"x x x.
Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, which provides:
SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. -- In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
x x x x
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. (Emphasis supplied.)
The essential elements of this crime are: (1) the accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; (2) said public officers commit the prohibited acts during the performance of their official duties or in relation to their public position; (3) they caused undue injury to any party, whether the government or a private party; (4) such injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and (5) the public officers have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.[23]
We explained the foregoing elements in Santos v. People[24]:
As may be noted, what contextually is punishable is the act of causing any undue injury to any party, or the giving to any private party of unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of the public officer’s functions. In Uy vs. Sandiganbayan, and again in Santiago vs. Garchitorena, the Court has made it abundantly clear that the use of the disjunctive word “or” connotes that either act of (a) “causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government”; and (b) “giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference,” qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended. This is not to say, however, that each mode constitutes a distinct offense but that an accused may be proceeded against under either or both modes.
x x x x
The term “undue injury” in the context of Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act punishing the act of “causing undue injury to any party,” has a meaning akin to that civil law concept of “actual damage.” The Court said so in Llorente vs. Sandiganbayan, thus:
In jurisprudence, “undue injury” is consistently interpreted as “actual damage.” Undue has been defined as “more than necessary, not proper, [or] illegal;” and injury as “any wrong or damage done to another, either in his person, rights, reputation or property [; that is, the] invasion of any legally protected interest of another.” Actual damage, in the context of these definitions, is akin to that in civil law. (Emphasis supplied.)
By accepting payment for delivery of lumber found to be without supporting documents as required by law, petitioner caused undue injury or damage to the provincial government which had no obligation to pay for confiscated lumber considered as government property. In fact, it is only the DENR Secretary or his representative who can dispose of such confiscated lumber in accordance with forestry laws and regulations, pursuant to Section 68-A of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 705 (otherwise known as the Forestry Code of the Philippines), as amended by Executive Order No. 277, which provides:
SEC. 68-A. Administrative Authority of the Department Head or His Duly Authorized Representative to Order Confiscation. - In all cases of violations of this Code or other forest laws[,] rules and regulations, the Department Head or his duly authorized representative, may order the confiscation of any forest products illegally cut, gathered, removed, or possessed or abandoned, and all conveyances used either by land, water[,] or air in the commission of the offense and to dispose of the same in accordance with pertinent laws, regulations or policies on the matter.”
Petitioner’s contention that she should have been instead prosecuted for illegal cutting, gathering and possession of timber or other forest products under Section 68 of P.D. No. 705 ignores the fact that she never came out to claim ownership of the seized lumber until her appearance before the Sangguniang Bayan wherein she pleaded for consideration in the delayed bridge construction project after the DENR confiscated the lumber she delivered. Except for her bare denial, petitioner failed to refute the correctness of the statements she made as reflected in the official minutes of the Sanggunian session held on December 14, 1992, duly certified by the Municipal Secretary and signed by the Sanggunian Members present, to wit:
Ang sumunod na binigyang pahintulot upang magbigay ng kanyang pahayag ay si Gng. Virginia Guadines, ang nagtatapat na Contractor ng tulay ng Barangay Sibulan, o tulay Nabotas ayon sa pagkilala ng DPWH. Ayon sa kanya siya bilang contractor ng nabanggit na proyekto ay nalulungkot sa pagkaabala nito dahilan nga sa nangyaring paghuli ng mga tauhan ng Forestry sa mga kahoy na gagamitin sa tulay. Nalaman din niya na bunga nito ay nagkakaroon ng parang pagpafaction-faction sa Sangguniang Bayan. Nais niyang ipagunita na ito ay isang public knowledge na siya ang nanalong bidder sa ginanap na public bidding na nasabing proyekto at nalalaman ng lahat na siya ay hindi makakapag-provide ng kahoy na gagamitin sa nasabing tulay. Nang mga panahong iyon nga ay kailangang magtungo siya sa Lucban, Quezon para sa pagkoku[m]pleto ng mga kailangang papeles sa nasabing kontrata, kaya’t siya ay nakisuyo ng taong mangangasiwa sa pagkuha ng kahoy. Ngayon na nangyari ang hindi inaasahan ay hinihiling niya na tayo ay magtulungan na maipatapos ang tulay na ito alang-alang sa kapakanan ng mga taong magdaraan sa nasabing tulay oras na ito ay matapos.
Nalalaman niya na siya ay mayroong pagkukulang, nguni’t hinihiling niya sa Sangguniang Bayan na bigyan na siya ng konsiderasyon sa pangyayaring ito , total ay pinapayagan na pala ngayon ang pagputol ng kahoy kung gagamitin sa mga government projects. Ang nabanggit na kautusan ay noon pa palang Nobyembre 1992 ipinalabas, kaya nga lamang ay hindi agad niya nalaman. Siya naman ay taos[-]puso ang pagtulong sa pamahalaang bayan ng Polillo at basta at nakabalita siya ng proyektong maaaring ang makikinabang ay ang ating bayan ay kanyang ginagawa kahi’t minsan nga ay nagdudukot bulsa siya para maiparating ito sa ating bayan.[25]
We find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan when it cited the pertinent portions of the minutes of the Sangguniang Bayan session of December 14, 1992, as evidence of petitioner’s statements concerning the lumber she delivered which were confiscated by the CENR for lack of requisite legal documents. These statements revealed that petitioner was fully aware of the confiscation of her lumber stockpiled along the Polillo-Burdeos provincial road, after she had delivered the same. We have previously underscored the importance of the minutes of formal proceedings when the court is confronted with conflicting claims of parties as to the truth and accuracy of the matters taken up therein. In De los Reyes v. Sandiganbayan, Third Division,[26] this Court held:
Thus, the Court accords full recognition to the minutes as the official repository of what actually transpires in every proceeding. It has happened that the minutes may be corrected to reflect the true account of a proceeding, thus giving the Court more reason to accord them great weight for such subsequent corrections, if any, are made precisely to preserve the accuracy of the records. In light of the conflicting claims of the parties in the case at bar, the Court, without resorting to the minutes, will encounter difficulty in resolving the dispute at hand.[27]x x x."
