By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
PEOPLE VS. RICHARD ENOJO, G.R. NO. 252258 (APRIL 22, 2022):
APPLICATION OF THE ELEMENTS OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (A) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019 (ANTI-
GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT)
Atty. Richard Enojo is the Officer-in-Charger of the Office of the Provincial Administrator and
Provincial Legal Office of the Province of Negros Oriental. In such capacities, he was charged of violating
Section 3 (a) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for
supposedly taking advantage of his offices and purportedly persuaded, induced, and influenced
Philippine National Police (“PNP”) Dauin Station to summon Ralph Gavin Hughes, Merlinda Regalado,
and Atty. Ligaya Rubio Violeta for a conference with him for possible settlement of a land dispute. The
Information alleged that such inducement or persuasion is against the law since the said act is not
among the mandate of the PNP under Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6975, or the Department of
Interior and Local Government Act of 1990.
The case stemmed from Dauin Point Land Corporation (“DPLC”), represented by its Director,
Atty. Ligaya S. Rubio-Violeta, bought a property consisting of around 7,000 square meters from Ramon
Regalado, represented by his attorney-in-fact, Merlinda A. Regalado. When DPLC, through its
stockholder and member of its Board of Directors, Ralph Gavin Hughes, applied for Fencing Permit with
the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (MPDC) and Zoning Officer Designate of the Local
Government Unit of Dauin, it was opposed by Atty. Enojo through a Letter stating that the said that a
portion of the lot belongs to him in payment for his legal services for Ramon Regalado. Over his
objection, the Fencing Permit was eventually granted.
On February 27, 2013, Atty. Enojo went to Dauin Police Station to make a request for a
conference with Hughes, his counsel Atty. Violeta, and Regalado, to be held in the said police station. He
was met by Senior Police Officer 4 Proculito Als-as Briones, who was at the time the station’s
“designated Chief Investigator,” and who had responsibility to investigate complaints and record any
untoward incident during his tour of duty. SPO4 Briones knew Atty. Enojo to be a public official who was
connected and assigned at the Provincial Hall of Negros Oriental. He received the request and recorded
in the blotter.
DPLC filed a Complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas against Atty. Enojo
for violation Section 3 (a) of RA 3019 which penalizes the act of “persuading, inducing or influencing
another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly
promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or
allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense.” The
elements of Section 3 (a) of RA 3019 are as follows: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the offender
persuades, induces, or influences another public officer to perform an act, or the offender allows
himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit an act; and (3) the act performed by the
other public officer, or committed by the offender, constitutes a violation of rules and regulations duly
promulgated by competent authority, or an offense in connection with the official duty of the latter.
The Ombudsman found probable cause against Atty. Enojo and the Sandiganbayan convicted
him. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Sandiganbayan and held that while the
first and third elements are present, the second element is wanting. The Court held that SPO4 Briones
was not persuaded or induced but he did what Atty. Enojo asked of him because it was their Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP). The Court held:
“It is thus clear from the foregoing that the second element of persuasion or
inducement is absent in the instant case. While SPO4 Briones actually performed the act in
question, i.e., sending the radio message, he did so not because Atty. Enojo told him to, but
because he believed that it was his office’s SOP to entertain and provide assistance to any
person who comes to the police for help. SP04 Briones further testified that it was not
because of Atty. Enojo’s status or position that he performed the said act. In other words,
SP04 Briones made the invitation on the mistaken belief that it was his duty to do so, which
necessarily negates the presence of any undue influence.
The Court is not convinced. We fail to see how Enojo’s act of supplying such pieces of
information can be understood as a means of persuading, inducing, or influencing SPO4
Briones to violate police rules or protocols. To reiterate, SPO4 Briones testified during trial
that he found nothing improper about Enojo’s request for a conference as it was quite
common to receive requests of similar nature from civilians, and that it was his office’s SOP
to aid them with their concerns. Moreover, and as noted by the Sandiganbayan, the PNP
Manual requires each operating unit to ‘maintain an official police blotter where all types of
operational and undercover dispatches shall be recorded containing the five ‘Ws’ (who,
what, where, when and why) and one ‘H’ (how) of an information.’ Thus, such details were
actually necessary for SPO4 Briones to comply with police procedures and to properly
perform his duties.”
Atty. Enojo was acquitted since the Court cannot subscribe to the Sandiganbayan’s finding that
Atty. Enojo is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged because there is no adequate proof
that he persuaded, induced, or influenced SPO4 Briones into performing the act under scrutiny.