October 10, 2025 | 12:00am
MANILA, Philippines — A former chairman and former treasurer of a barangay in Manila were sentenced to up to 10 years in prison for graft for allegedly demanding advance “commission” from a supplier in exchange for a contract to supply various materials.
In a 48-page decision promulgated on Sept. 30, the Sandiganbayan Sixth Division upheld the ruling of the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 39 finding Ephraim Maniquis and Regielyn Lauriaga, former chairman and treasurer, respectively, of Barangay 52, Zone 4 in Manila guilty of violating Section 3(b) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
“The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of violation of Section 3(b) of Republic Act 3019, as amended. Hence, conviction of accused-appellants is proper,” the Sixth Division’s decision read, referring to the provision that “prohibits a public official from soliciting and accepting gifts, favor or percentage in connection with any government transaction in which the public official has the capacity to intervene.”
Maniquis and Lauriaga were sentenced to six years and one month to 10 years in prison and perpetually disqualified from holding public office.
The P73,320 they received from the private complainant was ordered “confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government.”
According to the case filed by the Office of the Ombudsman in 2015, Maniquis and Lauriaga demanded P73,320 from complainant Franco Espiritu, owner of FRCGE Trading, as their “advance share” or commission in exchange for awarding to Espiritu’s firm a contract to provide the barangay various supplies and materials.
“The Court finds the private complainant’s testimony clear and consistent, that he yielded to the amount requested by the accused-appellants despite the absence of details regarding the project and bidding because he relied on their assurance that he would emerge as the winning bidder in a transaction where both accused-appellants had the duty to intervene under the law,” the Sixth Division ruling read in part.
Besides, the anti-graft court added, “the mere act of requesting, demanding or receiving a gift, share, present, percentage or benefit in connection with a contract or transaction that the public officer has to intervene is already punishable under law, regardless of whether or not the contract or transaction is perfected or consummated.”
