Manila barangay chairman avoids jail term on double jeopardy

BEING indicted on multiple criminal charges is a problem for most people but it proved to be a blessing in disguise for a barangay chairperson from Manila.

Despite finding that accused Emmanuel de Vela “requested, demanded, and received” the sum of P70,000 from a supplier who was trying to collect payment for unpaid deliveries, the Sandiganbayan Sixth Division held that he was wrongfully convicted of graft by the Manila Regional Trial Court.

The defendant invoked double jeopardy after he was tried and acquitted by the Metropolitan Trial Court of violation of Section 7 (d) of RA 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees based on allegations identical to the graft case.

“Having been validly acquitted in the MeTC case, accused-appellant De Vela may no longer be tried for the same act, coming from the same intent …for violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) even if the latter should have been the case that proceeded since it imposed a higher penalty,” the Sandiganbayan said.

The ruling was penned by Associate Justice Sarah Jane T. Fernandez, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Karl B. Miranda and Kevin Narce B. Vivero.

Based on case records, the barangay chairperson asked for P70,000 from FRCGE Trading as a “commission” in exchange for signing the supply contract for various items to Barangay 404, Zone 41, District 4 of the City of Manila in December 2011.

The Manila RTC convicted De Vela of graft on May 24, 2019 and sentenced him to six to nine years imprisonment with perpetual disqualification from public office.

John Patrick Paredes, counsel for the defendant, invoked double jeopardy on the ground that his client was acquitted by the MeTC Branch 11 on June 1, 2018, or 11 months before the RTC issued the conviction.

Even as it affirmed the findings of the RTC about the graft charge against the accused, the Sandiganbayan sustained the defense argument that double jeopardy had occurred since the two separate cases involved the same acts of “request, demand, and receipt” of share or commission for FRCGE as a condition for signing the disbursement voucher to allow the release of payment.

“While the