’s counsel. Conrado was directed to carry out the service. He served the order first on Sept. 2, 1984 but he was unsuccessful as the lawyer was not in the given address. Leo found out that nothing has been done after that first attempt when he came back on February 22, 1985 and learned that the case was already archived. When Leo examined the records, on February 25, 1985, he found out that the order was served on plaintiffs counsel only on that date based on the return of service prepared by Conrado. Because of the delay of five months from the time he first effected the service on Sept.2,1984, Leo charged Conrado with corrupt practices under Section 3 (f) of the Anti Graft Law, above quoted. The Sandiganbayan found Conrado guilty and sentenced him to 6 years and 1 month to 9 years and 1 day of imprisonment.
Was the Sandiganbayan correct?
No.
Indeed there was failure on the part of Conrado, a public officer to observe due diligence in his assigned task; it consists of neglect, a broad term which is defined as failure to do what can be done and what is required to be done. In its generic sense, it would not matter whether such failure or refusal is intended or unintended. But here, that is not the real issue. To warrant conviction for violation of Section 3(f) of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the law itself additionally requires that Conrado’s dereliction besides being without justification, must be for the purpose of (a) obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit in favor of an interested party or (b) discriminating against another interested party. The severity of the penalty imposed by the law leaves no doubt that the legislative intent is to consider this element indispensable.
In this case, although this element was alleged, there is no sufficient proof to indicate that Conrado’s failure to act was motivated by any gain or benefit for himself or knowingly for the purpose of favoring an interested party as against another. It is not enough that an advantage in favor of one party, as against another, would result from such neglect or refusal.
Whenever life or liberty of a person is at stake, the guilt of such person must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the burden of that proof rests on the prosecution. This is the rule that must be observed not only in the appreciation of evidence but likewise in the application and interpretation of the law. While Leo may have been prejudiced by the misconduct of Conrado, his legal remedies lie elsewhere not in the instant action. (Coronado vs. Sandiganbayan G.R.94955 August 18, 1993)