Panel Law 5

1
Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 178552 October 5, 2010
SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE ENGAGEMENT NETWORK, INC., o be!"#$ o$ t!e So%t!&So%t! Net'or( )SSN* $or No&
St"te Ar+e, Gro%- E.".e+et, ", ATT/. SO0IMAN M. SANTOS, 1R., Petitioners,
vs.
ANTI&TERRORISM COUNCI0, THE E2ECUTI3E SECRETAR/, THE SECRETAR/ O4 1USTICE, THE SECRETAR/ O4
4OREIGN A44AIRS, THE SECRETAR/ O4 NATIONA0 5E4ENSE, THE SECRETAR/ O4 THE INTERIOR AN5 0OCA0
GO3ERNMENT, THE SECRETAR/ O4 4INANCE, THE NATIONA0 SECURIT/ A53ISER, THE CHIE4 O4 STA44 O4 THE
ARME5 4ORCES O4 THE PHI0IPPINES, AN5 THE CHIE4 O4 THE PHI0IPPINE NATIONA0 PO0ICE, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 178556
KI0USANG MA/O UNO )KMU*, re-re7ete, b8 9t7 C!"9r-er7o E#+er 0"bo., NATIONA0 4E5ERATION O4 0A:OR
UNIONS&KI0USANG MA/O UNO )NA40U&KMU*, re-re7ete, b8 9t7 N"t9o"# Pre79,et 1o7e#9to 3. U7t"re; ",
Secret"r8 Geer"# Ato9o C. P"7c%"#, ", CENTER 4OR TRA5E UNION AN5 HUMAN RIGHTS, re-re7ete, b8 9t7
E<ec%t9=e 59rector 5"978 Ar".o, Petitioners,
vs.
HON. E5UAR5O ERMITA, 9 !97 c"-"c9t8 "7 E<ec%t9=e Secret"r8, NOR:ERTO GON>A0ES, 9 !97 c"-"c9t8 "7 Act9.
Secret"r8 o$ N"t9o"# 5e$e7e, HON. RAU0 GON>A0ES, 9 !97 c"-"c9t8 "7 Secret"r8 o$ 1%7t9ce, HON. RONA05O
PUNO, 9 !97 c"-"c9t8 "7 Secret"r8 o$ t!e Iter9or ", 0oc"# Go=er+et, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, 9 !97
c"-"c9t8 "7 A4P C!9e$ o$ St"$$, ", 5IRECTOR GENERA0 OSCAR CA05ERON, 9 !97 c"-"c9t8 "7 PNP C!9e$ o$
St"$$, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 178581
:AGONG A0/ANSANG MAKA:A/AN ):A/AN*, GENERA0 A00IANCE :IN5ING WOMEN 4OR RE4ORMS, INTEGRIT/,
E?UA0IT/, 0EA5ERSHIP AN5 ACTION )GA:RIE0A*, KI0USANG MAG:U:UKI5 NG PI0IPINAS )KMP*, MO3EMENT O4
CONCERNE5 CITI>ENS 4OR CI3I0 0I:ERTIES )MCCC0*, CON4E5ERATION 4OR UNIT/, RECOGNITION AN5
A53ANCEMENT O4 GO3ERNMENT EMP0O/EES )COURAGE*, KA0IPUNAN NG 5AMA/ANG MAHIHIRAP
)KA5AMA/*, SO0I5ARIT/ O4 CA3ITE WORKERS, 0EAGUE O4 4I0IPINO STU5ENTS )04S*, ANAK:A/AN,
PAM:ANSANG 0AKAS NG KI0USANG MAMAMA0AKA/A )PAMA0AKA/A*, A00IANCE O4 CONCERNE5 TEACHERS
)ACT*, MIGRANTE, HEA0TH A00IANCE 4OR 5EMOCRAC/ )HEA5*, AGHAM, TEO4ISTO GUINGONA, 1R., 5R.
:IEN3ENI5O 0UM:ERA, RENATO CONSTANTINO, 1R., SISTER MAR/ 1OHN MANANSAN OS:, 5EAN CONSUE0O
PA>, ATT/. 1OSE4INA 0ICHAUCO, CO0. GERR/ CUNANAN )ret.*, CAR0ITOS SIGUION&RE/NA, 5R. CARO0INA
PAGA5UAN&ARAU00O, RENATO RE/ES, 5ANI0O RAMOS, EMERENCIANA 5E 0ESUS, RITA :AUA, RE/ C0ARO
CASAM:RE, Petitioners,
vs.
G0ORIA MACAPAGA0&ARRO/O, 9 !er c"-"c9t8 "7 Pre79,et ", Co++",er&9&C!9e$, E2ECUTI3E SECRETAR/
E5UAR5O ERMITA, 5EPARTMENT O4 1USTICE SECRETAR/ RAU0 GON>A0ES, 5EPARTMENT O4 4OREIGN
A44AIRS SECRETAR/ A0:ERTO ROMU0O, 5EPARTMENT O4 NATIONA0 5E4ENSE ACTING SECRETAR/
NOR:ERTO GON>A0ES, 5EPARTMENT O4 INTERIOR AN5 0OCA0 GO3ERNMENT SECRETAR/ RONA05O PUNO.
5EPARTMENT O4 4INANCE SECRETAR/ MARGARITO TE3ES, NATIONA0 SECURIT/ A53ISER NOR:ERTO
GON>A0ES, THE NATIONA0 INTE00IGENCE COOR5INATING AGENC/ )NICA*, THE NATIONA0 :UREAU O4
IN3ESTIGATION )N:I*, THE :UREAU O4 IMMIGRATION, THE O44ICE O4 CI3I0 5E4ENSE, THE INTE00IGENCE
SER3ICE O4 THE ARME5 4ORCES O4 THE PHI0IPPINES )ISA4P*, THE ANTI&MONE/ 0AUN5ERING COUNCI0
)AM0C*, THE PHI0IPPINE CENTER ON TRANSNATIONA0 CRIME, THE CHIE4 O4 THE PHI0IPPINE NATIONA0 PO0ICE
GEN. OSCAR CA05ERON, THE PNP, 9c#%,9. 9t7 9te##9.ece ", 9=e7t9."t9=e e#e+et7, A4P CHIE4 GEN.
HERMOGENES ESPERON, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 1788@0
KARAPATAN, A00IANCE 4OR THE A53ANCEMENT O4 PEOP0EAS RIGHTS, re-re7ete, !ere9 b8 5r. E,e#9" ,e #"
P";, ", re-re7et9. t!e $o##o'9. or."9;"t9o7B HUSTIS/A, re-re7ete, b8 E=".e#9e Her",e; ", "#7o o !er
o' be!"#$C 5ESAPARECI5OS, re-re7ete, b8 M"r8 G%8 Port"D"," ", "#7o o !er o' be!"#$, SAMAHAN NG MGA
E2&5ETAINEES 0A:AN SA 5ETENS/ON AT PARA SA AMNESTI/A )SE05A*, re-re7ete, b8 5o"to Cot9ete ",
"#7o o !97 o' be!"#$, ECUMENICA0 MO3EMENT 4OR 1USTICE AN5 PEACE )EM1P*, re-re7ete, b8 :97!o- E#+er
M. :o#oco, UCCP, ", PROMOTION O4 CHURCH PEOP0EAS RESPONSE, re-re7ete, b8 4r. G9#bert S"b",o,
OCARM, Petitioners,
vs.
G0ORIA MACAPAGA0&ARRO/O, 9 !er c"-"c9t8 "7 Pre79,et ", Co++",er&9&C!9e$, E2ECUTI3E SECRETART/
E5UAR5O ERMITA, 5EPARTMENT O4 1USTICE SECRETAR/ RAU0 GON>A0E>, 5EPARTMENT O4 4OREIGN
NOR:ERTO GON>A0ES, 5EPARTMENT O4 INTERIOR AN5 0OCA0 GO3ERNMENT SECRETAR/ RONA05O PUNO,
5EPARTMENT O4 4INANCE SECRETAR/ MARGARITO TE3ES, NATIONA0 SECURIT/ A53ISER NOR:ERTO
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 17@157
THE INTEGRATE5 :AR O4 THE PHI0IPPINES )I:P*, re-re7ete, b8 Att8. 4e#9c9"o M. :"%t97t", COUNSE0S 4OR THE
5E4ENSE O4 0I:ERT/ )CO5A0*, SEN. MA. ANA CONSUE0O A.S. MA5RIGA0 ", 4ORMER SENATORS SERGIO
OSMEEA III ", WIG:ERTO E. TAEA5A, Petitioners,
vs.
E2ECUTI3E SECRETAR/ E5UAR5O ERMITA AN5 THE MEM:ERS O4 THE ANTI&TERRORISM COUNCI0
)ATC*, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 17@6F1
:AGONG A0/ANSANG MAKA:A/AN&SOUTHERN TAGA0OG ):A/AN&ST*, GA:RIE0A&ST, KATIPUNAN NG MGA
SAMAH/ANG MAGSASAKA&TIMOG KATAGA0UGAN )KASAMA&TK*, MO3EMENT O4 CONCERNE5 CITI>ENS 4OR
CI3I0 0I:ERTIES )MCCC0*, PEOP0ES MART/RS, ANAK:A/AN&ST, PAMA0AKA/A&ST, CON4E5ERATION 4OR
UNIT/, RECOGNITION AN5 A53ANCEMENT O4 GO3ERNMENT EMP0O/EES )COURAGE&ST*, PAGKAKAISAAT
UGNA/AN NG MGA MAG:U:UKI5 SA 0AGUNA )PUMA0AG*, SAMAHAN NG MGA MAMAMA/AN SA TA:ING RI0ES
)SMTR&ST*, 0EAGUE O4 4I0IPINO STU5ENTS )04S*, :A/AN MUNA&ST, KONGRESO NG MGA MAG:U:UKI5 PARA
SA REPORMANG AGRAR/O KOMPRA, :IGKIS AT 0AKAS NG MGA KATUTU:O SA TIMOG KATAGA0UGAN
):A0ATIK*, SAMAHAN AT UGNA/AN NG MGA MAGSASAKANG KA:A:AIHAN SA TIMOG KATAGA0UGAN
)SUMAMAKA&TK*, STARTER, 0OSEOS RURA0 POOR ORGANI>ATION 4OR PROGRESS G E?UA0IT/, CHRISTIAN
NIEO 0A1ARA, TEO5ORO RE/ES, 4RANCESCA :. TO0ENTINO, 1ANNETTE E. :ARRIENTOS, OSCAR T. 0API5A, 1R.,
5E04IN 5E C0ARO, SA00/ P. ASTRERA, ARNE0 SEGUNE :E0TRAN, Petitioners,
vs.
G0ORIA MACAPAGA0&ARRO/O, 9 !er c"-"c9t8 "7 Pre79,et ", Co++",er&9&C!9e$, E2ECUTI3E SECRETAR/
E5UAR5O ERMITA, 5EPARTMENT O4 1USTICE SECRETAR/ RAU0 GON>A0E>, 5EPARTMENT O4 4OREIGN
NOR:ERTO GON>A0ES, 5EPARTMENT O4 INTERIOR AN5 0OCA0 GO3ERNMEN T SECRETAR/ RONA05O PUNO,
5EPARTMENT O4 4INCANCE SECRETAR/ MARGARITO TE3ES, NATIONA0 SECURIT/ A53ISER NOR:ERTO
!
" E C # $ # % N
CARPIO MORA0ES, J.:
Before the Court are six petitions challen&in& the constitutionalit' of Republic Act No. (!) *RA (!)+, ,An Act to $ecure the
$tate and Protect our People fro- .erroris-,, other/ise 0no/n as the 1u-an $ecurit' Act of 22),
1
si&ned into la/ on March
3, 22).
4ollo/in& the effectivit' of RA (!) on 5ul' 16, 22),
petitioner $outhern 1e-isphere En&a&e-ent Net/or0, #nc., a non-

&overn-ent or&ani7ation, and Att'. $oli-an $antos, 5r., a concerned citi7en, taxpa'er and la/'er, filed a petition for certiorari
and prohibition on 5ul' 13, 22) doc0eted as 8.R. No. 1)966. %n even date, petitioners :ilusan& Ma'o ;no *:M;+, National
4ederation of <abor ;nions-:ilusan& Ma'o ;no *NA4<;-:M;+, and Center for .rade ;nion and 1u-an Ri&hts *C.;1R+,
represented b' their respective officers
!
/ho are also brin&in& the action in their capacit' as citi7ens, filed a petition for
certiorari and prohibition doc0eted as 8.R. No. 1)966=.
.he follo/in& da', 5ul' 1), 22), or&ani7ations Ba&on& Al'ansan& Ma0aba'an *BA>AN+, 8eneral Alliance Bindin& ?o-en for
Refor-s, #nte&rit', E@ualit', <eadership and Action *8ABR#E<A+, :ilusan& Ma&bubu0id n& Pilipinas *:MP+, Move-ent of
Concerned Citi7ens for Civil <iberties *MCCC<+, Confederation for ;nit', Reco&nition and Advance-ent of 8overn-ent
E-plo'ees *C%;RA8E+, :alipunan n& "a-a'an& Mahihirap *:A"AMA>+, $olidarit' of Cavite ?or0ers *$C?+, <ea&ue of
4ilipino $tudents *<4$+, Ana0ba'an, Pa-bansan& <a0as n& :ilusan& Ma-a-ala0a'a *PAMA<A:A>A+, Alliance of Concerned
.eachers *AC.+, Mi&rante, 1ealth Alliance for "e-ocrac' *1EA"+, and A&ha-, represented b' their respective officers,
=
and
Aoined b' concerned citi7ens and taxpa'ers .eofisto 8uin&ona, 5r., "r. Bienvenido <u-bera, Renato Constantino, 5r., $ister
Mar' 5ohn Manansan, %$B, "ean Consuelo Pa7, Att'. 5osefina <ichauco, Retired Col. 8err' Cunanan, Carlitos $i&uion-
Re'na, "r. Carolina Pa&aduan-Araullo, Renato Re'es, "anilo Ra-os, E-erenciana de 5esus, Rita Baua and Re' Claro
Casa-bre filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition doc0eted as 8.R. No. 1)9691.
%n Au&ust 3, 22), :arapatan and its alliance -e-ber or&ani7ations 1ustis'a, "esaparecidos, $a-ahan n& -&a Ex-
"etainees <aban sa "etens'on at para sa A-nesti'a *$E<"A+, Ecu-enical Move-ent for 5ustice and Peace *EM5P+, and
Pro-otion of Church PeopleBs Response *PCPR+, /hich /ere represented b' their respective officers
6
/ho are also brin&in&
action on their o/n behalf, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition doc0eted as 8.R. No. 1)99(2.
%n Au&ust (, 22), the #nte&rated Bar of the Philippines *#BP+, Counsels for the "efense of <ibert' *C%"A<+,
3
$enator Ma.
Ana Consuelo A.$. Madri&al, $er&io %s-eCa ###, and ?i&berto E. .aCada filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition doc0eted
as 8.R. No. 1)(16).
Ba&on& Al'ansan& Ma0aba'an-$outhern .a&alo& *BA>AN-$.+, other re&ional chapters and or&ani7ations -ostl' based in the
$outhern .a&alo& Re&ion,
)
and individuals
9
follo/ed suit b' filin& on $epte-ber 1(, 22) a petition for certiorari and
prohibition doc0eted as 8.R. No. 1)(=31 that replicates the alle&ations raised in the BA>AN petition in 8.R. No. 1)9691.
#-pleaded as respondents in the various petitions are the Anti-.erroris- Council
(
co-posed of, at the ti-e of the filin& of the
petitions, Executive $ecretar' Eduardo Er-ita as Chairperson, 5ustice $ecretar' Raul 8on7ales as Dice Chairperson, and
4orei&n Affairs $ecretar' Alberto Ro-ulo, Actin& "efense $ecretar' and National $ecurit' Adviser Norberto 8on7ales, #nterior
and <ocal 8overn-ent $ecretar' Ronaldo Puno, and 4inance $ecretar' Mar&arito .eves as -e-bers. All the petitions,
except that of the #BP, also i-pleaded Ar-ed 4orces of the Philippines *A4P+ Chief of $taff 8en. 1er-o&enes Esperon and
Philippine National Police *PNP+ Chief 8en. %scar Calderon.
.he :arapatan, BA>AN and BA>AN-$. petitions li0e/ise i-pleaded President 8loria Macapa&al-Arro'o and the support
a&encies for the Anti-.erroris- Council li0e the National #ntelli&ence Coordinatin& A&enc', National Bureau of #nvesti&ation,
Bureau of #--i&ration, %ffice of Civil "efense, #ntelli&ence $ervice of the A4P, Anti-Mone' <aunderin& Center, Philippine
Center on .ransnational Cri-e, and the PNP intelli&ence and investi&ative ele-ents.
.he petitions fail.
PetitionersB resort to certiorari is i-proper
=
Preli-inaril', certiorari does not lie a&ainst respondents /ho do not exercise Audicial or @uasi-Audicial functions. $ection 1, Rule
36 of the Rules of Court is clearE
$ection 1. Petition for certiorari.F?hen an' tribunal, board or officer exercisin& Audicial or @uasi-Audicial functions has acted
/ithout or in excess of its or his Aurisdiction, or /ith &rave abuse of discretion a-ountin& to lac0 or excess of Aurisdiction, and
there is no appeal, nor an' plain, speed', and ade@uate re-ed' in the ordinar' course of la/, a person a&&rieved thereb'
-a' file a verified petition in the proper court, alle&in& the facts /ith certaint' and pra'in& that Aud&-ent be rendered annullin&
or -odif'in& the proceedin&s of such tribunal, board or officer, and &rantin& such incidental reliefs as la/ and Austice -a'
re@uire. *E-phasis and underscorin& supplied+
Parentheticall', petitioners do not even alle&e /ith an' -odicu- of particularit' ho/ respondents acted /ithout or in excess of
their respective Aurisdictions, or /ith &rave abuse of discretion a-ountin& to lac0 or excess of Aurisdiction.
.he i-propriet' of certiorari as a re-ed' aside, the petitions fail Aust the sa-e.
#n constitutional liti&ations, the po/er of Audicial revie/ is li-ited b' four exactin& re@uisites, vi7E *a+ there -ust be an actual
case or controvers'G *b+ petitioners -ust possess locus standiG *c+ the @uestion of constitutionalit' -ust be raised at the
earliest opportunit'G and *d+ the issue of constitutionalit' -ust be the lis -ota of the case.
12
#n the present case, the dis-al absence of the first t/o re@uisites, /hich are the -ost essential, renders the discussion of the
last t/o superfluous.
Petitioners lac0 locus standi
<ocus standi or le&al standin& re@uires a personal sta0e in the outco-e of the controvers' as to assure that concrete
adverseness /hich sharpens the presentation of issues upon /hich the court so lar&el' depends for illu-ination of difficult
constitutional @uestions.
11
Ana0 Mindanao Part'-<ist 8roup v. .he Executive $ecretar'
1
su--ari7ed the rule on locus standi, thusE
<ocus standi or le&al standin& has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the part' has
sustained or /ill sustain direct inAur' as a result of the &overn-ental act that is bein& challen&ed. .he &ist of the @uestion on
standin& is /hether a part' alle&es such personal sta0e in the outco-e of the controvers' as to assure that concrete
adverseness /hich sharpens the presentation of issues upon /hich the court depends for illu-ination of difficult constitutional
@uestions.
HAI part' /ho assails the constitutionalit' of a statute -ust have a direct and personal interest. #t -ust sho/ not onl' that the
la/ or an' &overn-ental act is invalid, but also that it sustained or is in i--ediate dan&er of sustainin& so-e direct inAur' as a
result of its enforce-ent, and not -erel' that it suffers thereb' in so-e indefinite /a'. #t -ust sho/ that it has been or is about
to be denied so-e ri&ht or privile&e to /hich it is la/full' entitled or that it is about to be subAected to so-e burdens or
penalties b' reason of the statute or act co-plained of.
4or a concerned part' to be allo/ed to raise a constitutional @uestion, it -ust sho/ that *1+ it has personall' suffered so-e
actual or threatened inAur' as a result of the alle&edl' ille&al conduct of the &overn-ent, *+ the inAur' is fairl' traceable to the
challen&ed action, and *!+ the inAur' is li0el' to be redressed b' a favorable action. *e-phasis and underscorin& supplied.+
Petitioner-or&ani7ations assert locus standi on the basis of bein& suspected ,co--unist fronts, b' the &overn-ent, especiall'
the -ilitar'G /hereas individual petitioners invariabl' invo0e the ,transcendental i-portance, doctrine and their status as
citi7ens and taxpa'ers.
?hile Chave7 v. PC88
1!
holds that transcendental public i-portance dispenses /ith the re@uire-ent that petitioner has
experienced or is in actual dan&er of sufferin& direct and personal inAur', cases involvin& the constitutionalit' of penal
le&islation belon& to an alto&ether different &enus of constitutional liti&ation. Co-pellin& $tate and societal interests in the
proscription of har-ful conduct, as /ill later be elucidated, necessitate a closer Audicial scrutin' of locus standi.
Petitioners have not presented an' personal sta0e in the outco-e of the controvers'. None of the- faces an' char&e under
RA (!).
6
:ARAPA.AN, 1ustis'a, "esaparecidos, $E<"A, EM5P and PCR, petitioners in 8.R. No. 1)99(2, alle&e that the' have been
subAected to ,close securit' surveillance b' state securit' forces,, their -e-bers follo/ed b' ,suspicious persons, and
,vehicles /ith dar0 /indshields,, and their offices -onitored b' ,-en /ith -ilitar' build., .he' li0e/ise clai- that the' have
been branded as ,ene-ies of the H$Itate.,
1=
Even concedin& such &ratuitous alle&ations, the %ffice of the $olicitor 8eneral *%$8+ correctl' points out that petitioners have
'et to sho/ an' connection bet/een the purported ,surveillance, and the i-ple-entation ofRA (!).
BA>AN, 8ABR#E<A, :MP, MCCC<, C%;RA8E, :A"AMA>, $C?, <4$, Ana0ba'an, PAMA<A:A>A, AC., Mi&rante, 1EA"
and A&ha-, petitioner-or&ani7ations in 8.R. No. 1)9691, /ould li0e the Court to ta0e Audicial notice of respondentsB alle&ed
action of ta&&in& the- as -ilitant or&ani7ations frontin& for the Co--unist Part' of the Philippines *CPP+ and its ar-ed /in&,
the National PeopleBs Ar-' *NPA+. .he ta&&in&, accordin& to petitioners, is tanta-ount to the effects of proscription /ithout
follo/in& the procedure under the la/.
16
.he petition of BA>AN-$., et al. in 8.R. No. 1)(=31 pleads the sa-e alle&ations.
.he Court cannot ta0e Audicial notice of the alle&ed ,ta&&in&, of petitioners.
8enerall' spea0in&, -atters of Audicial notice have three -aterial re@uisitesE *1+ the -atter -ust be one of co--on and
&eneral 0no/led&eG *+ it -ust be /ell and authoritativel' settled and not doubtful or uncertainG and *!+ it -ust be 0no/n to be
/ithin the li-its of the Aurisdiction of the court. .he principal &uide in deter-inin& /hat facts -a' be assu-ed to be Audiciall'
0no/n is that of notoriet'. 1ence, it can be said that Audicial notice is li-ited to facts evidenced b' public records and facts of
&eneral notoriet'. Moreover, a Audiciall' noticed fact -ust be one not subAect to a reasonable dispute in that it is eitherE *1+
&enerall' 0no/n /ithin the territorial Aurisdiction of the trial courtG or *+ capable of accurate and read' deter-ination b'
resortin& to sources /hose accurac' cannot reasonabl' be @uestionable.
.hin&s of ,co--on 0no/led&e,, of /hich courts ta0e Audicial -atters co-in& to the 0no/led&e of -en &enerall' in the course
of the ordinar' experiences of life, or the' -a' be -atters /hich are &enerall' accepted b' -an0ind as true and are capable
of read' and un@uestioned de-onstration. .hus, facts /hich are universall' 0no/n, and /hich -a' be found in enc'clopedias,
dictionaries or other publications, are Audiciall' noticed, provided, the' are of such universal notoriet' and so &enerall'
understood that the' -a' be re&arded as for-in& part of the co--on 0no/led&e of ever' person. As the co--on 0no/led&e
of -an ran&es far and /ide, a /ide variet' of particular facts have been Audiciall' noticed as bein& -atters of co--on
0no/led&e. But a court cannot ta0e Audicial notice of an' fact /hich, in part, is dependent on the existence or non-existence of
a fact of /hich the court has no constructive 0no/led&e.
13
*e-phasis and underscorin& supplied.+
No &round /as properl' established b' petitioners for the ta0in& of Audicial notice. PetitionersB apprehension is insufficient to
substantiate their plea. .hat no specific char&e or proscription under RA (!) has been filed a&ainst the-, three 'ears after its
effectivit', belies an' clai- of i--inence of their perceived threat e-anatin& fro- the so-called ta&&in&.
.he sa-e is true /ith petitioners :M;, NA4<; and C.;1R in 8.R. No. 1)966=, /ho -erel' harp as /ell on their supposed
,lin0, to the CPP and NPA. .he' fail to particulari7e ho/ the i-ple-entation of specific provisions of RA (!) /ould result in
direct inAur' to their or&ani7ation and -e-bers.
?hile in our Aurisdiction there is still no Audiciall' declared terrorist or&ani7ation, the ;nited $tates of A-erica
1)
*;$+ and the
European ;nion
19
*E;+ have both classified the CPP, NPA and Abu $a''af 8roup as forei&n terrorist or&ani7ations. .he Court
ta0es note of the Aoint state-ent of Executive $ecretar' Eduardo Er-ita and 5ustice $ecretar' Raul 8on7ales that the Arro'o
Ad-inistration /ould adopt the ;$ and E; classification of the CPP and NPA as terrorist or&ani7ations.
1(
$uch state-ent
not/ithstandin&, there is 'et to be filed before the courts an application to declare the CPP and NPA or&ani7ations as
do-estic terrorist or outla/ed or&ani7ations under RA (!). A&ain, RA (!) has been in effect for three 'ears no/. 4ro- 5ul'
22) up to the present, petitioner-or&ani7ations have conducted their activities full' and freel' /ithout an' threat of, -uch less
an actual, prosecution or proscription under RA (!).
Parentheticall', the 4ourteenth Con&ress, in a resolution initiated b' Part'-list Representatives $aturnino %ca-po, .eodoro
CasiCo, Rafael Mariano and <u7vi-inda #la&an,
2
ur&ed the &overn-ent to resu-e peace ne&otiations /ith the N"4 b'
re-ovin& the i-pedi-ents thereto, one of /hich is the adoption of desi&nation of the CPP and NPA b' the ;$ and E; as
forei&n terrorist or&ani7ations. Considerin& the polic' state-ent of the A@uino Ad-inistration
1
of resu-in& peace tal0s /ith
the N"4, the &overn-ent is not i--inentl' disposed to as0 for the Audicial proscription of the CPP-NPA consortiu- and its
allied or&ani7ations.
More i-portant, there are other parties not before the Court /ith direct and specific interests in the @uestions bein& raised.
%f
recent develop-ent is the filin& of the first case for proscription under $ection 1)
!
of RA (!) b' the "epart-ent of 5ustice
3
before the Basilan Re&ional .rial Court a&ainst the Abu $a''af 8roup.
=
Petitioner-or&ani7ations do not in the least alle&e an'
lin0 to the Abu $a''af 8roup.
$o-e petitioners atte-pt, in vain thou&h, to sho/ the i--inence of a prosecution under RA (!) b' alludin& to past rebellion
char&es a&ainst the-.
#n <adlad v. Delasco,
6
the Court ordered the dis-issal of rebellion char&es filed in 223 a&ainst then Part'-<ist
Representatives Crispin Beltran and Rafael Mariano of Ana0pa/is, <i7a Ma7a of 8ABR#E<A, and 5oel Dirador, .eodoro
CasiCo and $aturnino %ca-po of Ba'an Muna. Also na-ed in the dis-issed rebellion char&es /ere petitioners Re' Claro
Casa-bre, Carolina Pa&aduan-Araullo, Renato Re'es, Rita Baua, E-erencia de 5esus and "anilo Ra-osG and accused of
bein& front or&ani7ations for the Co--unist -ove-ent /ere petitioner-or&ani7ations :M;, BA>AN, 8ABR#E<A,
PAMA<A:A>A, :MP, :A"AMA>, <4$ and C%;RA8E.
3
.he dis-issed rebellion char&es, ho/ever, do not save the da' for petitioners. 4or one, those char&es /erefiled in 223, prior
to the enact-ent of RA (!), and dis-issed b' this Court. 4or another, rebellion is defined and punished under the Revised
Penal Code. Prosecution for rebellion is not -ade -ore i--inent b' the enact-ent of RA (!), nor does the enact-ent
thereof -a0e it easier to char&e a person /ith rebellion, its ele-ents not havin& been altered.
Conversel', previousl' filed but dis-issed rebellion char&es bear no relation to prospective char&es under RA (!). #t cannot
be overe-phasi7ed that three 'ears after the enact-ent of RA (!), none of petitioners has been char&ed.
Petitioners #BP and C%"A< in 8.R. No. 1)(16) base their clai- of locus standi on their s/orn dut' to uphold the Constitution.
.he #BP 7eroes in on $ection 1 of RA (!) directin& it to render assistance to those arrested or detained under the la/.
.he -ere invocation of the dut' to preserve the rule of la/ does not, ho/ever, suffice to clothe the #BP or an' of its -e-bers
/ith standin&.
)
.he #BP failed to sufficientl' de-onstrate ho/ its -andate under the assailed statute revolts a&ainst its
constitutional ri&hts and duties. Moreover, both the #BP and C%"A< have not pointed to even a sin&le arrest or detention
effected under RA (!).
4or-er $enator Ma. Ana Consuelo Madri&al, /ho clai-s to have been the subAect of ,political surveillance,, also lac0s locus
standi. Prescindin& fro- the veracit', let alone le&al basis, of the clai- of ,political surveillance,, the Court finds that she has
not sho/n even the sli&htest threat of bein& char&ed under RA (!). $i-ilarl' lac0in& in locus standi are for-er $enator
?i&berto .aCada and $enator $er&io %s-eCa ###, /ho cite their bein& respectivel' a hu-an ri&hts advocate and an oppositor
to the passa&e of RA (!). %utside these &ratuitous state-ents, no concrete inAur' to the- has been pinpointed.
Petitioners $outhern 1e-isphere En&a&e-ent Net/or0 and Att'. $oli-an $antos 5r. in 8.R. No. 1)966 also convenientl'
state that the issues the' raise are of transcendental i-portance, ,/hich -ust be settled earl', and are of ,far-reachin&
i-plications,, /ithout -ention of an' specific provision of RA (!) under /hich the' have been char&ed, or -a' be char&ed.
Mere invocation of hu-an ri&hts advocac' has no/here been held sufficient to clothe liti&ants /ith locus standi. Petitioners
-ust sho/ an actual, or i--ediate dan&er of sustainin&, direct inAur' as a result of the la/Bs enforce-ent. .o rule other/ise
/ould be to corrupt the settled doctrine of locus standi, as ever' /orth' cause is an interest shared b' the &eneral public.
Neither can locus standi be conferred upon individual petitioners as taxpa'ers and citi7ens. A taxpa'er suit is proper onl'
/hen there is an exercise of the spendin& or taxin& po/er of Con&ress,
9
/hereas citi7en standin& -ust rest on direct and
personal interest in the proceedin&.
(
RA (!) is a penal statute and does not even provide for an' appropriation fro- Con&ress for its i-ple-entation, /hile none
of the individual petitioner-citi7ens has alle&ed an' direct and personal interest in the i-ple-entation of the la/.
#t bears to stress that &enerali7ed interests, albeit acco-panied b' the assertion of a public ri&ht, do not establish locus standi.
Evidence of a direct and personal interest is 0e'.
Petitioners fail to present an actual case or controvers'
B' constitutional fiat, Audicial po/er operates onl' /hen there is an actual case or controvers'.
$ection 1. .he Audicial po/er shall be vested in one $upre-e Court and in such lo/er courts as -a' be established b' la/.
)
5udicial po/er includes the dut' of the courts of Austice to settle actual controversies involvin& ri&hts /hich are le&all'
de-andable and enforceable, and to deter-ine /hether or not there has been a &rave abuse of discretion a-ountin& to lac0
or excess of Aurisdiction on the part of an' branch or instru-entalit' of the 8overn-ent.
!2
*e-phasis and underscorin&
supplied.+
As earl' as Angara v. Electoral Commission,
!1
the Court ruled that the po/er of Audicial revie/ is li-ited to actual cases or
controversies to be exercised after full opportunit' of ar&u-ent b' the parties. An' atte-pt at abstraction could onl' lead to
dialectics and barren le&al @uestions and to sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities.
An actual case or controvers' -eans an existin& case or controvers' that is appropriate or ripe for deter-ination, not
conAectural or anticipator', lest the decision of the court /ould a-ount to an advisor' opinion.
!
#nfor-ation .echnolo&' 4oundation of the Philippines v. C%ME<EC
!!
cannot be -ore e-phaticE
HCIourts do not sit to adAudicate -ere acade-ic @uestions to satisf' scholarl' interest, ho/ever intellectuall' challen&in&. .he
controvers' -ust be AusticiableFdefinite and concrete, touchin& on the le&al relations of parties havin& adverse le&al interests.
#n other /ords, the pleadin&s -ust sho/ an active anta&onistic assertion of a le&al ri&ht, on the one hand, and a denial thereof
on the other handG that is, it -ust concern a real and not -erel' a theoretical @uestion or issue. .here ou&ht to be an actual
and substantial controvers' ad-ittin& of specific relief throu&h a decree conclusive in nature, as distin&uished fro- an opinion
advisin& /hat the la/ /ould be upon a h'pothetical state of facts. *E-phasis and underscorin& supplied+
.hus, a petition to declare unconstitutional a la/ convertin& the Municipalit' of Ma0ati into a 1i&hl' ;rbani7ed Cit' /as held to
be pre-ature as it /as tac0ed on uncertain, contin&ent events.
!=
$i-ilarl', a petition that fails to alle&e that an application for a
license to operate a radio or television station has been denied or &ranted b' the authorities does not present a Austiciable
controvers', and -erel' /heedles the Court to rule on a h'pothetical proble-.
!6
.he Court dis-issed the petition in Philippine Press #nstitute v. Co--ission on Elections
!3
for failure to cite an' specific
affir-ative action of the Co--ission on Elections to i-ple-ent the assailed resolution. #t refused, in Abbas v. Co--ission on
Elections,
!)
to rule on the reli&ious freedo- clai- of the therein petitioners based -erel' on a perceived potential conflict
bet/een the provisions of the Musli- Code and those of the national la/, there bein& no actual controvers' bet/een real
liti&ants.
.he list of cases den'in& clai-s restin& on purel' h'pothetical or anticipator' &rounds &oes on ad infinitu-.
.he Court is not una/are that a reasonable certaint' of the occurrence of a perceived threat to an' constitutional interest
suffices to provide a basis for -ountin& a constitutional challen&e. .his, ho/ever, is @ualified b' the re@uire-ent that there
-ust be sufficient facts to enable the Court to intelli&entl' adAudicate the issues.
!9
Der' recentl', the ;$ $upre-e Court, in 1older v. 1u-anitarian <a/ ProAect,
!(
allo/ed the pre-enforce-ent revie/ of a
cri-inal statute, challen&ed on va&ueness &rounds, since plaintiffs faced a ,credible threat of prosecution, and ,should not be
re@uired to a/ait and under&o a cri-inal prosecution as the sole -eans of see0in& relief.,
=2
.he plaintiffs therein filed an action
before a federal court to assail the constitutionalit' of the -aterial support statute, 19 ;.$.C. J!!(B *a+ *1+,
=1
proscribin& the
provision of -aterial support to or&ani7ations declared b' the $ecretar' of $tate as forei&n terrorist or&ani7ations. .he'
clai-ed that the' intended to provide support for the hu-anitarian and political activities of t/o such or&ani7ations.
Prevailin& A-erican Aurisprudence allo/s an adAudication on the -erits /hen an anticipator' petition clearl' sho/s that the
challen&ed prohibition forbids the conduct or activit' that a petitioner see0s to do, as there /ould then be a Austiciable
controvers'.
=
;nli0e the plaintiffs in 1older, ho/ever, herein petitioners have failed to sho/ that the challen&ed provisions of RA (!) forbid
constitutionall' protected conduct or activit' that the' see0 to do. No de-onstrable threat has been established, -uch less a
real and existin& one.
PetitionersB obscure alle&ations of sporadic ,surveillance, and supposedl' bein& ta&&ed as ,co--unist fronts, in no /a'
approxi-ate a credible threat of prosecution. 4ro- these alle&ations, the Court is bein& lured to render an advisor' opinion,
/hich is not its function.
=!
9
?ithout an' Austiciable controvers', the petitions have beco-e pleas for declarator' relief, over /hich the Court has no ori&inal
Aurisdiction. .hen a&ain, declarator' actions characteri7ed b' ,double contin&enc',, /here both the activit' the petitioners
intend to underta0e and the anticipated reaction to it of a public official are -erel' theori7ed, lie be'ond Audicial revie/ for lac0
of ripeness.
==
.he possibilit' of abuse in the i-ple-entation of RA (!) does not avail to ta0e the present petitions out of the real- of the
surreal and -erel' i-a&ined. $uch possibilit' is not peculiar to RA (!) since the exercise of an' po/er &ranted b' la/ -a'
be abused.
=6
Alle&ations of abuse -ust be anchored on real events before courts -a' step in to settle actual
controversies involvin& ri&hts /hich are le&all' de-andable and enforceable.
A $"c9"# 9="#9,"t9o o$ " 7t"t%te 97 "##o'e, o#8 9 $ree 7-eec! c"7e7, '!ere9 cert"9 r%#e7 o$ co7t9t%t9o"# #9t9."t9o
"re r9.!t#8 e<ce-te,
Petitioners assail for bein& intrinsicall' va&ue and i-per-issibl' broad the definition of the cri-e of terroris-
=3
under RA (!)
in that ter-s li0e ,/idespread and extraordinar' fear and panic a-on& the populace, and ,coerce the &overn-ent to &ive in to
an unla/ful de-and, are nebulous, leavin& la/ enforce-ent a&encies /ith no standard to -easure the prohibited acts.
Respondents, throu&h the %$8, counter that the doctrines of void-for-va&ueness and overbreadth find no application in the
present case since these doctrines appl' onl' to free speech casesG and that RA (!) re&ulates conduct, not speech.
4or a Aurisprudentiall' &uided understandin& of these doctrines, it is i-perative to outline the schools of thou&ht on /hether the
void-for-va&ueness and overbreadth doctrines are e@uall' applicable &rounds to assail a penal statute.
Respondents interpret recent Aurisprudence as slantin& to/ard the idea of li-itin& the application of the t/o doctrines to free
speech cases. .he' particularl' cite Romualdez v. Hon. Sandiganbayan
=)
and Estrada v. Sandiganbayan.
=9
.he Court clarifies.
At issue in Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan /as /hether the /ord ,intervene, in $ection 6
=(
of the Anti-8raft and Corrupt
Practices Act /as intrinsicall' va&ue and i-per-issibl' broad. .he Court stated that ,the overbreadth and the va&ueness
doctrines have special application onl' to free-speech cases,, and are ,not appropriate for testin& the validit' of penal
statutes.,
62
#t added that, at an' rate, the challen&ed provision, under /hich the therein petitioner /as char&ed, is not va&ue.
61
?hile in the subse@uent case of Romualdez v. Commission on Elections,
6
the Court stated that a facial invalidation of cri-inal
statutes is not appropriate, it nonetheless proceeded to conduct a va&ueness anal'sis, and concluded that the therein subAect
election offense
6!
under the DoterBs Re&istration Act of 1((3, /ith /hich the therein petitioners /ere char&ed, is couched in
precise lan&ua&e.
6=
.he t/o Romualdez cases rel' heavil' on the $eparate %pinion
66
of 5ustice Dicente D. Mendo7a in the Estradacase, /here
the Court found the Anti-Plunder <a/ *Republic Act No. )292+ clear and free fro- a-bi&uit' respectin& the definition of the
cri-e of plunder.
.he position ta0en b' 5ustice Mendo7a in Estrada relates these t/o doctrines to the concept of a ,facial, invalidation as
opposed to an ,as-applied, challen&e. 1e basicall' postulated that alle&ations that a penal statute is va&ue and overbroad do
not Austif' a facial revie/ of its validit'. .he pertinent portion of the Concurrin& %pinion of 5ustice Mendo7a, /hich /as @uoted
at len&th in the -ain Estrada decision, readsE
A facial challen&e is allo/ed to be -ade to a va&ue statute and to one /hich is overbroad because of possible,chillin& effect,
upon protected speech. .he theor' is that ,H/Ihen statutes re&ulate or proscribe speech and no readil' apparent construction
su&&ests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitatin& the statutes in a sin&le prosecution, the transcendent value to all societ' of
constitutionall' protected expression is dee-ed to Austif' allo/in& attac0s on overl' broad statutes /ith no re@uire-ent that the
person -a0in& the attac0 de-onstrate that his o/n conduct could not be re&ulated b' a statute dra/n /ith narro/ specificit'.,
.he possible har- to societ' in per-ittin& so-e unprotected speech to &o unpunished is out/ei&hed b' the possibilit' that the
protected speech of others -a' be deterred and perceived &rievances left to fester because of possible inhibitor' effects of
overl' broad statutes.
(
.his rationale does not appl' to penal statutes. Cri-inal statutes have &eneral in terrorem effect resultin& fro- their ver'
existence, and, if facial challen&e is allo/ed for this reason alone, the $tate -a' /ell be prevented fro- enactin& la/s a&ainst
sociall' har-ful conduct. #n the area of cri-inal la/, the la/ cannot ta0e chances as in the area of free speech.
.he overbreadth and va&ueness doctrines then have special application onl' to free speech cases. .he' are inapt for testin&
the validit' of penal statutes. As the ;.$. $upre-e Court put it, in an opinion b' Chief 5ustice Rehn@uist, ,/e have not
reco&ni7ed an KoverbreadthK doctrine outside the li-ited context of the 4irst A-end-ent., #n Broadrick v. Oklahoma, the Court
ruled that ,clai-s of facial overbreadth have been entertained in cases involvin& statutes /hich, b' their ter-s, see0 to
re&ulate onl' spo0en /ords, and, a&ain, that ,overbreadth clai-s, if entertained at all, have been curtailed /hen invo0ed
a&ainst ordinar' cri-inal la/s that are sou&ht to be applied to protected conduct., 4or this reason, it has been held that ,a
facial challen&e to a le&islative act is the -ost difficult challen&e to -ount successfull', since the challen&er -ust establish
that no set of circu-stances exists under /hich the Act /ould be valid., As for the va&ueness doctrine, it is said that a liti&ant
-a' challen&e a statute on its face onl' if it is va&ue in all its possible applications. ,A plaintiff /ho en&a&es in so-e conduct
that is clearl' proscribed cannot co-plain of the va&ueness of the la/ as applied to the conduct of others.,
#n su-, the doctrines of strict scrutin', overbreadth, and va&ueness are anal'tical tools developed for testin& ,on their faces,
statutes in free speech cases or, as the' are called in A-erican la/, 4irst A-end-ent cases. .he' cannot be -ade to do
service /hen /hat is involved is a cri-inal statute. ?ith respect to such statute, the established rule is that ,one to /ho-
application of a statute is constitutional /ill not be heard to attac0 the statute on the &round that i-pliedl' it -i&ht also be ta0en
as appl'in& to other persons or other situations in /hich its application -i&ht be unconstitutional., As has been pointed out,
,va&ueness challen&es in the 4irst A-end-ent context, li0e overbreadth challen&es t'picall' produce facial invalidation,
/hile statutes found va&ue as a -atter of due process t'picall' are invalidated Honl'I Kas appliedK to a particular defendant.,
Conse@uentl', there is no basis for petitionerKs clai- that this Court revie/ the Anti-Plunder <a/ on its face and in its entiret'.
#ndeed, ,on its face, invalidation of statutes results in stri0in& the- do/n entirel' on the &round that the' -i&ht be applied to
parties not before the Court /hose activities are constitutionall' protected. #t constitutes a departure fro- the case and
controvers' re@uire-ent of the Constitution and per-its decisions to be -ade /ithout concrete factual settin&s and in sterile
abstract contexts. But, as the ;.$. $upre-e Court pointed out inounger v. Harris
H.Ihe tas0 of anal'7in& a proposed statute, pinpointin& its deficiencies, and re@uirin& correction of these deficiencies before the
statute is put into effect, is rarel' if ever an appropriate tas0 for the Audiciar'. .he co-bination of the relative re-oteness of the
controvers', the i-pact on the le&islative process of the relief sou&ht, and above all the speculative and a-orphous nature of
the re@uired line-b'-line anal'sis of detailed statutes, . . . ordinaril' results in a 0ind of case that is /holl' unsatisfactor' for
decidin& constitutional @uestions, /hichever /a' the' -i&ht be decided.
4or these reasons, ,on its face, invalidation of statutes has been described as ,-anifestl' stron& -edicine,, to be e-plo'ed
,sparin&l' and onl' as a last resort,, and is &enerall' disfavored. #n deter-inin& the constitutionalit' of a statute, therefore, its
provisions /hich are alle&ed to have been violated in a case -ust be exa-ined in the li&ht of the conduct /ith /hich the
defendant is char&ed.
63
*;nderscorin& supplied.+
.he confusion apparentl' ste-s fro- the interloc0in& relation of the overbreadth and va&ueness doctrines as &rounds for a
facial or as-applied challen&e a&ainst a penal statute *under a clai- of violation of due process of la/+ or a speech re&ulation
*under a clai- of abrid&e-ent of the freedo- of speech and co&nate ri&hts+.
.o be sure, the doctrine of va&ueness and the doctrine of overbreadth do not operate on the sa-e plane.
A statute or act suffers fro- the defect of va&ueness /hen it lac0s co-prehensible standards that -en of co--on intelli&ence
-ust necessaril' &uess at its -eanin& and differ as to its application. #t is repu&nant to the Constitution in t/o respectsE *1+ it
violates due process for failure to accord persons, especiall' the parties tar&eted b' it, fair notice of the conduct to avoidG and
*+ it leaves la/ enforcers unbridled discretion in carr'in& out its provisions and beco-es an arbitrar' flexin& of the
8overn-ent -uscle.
6)
.he overbreadth doctrine, -ean/hile, decrees that a &overn-ental purpose to control or prevent
activities constitutionall' subAect to state re&ulations -a' not be achieved b' -eans /hich s/eep unnecessaril' broadl' and
thereb' invade the area of protected freedo-s.
69
As distin&uished fro- the va&ueness doctrine, the overbreadth doctrine assu-es that individuals /ill understand /hat a
statute prohibits and /ill accordin&l' refrain fro- that behavior, even thou&h so-e of it is protected.
6(
A ,facial, challen&e is li0e/ise different fro- an ,as-applied, challen&e.
12
"istin&uished fro- an as-applied challen&e /hich considers onl' extant facts affectin& real liti&ants, a facialinvalidation is an
exa-ination of the entire la/, pinpointin& its fla/s and defects, not onl' on the basis of its actual operation to the parties, but
also on the assu-ption or prediction that its ver' existence -a' cause others not before the court to refrain fro-
constitutionall' protected speech or activities.
32
5ustice Mendo7a accuratel' phrased the subtitle
31
in his concurrin& opinion that the va&ueness and overbreadth doctrines, as
grounds !or a !acial challenge, are not applicable to penal la/s. A liti&ant cannot thus successfull' -ount a facial challen&e
a&ainst a cri-inal statute on either va&ueness or overbreadth &rounds.
.he allo/ance of a facial challen&e in free speech cases is Austified b' the ai- to avert the ,chillin& effect, on protected
speech, the exercise of /hich should not at all ti-es be abrid&ed.
3
As reflected earlier, this rationale is inapplicable to plain
penal statutes that &enerall' bear an ,in terrorem effect, in deterrin& sociall' har-ful conduct. #n fact, the le&islature -a' even
forbid and penali7e acts for-erl' considered innocent and la/ful, so lon& as it refrains fro- di-inishin& or dissuadin& the
exercise of constitutionall' protected ri&hts.
3!
.he Court reiterated that there are ,critical li-itations b' /hich a cri-inal statute -a' be challen&ed, and ,underscored that an
Lon-its-faceB invalidation of penal statutes x x x -a' not be allo/ed.,
3=
H.Ihe rule established in our Aurisdiction is, onl' statutes on free speech, reli&ious freedo-, and other funda-ental ri&hts -a'
be faciall' challen&ed. ;nder no case -a' ordinar' penal statutes be subAected to a facial challen&e. .he rationale is obvious.
#f a facial challen&e to a penal statute is per-itted, the prosecution of cri-es -a' be ha-pered. No prosecution /ould be
possible. A stron& criticis- a&ainst e-plo'in& a facial challen&e in the case of penal statutes, if the sa-e is allo/ed, /ould
effectivel' &o a&ainst the &rain of the doctrinal re@uire-ent of an existin& and concrete controvers' before Audicial po/er -a'
be appropriatel' exercised. A facial challen&e a&ainst a penal statute is, at best, a-orphous and speculative. #t /ould,
essentiall', force the court to consider third parties /ho are not before it. As # have said in -' opposition to the allo/ance of a
facial challen&e to attac0 penal statutes, such a test /ill i-pair the $tateBs abilit' to deal /ith cri-e. #f /arranted, there /ould
be nothin& that can hinder an accused fro- defeatin& the $tateBs po/er to prosecute on a -ere sho/in& that, as applied to
third parties, the penal statute is va&ue or overbroad, not/ithstandin& that the la/ is clear as applied to hi-.
36
*E-phasis and
underscorin& supplied+
#t is settled, on the other hand, that t!e "--#9c"t9o o$ t!e o=erbre",t! ,octr9e 97 #9+9te, to " $"c9"# (9, o$ c!"##e.e
",, o'9. to t!e .9=e r"t9o"#e o$ " $"c9"# c!"##e.e, "--#9c"b#e o#8 to $ree 7-eec! c"7e7.
B' its nature, the overbreadth doctrine has to necessaril' appl' a facial t'pe of invalidation in order to plot areas of protected
speech, inevitabl' al-ost al/a's under situations not before the court , that are i-per-issibl' s/ept b' the substantiall'
overbroad re&ulation. %ther/ise stated, a statute cannot be properl' anal'7ed for bein& substantiall' overbroad if the court
confines itself onl' to facts as applied to the liti&ants.
.he -ost distinctive feature of the overbreadth techni@ue is that it -ar0s an exception to so-e of the usual rules of
constitutional liti&ation. %rdinaril', a particular liti&ant clai-s that a statute is unconstitutional as applied to hi- or herG if the
liti&ant prevails, the courts carve a/a' the unconstitutional aspects of the la/ b' invalidatin& its i-proper applications on a
case to case basis. Moreover, challen&ers to a la/ are not per-itted to raise the ri&hts of third parties and can onl' assert their
o/n interests. #n overbreadth anal'sis, those rules &ive /a'G challen&es are per-itted to raise the ri&hts of third partiesG and
the court invalidates the entire statute,on its face,, not -erel' ,as applied for, so that the overbroad la/ beco-es
unenforceable until a properl' authori7ed court construes it -ore narro/l'. .he factor that -otivates courts to depart fro- the
nor-al adAudicator' rules is the concern /ith the ,chillin&G, deterrent effect of the overbroad statute on third parties not
coura&eous enou&h to brin& suit. .he Court assu-es that an overbroad la/Bs ,ver' existence -a' cause others not before the
court to refrain fro- constitutionall' protected speech or expression., An overbreadth rulin& is desi&ned to re-ove that
deterrent effect on the speech of those third parties.
33
*E-phasis in the ori&inal o-ittedG underscorin& supplied.+
#n restrictin& the overbreadth doctrine to free speech clai-s, the Court, in at least t/o cases,
3)
observed that the ;$ $upre-e
Court has not reco&ni7ed an overbreadth doctrine outside the li-ited context of the 4irst A-end-ent,
39
and that clai-s of
facial overbreadth have been entertained in cases involvin& statutes /hich, b' their ter-s, see0 to re&ulate onl' spo0en
/ords.
3(
#n "irginia v. Hicks,
)2
it /as held that rarel', if ever, /ill an overbreadth challen&e succeed a&ainst a la/ or re&ulation
that is not specificall' addressed to speech orspeech-related conduct. Attac0s on overl' broad statutes are Austified b' the
,transcendent value to all societ' of constitutionall' protected expression.,
)1
Since a penal statute may only be assailed for being vague as applied to petitioners, a li-ited va&ueness anal'sis of the
definition of ,terroris-, in RA (!) is le&all' i-per-issible absent an actual or i--inent char&e a&ainst the-
11
?hile Estrada did not appl' the overbreadth doctrine, it did not preclude the operation of the va&ueness test on the Anti-
Plunder <a/ as a##lied to the therein petitioner, findin&, ho/ever, that there /as no basis to revie/ the la/ ,on its face and in
its entiret'.,
)
#t stressed that ,statutes found va&ue as a matter o! due #rocess t'picall' are invalidated onl' Kas appliedK to a
particular defendant.,
)!
A-erican Aurisprudence
)=
instructs that ,va&ueness challen&es that do not involve the 4irst A-end-ent -ust be exa-ined in
li&ht of the specific facts of the case at hand and not /ith re&ard to the statuteKs facial validit'.,
4or -ore than 16 'ears, the ;$ $upre-e Court has evaluated defendantsB clai-s that cri-inal statutes are unconstitutionall'
va&ue, developin& a doctrine hailed as ,a-on& the -ost i-portant &uarantees of libert' under la/.,
)6
#n this Aurisdiction, the void-for-va&ueness doctrine asserted under the due process clause has been utili7ed in exa-inin& the
constitutionalit' of cri-inal statutes. #n at least three cases,
)3
the Court brou&ht the doctrine into pla' in anal'7in& an ordinance
penali7in& the non-pa'-ent of -unicipal tax on fishponds, the cri-e of ille&al recruit-ent punishable under Article 1!*b+ of
the <abor Code, and the va&ranc' provision under Article 2 *+ of the Revised Penal Code. Notabl', the petitioners in these
three cases, si-ilar to those in the t/o Romualdezand Estrada cases, /ere actuall' c!"r.e, /ith the therein assailed penal
statute, unli0e in the present case.
.here is no -erit in the clai- that RA (!) re&ulates speech so as to per-it a facial anal'sis of its validit'
4ro- the definition of the cri-e of terroris- in the earlier cited $ection ! of RA (!), the follo/in& ele-ents -a' be culledE *1+
the offender co--its an act punishable under an' of the cited provisions of the Revised Penal Code, or under an' of the
enu-erated special penal la/sG *+ the co--ission of the predicate cri-e so/s and creates a condition of /idespread and
extraordinar' fear and panic a-on& the populaceG and *!+ the offender is actuated b' the desire to coerce the &overn-ent to
&ive in to an unla/ful de-and.
#n insistin& on a !acial challen&e on the invocation that the la/ penali7es s#eech, petitioners contend that the ele-ent of
,unla/ful de-and, in the definition of terroris-
))
-ust necessaril' be trans-itted throu&h so-e for- of expression protected
b' the free speech clause.
.he ar&u-ent does not persuade. ?hat the la/ see0s to penali7e is conduct, not speech.
Before a char&e for terroris- -a' be filed under RA (!), there -ust first be a predicate cri-e actuall' co--itted to tri&&er
the operation of the 0e' @ualif'in& phrases in the other ele-ents of the cri-e, includin& the coercion of the &overn-ent to
accede to an ,unla/ful de-and., 8iven the presence of the first ele-ent, an' atte-pt at sin&lin& out or hi&hli&htin& the
co--unicative co-ponent of the prohibition cannot recate&ori7e the unprotected conduct into a protected speech.
PetitionersB notion on the trans-ission of -essa&e is entirel' inaccurate, as it undul' focuses on Aust one particle of an
ele-ent of the cri-e. Al-ost ever' co--ission of a cri-e entails so-e -incin& of /ords on the part of the offender li0e in
declarin& to launch overt cri-inal acts a&ainst a victi-, in ha&&lin& on the a-ount of ranso- or conditions, or in ne&otiatin& a
deceitful transaction. An analo&' in one ;.$. case
)9
illustrated that the fact that the prohibition on discri-ination in hirin& on the
basis of race /ill re@uire an e-plo'er to ta0e do/n a si&n readin& ,?hite Applicants %nl', hardl' -eans that the la/ should
be anal'7ed as one re&ulatin& speech rather than conduct.
;tterances not ele-ental but inevitabl' incidental to the doin& of the cri-inal conduct alter neither the intent of the la/ to
punish sociall' har-ful conduct nor the essence of the /hole act as conduct and not speech. .his holds true a fortiori in the
present case /here the expression fi&ures onl' as an inevitable incident of -a0in& the ele-ent of coercion perceptible.
H#It is true that the a&ree-ents and course of conduct here /ere as in -ost instances brou&ht about throu&h spea0in& or
/ritin&. But it has never been dee-ed an abrid&e-ent of freedo- of speech or press to -a0e a course of conduct ille&al
-erel' because the conduc t /as, in #art , initiated, evidenced , or carried out by means o! language , either spo0en, /ritten, or
printed. $uch an expansive interpretation of the constitutional &uaranties of speech and press /ould -a0e it practicall'
i-possible ever to enforce la/s a&ainst a&ree-ents in restraint of trade as /ell as -an' other a&ree-ents and conspiracies
dee-ed inAurious to societ'.
)(
*italics and underscorin& supplied+
Certain 0inds of speech have been treated as unprotected conduct, because the' -erel' evidence a prohibited
conduct.
92
$ince speech is not involved here, the Court cannot heed the call for a facial anal'sis.$avv#hi$
1
#N 4#NE, Estrada and the other cited authorities en&a&ed in a va&ueness anal'sis of the therein subAect penal statute as
applied to the therein petitioners inas-uch as the' /ere actuall' char&ed /ith the pertinent cri-es challen&ed on va&ueness
&rounds. .he Court in said cases, ho/ever, found no basis to revie/ the assailed penal statute on its face and in its entiret'.
#n 1older, on the other hand, the ;$ $upre-e Court allo/ed the pre-enforce-ent revie/ of a cri-inal statute, challen&ed on
va&ueness &rounds, since the therein plaintiffs faced a Hcre,9b#e t!re"t o$ -ro7ec%t9o, and ,should not be re@uired to a/ait
and under&o a cri-inal prosecution as the sole -eans of see0in& relief.,
As earlier reflected, petitioners have established neither an actual char&e nor a credible threat of prosecutionunder RA (!).
Even a li-ited va&ueness anal'sis of the assailed definition of ,terroris-, is thus le&all' i-per-issible. .he Court re-inds
liti&ants that Audicial po/er neither conte-plates speculative counselin& on a statuteBs future effect on h'pothetical scenarios
nor allo/s the courts to be used as an extension of a failed le&islative lobb'in& in Con&ress.
?1ERE4%RE, the petitions are "#$M#$$E".
$% %R"ERE".
CONCHITA CARPIO MORA0ES
Associate 5ustice
?E C%NC;RE
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief 5ustice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate 5ustice
PRES:ITERO 1. 3E0ASCO, 1R.
Associate 5ustice
ANTONIO E5UAR5O :. NACHURA
Associate 5ustice
ARTURO 5. :RION
Associate 5ustice
TERESITA 1. 0EONAR5O&5E CASTRO
Associate 5ustice
5IOS5A5O M. PERA0TA
Associate 5ustice
0UCAS P. :ERSAMIN
Associate 5ustice
RO:ERTO A. A:A5
Associate 5ustice
MARIANO C. 5E0 CASTI00O
Associate 5ustice
MARTIN S. 3I00ARAMA, 1R.
Associate 5ustice
1OSE PORTUGA0 PERE>
Associate 5ustice
1OSE CATRA0 MEN5O>A
Associate 5ustice
MARIA 0OUR5ES P. A. SERENO
Associate 5ustice
C E R . # 4 # C A . # % N
Pursuant to $ection 1!, Article D### of the Constitution, # hereb' certif' that the conclusions in the above "ecision had been
reached in consultation before the case /as assi&ned to the /riter of the opinion of the Court.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief 5ustice
1!
SECON5 5I3ISION
R%MA "R;8 and R%ME% 8.R. No. 1=((2)
R%"R#8;EM, as Proprietor
of R%MA "R;8, PresentE
Petitioners,
N;#$;MB#N8, %.,
Chair#erson,
CARP#%-M%RA<E$,
.#N8A,
- versus - DE<A$C%, and
BR#%N, %%.
Pro-ul&atedE
.1E RE8#%NA< .R#A< C%;R.
%4 8;A8;A, PAMPAN8A, .1E
PR%D#NC#A< PR%$EC;.%R %4 April 13, 22(
PAMPAN8A, B;REA; %4 4%%"
O "R;8$ *B4A"+ and 8<AP%
$M#.1:<#NE,
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x

5 E C I S I O N

.#N8A, %.E

%n 1= Au&ust 222, a tea- co-posed of the National Bureau of #nvesti&ation *NB#+ operatives and inspectors of the
Bureau of 4ood and "ru&s *B4A"+ conducted a raid on petitioner Ro-a "ru&, a dul' re&istered sole proprietorship of
petitioner Ro-eo Rodri&ue7 *Rodri&ue7+ operatin& a dru& store located at $an Matias, 8ua&ua, Pa-pan&a. .he raid /as
conducted pursuant to a search /arrant
H1I
issued b' the Re&ional .rial Court *R.C+, Branch 6), An&eles Cit'. .he raidin& tea-
sei7ed several i-ported -edicines, includin& Augmentin *!)6-&.+ tablets, Orbenin*622-&.+ capsules, Amo&il *62-&.+
capsules and Am#iclo& *622-&.+.
HI
#t appears that Ro-a "ru& is one of six dru& stores /hich /ere raided on or around the
sa-e ti-e upon the re@uest of $-ith:line Beecha- Research <i-ited *$-ith:line+, a dul' re&istered corporation /hich is the
local distributor of phar-aceutical products -anufactured b' its parent <ondon-based corporation. .he local $-ith:line has
since -er&ed /ith 8laxo ?ellco-e Phil. #nc to for- 8laxo $-ith:line, private respondent in this case. .he sei7ed -edicines,
/hich /ere -anufactured b' $-ith:line, /ere i-ported directl' fro- abroad and not purchased throu&h the local $-ith:line,
the authori7ed Philippine distributor of these products.

.he NB# subse@uentl' filed a co-plaint a&ainst Rodri&ue7 for violation of $ection = *in relation to $ections ! and 6+ of
Republic Act No. 92!, also 0no/n as the $pecial <a/ on Counterfeit "ru&s *$<C"+, /ith the %ffice of the Provincial
Prosecutor in $an 4ernando, Pa-pan&a. .he section prohibits the sale of counterfeit dru&s, /hich under $ection !*b+*!+,
includes Qan unre&istered i-ported dru& product.R .he ter- Qunre&isteredR si&nifies the lac0 of re&istration /ith the Bureau of
Patent, .rade-ar0 and .echnolo&' .ransfer of a trade-ar0, tradena-e or other identification -ar0 of a dru& in the na-e of a
natural or Auridical person, the process of /hich is &overned under Part ### of the #ntellectual Propert' Code.

#n this case, there is no doubt that the subAect sei7ed dru&s are identical in content /ith their Philippine-re&istered
counterparts. .here is no clai- that the' /ere adulterated in an' /a' or -islabeled at least. .heir classification as
QcounterfeitR is based solel' on the fact that the' /ere i-ported fro- abroad and not purchased fro- the Philippine-re&istered
o/ner of the patent or trade-ar0 of the dru&s.

"urin& preli-inar' investi&ation, Rodri&ue7 challen&ed the constitutionalit' of the $<C". 1o/ever, Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor Celerina C. Pineda s0irted the challen&e and issued a Resolution dated 1) Au&ust 221 reco--endin&
that Rodri&ue7 be char&ed /ith violation of $ection =*a+ of the $<C". .he reco--endation /as approved b' Provincial
Prosecutor 5esus >. Manaran& approved the reco--endation.
H!I

1ence, the present Petition for Prohibition @uestin& the R.C-8ua&ua Pa-pan&a and the Provincial Prosecutor to desist
fro- further prosecutin& Rodri&ue7, and that $ections !*b+*!+, = and 6 of the $<C" be declared unconstitutional. #n &ist,
Rodri&ue7 asserts that the challen&ed provisions contravene three provisions of the Constitution. .he first is the e@ual
1=
protection clause of the Bill of Ri&hts. .he t/o other provisions are $ection 11, Article P###, /hich -andates that the $tate
-a0e Qessential &oods, health and other social services available to all the people at affordable costGR and $ection 16, Article
##, /hich states that it is the polic' of the $tate Qto protect and pro-ote the ri&ht to health of the people and instill health
consciousness a-on& the-.R

.hrou&h its Resolution dated 16 %ctober 221, the Court issued a te-porar' restrainin& order enAoinin& the R.C
fro- proceedin& /ith the trial a&ainst Rodri&ue7, and the B4A", the NB# and 8laxo $-ith0line fro- prosecutin& the
petitioners.
H=I

8laxo $-ith0line and the %ffice of the $olicitor 8eneral *%$8+ have opposed the petition, the latter in behalf of public
respondents R.C, Provincial Prosecutor and Bureau of 4ood and "ru&s *B4A"+. %n the constitutional issue, 8laxo $-ith0line
asserts the rule that the $<C" is presu-ed constitutional, ar&uin& that both $ection 16, Article ## and $ection 11, Article P###
Qare not self-executin& provisions, the disre&ard of /hich can &ive rise to a cause of action in the courts.R #t adds that $ection
11, Article P### in particular cannot be /or0 Qto the oppression and unla/ful of the propert' ri&hts of the le&iti-ate
-anufacturers, i-porters or distributors, /ho ta0e pains in havin& i-ported dru& products re&istered before the B4A".R 8laxo
$-ith0line further clai-s that the $<C" does not in fact conflict /ith the afore-entioned constitutional provisions and in fact
are in accord /ith constitutional precepts in favor of the peopleBs ri&ht to health.

.he %ffice of the $olicitor 8eneral casts the @uestion as one of polic' /isdo- of the la/ that is, be'ond the interference
of the Audiciar'.
H6I
A&ain, the presu-ption of constitutionalit' of statutes is invo0ed, and the assertion is -ade that there is no
clear and une@uivocal breach of the Constitution presented b' the $<C".

''.

.he constitutional aspect of this petition raises obviousl' interestin& @uestions. 1o/ever, such @uestions have in fact
been -ooted /ith the passa&e in 229 of Republic Act No. (62, also 0no/n as the Q;niversall' Accessible Cheaper and
Nualit' Medicines Act of 229R.
H3I

$ection ) of Rep. Act No. (62 a-ends $ection ) of the #ntellectual Propert' Code in that the later la/ une@uivocall'
&rants third persons the ri&ht to i-port dru&s or -edicines /hose patent /ere re&istered in the Philippines b' the o/ner of the
productE

$ec. ). $ection ) of Republic Act No. 9(!, other/ise 0no/n as the #ntellectual Propert' Code of
the Philippines, is hereb' a-ended to read as follo/sE
Q$ec. ). <i-itations of Patent Ri&hts. S .he o/ner of a patent has no ri&ht to prevent third parties
fro- perfor-in&, /ithout his authori7ation, the acts referred to in $ection )1 hereof in the follo/in&
circu-stancesE
Q).1. ;sin& a patented product /hich has been put on the -ar0et in the Philippines b' the o/ner
of the product, or /ith his express consent, insofar as such use is perfor-ed after that product has been so
put on the said -ar0etE Provided, T!"t, '9t! re."r, to ,r%.7 ", +e,9c9e7, t!e #9+9t"t9o o -"tet
r9.!t7 7!"## "--#8 "$ter " ,r%. or +e,9c9e !"7 bee 9tro,%ce, 9 t!e P!9#9--9e7 or "8'!ere e#7e
9 t!e 'or#, b8 t!e -"tet o'er, or b8 "8 -"rt8 "%t!or9;e, to %7e t!e 9=et9oB Provided,
further, T!"t t!e r9.!t to 9+-ort t!e ,r%.7 ", +e,9c9e7 cote+-#"te, 9 t!97 7ect9o 7!"## be
"="9#"b#e to "8 .o=er+et ".ec8 or "8 -r9="te t!9r, -"rt8 C
Q).. ?here the act is done privatel' and on a non-co--ercial scale or for a non-co--ercial purposeE
Provided, .hat it does not si&nificantl' preAudice the econo-ic interests of the o/ner of the patentG
Q).!. ?here the act consists of -a0in& or usin& exclusivel' for experi-ental use of the invention for
scientific purposes or educational purposes and such other activities directl' related to such scientific or
educational experi-ental useG
Q).=. #n the case of dru&s and -edicines, /here the act includes testin&, usin&, -a0in& or sellin& the
invention includin& an' data related thereto, solel' for purposes reasonabl' related to the develop-ent and
sub-ission of infor-ation and issuance of approvals b' &overn-ent re&ulator' a&encies re@uired under an'
la/ of the Philippines or of another countr' that re&ulates the -anufacture, construction, use or sale of an'
productE Provided, .hat, in order to protect the data sub-itted b' the ori&inal patent holder fro- unfair
co--ercial use provided in Article !(.! of the A&ree-ent on .rade-Related Aspects of #ntellectual Propert'
Ri&hts *.R#P$ A&ree-ent+, the #ntellectual Propert' %ffice, in consultation /ith the appropriate &overn-ent
a&encies, shall issue the appropriate rules and re&ulations necessar' therein not later than one hundred
16
t/ent' *12+ da's after the enact-ent of this la/G
Q).6. ?here the act consists of the preparation for individual cases, in a phar-ac' or b' a -edical
professional, of a -edicine in accordance /ith a -edical shall appl' after a dru& or -edicine has been
introduced in the Philippines or an'/here else in the /orld b' the patent o/ner, or b' an' part' authori7ed
to use the inventionE Provided, further, .hat the ri&ht to i-port the dru&s and -edicines conte-plated in this
section shall be available to an' &overn-ent a&enc' or an' private third part'G xxx
H)I

.he un@ualified ri&ht of private third parties such as petitioner to i-port or possess Qunre&istered i-ported dru&sR in the
Philippines is further confir-ed b' the Q#-ple-entin& Rules to Republic Act No. (62R pro-ul&ated on = Nove-ber 229.
H9I
.he relevant provisions thereof readE

R%#e @. 09+9t"t9o7 o P"tet R9.!t7. .he o/ner of a patent has no ri&ht to prevent third parties
fro- perfor-in&, /ithout his authori7ation, the acts referred to in $ection )1 of the #P Code as enu-erated
hereunderE

)9* Itro,%ct9o 9 t!e P!9#9--9e7 or A8'!ere E#7e 9 t!e Wor#,.

;sin& a patented product /hich has been put on the -ar0et in the Philippines b' the o/ner of the
product, or /ith his express consent, insofar as such use is perfor-ed after that product has been so put on
the said -ar0etE (rovided, .hat, /ith re&ard to dru&s and -edicines, the li-itation on patent ri&hts shall
appl' after a dru& or -edicine has been introduced in the Philippines or an'/here else in the /orld b' the
patent o/ner, or b' an' part' authori7ed to use the inventionE (rovided, !urther, .hat the ri&ht to i-port the
dru&s and -edicines conte-plated in this section shall be available to an' &overn-ent a&enc' or an'
private third part'. )*+.$,

.he dru&s and -edicines are dee-ed introduced /hen the' have been sold or offered for sale
an'/here else in the /orld. )n,

#t -a' be that Rep. Act No. (62 did not expressl' repeal an' provision of the $<C". 1o/ever, it is clear that the
$<C%Bs classification of Qunre&istered i-ported dru&sR as Qcounterfeit dru&s,R and of correspondin& cri-inal penalties therefore
are irreconcilabl' in the i-position conflict /ith Rep. Act No. (62 since the latter indubitabl' &rants private third persons the
un@ualified ri&ht to i-port or other/ise use such dru&s. ?here a statute of later date, such as Rep. Act No. (62, clearl'
reveals an intention on the part of the le&islature to abro&ate a prior act on the subAect that intention -ust be &iven effect.
H(I
?hen a subse@uent enact-ent coverin& a field of operation coter-inus /ith a prior statute cannot b' an' reasonable
construction be &iven effect /hile the prior la/ re-ains in operative existence because of irreconcilable conflict bet/een the
t/o acts, the latest le&islative expression prevails and the prior la/ 'ields to the extent of the conflict.
H12I
#rreconcilable
inconsistenc' bet/een t/o la/s e-bracin& the sa-e subAect -a' exist /hen the later la/ nullifies the reason or purpose of
the earlier act, so that the latter loses all -eanin& and function.
H11I
-egis #osteriors #riores contrarias abrogant.

4or the reasons above-stated, the prosecution of petitioner is no lon&er /arranted and the @uested /rit of prohibition
should accordin&l' be issued

1ad the Court proceeded to directl' confront the constitutionalit' of the assailed provisions of the $<C", it is apparent
that it /ould have at least placed in doubt the validit' of the provisions. As /ritten, the la/ -a0es a cri-inal of an' person /ho
i-ports an unre&istered dru& re&ardless of the purpose, even if the -edicine can spell life or death for so-eone in
thePhilippines. #t does not acco--odate the situation /here the dru& is out of stoc0 in the Philippines, be'ond the reach of a
patient /ho ur&entl' depends on it. #t does not allo/ husbands, /ives, children, siblin&s, parents to i-port the dru& in behalf of
their loved ones too ph'sicall' ill to travel and avail of the -ea&er personal use exe-ption allotted b' the la/. #t discri-inates,
at the expense of health, a&ainst poor 4ilipinos /ithout -eans to travel abroad to purchase less expensive -edicines in favor
of their /ealthier brethren able to do so. <ess ur&entl' perhaps, but still /ithin the ran&e of constitutionall' protected behavior,
it deprives 4ilipinos to choose a less expensive re&i-e for their health care b' den'in& the- a plausible and safe -eans of
purchasin& -edicines at a cheaper cost.

.he absurd results fro- this far-reachin& ban extends to i-plications that den' the basic decencies of hu-anit'. .he
la/ /ould -a0e cri-inals of doctors fro- abroad on -edical -issions of such hu-anitarian or&ani7ations such as the
#nternational Red Cross, the #nternational Red Crescent, .edicin Sans /rontieres, and other
li0e--inded &roups /ho necessaril' brin& their o/n phar-aceutical dru&s /hen the' e-bar0 on their -issions of -erc'. After
all, the' are disabled fro- invo0in& the bare Qpersonal useR exe-ption afforded b' the $<C".

13
Even /orse is the fact that the la/ is not content /ith si-pl' bannin&, at civil costs, the i-portation of unre&istered
dru&s. #t e@uates the i-porters of such dru&s, -an' of /ho- -otivated to do so out of altruis- or basic hu-an love, /ith the
-alevolents /ho /ould alter or counterfeit phar-aceutical dru&s for reasons of profit at the expense of public safet'. Note that
the $<C" is a special la/, and the traditional treat-ent of penal provisions of special la/s is that of malum #rohibitumSor
punishable re&ardless of -otive or cri-inal intent. 4or " #"' t!"t 97 9te,e, to !e#- 7"=e #9=e7, t!e S0C5 !"7 re=e"#e,
9t7e#$ "7 " !e"rt#e77, 7o%##e77 legislative piece.

.he challen&ed provisions of the $<C" apparentl' proscribe a ran&e of constitutionall' per-issible behavior. #t is
laudable that /ith the passa&e of Rep. Act No. (62, the $tate has reversed course and allo/ed for a sensible and
co-passionate approach /ith respect to the i-portation of phar-aceutical dru&s ur&entl' necessar' for the peopleBs
constitutionall'-reco&ni7ed ri&ht to health.

WHERE4ORE, the petition is GRANTE5 in part. A /rit of prohibition is hereb' ISSUE5 co--andin& respondents fro-
prosecutin& petitioner Ro-eo Rodri&ue7 for violation of $ection = or Rep. Act No. 92!. .he .e-porar' Restrainin& %rder
dated 16 %ctober 221 is hereb' -ade PERMANENT. No pronounce-ents as to costs.

$% %R"ERE".

"AN.E %. .#N8A
Associate %ustice

?E C%NC;RE

<E%NAR"% A. N;#$;MB#N8
Associate %ustice
Chairperson

C%NC1#.A CARP#% M%RA<E$ PRE$B#.ER% 5. DE<A$C%, 5R.
Associate %ustice Associate %ustice

AR.;R% ". BR#%N
Associate %ustice

ATTESTATION

# attest that the conclusions in the above "ecision had been reached in consultation before the case /as assi&ned to
the /riter of the opinion of the CourtBs "ivision.

<E%NAR"% A. N;#$;MB#N8
Associate %ustice
1)
Chair#erson, Second 0ivision

CERTI4ICATION

Pursuant to $ection 1!, Article D### of the Constitution, and the "ivision ChairpersonBs Attestation, it is hereb' certified
that the conclusions in the above "ecision had been reached in consultation before the case /as assi&ned to the /riter of the
opinion of the CourtBs "ivision.

RE>NA.% $. P;N%
Chie! %ustice
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 8718F A-r9# 26, 1@@2
CAMI0O 3I00A, petitioner
vs.
SAN5IGAN:A/AN ", PEOP0E O4 THE PHI0IPPINES, respondents.
G.R. No. 87281 A-r9# 26, 1@@2
RO5O04O E. MONTA/RE, petitioner,
vs.
G.R. No. 876FF A-r9# 26, 1@@2
1OSE4INA SUCA0IT, petitioner,
vs.
G.R. No. 87526 A-r9# 26, 1@@2
ARTURO 1IMENE>, petitioner,
vs.
CRU>, J.:
.he herein petitionersK basic contention is that as their alle&ed co-conspirators have been ac@uitted b' the Court of Appeals,
the' too should have been absolved b' the $andi&anba'an under the doctrine of ,the la/ of the case., .he' also sub-it that,
in an' event, the evidence a&ainst the- /as insufficient to prove their &uilt and, on that &round, the' should have also been
presu-ed innocent and ac@uitted.
.hese are the relevant facts.
19
#nvesti&ation of alle&ed ano-alous transactions at the Civil Aeronautics Ad-inistration *CAA+, Mactan #nternational Airport, led
to the filin& in 1()6 of cri-inal char&es in the Circuit Cri-inal Court of Cebu Cit' a&ainst Casi-iro "avid, ad-inistrative
assistant at CAA, Mactan, and chair-an of the Biddin& Co--itteeG Estanislao Centeno, cash aideG 4ernando "ario, airport
attendantG and $erafin Robles, Aanitor, for violation of $ection !, para&raphs *a+
1
and *b+
2
of R.A. !21( in relation to the
;nnu-bered Presidential Me-orandu- dated April , 1()1,
I
as /ell as $ec. 1, Rule PD### of the Civil $ervice Rules
6
and
$ection 1*x+ of Presidential "ecree No. 3 dated $epte-ber ), 1().
5
.he case involved @uestionable pa'-ents -ade b' the CAA Mactan to Rocen Enterprises and $pra'/a' Corp., dealers in
paper products and printed -atter, for the purchase of electrical ite-s and the cost of their installation, in the total a-ount of
P((,1)6.22.
"ario, Centeno and Robles represented these fir-s in the transaction. Another accused, Mactan Airport 8eneral Mana&er
Arturo 5i-ene7, /as dropped fro- the a-ended infor-ation after a reinvesti&ation.
%n %ctober 2, 1()9, the Circuit Cri-inal Court of Cebu Cit' then presided b' 5ud&e Ro-eo Escareal *no/ Associate 5ustice
and Chair-an of the $econd "ivision of the $andi&anba'an+ rendered a decision findin& all the accused &uilt' be'ond
reasonable doubt of violation of $ection !, para&raphs *a+, *e+,
F
*h+, and *i+
7
of R.A. !21(. All the accused appealed the
Aud&-ent of conviction the Court of Appeals.
.he decision of the trial court included findin&s that Arturo 5i-ene7G Rodolfo Monta're, assistant airport &eneral -ana&er for
operationsG Ca-ilo Dilla, chief, lo&istics sectionG 5osefina $ucalit, technical inspector, C%A, assi&ned at CAA MactanG 1ereto
<eonor, actin& chief accountantG and Manuel Busta-ante, re&ional auditor of Re&ion ), C%A, conspired and /ere e@uall'
liable /ith the convicted accused.
Accordin&l', 5ud&e Escareal directed Chief $tate Prosecutor 5uan A. $ison of the Ministr' of 5ustice to assi&n a $tate
Prosecutor to conduct an investi&ation for possible violations of the Anti-8raft and Corrupt Practices Act, falsification of public
docu-ents, -alversation of public funds, overpricin&, unexplained /ealth, and violation of accountin& and auditin& rules and
re&ulations, and to file the correspondin& char&es if /arranted.
.he investi&ation /as conducted as directed and led to the filin& of an infor-ation /ith the $andi&anba'an, /here it /as
doc0eted as Cri-inal Case No 6(16, a&ainst 5i-ene7, Monta're, Dilla, Busta-ante, <eonor and $ucalit for violation of $ection
!, R.A. !21(. .he infor-ation read as follo/sE
.hat durin& the period fro- 5une ( to !2, 1()6, or thereabout, at <apu-<apu Cit', Philippines, and /ithin the
Aurisdiction of this 1onorable $andi&anba'an, the accused Arturo $o-osa 5i-ene7, then Airport 8eneral
Mana&er, Mactan #nternational AirportG Rodolfo Evan&elista Monta're, Assistant Airport 8eneral Mana&erG
Ca-ilo 8ido Dilla, Chief of the <o&istics $ection, CAA MactanG 5osefina $anche7 $ucalit, .echnical
#nspector of the C%A, Cebu Cit'G Manuel Raneses Busta-ante, Re&ional Auditor, Cebu Cit'G and 1ereto
Cabrera <eonor, Chief Accountant, CAA, Manila, ta0in& advanta&e of their public positions and /hile in the
perfor-ance of the duties of their office, to&ether /ith 4ernando "ario, Estanislao Centeno, $erafin Robles
and Casi-iro "avid, /ho had alread' been convicted in the Cri-inal Circuit Court of Cebu in Cri-inal Case
No. CCC-P#D-1=6)-Cebu, entitled ,People v. Casi-iro "avid, et al.,, confederatin& to&ether and -utuall'
helpin& one another or other/ise, actin& in concert, /ith intent to defraud and &ain, did then and there,
/ilfull', unla/full' and feloniousl' cause to influence other public officials, or allo/ to be influenced, to
violate rules and re&ulations dul' pro-ul&ated b' co-petent authorit' relative to their respective duties, and
for financial and pecuniar' interest, b' then and there per-ittin&, pro-otin& and approvin& the ne&otiation,
perfection and consu--ation of the purchase and pa'-ents of the Civil Aeronautics Ad-inistration *CAA+,
Mactan #nternational Airport, of /hich the accused are b' la/ called upon to officiall' intervene and ta0e
part, the follo/in& ite-s or articles, to /itE
1 set three phase pri-ar' -eterin& 1!.9 :D =22 :DA, 32 c'cles co-plete /ith de-and -eterin&, volta&e
and current transfor-ers valued at P!2,222.22G
! pieces 16% :DA "istribution .ransfor-ers, sin&le phase, 32 c'cles =22 volts-=2 DT12D oil cooled
valued at P3(,222.22G
! pieces 162 :DA Po/er transfor-ers, sin&le phase, 32 c'cles, 1!9 :DT=22 volts oil cooled valued at
P(2,222.22G
1(
= sets hi&h volta&e chan&e over s/itch ! poles double thro/ :D valued at P1,262.22G
3 sets hi&h volta&e fuse cut-outs valued at P!!,222.22G and cost of installation F P(,222.22
costin& all in all P((,1)6.22, Philippine Currenc', fro- ,Rocen Enterprises, 0no/in& full' /ell that the said
entit' is not a reputable -anufacturer andTor supplier of the above-enu-erated articles, thus, &ivin& said
,Rocen Enterprises, un/arranted benefits, advanta&e or preference, in violation of prohibitions of the
Presidential Me-orandu-, dated April , 1()1, $ec. , Rule PD### of the Civil $ervice Rules and
Re&ulations and of $ec. 1*x+, of Presidential "ecree No. 3. dated $epte-ber ), 1(), to the da-a&e and
preAudice of the Philippine 8overn-ent.
C%N.RAR> .% <A?.
;pon arrai&n-ent, all the accused pleaded not &uilt'. .he case a&ainst Manuel Busta-ante /as, on -otion of the
prosecution, dis-issed /ithout preAudice for lac0 of #rima !acie case. 5i-ene7, Monta're, Dilla and $ucalit /ere later
suspended fro- public office durin& the pendenc' of the case.
.hrou&h the testi-onial and docu-entar' evidence it presented at the trial, the prosecution sou&ht to establish the follo/in&
factsE
"ario, Centeno and Robles ne&otiated /ith 5i-ene7 for the purchase of transfor-ers and electrical supplies for the Mactan
#nternational Airport. .he three /ere on leave durin& that ti-e. %n 5une 1, 1()6, Monta're issued Re@uisition and #ssue
Doucher 3-61!-)6 for the follo/in& articlesE
1 set three phase pri-ar' -eterin& 1!.9 :D =22 :DA, 32 c'cles co-plete /ith de-and -eterin&, volta&e
and current transfor-ersG
! piece 162 :DA "istribution .ransfor-ers, sin&le phase, 32 c'cle =22 volts-=2 DT12D oil cooledG
! pieces 162 :DA Po/er transfor-ers, sin&le phase, 32 c'cles, 1!9 :DT=22 Dolts oil cooledG
= sets hi&h volta&e Chan&eover $/itch, ! poles double thro/ 16 :DG
3 sets-1i&h Dolta&e fused cut outs, 16 :DG
)62 feet of )62 MC:.1? 322 Dolts Copper conductor.
PurposeE 4or installation of co--ercial po/er at Mactan Centrali7ed E-er&enc' Po/er $.M.
5i-ene7 approved the re@uisition and <eonor certified to the availabilit' of funds. 5i-ene7 si&ned Advertise-ent No. 13-)6,
and in due ti-e the re@uired invitations to bid callin& for sealed proposals for the furnishin& and deliver' of the supplies /ere
issued.
%n 5une 16, 1()6, 5i-ene7 sent $ucalit to Manila to canvass the subAect supplies at various reputable dealers or
-anufacturers in Manila. $ucalit delivered Advertise-ent 4or-s to Rocen Enterprises in Pasa' Cit', ;tilities E@uip-ent and
$uppl' Corporation *;.E$C%+ in Nue7on Cit', and #ntrade Corporation in Ma0ati.
%n 5une 6, 1()6, the sealed bids /ere opened b' the Biddin& Co--ittee. .he Co--ittee prepared an Abstract of Bids
si&ned b' "avid, Dilla, $ucalit, ?i&berto 4uentebella, <eonardo Mahina', and 4er-in Beltran, approvin& the lo/est bid, /hich
/as that of Rocen Enterprises. %n the sa-e da', a Purchase %rder addressed to Rocen Enterprises /as prepared and
si&ned b' "avid and approved b' 5i-ene7, /ith <eonor certif'in& to the availabilit' of funds.
4ro- 5une 6-!2, 1()6, four reports of inspection /ere prepared and si&ned b' $ucalit, Dilla and Monta'reG four certificates of
deliver' /ere si&ned b' Monta're and DillaG and four &eneral vouchers for P)2,192, P)6,(22, P((,222 and P6!,22
respectivel' /ere prepared and si&ned b' Dilla, Monta're, <eonor and 5i-ene7.
2
%n 5une !2, 1()6, four treasur' /arrants in the a-ounts respectivel' of P)2,192, P6),(92, P((,222, P6!,22, all pa'able to
Rocen Enterprises andTor 4ernando "ario, /ere issued in pa'-ent for the articles re@uisitioned. .he ?arrant Re&ister at the
airport sho/s that five chec0s in the separate a-ounts of P)2,192, P((,222, P6!,22, P6),(92, P1),(2, /ere delivered to
Centeno.
#t turned out that the re@uisitioned articles /ere delivered at Cebu Cit' onl' on 5ul' 3, 1()6, and /ere shipped b' ;.E$C%, a
losin& bidder, to Rocen Enterprises, cTo Mrs. Re-edios Centeno via the vessel $/eet 4aith. .he frei&ht and handlin& char&es
of P6,622.22 incurred in connection /ith the deliver' /ere rei-bursed under a 8eneral Doucher si&ned b' 5i-ene7, Monta're
and <eonor to Rocen Enterprises.
Rocen Enterprises, the /innin& bidder, /as ostensibl' o/ned b' Re-edios Centeno, /ife of Estanislao Centeno. #ts line of
business, as re&istered /ith the Bureau of "o-estic .rade on Au&ust (, 1()=, /as ,paper products and printed -atter., %n
Au&ust 11, 1()6, the fir- /as incorporated and re&istered /ith the $ecurities and Exchan&e Co--ission as ,Rocen .radin&
#ncorporated, /ith an authori7ed capital stoc0 of P122,222, P2,222 of /hich had been subscribed and P6,222 paid up. .he
incorporators /ere Re-edios Centeno, Priscilla Robles, 8licerio Efren, Ro&elio $antos, Estanislao Centeno and $erafin
Robles.
.he co--on defense of all the accused /as as follo/sE
.he ac@uisition of the electrical ite-s /as an e-er&enc' -easure necessitated b' the bro/nout at Mactan Airport on the ni&ht
of 5une 1, 1()6. #nco-in& fli&hts had to be diverted as the run/a' and taxi/a' li&hts necessar' for a proper landin& /ere all
out. 5esus $in&son, CAA "irector, directed Mactan officials to i-ple-ent a plan to install co--ercial po/er at Mactan Airport
/hich at that ti-e depended on the Mactan Electric Co-pan' and the Philippine Air 4orce for its po/er source. 4or this
purpose, Cash "isburse-ent Ceilin&s *C"C+ in the total a-ount of P!12,222.22 /ere released.
As the C"Cs /ould expire on 5une !2, 1()6, it /as necessar' to -a0e it appear in the vouchers, supportin& docu-ents,
reports of inspection, and certificates of deliver' that the ite-s re@uisitioned /ere delivered and inspected on or before 5une
!2, 1()6. .he C"Cs had to be utili7ed before the end of the fiscal 'ear as other/ise the' /ould revert to the &eneral fund. #n
vie/ of the e-er&enc' nature of the purchase, there /as no ti-e to advertise and the Biddin& Co--ittee had to adopt the
-ore expeditious -ode of procure-ent. An'/a', the prices paid b' the &overn-ent /ere reasonable.
5i-ene7 testified that he approved the vouchers after verif'in& that all the supportin& docu-ents /ere in order and dul'
certified b' the proper officers. 1e disclai-ed responsibilit' in deter-inin& the reputabilit' of the supplier. 1e ad-itted he 0ne/
"ario, Centeno and Robles but denied that the' /ere in his office at Mactan Airport to follo/ up the transaction.
Monta're contended that his participation in the transaction /as li-ited to re@uisitionin& the electrical ite-s. 1e /as not a
-e-ber of the Biddin& Co--ittee and so had nothin& to do /ith the canvassin& of the prices, the deter-ination of the /innin&
bidder, and the verification of reputabilit' of the supplier.
Dilla, a -e-ber of the Biddin& Co--ittee, ar&ued that he did not participate in the canvass of the re@uisitioned ite-s. As chief
of the lo&istics section, it /as his dut' to deter-ine the ite-s needed for the airport but not the availabilit' of funds for their
ac@uisition. 1e processed the vouchers before 5une !2, 1()6, because the funds needed for the ite-s re@uisitioned /ould not
be available if not disbursed before that date. 1e did this upon Monta'reKs direction.
$ucalit testified that she -ade a canvass of the ite-s re@uisitioned independent of the Biddin& Co--ittee, to use as a basis
for deter-inin& the reasonableness of the prices @uoted b' suppliers. $he acted pursuant to the National Accountin& and
Auditin& Rules. $he added that she /ent to Manila to -a0e the canvass because there /as no supplier in Cebu Cit' that
could furnish the needed ite-s. $he had no responsibilit' to deter-ine /ho /ere @ualified to participate in the biddin& as she
/as not a -e-ber of the Biddin& Co--ittee. $he pre-audited and initialed the vouchers after verif'in& all supportin&
docu-ents and certifications. $he also said she si&ned the inspection reports ahead of the actual deliver' of the ite-s
because the C"Cs /ould expire on 5une !2, 1()6.
#n its decision dated 5ul' 9, 1(99, the 4irst "ivision of the $andi&anba'an found all the accused &uilt' be'ond reasonable
doubt of violatin& $ection !, para&raphs*a+, *c+ 8 *h+, and *i+ of R.A. !21(, in relation to the ;nnu-bered Me-orandu- of the
President dated April , 1()1, $ection 1, Rule PD### of the Civil $ervice Rules and $ection 1*x+ of P.". No. 3.
Each of the accused /as sentenced to suffer an indeter-inate penalt' ran&in& fro- a -ini-u- of ! 'ears to a -axi-u- of 3
'ears i-prison-ent and perpetual dis@ualification fro- public office.
1
.he $andi&anba'an saidE
Carefull' evaluatin& the evidence on record, it has beca-e abundantl' clear to ;s that accused Arturo $.
5i-ene7, Rodolfo E. Monta're, Ca-ilo 8. Dilla, 5osefina $. $ucalit, and 1ereto C. <eonor had conspired
/ith 4ernando "ario, Estanislao Centeno, $erafin Robles and Casi-iro "avid in the co--ission of the
cri-e for /hich the last four /ere convicted b' the Circuit Cri-inal Court in Case No. CCC-P#D-1=6),
na-el', ,Diolation of $ection !, para&raphs *a+, *c+, *h+, and *i+, of Republic Act !21(, other/ise 0no/n as
the Anti-8raft and Corrupt Practices Act, in relation to the ;nnu-bered Me-orandu- of the President of the
Philippines dated April , 1()1, $ection 1, Rule PD### of the Civil $ervice Rules, and $ection 1*x+ of
Presidential "ecree No. 3.
?e are not disposed to disre&ard the findin& of the court in that case that ,a -assive and &i&antic
conspirac' existed bet/een and a-on& the four accused herein, na-el', "avid, Centeno, "ario, and
Robles, as /ell as practicall' all of the hi&h-ran0in& officials of CAA Mactan, *na-el', Airport 8eneral
Mana&er Arturo $. 5i-ene7, Asst. Airport 8eneral ,Mana&er Rodolfo E. Monta're, Ca-ilo 8. Dilla as Chief
of the <o&istics $ection, Mrs. 5osefina $. $ucalit, .echnical Propert' #nspector of the C%A detail, and Chief
Accountant 1ereto C. <eonor+, the purpose of /hich /as to corner and -onopoli7e all re@uisitions and
purchases of supplies and e@uip-ent at CAA Mactan, re&ardless of the source or the reputabilit' of the
suppliers.
.he $andi&anba'an observed that there /as an overchar&e in the four vouchers bet/een the prices @uoted b' Rocen as
reflected in the Abstract of Bids and the a-ounts actuall' paid. .he overchar&e, totalin& P),122, /as -eant to represent the
cost of installation, but there /as no Austification for includin& this ite- in the vouchers and no proof either that Rocen
undertoo0 the installation. %n the contrar', this /or0 appeared to have been underta0en b' Monta're and personnel fro- the
Bureau of Air .ransportation.
.he $andi&anba'an heldE
4ro- all facts and circu-stances, ad-itted or undisputed, as /ell as those inferences, deductions, and
conclusions lo&icall' and reasonabl' proceedin& therefro-, ?e are dra/n into the conclusion that accused
Arturo $. 5i-ene7, Rodolfo E. Monta're Ca-ilo 8. Dilla, 5osefina $. $ucalit and 1ereto C. <eonor, indeed,
had conspired /ith Casi-iro "avid, Estanislao Centeno, 4ernando "ario and $erafin Robles in a dastardl'
sche-e to defraud the &overn-ent.
?hen accused 5i-ene7, Monta're, Dilla, $ucalit and <eonor si&ned, approved andTor executed the
docu-ents that facilitated the consu--ation of the transaction in @uestion, in conspirac' /ith "avid,
Centeno, "ario and Robles, in direct violation of existin& rules and re&ulations pro-ul&ated b' co-petent
authorit', the' have beco-e cri-inall' liable under $ection !. para&raph *a+, of Republic Act No. !21(, as
a-ended. .he' not onl' persuaded, induced, or influenced each other as public officers to co--it such
fla&rant violations, but also allo/ed the-selves to be so persuaded, induced or influenced to railroad the
transaction in @uestion. .he' had /ittin&l' allo/ed the @uestioned purchase fro- Rocen Enterprises, an
entit' /hich is not a reputable -anufacturer or a dul' re&istered and licensed distributor of the e@uip-ent
purchased, the sa-e bein& en&a&ed in the business onl' of ,paper products and printed -atters.,
B' the @uestioned transaction, Rocen Enterprises /as also &iven un/arranted benefits, advanta&e, or
preference, to the exclusion of -ore established andTor reputable establish-ents -anufacturin& or dealin&
in the 0ind of e@uip-ent purchased. .here /as -anifest partialit', evident bad faith, and inexcusable
ne&li&ence in acceptin& the bid of Rocen Enterprises and approvin& the sa-e /ithin a period of onl' one
da', in acco-plishin& the purchase order and &eneral vouchers in pa'-ent of the re@uisitioned e@uip-ent
/ithin a period of one /ee0, and deliverin& the correspondin& /arrants or chec0s in pa'-ent of the sa-e,
throu&h a CAA e-plo'ee even before deliver' of said e@uip-ent. $ection !, para&raph *!+ of Republic Act
No. !21(, as a-ended, /as thereb' violated.
B' co-binin&, confederatin&, and conspirin& /ith Centeno, "ario, and Robles to pro-ote or facilitate efforts
that led to the violation of $ection !, para&raph *h+ of Republic Act No. !21(, for /hich Centeno, "ario, and
Robles /ere convicted, accused 5i-ene7, Monta're, Dilla, $ucalit and <eonor rendered the-selves e@uall'
liable.
4inall', there can be no doubt at all that 5i-ene7, Monta're, Dilla, $ucalit and <eonor are liable under
$ection !, para&raph *i+ since the' participated in or /ere responsible for the approval of a -anifestl'
unla/ful, ine@uitable, or irre&ular transaction, b' /hich actuations interest for personal &ain shall be
presu-ed a&ainst the-.
?hile the $andi&anba'an case /as pendin&, the Court of Appeals, in a decision pro-ul&ated on 5anuar' (, 1(99, reversed
the Aud&-ent of conviction rendered b' the Circuit Cri-inal Court, on the &round of insufficient evidence. .his decision /as
subse@uentl', and @uite understandabl', invo0ed b' the herein petitioners in their separate -otions for reconsideration of the
decision of the $andi&anba'an.
#n a resolution dated 4ebruar' 1), 1(9(, the $andi&anba'an denied all these -otions for reconsideration. 1ence, four
separate petitions for revie/ /ere filed /ith this Court, b' Dilla, in 8.R. No. 9)193G Monta're, in 8.R. No. 9)91G $ucalit, in
8.R. No. 9)=33G and 5i-ene7, in 8.R. No. 9)6=. <eonor did not appeal,
%n Ma' =, 1(9(, 8.R. No. 9)=33 /as dis-issed for non-co-pliance /ith Circular No. 1-99. $ucalit filed a -otion for
reconsideration, /hich /as denied /ith finalit'. %n %ctober !, 1(9(, ho/ever, this Court resolved to hold in abe'ance
enforce-ent of final Aud&-ent on the petition pendin& resolution of the other petitions. %n Au&ust , 1(9(, /e resolved to
consolidate these cases upon -otion of the $olicitor 8eneral, /ho /as directed to file a Consolidated Co--ent on all the
cases.
.he co--on issues raised in these petitions areE
1. ?hether or not the decision of ac@uittal of the Court of Appeals pro-ul&ated 3 -onths before the decision of the
$andi&anba'an bars their conviction pursuant to the doctrine of ,the la/ of the case.,
. ?hether or not the testi-onies of prosecution /itnesses, /hich /ere discredited b' the Court of Appeals as biased, -erit
belief b' the $andi&anba'an.
!. ?hether or not there /as conspirac' a-on& the petitioners.
.he petitioners contend that since their cases in the $andi&anba'an /ere -erel' an offshoot of Cri-inal Case No. CCC-P#D-
1=6) in the Circuit Cri-inal Court of Cebu Cit', /hich /as reversed b' the Court of Appeals in CA-8.R. No. =1=, the
decision of the Court of Appeals has beco-e the ,la/ of the case, /hich cannot no/ be overturned b' an' court and should
be applied in the case at bar. Accordin&l', the' should also be ac@uitted.
.his contention is erroneous.
.he doctrine has been defined as ,that principle under /hich deter-inations of @uestions of la/ /ill &enerall' be held to
&overn a case throu&hout all its subse@uent sta&es /here such deter-ination has alread' been -ade on a prior appeal to a
court of last resort. #t is -erel' a rule of procedure and does not &o to the po/er of the court, and /ill not be adhered to /here
its application /ill result in an unAust decision. #t relates entirel' to @uestions of la/, and is confined in its operation to
subse@uent proceedin&s in the sa-e case.,
#n %arantilla v. Court o! A##eals,
@
/e heldE
<a/ of the case, has been defined as the opinion delivered on a !ormer a##eal. More specificall', it -eans
that /hatever is once irrevocabl' established, as the controlling legal rule o! decisionbet/een the sa-e
parties in the same case continue to be la/ of the case, /hether correct on &eneral principles or not, so lon&
as the facts on /hich such decision /as predicted continues to the fact of the before case before the court
*1 C.5.$. !!2+ *#talic supplied+. #t need not be stated that the $upre-e Court bein& the court of last resort,
is the final arbiter of all le&al @uestion properl' brou&ht before it and that its decision in an' &iven case
constitutes the la/ of that #articular case. . . *E-phasis supplied+. #t is a rule of &eneral application that the
decision of an appellate court in a case is the la/ of the case on the points presented throu&ht all the
subse@uent proceedin& in the case in both the trial and the appellate courts, and no @uestion necessaril'
involved and decided on that appeal /ill be considered on a second appeal or /rit of error in the sa-e case,
provided the facts and issues are substantiall' the sa-e as those on /hich the first @uestion rested and,
accordin& to so-e authorities, provided the decision is on the -erits.
!
#n li&ht of these definitions, /e find that the $andi&anba'an did not err in holdin& as follo/sE
.he decision of the Court of Appeals reversin& the Aud&-ent of the Circuit Cri-inal Court in Case N%. CCC-
P#D-1=6), /as not, ho/ever, a deter-ination of a @uestion of la/. .he present case is not -erel' a sta&e or
subse@uent proceedin&s of that case. Althou&h related, the' are entirel' distinct and separate cases. ?hile
in both cases, the transaction involved, the char&es laid, and the persons alluded to as co-conspirators are
one and the sa-e, there is definitel' no identit' of parties bet/een the t/o cases. .he persons accused in
one differ fro- those in the other. .here is, therefore, no /a' /hereb' the doctrine of the la/ of the case
/ould appl'. #f ever the findin&s of the Court of Appeals in the case decided b' it /ould be considered
operative as the ,la/ of the case,, the sa-e /ould be confined in its operations solel' to the case and to
those accused therein.
.he petitioners also invo0e res 1udicata, pointin& out that in Cri-inal Case No. CCC-P#D-1=6) and the case at bar, there /as
identit' of the transaction involved, the /itnesses and docu-entar' evidence presented, and the offenses char&ed.
.he Aud&-ent of ac@uittal in CA 8.R. No. =1= does not constitute res 1udicata so as to bar a Aud&-ent of conviction in
Cri-inal Case No. 6(16. %ne of the re@uisites of res 1udicata is that there -ust be substantial identit' of parties,
10
/hich is not
present in the instant case.
.he petitioners clai- that the $andi&anba'an ,relied ver' heavil', if not -ainl', on and has -erel' adopted the findin&s of
facts of the Circuit Cri-inal Court in arrivin& at its Aud&-ent of conviction. ?ith the reversal of the decision of the Circuit
Cri-inal Court, the $andi&anba'an decision has also lost its basis.
.his ar&u-ent is also unacceptable.
?hile the $andi&anba'an did consider the decision of the Circuit Cri-inal Court in findin& the petitioners &uilt', this /as not
the sole reason for their conviction. Apart fro- the conclusions of that court, the $andi&anba'an -ade its o/n findin&s of fact
based on the testi-on' of /itnesses and docu-entar' evidence sub-itted to it durin& the trial. #n fact, the -aAor part of its
decision d/elt its o/n anal'sis of such evidence.
.he petitioners also invo0e the decision of the Court of Appeals reAectin& the char&e of conspirac' and contend that its findin&
that "avid, Centeno, "ario and Robles did not conspire a-on& the-selves or /ith the herein petitioners precluded the
$andi&anba'an fro- arrivin& at a contrar' conclusion.
.his defense is also untenable. #n ;nited States v. Remigio,
11
the Court held that althou&h ,a conspirac' is in its nature a Aoint
offense . . . it does not follo/ that one person onl' cannot be convicted of conspirac'. $o lon& as the ac@uittal or death of a co-
conspirator does not re-ove the bases for a char&e of conspirac', one defendant -a' be found &uilt' of the offense.,
Notabl', the Aud&-ent of ac@uittal of the Court of Appeals invo0ed b' the herein petitioners /as based on the insufficienc' of
the evidence of &uilt of the accused therein and not on a findin& that no offense had been co--itted.
.he petitioners co-plain that the $andi&anba'an erred in &ivin& credence to the testi-on' of the prosecution /itnesses /hich
had earlier been disbelieved b' the Court of Appeals as biased. .he ans/er to this is that the findin&s of fact of the
$andi&anba'an in the cases before us are bindin& on this Court in the absence of a sho/in& that the' co-e under the
established exception. #t is also /orth notin& that the $andi&anba'an, bein& a trial court, /as in a position to observe the
de-eanor of the /itnesses, unli0e the Court of Appeals /hich had to rel' onl', in the /ords of the $olicitor 8eneral, ,on a
-ute transcript of steno&raphic notes.,
#t is asserted that the o-ission to ascertain the reputabilit' of the supplier /ould result onl' in ad-inistrative and not cri-inal
liabilit', as held b' the Court of Appeals. ?e do not thin0 so. Not onl' ad-inistrative but also cri-inal liabilit' under the
afore-entioned para&raphs *a+ and *e+ $ection !, of R.A. !21( /as incurred. .he failure to ascertain the reputabilit' of Rocen
Enterprises constituted a violation of the rules and re&ulations pro-ul&ated b' co-petent authorit' and co-es under
para&raph *a+. .he -anifest partialit' that resulted in un/arranted benefits to Rocen /as in contravention of para&raph *e+.
Also invo0ed is our rulin& in Bayot v. Sandiganbayan.
12
to /itE
Petitioner herein, Re'naldo R. Ba'ot, to&ether /ith, his co-accused <oren7o 8a. Cesar, /as one of the
those char&ed and convicted in a Aoint decision b' the $andi&anba'an, of the cri-e of estafa thru
=
falsification of public docu-ents. Both /ere sentenced to a total of 6)) 'ears i-prison-ent b' the
$andi&anba'an on exactl' the sa-e evidence /hich this Court had pronounced as ,/oefull' inade@uate,
and ,too conAectural and presu-ptive to establish personal culpabilit',, *Cesar v. $andi&anba'an, 1!=
$CRA 126+. .he petition for revie/ filed b' <oren7o 8a. Cesar /as &ranted b' this Court and in the decision
rendered on 5anuar' 1), 1(96 in 8.R. Nos. <-6=)1(-62, 1!= $CRA 126, the Court en banc, reversed the
decision of the $andi&anba'an and ac@uitted <oren7o 8a. Cesar. .he char&e and the evidence sub-itted
a&ainst <oren7o 8a. Cesar bein& one and the sa-e a&ainst the herein petitioner Re'naldo R. Ba'ot, the
Court should do no less /ith respect to the latter.
#n Cesar v. Sandiganbayan,
1I
it /as this Court en banc that reversed the decision convictin& the accused of estafa throu&h
falsification of public docu-ents because it had not been proved that Cesar si&ned the @uestioned vouchers. .his served as
the basis for ac@uittin& Ba'ot in his o/n petition for revie/ as the' /ere char&ed under identical infor-ations and convicted in
a Aoint decision based on the sa-e evidence presented before $andi&anba'an.
#n the case at bar, the first three accused /ere convicted b' the Circuit Cri-inal Court and later ac@uitted b' the Court of
Appeals. .he second batch of accused, the petitioners herein, /ere convicted directl' b' the $andi&anba'an.
%bviousl', /e cannot rule on the decision of the Court of Appeals because it is not before us. ?hat is the decision of the
$andi&anba'an, /hich, is the case /e can revie/. #n so doin&, /e are not bound b' the findin&s of the Court of Appeals,
/hich have not been appealed to this Court. ?e are confined onl' to the exa-ination of the proceedin&s in the
$andi&anba'an because it is its decision that has been elevated to us. 4ro- the records of that case, to repeat, /e are
satisfied that there /as a conspirac' a-on& so-e of the petitioners.
.he failure to sho/ that the petitioners profited fro- the transaction /ould not necessaril' result in ac@uittal. #n-uciano v
Estrella,
16
5ustice 5.B.<. Re'es, in interpretin& para&raph *&+, $ection ! of R.A. !21(, saidE
. . . the act treated thereunder parta0es of the nature of malum #rohibitumG it is the co--ission of that act as
defined b' the la/, not the character or effect thereof, that deter-ines /hether or not the provision has been
violated. And this construction /ould be in consonance /ith the announced purpose for /hich Republic Act
!21( /as enacted, /hich is the repression of certain acts of public officers and private persons constitutin&
&raft or corrupt practices or /hich -a' lead thereto. Note that the la/ does not -erel' conte-plates
repression of acts that are unla/ful or corrupt #er se, but even of those that -a' lead to or result in &raft and
corruption . . .
.he petitioners stress that the investi&atin& fiscal /ho conducted the preli-inar' investi&ation cleared the- of liabilit' */hile
.anodba'an 4ernande7 -aintained there /as conspirac'+ and ar&ue that the findin&s of the for-er should prevail pursuant
to 2uizo v. Sandiganbayan.
15
.hat case, in fact, ar&ues a&ainst the-. #n Nui7o, it /as the .anodba'an hi-self /ho -oved for
the dis-issal of the infor-ation /ith the $andi&anba'an /hich denied the sa-e and /hich denial /e set aside. .he
investi&atin& fiscal bein& the subordinate of the .anodba'an, the letterKs decision should prevail.
Also cited is the case of (a1aro v. Sandiganbayan,
1F
/here it /as heldE
#n vie/ of the findin&s of the Court of Appeals in CA-8.R.. No, $P-2)=(!, April !2, 1(9), the prosecution of
petitioner in the $andi&anba'an should be discontinued for the $andi&anba'an -a' not revie/, revise or
reverse the findin&s of the Court of Appeals in relation to /hich the $andi&anba'an, a special court /ith
special and li-ited Aurisdiction. is inferior.
#n that case, PaAaro, as officer-in-char&e of the %ffice of the Cit' .reasurer of "a&upan Cit', /as char&ed before the
.anodba'an /ith violation of R.A. !21( for havin& &iven undue advanta&e and benefits to a delin@uent taxpa'er b' allo/in& it
to pa' in install-ent instead of collectin& the taxes due /ithin the period fixed in the <ocal .ax Code. ?hile the case /as
pendin&, <la-as filed a petition for mandamus to co-pel PaAaro to collect the delin@uentKs tax liabilities. .he trial court
dis-issed the suit and on appeal /as upheld b' the Court of Appeals on the &round that no preAudice had cause to the cit',
/hich in fact stood to &ain -ore fro- the pro-issor' note than the a-ount a/arded b' the trial court.
.he .anodba'an filed the infor-ation a&ainst PaAaro but later reco--ended its dis-issal, /hich the $andi&anba'an denied.
Citin& the Court of Appeals decision, PaAaro -oved for reconsideration, /hich the $andi&anba'an also denied. .his pro-pted
the petition for certiorari and prohibition /here /e ruled in favor of PaAaro.
6
.he PaAaro Case is not applicable because, as correctl' observed b' the $olicitor 8eneral, one and the sa-e act of the sa-e
part' /as the subAect of separate cases before the Court of Appeals and the $andi&anba'an. #n the cases before us, the
parties absolved b' the Court of Appeals are different fro- the parties in the $andi&anba'an case and the acts co--itted b'
the accused in this case are different fro- the acts co--itted b' the accused in Cri-inal Case No. )CC-P##-1=6).
<astl', it is contended that there /as denial of due process because the case a&ainst the- /as heard b' several sets of
Austices as follo/s
Nov. 9, 1(9! Pa-aran Molina Purisi-a
5un. !2, 1(9= Pa-aran Consolacion 5abson
5an. !1, 1(9= Pa-aran Consolacion Nui-bo
Mar. 3, 1(9= Pa-aran Molina Consoldcion
$ept. 6, 1(9= Pa-aran Escareal Molina
Mar. 11, 1(96 Pa-aran Molina A-ores
Ma' 9, 1(96 Pa-aran 5abson A-ores
$ept. !, 1(96 Pa-aran A-ores DeraCru7
5ul' 1-, 1(93 8architorena 5abson 5oson
$ept. 9-12, 1(93 8architarena 5abson 5oson
Nov. =-3, 1(93 8architorena 5abson 5oson
Moreover, the decision of conviction /as si&ned b' 5ustices 5oson, 8architorena and Chua /hile the resolution on the -otion
for reconsideration /as si&ned b' 5ustices 5oson, 8architorena and 1er-osisi-a.
#nvo0ed is the case of Cabigao vs. Saidiganbayan,
17
/here this Court heldE
At the sa-e ti-e, the too fre@uent rotation of 5ustices hearin& this particular case borders on unfairness.
.he $andi&anba'an should devise a better s'ste- /hereb', as -uch as possible, the sa-e 5ustices /ho
hear a case shall be the ones to decide it. .he procedure in the Court of Appeals cannot be used as a
precedent. Except in so-e isolated instances provided in Batas Pa-bansa Bl&. 1(, the Court of Appeals
revie/s and decides cases on the basis of the records and does not conduct trials. #n reducin& te-porar'
chan&es in its divisions to the barest -ini-u-, the $andi&anba'an also reduces the possibilit' of one
5ustice /ho hears all the /itnesses, influencin& the findin&s of the 5ustices /ho did not have the sa-e
opportunit'.
#n that case, /e set aside the decision of the $andi&anba'an and ordered a ne/ trial not solel' on the basis of the ,too
fre@uent rotation of Austices, but also because ,in addition to the ne/l'-discovered evidence, there */ere+ serious alle&ations
/hich call*ed+ for a -ore thorou&h exa-ination.,
4urther-ore, te-porar' vacancies in a division of a colle&iate court are to be expected and unavoidable. .he ,fre@uent
rotation of 5ustices, decried b' the petitioners /as not deliberatel' done to preAudice the-. #t -ust also be noted that there
/as no cate&orical state-ent in Cabi&ao that ,fre@uent rotation of Austices, /ould result in the nullity of the proceedin&s.
?e no/ proceed to the liabilities of the petitioners.
.he petitioners sub-it that their act of re@uisitionin& the ite-s approvin& and si&nin& docu-ents relative to the transaction and
issuin& the chec0s in pa'-ent of the ite-s re@uisitioned /ere -ade in &ood faith to beat the expir' date in the C"Cs on 5une
!2, 1()6, and allo/ their utili7ation before their reversion to the &eneral fund.
?e a&ree that the issuance of and si&natures on the reports of inspection, certificates of deliver' and &eneral vouchers, all
before 5une !2, 1()6, prior to the actual deliver' of the re@uisitioned ite-, /ere innocent and Austified b' the e-er&enc'
nature of the purchase and the need to beat the expir' dates of the C"Cs. ?hat /e cannot co-e to ter-s /ith, ho/ever, is
the &larin& fact that the /innin& bidder, Rocen Enterprises, /hich /as represented b' Centeno, Robles and "ario, deals onl'
in paper products and printed -atter and -erel' procured the electrical ite-s it supplied to CAA Mactan fro- ;.E$C%, one of
the losin& bidders. .his transaction reveals that un/arranted advanta&e throu&h -anifest partialit' /ere accorded Rocen
not/ithstandin& its lac0 of reputabilit' as a supplier of electrical e@uip-ent.
?ho and /hat -ade this possibleU
3
A close scrutin' of the circu-stances of this case clearl' indicates that 5i-ene7 and $ucalit /ere indeed involved in a sche-e
violative of the Anti-8raft and Corrupt Practices Act.
"ario, Centeno and Robles /ere CAA Manila e-plo'ees and /ere on leave durin& the period of the @uestioned transaction.
.he' /ere seen b' prosecution /itnesses at Mactan Airport in the co-pan' of 5i-ene7, /ho ad-itted he 0ne/ the three.
Robles and Centeno are incorporators of Rocen .radin&, #nc., /hich /as the Rocen Enterprises at the ti-e the transaction
/as consu--ated. .his /as a sole proprietorship re&istered in the na-e of Re-edios Centeno, /ife of Estanislao Centeno,
and en&a&ed onl' in the business of dealin& in ,paper products and printed -atter.,
?hen the re@uisition of the ite-s /as -ade, $ucalit /ent to Manila pursuant to a travel order issued b' 5i-ene7 to canvass
prices of the articles. #t is not explained /h' she delivered an advertise-ent for- to Rocen Enterprises, /hich /as a supplier
onl' of paper products and printed -atter but not of the needed electrical ite-s. Curiousl', Rocen sub-itted the lo/est
@uotation for the ite-s re@uisitioned. ?hen the contract /as a/arded to it, Rocen -erel' procured the ite-s re@uisitioned
fro- ;.E$C%, a losin& bidder.
Arturo 5i-ene7, Airport 8eneral Mana&er, had the responsibilit', as head of office, to see to it that the purchases -ole /ere
fro- reputable suppliers pursuant to the ;nnu-bered Presidential Me-orandu- dated April , 1()1. #nstead of dischar&in&
this responsibilit', 5i-ene7 approved the a/ard to Rocen Enterprises, /hich /as represented b' Centeno, Robles and "ario.
5osefina $ucalit, /ho /as sent b' 5i-ene7 to Manila to -a0e a canvass, inexplicabl' delivered an advertise-ent for Rocen
Enterprises, /hich /as not a reputable supplier ofK the needed ite-s. #n her .ravel Report, she certified that she -ade a
canvass fro- reputable suppliers.
.hese acts and o-issions of 5i-ene7 and $ucalit violated para&raph *a+ of $ection ! of R.A. !21( in relation to the
;nnu-bered Presidential Me-orandu-. .he' /ere persuaded, induced or influenced, and persuaded, induced or influenced
each other, to a/ard the purchase of electrical ite-s to an entit' /hich /as not even a supplier of electrical ite-s in disre&ard
of the Presidential Me-orandu- directin& that procure-ent of supplies b' &overn-ent offices should be fro- reputable
suppliers. Rocen /as not a ,reputable supplier, as it /as dealin& onl' in paper products and printed -atter at the ti-e of the
transaction in @uestion.
Para&raph *e+ /as li0e/ise violated b' 5i-ene7 and $ucalit because, /ith -anifest partialit' in the dischar&e of their official
and ad-inistrative functions, the' &ave un/arranted benefits, advanta&e or preference to Rocen Enterprises.
.he circu-stances of the case are sufficient to establish conspirac' bet/een 5i-ene7 and $ucalit in violatin& the pertinent
provisions of R.A. !21( adverted to above. "irect evidence is not necessar' to prove such conspirac', for as /e held
in (eo#le vs. RoaE
18
A resort to circu-stantial evidence is in the ver' nature of thin&s, a necessit'. Cri-es are usuall' co--itted
in secret and under conditions /here conceal-ent is hi&hl' probableG and to re@uire direct testi-on' /ould
in -an' cases result in freein& cri-inals and /ould den' proper protection to societ'. *2 A-. 5ur, 31+.
?e believe, ho/ever that Monta're and Dilla are not cri-inall' liable.
Monta're /as convicted as a conspirator for havin& si&ned the reports of inspection, certificates of deliver', and &eneral
vouchers before deliver' of the ite-s re@uisitioned. As alread' stated, these /ere innocent act in vie/ of the e-er&enc'
nature of the purchase and the need to beat the expir' date of the C"Cs. No cri-inal intent can be i-puted to his havin&
-ade the re@uisition because the sa-e /as necessar'. 1e had no responsibilit' in deter-inin& the reputabilit' of the supplier
and did not ta0e part in -a0in& the canvass and a/ardin& the purchase to Rocen.
Dilla /as li0e/ise convicted as involved in the conspirac' for havin& si&ned invoices, reports of inspection, certificates of
deliver' and &eneral vouchers before deliver' of the ite-s re@uisitioned. 1e is absolved of this char&e li0e Monta're, for the
sa-e reasons. Dilla, -oreover, did not ta0e part in the canvassin& of supplies. #t is true that he /as a -e-ber of the Biddin&
Co--itted and he si&ned the Abstract of Bids and the approval of the lo/est bid to Rocen Enterprises. 1o/ever, this act
cannot be considered cri-inal as he relied in fact on the canvass -ade and sealed bids procured b' $ucalit in Manila. $uch
reliance -a' have constituted ne&li&ence but certainl' not the &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence punishable b' la/.
Re&ardin& the offenses involved, the Court finds that onl' para&raphs *a+ and *e+ of $ection !, R.A. !21(, in relation to this
;nnu-bered Presidential Me-orandu- dated April , 1()1, /ere violated.
)
.here /as no violation of para&raph *h+ of R.A. !21( as proof of financial or pecuniar' interest in the transaction on the
petitionersK part did not follo/ fro- the $andi&anba'an findin& that there /as overpricin&.
Para&raph *i+ /as also not violated because the Biddin& Co--ittee did not exercise discretion in the a/ard of the contract for
purchase of the e@uip-ent, /hich had to be &iven to the lo/est bidder.
?1ERE4%RE, the appealed Aud&-ent of the $andi&anba'an is A44#RME" insofar as petitioners 5i-ene7 and $ucalit are
concerned. Petitioners Dilla and Monta're are hereb' ACN;#..E".
$% %R"ERE".
3arvasa, C.%., .elencio4Herrera, 5uttierrez, (aras, /eliciano, (adilla, Bidin, 5ri6o4A7uino, .edialdea, Romero, 3ocon,
Bellosillo, %%., concur.
SUPREME COURT
Manila
4#R$. "#D#$#%N
G.R. No. 1F@0@8 October 12, 200F
MANUE0 :A3IERA, petitioner,
vs.
RO0AN5O :. >O0ETA, 9 !97 c"-"c9t8 "7 Gr"$t I=e7t9."t9o ", Pro7ec%t9o O$$9cer IIC MAR/ SUSAN S.
GUI00ERMO, 9 !er c"-"c9t8 "7 59rector, Pre#9+9"r8 I=e7t9."t9o ", A,+997tr"t9=e A,D%,9c"t9o :%re"%&:C
PE0AGIO S. APOSTO0, 9 !97 c"-"c9t8 "7 A7797t"t O+b%,7+", PAMOC OR0AN5O C. CASIMIRO, 9 !97 c"-"c9t8 "7
A7797t"t O+b%,7+" $or t!e M9#9t"r8 ", Ot!er 0"' E$orce+et O$$9ce7C ", MA. MERCE5ITAS N. GUTIERRE>
)T!e* U,er7ecret"r8, 5e-"rt+et o$ 1%7t9ce, respondents.
" E C # $ # % N
CA00E1O, SR., J.:
Before the Court is a petition for revie/ on certiorari of the Resolution
1
of the Court of Appeals *CA+ in CA-8.R. $P No. 9)=)
dis-issin& the petition for certiorari filed b' Manuel D. Baviera, assailin& the resolution of the %ffice of the %-buds-an in
%MB-C-C-2!-231-5, and the resolution of the CA den'in& the -otion for reconsideration.
T!e Atece,et7
Manuel D. Baviera filed several co-plaints
a&ainst officers or directors of the $tandard Chartered Ban0 *$CB+, Philippine

Branch, includin& $ridhar Ra-an, an #ndian national /ho /as the Chief 4inance %fficer of the ban0, as respondents /ith the
$ecurities and Exchan&e Co--ission *$EC+, Bangko Sentral ng (ili#inas *B$P+, Anti-Mone' <aunderin& Council *AM<C+,
National <abor Relations Co--ission *N<RC+, and the "epart-ent of 5ustice *"%5+, to /itE
CA$E 4#<E" "%C:E. N;MBER <A? AN"T%R R;<E$ D#%<A.E"
BAN8:% $EN.RA< N8
P#<#P#NA$
Ad-inistrative Received b'
$upervision and
Diolations of 8eneral Ban0in& <a/ of
222. .he Ne/ Central Ban0 Act, various
9
Exa-ination $ector,
$E"
"ept. ##
B$P-Circular letters and B$P Manual
Re&ulations
$EC;R#.#E$ AN"
EPC1AN8E
C%MM#$$#%N
Ad-inistrative CE" Case No. 2!-)3! $ecurities Re&ulation Code, Corporation
Code of the Philippines, andTor Darious
Rules and Re&ulations of the $EC
AN.#-M%NE>
<A;N"ER#N8 C%;NC#<
Mone' <aunderin& Received b' %ffice of
the Executive "irector
Diolation of Anti-Mone' <aunderin& Act as
A-ended
NA.#%NA< <AB%R
RE<A.#%N$
C%MM#$$#%N
#lle&al "is-issal N<RC-NCR Case No.
223-23-2)=!=-22!
<abor Code of the Philippines
"EPAR.MEN. %4
5;$.#CE
$'ndicated Estafa #.$. No. 22!-126( P.". 139( in connection /ith Article !16 of
the Revised Penal Code
B;REA; %4 #N.ERNA<
REDEN;E
.ax 4raud and
Non-declaration of
#nco-e
Received b'
Co--issionerBs %ffice
National #nternal Revenue Code
Baviera clai-ed that he /as a for-er e-plo'ee of the ban0, and at the sa-e ti-e, an investor /ho /as victi-i7ed b' the
officers or directors of $CB, all of /ho- conspired /ith one another in defraudin& hi- as /ell as the investin& public b'
solicitin& funds in unre&istered and unauthori7ed forei&n stoc0s and securities.
%n $epte-ber 19, 22!, Baviera, throu&h counsel, re@uested the $ecretar' of 5ustice for the issuance of a 1old "eparture
%rder *1"%+ a&ainst so-e of the officers and directors of $CB, includin& Ra-an.
!
%n $epte-ber 3, 22!, then $ecretar' of 5ustice $i-eon "atu-anon& issued an %rder
=
&rantin& the re@uest of Baviera. 1e
issued 1"% No. 21(!. A cop' of the order /as served on the Bureau of #--i&ration *B#+ for i-ple-entation. %n the sa-e
da', the B# issued an %rder
6
i-ple-entin& that of the $ecretar' of 5ustice.
Mean/hile, $ecretar' "atu-anon& /ent to Dienna, Austria, to attend a conference. ;ndersecretar' Merceditas Navarro-
8utierre7 /as desi&nated as Actin& $ecretar' of the "%5.
3
%n $epte-ber 9, 22!, a $unda', Ra-an arrived at the Nino' A@uino #nternational Airport *NA#A+ for his trip to $in&apore
but /as apprehended b' B# a&ents and NA#A officials based on the 1"% of the $ecretar' of 5ustice. 1o/ever, the next da',
$epte-ber (, 22!, Ra-an /as able to leave the countr' via $in&apore Airlines-$N-)1 at an 9E16 a.-. fli&ht. 1e /as to
attend a conference in $in&apore and to return to the Philippines on %ctober , 22!.
#t turned out that Actin& $ecretar' of 5ustice Merceditas N. 8utierre7 had verball' allo/ed the departure of Ra-an. %n the
sa-e da', Ra-an, throu&h counsel, /rote $ecretar' "atu-anon& for the liftin& of the 1"% insofar as his client /as
concerned.
)
Actin& $ecretar' 8utierre7 issued an %rder
9
allo/in& Ra-an to leave the countr'. #n said %rder, she stated that
the Chief $tate Prosecutor had indicated that he interposed no obAection to the travel of Ra-an to $in&apore.
%n %ctober !, 22!, Baviera filed a Co-plaint-Affidavit /ith the %ffice of the %-buds-an char&in& ;ndersecretar' Ma.
Merceditas N. 8utierre7 for violation of $ection !*a+, *e+, and *A+ of Republic Act *RA+ No. !21(, as a-ended.
.he co-plainant alle&ed, inter alia, in his co-plaint that upon verbal instruction of respondent 8utierre7 to the B# a&ents and
NA#A officials, Ra-an /as allo/ed to leave the countr' despite the 1"% issued b' $ecretar' $i-eon "atu-anon&. 1e
averred that the actuations of respondent 8utierre7 /ere ille&al, hi&hl' irre&ular and @uestionable for the follo/in& reasonsE
a+ "%5 $ec. "atu-anon& issued a 1old "eparture %rder *1"%+ a&ainst three forei&n nationals, includin& Ra-an, on
$epte-ber 3, 22!G
b+ Also on $epte-ber 3, 22!, B#" Co--issioner "anilo Cueto issued the necessar' order and notification to all
airports, seaports and exit points for the i-ple-entation of the aforesaid 1"%G
c+ Ra-an /ent to the NA#A for departure out of the Philippines on $unda', $epte-ber 9, 22!G
d+ Ra-an /as stopped b' #--i&ration officials fro- leavin& the countr' on $unda' on the stren&th of the 1"%G
(
e+ ;sec. 8utierre7 ad-itted havin& interceded on behalf of the #ndian national, thus allo/in& hi- to leave the countr'
for $in&apore at about 9E16 a.-. of Monda', $epte-ber (, 22!G
f+ %bviousl', the appeal of Ra-an to be allo/ed to leave the countr' /as -ade verball' either b' hi- or thru
counselG
&+ .here is no /ritten application for te-porar' sta' of the 1"% in respect to Ra-anBs departureG
h+ .here is li0e/ise no /ritten order b' ;sec. 8utierre7 allo/in& Ra-an to leaveG
i+ ;sec. 8utierre7 clai-s that she cleared the -atter /ith "%5 $ec. "atu-anon& /ho /as in Dienna, AustriaG
A+ #f she did so, then she could have -ade the consultation onl' either b' telephone or e--ail
i+ #f she consulted $ec. "atu-anon& b' telephone, then she -ust have &one out of her /a' to &o to the
"epart-ent of 5ustice on a $unda' to use the "%5 telephoneG
ii+ #f she did not &o to the "%5 on a $unda', then she -ust have used her o/n telephone and shouldered
the expense to call $ec. "atu-anon& on behalf of her beloved #ndian national or the latterBs counselG
iii+ #f she cleared the -atter /ith $ec. "atu-anon& b' e--ail, then the burden is on her to prove that she did
so b' that -eansG
0+ #t is obvious that ;sec. 8utierre7 /ent out of her /a' to acco--odate an #ndian national or the latterBs la/'er on a
$unda' *verball', secretl', and /hen nobod' /as loo0in&+ to allo/ the #ndian national to leave the countr' Sdespite
an existin& 1"%- thus &ivin& the #ndian national un/arranted, undue preference, benefit and advanta&e, to the
da-a&e and preAudice of co-plainant.
l+ .here are indications that ;sec. 8utierre7 /ill also allo/ the other #ndian national *AAa' :an/al+ to leave for
per-anent postin& outside the Philippines despite the existin& 1"%. But thatBs another stor'. $urel', another cri-inal
char&e.
(
Baviera further alle&ed that the verbal special per-ission &ranted to Ra-an b' respondent 8utierre7 /as ille&al as there is no
specific la/ or "%5 rule allo/in& the &rant of special per-ission or exception to an 1"%. ?orse, the co-plainant alle&ed,
respondent 8utierre7 -ade her verbal order on a /ee0end, on the basis of alle&edl' stron& representations -ade b' Ra-an.
Respondent 8utierre7 thus displa'ed arro&ance of po/er and insolence of office, thereb' extendin& un/arranted preference,
benefits and advanta&e to Ra-an.
#n her Counter-Affidavit, respondent 8utierre7 denied the alle&ations a&ainst her. $he averred that she did not violate an' la/
or rule, in allo/in& Ra-an to leave the countr'. $he -erel' upheld his ri&hts to travel as &uaranteed under the Constitution.
Moreover, the "%5 -a' allo/ persons covered b' 1"%s to travel abroad, for a specific purpose and for a specific period of
ti-e. $he further averred thatE
11. # allo/ed Mr. Ra-an to leave the Philippines on $epte-ber (, 22! in -' capacit' as Actin& $ecretar', not as
;ndersecretar' as alle&ed in the Co-plaint-Affidavit. An Actin& $ecretar' has the po/er and authorit' to perfor- all
official acts that a "epart-ent $ecretar', if personall' present, could la/full' do and to exercise sound discretion
under certain circu-stances. #n the case of an Actin& $ecretar' of 5ustice, the authorit' extends to allo/in& the travel
of a person subAect of an 1"%, li0e Mr. Ra-an, /hose attendance in an official business abroad /as ur&ent and
necessar'. Althou&h # could have lifted the 1"% on the &round that there /as no &round for its continued
enforce-ent, # did not do so in deference to the $ecretar' /ho issued it but, instead, allo/ed Mr. Ra-an to travel for
a specific purpose and period. $ecretar' "atu-anon& eventuall' lifted the 1"% and, therefore, ratified -' act.
1. An individual subAect of an 1"% issued b' the "epart-ent -a' be allo/ed to travel abroad. Even the court that
issued an 1"% -a' authori7e the subAect person to travel for a specific purpose and for a certain period. #f the
person alread' char&ed in court -a' be authori7ed to travel, there is -ore reason to allo/ the person, li0e Mr.
Ra-an, /ho /as still subAect of a preli-inar' investi&ation b' a prosecutor, to travel abroad. 1e continues to enAo'
the constitutional presu-ption of innocence. .hus, his ri&hts under the la/ should not be unreasonabl' curtailed.
!2
1!. # allo/ed Mr. Ra-an to travel to $in&apore because he, as Chief 4inance %fficer of $tandard Chartered Ban0 *an
international ban0 /ith &ood reputation+, /as invited and re@uired to attend the ?holesale Ban0 #nternational
Accountin& $tandards Conference fro- $epte-ber ( to %ctober , 22!. .he travel /as not -eant to have hi-
transferred to another branch of the ban0 abroad and frustrate the results of the investi&ations, /hich /ere the cited
reasons for the 1"% application. #ndeed, he returned to the Philippines on %ctober , 22!.
1=. Allo/in& Mr. Ra-an to travel abroad under the circu-stances /ould send a positive -essa&e to forei&ners
en&a&ed in ban0in& and business activities in the Philippines that the 8overn-ent consistentl' upholds the rule of
la/ and respects hu-an ri&hts, thereb' boostin& investorsB confidence in the Philippines.
16. #n allo/in& Mr. Ra-an to travel abroad, # relied on -' oath as a la/'er and as a &overn-ent official to support
and defend the Constitution. # also relied on the first ?hereas Clause of the above--entioned "epart-ent Circular
No. 1) dated March 1(, 1((9, /hich cites $ection 3, Article ### of the present Constitution that, in part, readsE ,xxx
Neither shall the ri&ht to travel be i-paired except in the interest of national securit', public safet', or public health, as
-a' be provided b' la/., Relevantl', in 8ant 89ong v. (residential Commission on 5ood 5overnment, the $upre-e
Court En Banc heldE
xxx. .he ri&ht to travel and to freedo- of -ove-ent is a funda-ental ri&ht &uaranteed b' the 1(9)
Constitution and the ;niversal "eclaration of 1u-an Ri&hts to /hich the Philippines is a si&nator'. T!e r9.!t
e<te,7 to "## re79,et7 re."r,#e77 o$ "t9o"#9t8. And ,ever'one has the ri&ht to an effective re-ed' b'
the co-petent national tribunals for acts violatin& the funda-ental ri&hts &ranted hi- b' the Constitution or
b' la/., *E-phasis ours+
12
Respondent 8utierre7 re@uested the %ffice of the %-buds-an to dis-iss the co-plaint a&ainst her, thusE
*a+ .here is no basis for the co-plaint for violation of $ection !*a+ of RA No. !21(, as a-ended, because # never
persuaded, induced nor influence an' public officer to violate the rules and re&ulations dul' pro-ul&ated b'
co-petent authorit'. ?hen # allo/ed Mr. Ra-an to travel, # relied on "epart-ent Circular No. 1) *1((9+, particularl'
the first ?hereas Clause thereof, reco&ni7in& ever' personBs ri&ht to travel, absent the &rounds for i-pair-ent of the
ri&ht under the Constitution.
*b+ .he co-plaint for violation of $ection !*e+ of RA No. !21( is baseless. .he co-plainant has not sustained an'
inAur' b' reason of the travel order, as Mr. Ra-an i--ediatel' returned to the Philippines after his official business. #
authori7ed Mr. Ra-an to travel in reco&nition of his ri&ht thereto under the Constitution and existin& international
hu-an ri&hts la/ instru-ents. #n so doin&, # did not &ive hi- un/arranted benefit, advanta&e or preference in the
dischar&e of -' official functions throu&h -anifest partialit', evident bad faith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence.
#ndeed, had # denied hi- the ri&ht, # /ould be held liable under such provision, in addition to other liabilities under the
Civil Code.
*c+ Neither is there an' basis for the co-plaint for violation of $ection !*A+ of RA No. !21(, as a-ended. # per-itted
Mr. Ra-an to leave the countr' on $epte-ber (, 22! because he had an i-portant official business abroad and he
/as le&all' entitled to the ri&ht to travel and the &rounds -entioned in the Constitution for the i-pair-ent of the ri&ht
did not exist.
1). .he propriet' of the travel authorit' has beco-e -oot and acade-ic /ith the return of Mr. Ra-an to the
Philippines on %ctober , 22! and the issuance of the %rder dated %ctober 1), 22! b' 5ustice $ecretar'
"atu-anon&, liftin& the 1"% on the &round that ,there is no &round for the continued enforce-ent of the 1"%.,
19. # a- executin& this Counter-Affidavit to attest to the truth of the fore&oin& facts and to belie the incri-inatin&
alle&ations a&ainst -e in the Co-plaint-Affidavit.
11
#n his Repl'-Affidavit, Baviera alle&ed thatE
. Althou&h it is ad-itted that the Constitution &uarantees the ri&ht to travel of an' individual and the "%5 has /ide
and discretionar' po/ers in allo/in& individuals subAect of an 1"% to travel on certain occasions, still this does not in
an' /a' help in her defense. .he -ain issue a&ainst her is N%. an individualBs constitutional ri&ht to travel nor the
!1
/ide discretionar' po/ers of the "%5 to &rant special per-its to travel to individuals subAect of 1"% B;. her abuse
of such discretionar' po/ers.
!. ?hen she allo/ed the #ndian National to leave the countr' on a -ere verbal plea b' Ra-an or his /ell-connected
la/'er on a $unda' and /ithout a proper Motion for Reconsideration 'et bein& filed b' Ra-an or his la/'er, she
undoubtedl' &ave the latter un/arranted benefit, advanta&e or preference in the dischar&e of her official dut' as
Actin& $ecretar'. .he undisputable fact, /hich respondent herself ad-itted proudl', /as both plea and the %rder
/ere done verball'.
=. #t /as onl' -uch later that her %rder dated ( $epte-ber 22! /as belatedl' released lon& after Ra-an had left
the countr' on an earl' -ornin& fli&ht to $in&apore. #t is un-ista0able then that her decision to allo/ Ra-an to travel
/as verball' transacted /ith Ra-anBs /ell-connected la/'er on a $unda', 9 $epte-ber 22! /hen Ra-an /as
supposed to leave for $in&apore but /as denied b' #--i&ration and NA#A officials due to the standin& 1"% a&ainst
hi-. #n short, respondent /ent out of her /a' to acco--odate a forei&n national b' hurriedl' allo/in& the latter to
leave /ithout &oin& throu&h proper procedures. Para&raph D of "%5 Circular No. 1) provides the follo/in& procedure
in appealin& or liftin& an 1"%, to /itE
,A cop' of the 1"% i-ple-ented b' the Co--issioner shall be sent to the person subAect of the order, if his
postal address is 0no/n, so that he -a', if he so desires, file a M%.#%N 4%R REC%N$#"ERA.#%N /ith
the $ecretar'. *;nderscorin& supplied+.
6. .he Rules cited b' respondent herself provide proper procedures and avenues for the liftin&, te-porar' or
other/ise, of an 1"%. %bviousl', b' s/iftl' allo/in& Ra-an to leave the countr' on a -ere verbal appeal b' his /ell-
connected counsel, respondent disre&arded proper procedures and betra'ed her intentions of &ivin& special
treat-ent to the #ndian national.
3. Respondent tried to Austif' her indiscretion b' attachin& as Annex ,=, of her Counter-Affidavit a letter fro- Ra-anBs
la/'er dated ( $epte-ber 22! re@uestin& that Ra-an be allo/ed to travel. Conspicuousl', the letter /as sta-ped
received b' respondentBs office and alle&edl' si&ned and received b' her staff on Monda', ( $epte-ber 22!
at 3E16 a.-. %bviousl', respondent is tr'in& to cover up her actions, albeit to no avail. ?ho could possibl' believe that
respondentBs office /ould be open at 3E16 in the -ornin& of a Monda' /hen the nor-al office hours is at 9
a.-.U ?orse, assu-in&arguendo that the letter-re@uest /as received at 3 a.-., ho/ co-e Ra-an /as able to board
$in&apore Airlines 4li&ht No. $N-)1 /hich left at about 9E16 a.-. or barel' t/o *+ hours upon the receipt of the
re@uestU
). Res '#sa -o7uitor. #t is either respondent 8utierre7, $ecretar' "atu-anon& or the Chief $tate Prosecutor */ho-
she clai-ed to have consulted before &ivin& the order+ reports to their offices at 3 a.-. and buc0le do/n to /or0
i--ediatel' or that respondent 8utierre7Bs alle&ations in her defense are all concocted lies. ,/or evidence to be
believed, it must not only #roceed !rom the mouth o! a credible 9itness but must be credible in itsel! such as the
common e&#erience and observation o! mankind can a##rove as #robable under the circumstances., *Cose# vs.
(eo#le, +:; SCRA <*=+.
9. .he belated docu-entation of respondentBs action /as further proven b' records sho/in& that the Motion for
Reconsideration and the $upple-ent thereof /ere dated 6 %ctober and ) %ctober 22!, respectivel', or six *3+ da's
after Ra-an /as allo/ed b' respondent to leave the countr'.
(. Even absent an' evidence of belated docu-entation, still, respondent cannot den' the fact that she ad-itted in a
hurriedl'-called press conference later on ( $epte-ber 22! before the "%5 press that she /as the one /ho
verball' &ave instructions to i--i&ration and NA#A officials to allo/ Ra-an to leave the countr'. #n her o/n /ords,
she proudl' ad-itted that she based her order on ,stron& representations, -ade b' Ra-anBs counsel. B' such
ad-ission, respondent un/ittin&l' ad-itted havin& violated the provisions of the Anti-8raft and Corrupt Practices Act.
12. B' persuadin& or influencin& #--i&ration %fficials to allo/ Ra-an to leave the countr' /ithout an' -otion for
reconsideration or an' /ritten -otion to that effect as re@uired b' "%5 Circular No. 1), respondent co--itted
$ection ! *a+ of RA !21(. And further b' doin& such act, respondent acted /ith -anifest partialit', evident bad faith or
&ross inexcusable ne&li&ence in &ivin& Ra-an un/arranted benefit, advanta&e or preference in the dischar&e of her
official function as Actin& $ecretar' of the "%5 in violation of $ection ! *e+ of RA !21(.
!
11. Even her clai-s that she has not benefited fro- her actions cannot be -ade as a defense because the provisions
of the Anti-8raft la/ char&ed a&ainst her do not re@uire as a pre-condition that the public officer receive *sic+ an' &ift,
present, or benefit.
1. 1er decision to &rant special per-ission to Ra-an */hich she proudl' ad-its+ is irre&ular and ille&al because
there is no specific la/ or rules of the "%5 &rantin& special per-ission or exception to the 1"%.
1
%n %ctober 6, 22!, the officers and officials of $CB, includin& Ra-an, throu&h counsel, filed a -otion for the reconsideration
of 1"% No. 21(! and filed a $upple-ental to the said -otion dated %ctober 6, 22! pra'in& that the 1"% be lifted. %n
%ctober 1), 22!, 5ustice $ecretar' $i-eon "atu-anon& issued an %rder liftin& the 1"% and ordered the B# to delete the
na-es of the officials of the ban0, includin& Ra-an, fro- its ?atchlist.
1!
%n 5une , 22=, 8raft #nvesti&ation and Prosecutor %fficer Rolando Moleta si&ned a Resolution reco--endin& that the
cri-inal co-plaint a&ainst respondent 8utierre7 for violation of RA No. !21( be dis-issed for insufficienc' of evidence.
MoletaBs findin&s are as follo/sE
After a careful evaluation of the facts and pieces of evidence on record, this %ffice resolves thatE
a+ ?ith respect to the char&e of violation of $ection !*a+ of Republic Act !21(, there is no evidence, docu-entar' or
testi-onial, to sho/ that respondent 8;.#ERREM has received -aterial re-uneration as a consideration for her
alle&ed use of influence on her decision to allo/ Mr. RAMAN to travel abroad.
#t is /orth' to note the follo/in& $enate deliberations on the afore-entioned provision of Republic Act !21(, to /itE
,$enate deliberations *5ul' 1!, 1(32+
$enator MARC%$. # see. No/, # co-e to the second -ost i-portant point. #s it true as char&ed that this bill
does not punish influence peddlin& /hich does not result in re-uneration, or rather in /hich re-uneration
cannot be provedU # refer to $ection !, subsection *a+, lines 12 to 1! on pa&e of the bill. #t is to be noted
that this section reads, as the first corrupt practice or act of a public officialE
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx
No/, suppose the influence that is extended to influence another public official is for the perfor-ance of an
act that is not a cri-e li0e the issuance of license b' the Monetar' Board *p. 3+
$enator .%<EN.#N%. # see. *p. 3+
$enator MARC%$. #t is clai-ed and char&ed b' observers that this bill is deliberatel' /atered do/n in order
to save influence peddlers /ho peddle their influence in the Monetar' Board, in the Reparations
Co--ission, in &overn-ent ban0s and the li0e. # /ould li0e the author to explain the situation. *p. 3+
$enator .E<EN.#N% *$#C+. #n the first place, # cannot conceive of an influence peddler /ho acts &ratis. .he
ver' ter- ,influence peddler, i-plies that there is so-ethin& bein& sold, that is, the influence. $o that /hen
/e sa' influence peddler /ho does not receive an' advanta&e, that is inconsistenc' in ter-s because that
/ould appl' to an' con&ress-an, for instance, and precisel' it /as -ade clear durin& the debates that if a
con&ress-an or senator tries to use influence in the act of another b', let us sa', tr'in& to obtain a license
for his constituent, if he does not &et paid for that he does not use an' influence. *p. 3+
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
$enator MARC%$. $o, it is ad-itted b' the author that the lendin& or utili7ation of influence x x x provided
that there is no proof that he has been &iven -aterial re-uneration is not punished b' this Act. *pp. 3-
)+
!!
$enator .%<EN.#N%. No, the -ere fact of havin& used oneBs influence so lon& as it is not to induce the
co--ission of a cri-inal act /ould not be punished if there is no consideration. #t /ould not be &raft. *p.
)+
$enator MARC%$. .here is no proof of consideration because that is one thin& difficult to prove. *p. )+
$enator .%<EN.#N%. #f 'ou sa' there is no proof of consideration, as far as the bill is concerned, there is no
offense. $o, so lon& as there is no proof of the consideration in the use of the influence, the offense is not
co--itted under the bill because that /ould not be &raft.
$enator MARC%$. But /e all ad-it that it is an i--oral act for a public official li0e the President, the Dice-
President, -e-bers of the $enate to undul' influence the -e-bers of the Monetar' Board even /ithout
re-uneration and sa', ,>ou better approve this license, this application of a -illion dollars of -' &ood friend
and co-padre Mr. Chen& Chen& Po, or /hatever he -a' be. But he does not receive an' re/ard, pa'-ent
or re-uneration for it. ;nder the bill, he can &et a/a' /ith this act.
$enator .%<EN.#N%. #f >our 1onor considers it in that li&ht, # donBt thin0 that /ould constitute &raft and #
donBt thin0 that /ould be included.
$enator MARC%$. But it is i--oral.
$enator .%<EN.#N%. #t -a' be so, but it depends on the circu-stances. But our idea, the -ain idea of the
bill is to punish &raft and corrupt practices. Not ever' act -a'be, that is i-proper /ould fall under the
provision of the bill. *p. )+
1enceforth, follo/in& the lo&ic and intention of the sponsor *$enator .%<EN.#N%+ of the aforecited provision,
respondent 8;.#ERREM did not co--it a violation of the sa-e as there is no proof that she received consideration
in exchan&e for her decision to allo/ Mr. Ra-an to travel abroad.
b+ As to the char&e of violation of $ection !*e+ of Republic Act !21(, no actual or real da-a&e /as suffered b' an'
part', includin& the &overn-ent as Mr. Ra-an i--ediatel' returned to the Philippines, the truth of /hich /as not
rebutted b' the herein co-plainant in his Repl'-Affidavit. .hus, the herein co-plainant also did not suffer undue
inAur' as an ele-ent re@uired b' the la/. B' the sa-e to0en, the essential in&redient of -anifest partialit', evident
bad faith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence re@uired for the co--ission of such offense has not been proven in the
instant case. .he respondent has satisfactoril' explicated that as Actin& $ecretar' of 5ustice, she has the po/er and
authorit' to perfor- such act. #n fact, she could have even lifted the 1old "eparture %rder since there is no &round
for its continued enforce-ent but did not do so in deference to $ecretar' "A.;MAN%N8 /ho conse@uentl' lifted
such order. As correctl' pointed out b' the respondent, it /as as if the $ecretar' ratified her act of allo/in& Mr.
RAMAN to travel abroad despite the 1old "eparture %rder a&ainst the latter and there is no @uestion that she can do
or perfor- such act bein& the Actin& $ecretar' at that ti-e.
At an' rate, it can not be denied that even the court *or the $andi&anba'an in the case of #ME<"A MARC%$+ that
re@uested or issued a 1old "eparture %rder on a person alread' char&ed in court allo/s under certain conditions the
accused to travel for a specific purpose and for a certain period. .here is no reason /h' Mr. RAMAN, /ho is Aust a
subAect of a preli-inar' investi&ation b' a prosecutor, should not be &ranted the sa-e benefit as he continues to
enAo' not onl' the constitutional presu-ption of innocence but the constitutional ri&ht to travel or libert' of abodeG and,
c+ ?ith re&ard to the char&e of Diolation of $ection !*A+ of Republic Act !21(, as above discussed, the respondent, as
Actin& $ecretar' of 5ustice, is authori7ed or e-po/ered not onl' to allo/ the travel abroad of Mr. RAMAN under
specific conditions but also to order the liftin& of such 1old "eparture %rder. #n the sa-e /a', respondent
8;.#ERREM has not &ranted an' privile&e or benefit in favor of an' person *or Mr. RAMAN for that -atter+ not
@ualified or not le&all' entitled to such privile&e or benefit /hen she allo/ed the for-er to travel abroad under specific
condition and for certain period of ti-e as Mr. RAMAN still enAo's the constitutionall' &uaranteed ri&ht to travel or
libert' of abode even if a preli-inar' investi&ation involvin& hi- is still pendin& at the office of the concerned "%5
Prosecutor.
1=
.he Assistant %-buds-an reco--ended that the resolution be approved. .he "eput' %-buds-an for the Militar', %rlando
C. Casi-iro, /ho /as authori7ed b' the %-buds-an to act on the reco--endation, approved the sa-e.
16
!=
Baviera received a cop' of the Resolution on 5ul' 3, 22= and filed a -otion for reconsideration of the resolution on Au&ust
, 22= *5ul' !1, 22= /as a $aturda'+.
13
Actin& on the -otion, Moleta issued a Resolution on Au&ust 12, 22!,
reco--endin& its denial for lac0 of -erit. "eput' %-buds-an %rlando Casi-iro a&ain approved the
reco--endation.
1)
Baviera received a cop' of the resolution on $epte-ber 1=, 22=.
%n Nove-ber 13, 22=, Baviera filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 36 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in the CA, assailin&
the resolutions of the %-buds-an. 1e relied on the follo/in& ar&u-entsE
i
.1E %44#CE %4 .1E %MB;"$MAN C<EAR<> AC.E" ?#.1 8RADE AB;$E %4 "#$CRE.#%N AM%;N.#N8 .%
<AC: %R EPCE$$ %4 5;R#$"#C.#%N ?1EN #. R;<E" .1A. RE$P%N"EN. 8;.#ERREM CANN%. BE 1E<"
<#AB<E ;N"ER $EC.#%N !*a+ %4 RA !21( A<<E8E"<> BECA;$E .1ERE ?A$ N% ED#"ENCE,
"%C;MEN.AR> %R .E$.#M%N#A<, .% $1%? .1A. $1E 1A$ RECE#DE" MA.ER#A< REM;NERA.#%N A$ A
C%N$#"ERA.#%N 4%R 1ER ;$E %4 #N4<;ENCE %N 1ER "EC#$#%N .% A<<%? MR. RAMAN .% .RADE<
ABR%A".
ii
<AC: %R EPCE$$ %4 5;R#$"#C.#%N ?1EN #. R;<E" .1A. RE$P%N"EN. 8;.#ERREM CANN%. BE 1E<"
<#AB<E ;N"ER $EC.#%N$ !*e+ AN" !*A+ %4 RA !21( A<<E8E"<> BECA;$E .1ERE ?A$ N% AC.;A< %R
REA< "AMA8E $;44ERE" B> AN> PAR.> #NC<;"#N8 .1E 8%DERNMEN. AN" .1A. RE$P%N"EN. "#"
N%. 8RAN. AN> PR#D#<E8E %R BENE4#. #N 4AD%R %4 AN> PER$%N.
iii
<AC: %R EPCE$$ %4 5;R#$"#C.#%N ?1EN #. "#$M#$$E" .1E #N$.AN. CR#M#NA< C%MP<A#N. 4%R
D#%<A.#%N %4 .1E AN.#-8RA4. AN" C%RR;P. PRAC.#CE$ AC. *RA !21(+ A<<E8E"<> %N .1E 8R%;N"
%4 #N$;44#C#ENC> %4 ED#"ENCE.
19
1o/ever, on 5anuar' ), 226, the CA issued a Resolution dis-issin& the petition on the &round that the proper re-ed' /as to
file a petition for certiorari /ith the $upre-e Court under Rule 36 of the Rules of Court, confor-abl' /ith the rulin& of
this Court in Enemecio v. O!!ice o! the Ombudsman.
1(
Petitioner filed a -otion for reconsideration, insistin& that his petition
for certiorari in the CA under Rule 36 /as in accordance /ith the rulin& in /abian v. 0esierto.
2
1e insisted that the %ffice of
the %-buds-an is a @uasi-Audicial a&enc' of the &overn-ent, and under Batas (ambansa Bilang 1(, the CA has concurrent
Aurisdiction /ith the $upre-e Court over a petition for certiorari under Rule 36 of the Rules of Court. 1e asserted that the filin&
of his petition for certiorari /ith the CA confor-ed to the established Audicial polic' of hierarch' of courts as explained b' this
Court in (eo#le v. Cuaresma.
1
%n 5ul' 2, 226, CA issued a Resolution den'in& the -otion, holdin& that the rulin& in /abian v. 0esierto
is not applicable,
as it applies onl' in appeals fro- resolutions of the %-buds-an in ad-inistrative disciplinar' cases. .he re-ed' of the
a&&rieved part' fro- resolutions of the %-buds-an in cri-inal cases is to file a petition for certiorari in this Court, and not in
the CA. .he applicable rule is that enunciated in Enemecio v. Ombudsman,
!
later reiterated in (erez v. O!!ice o! the
Ombudsman
=
and Estrada v. 0esierto.
6
%n Au&ust 19, 226, Baviera filed /ith this Court the instant petition for revie/ on certiorari under Rule =6, assailin& the CA
resolutions on the follo/in& &roundsE
#.
.1E C%;R. %4 APPEA<$ $ER#%;$<> ERRE" #N RE4;$#N8 .% .A:E C%8N#MANCE %4 .1E #N$.AN.
PE.#.#%N 4%R CER.#%RAR# "E$P#.E .1E C<EAR R;<#N8 %4 .1E $;PREME C%;R. #N .1E CA$E
%4/AB'A3 "S. 0ES'ER>O, +:? SCRA @*; )SE(>E.BER $A, $::=,.
##.
!6
.1E C%;R. %4 APPEA<$ $ER#%;$<> ERRE" #N RE4;$#N8 .% RE$%<DE .1E #N$.AN. PE.#.#%N %N .1E
MER#.$ AN" .% 4#N" .1E %44#CE %4 .1E %MB;"$MAN .% 1ADE 8RADE<> AB;$E" #.$ "#$CRE.#%N
AM%;N.#N8 .% <AC: %R EPCE$$ %4 5;R#$"#C.#%N ?1EN #. R;<E" .1A. RE$P%N"EN. 8;.#ERREM
CAN N%. BE 1E<" <#AB<E ;N"ER $EC.#%N !*a+ %4 RA !21( A<<E8E"<> BECA;$E .1ERE ?A$ N%
ED#"ENCE, "%C;MEN.AR> %R .E$.#M%N#A<, .% $1%? .1A. $1E 1A$ RECE#DE" MA.ER#A<
REM;NERA.#%N A$ A C%N$#"ERA.#%N 4%R 1ER ;$E %4 #N4<;ENCE %N 1ER "EC#$#%N .% A<<%? MR.
RAMAN .% .RADE<.
###.
AM%;N.#N8 .% <AC: %R EPCE$$ %4 5;R#$"#C.#%N ?1EN #. R;<E" .1A. RE$P%N"EN. 8;.#ERREM
CANN%. BE 1E<" <#AB<E ;N"ER $EC.#%N$ !*e+ AN" !*A+ %4 RA !21( A<<E8E"<> BECA;$E .1ERE ?A$
N% AC.;A< %R REA< "AMA8E $;44ERE" B> AN> PAR.> #NC<;"#N8 .1E 8%DERNMEN. AN" .1A.
RE$P%N"EN. "#" N%. 8RAN. AN> PR#D#<E8E %R BENE4#. #N 4AD%R %4 AN> PER$%N.
#D.
AM%;N.#N8 .% <AC: %R EPCE$$ %4 5;R#$"#C.#%N ?1EN #. "#$M#$$E" .1E CR#M#NA< C%MP<A#N. 4%R
D#%<A.#%N %4 .1E AN.#-8RA4. AN" C%RR;P. PRAC.#CE$ AC. *RA !21(+ A<<E8E"<> %N .1E 8R%;N"
%4 #N$;44#C#ENC> %4 ED#"ENCE.
3
Petitioner insists that his petition for certiorari in the CA assailin& the resolutions of the %-buds-an under Rule 36 of the
Rules of Court is proper, in the li&ht of /abian v. 0esierto.
)
;nder B.P. No. 1(, the CA and the $upre-e Court have
concurrent Aurisdiction to issue /rits of certiorari under fro- resolutions of the %-buds-an in his investi&ation of cri-inal
cases.
#n her co--ent on the petition, respondent 8utierre7 -aintained that instead of filin& his petition in the CA, petitioner should
have filed his petition for certiorari under Rule 36 /ith this Court alle&in& &rave abuse of discretion a-ountin& to lac0 of
Aurisdiction co--itted b' the respondents %ffice of the %-buds-an officials.
.he other respondents, for their part, insist that the rulin& of this Court in /abian applies onl' to resolutions of the %ffice of the
%-buds-an in ad-inistrative cases and not in cri-inal cases.
.he threshold issues in this case are *1+ /hether the petition for certiorari filed b' petitioner in the CA /as the proper re-ed'
to assail the resolution of the %ffice of the %-buds-anG and *+ /hether respondent officials co--itted &rave abuse of
discretion a-ountin& to excess or lac0 of Aurisdiction in dis-issin& the cri-inal co-plaint of petitioner a&ainst respondent
Actin& $ecretar' of 5ustice 8utierre7 for lac0 of probable cause.
%n the first issue, respondent 8utierre7 contends that the proper re-ed' of petitioner to assail the Resolutions of the
%-buds-an findin& no probable cause for violation of R.A. No. !21(, $ection !*a+, *e+ and *A+ /as to file a petition
for certiorari /ith this Court, not /ith the CA. #n 1(((, this Court ruled in >irol, %r. v. 0el Rosario
9
that the re-ed' of the
a&&rieved part' fro- a resolution of the %ffice of the %-buds-an findin& the presence or absence of probable cause in
cri-inal cases /as to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 36 9 t!97 Co%rt. .he Court reiterated its rulin& in 8uizon v.
0esierto
(
and >irol, %r. v. 0el Rosario.
!2
And on 4ebruar' , 223, in (onte1os v. O!!ice o! the Ombudsman,
!1
the Court ruled
that the re-ed' to challen&e the Resolution of the %-buds-an at the conclusion of a preli-inar' investi&ation /as to file a
petition for certiorari in this Court under Rule 36.
#n Estrada v. 0esierto,
!
this Court reAected the contention of petitioner therein that petition for certiorari under Rule 36
assailin& the %rderTResolution of the %MB in cri-inal cases should be filed in the CA, confor-abl' /ith the principle of
hierarch' of courts. #n that case, the Court explainedE
Petitioner contends that certiorari under Rule 36 should first be filed /ith the Court of Appeals as the doctrine of
hierarch' of courts precludes the i--ediate invocation of this CourtBs Aurisdiction. ;nfortunatel' for petitioner, he is
flo&&in& a dead horse as this ar&u-ent has alread' been shot do/n in8uizon v. Ombudsman /here /e decreed S
!3
#n dis-issin& petitionersB petition for lac0 of Aurisdiction, the Court of Appeals cited the case of /abian vs.
0esierto. .he appellate court correctl' ruled that its Aurisdiction extends onl' to decisions of the %ffice of the
%-buds-an in ad-inistrative cases. #n the /abian case, /e ruled that appeals fro- decisions of the %ffice
of the %-buds-an in administrative disci#linary casesshould be ta0en to the Court of Appeals under Rule
=! of the 1(() Rules of Civil Procedure. #t bears stressin& that /hen /e declared $ection ) of Republic Act
No. 3))2 as unconstitutional, /e cate&oricall' stated that said provision is involved onl' /henever an appeal
b' certiorari under Rule =6 is ta0en fro- a decision in an ad-inistrative disciplinar' action. #t cannot be
ta0en into account /here an ori&inal action for certiorari under Rule 36 is resorted to as a re-ed' for Audicial
revie/, such as fro- an incident in a cri-inal action. #n fine, /e hold that the present petition should have
been filed /ith this Court.
:ui7on and the subse@uent case of .endoza4Arce v. O!!ice o! the Ombudsman )"isayas, drove ho-e the point that
the re-ed' of a&&rieved parties fro- resolutions of the %ffice of the %-buds-an findin& probable cause in cri-inal
cases or non-ad-inistrative cases, /hen tainted /ith &rave abuse of discretion, is to file an ori&inal action
for certiorari /ith this Court and not /ith the Court of Appeals. #n cases /hen the a&&rieved part' is @uestionin& the
%ffice of the %-buds-anBs findin& of lack of probable cause, as in this case, there is li0e/ise the re-ed'
of certiorari under Rule 36 to be filed /ith this Court and not /ith the Court of Appeals follo/in& our rulin& in (erez v.
O!!ice o! the Ombudsman.
As this Court had alread' resolved said issue of Aurisdiction in the above-cited cases, it is a salutar' and necessar'
Audicial practice to appl' the rulin&s therein to the subAect petition. Stare decisis et non 7uieta movere. $tand b' the
decisions and disturb not /hat is settled. ;ndaunted, petitioner no/ harps on the validit' of $ection 1= of Rep. Act
No. 3))2 clai-in& it to be unconstitutional. .he Court of Appeals, it -ust be recalled, relied @uite heavil' on $ection
1= of Rep. Act No. 3))2 in relation to /abian v. 0esierto in rulin& that it had no Aurisdiction to entertain the petition
filed thereat.
!!
%n the -erits of the petition, the Court finds that petitioner failed to establish that the respondent officials co--itted &rave
abuse of discretion a-ountin& to excess or lac0 of Aurisdiction. 8rave abuse of discretion i-plies a capricious and /hi-sical
exercise of Aud&-ent tanta-ount to lac0 of Aurisdiction. .he %-buds-anBs exercise of po/er -ust have been done in an
arbitrar' or despotic -anner /hich -ust be so patent and &ross as to a-ount to an evasion of positive dut' or a virtual refusal
to perfor- the dut' enAoined or to act at all in conte-plation of la/.
!=
.he Court has revie/ed the assailed resolutions of the %ffice of the %-buds-an, and finds that petitioner li0e/ise failed to
establish probable cause for violation of $ections !*a+, *e+ and *A+ of RA No. !21(. #ndeed, in the absence of a clear case of
abuse of discretion, this Court /ill not interfere /ith the exercise of the %-buds-anBs discretion, /ho, based on his o/n
findin&s and deliberate consideration of the case, either dis-isses a co-plaint or proceeds /ith it.
!6
WHERE4ORE, pre-ises considered, the instant petition is hereb' 5ENIE5 for lac0 of -erit. .he assailed Resolutions of the
Court of Appeals are hereb' A44IRME5. Costs a&ainst the petitioner.
SO OR5ERE5.
(anganiban, C.%., Chair#erson, nares4Santiago, Austria4.artinez, and Chico43azario, %%., concur.

4IRST 5I3ISION
TIMOTEO A. GARCIA,
Petitioner,
& versus &
G.R. No. 155576
PresentE
PAN8AN#BAN, C.%.
Chair-an,
>NARE$-$AN.#A8%,
A;$.R#A-MAR.#NEM,
CA<<E5%, $R and
C1#C%-NAMAR#%, %%.
!)
SAN5IGAN:A/AN,
Respondent.
Pro-ul&atedE
Nove-ber 2, 223

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

0 E C ' S ' O 3

C1#C%-NAMAR#%, %.E

Before ;s is a Petition for Revie/ on Certiorari under Rule =6 of the Rules of Court /hich see0s to set aside
and nullif' the "ecision
H1I
of the $andi&anba'an dated 3 Ma' 22 /hich convicted petitioner .i-oteo A. 8arcia of 63 counts
of violation of $ection !*b+ of Republic Act No. !21(, as a-ended, other/ise 0no/n as the QAnti-8raft and Corrupt Practices
Act,R in Cri-inal Cases Nos. =2= to =2(9 *except =2)9+, and its Resolution
HI
dated %ctober 22 den'in& petitionerBs
Motion for Reconsideration.

.he instant case ste--ed fro- the Co-plaint of Maria <ourdes Miranda a&ainst petitioner, then Re&ional
"irector, <and .ransportation %ffice *<.%+, Re&ion P, 8ilbert 8. Nabo and Ner' .a&upa, e-plo'ees of the sa-e office, for
violation of the Anti-8raft and Corrupt Practices Act for their alle&ed fre@uent borro/in& of -otor vehicles fro- %ro Asian
Auto-otive Center Corporation *Co-pan'+. 4indin& probable cause for violation thereof, 8raft #nvesti&ation %fficer ## 8a'
Ma&&ie 4. BalaAadia-Diolan reco--ended that petitioner, 8ilbert 8. Nabo and Ner' .a&upa be indicted for violation of
$ection !*b+ of Republic Act No. !21(, as a-ended.

%n 1= Au&ust 1((), 6) #nfor-ations /ere filed /ith the $andi&anba'an a&ainst petitioner, 8ilbert 8. Nabo
and Ner' .a&upa for violation of $ection !*b+ of Republic Act No. !21(, as a-ended. .he #nfor-ation in Cri-inal Case No.
=2= readsE

.hat on or about the period coverin& 5anuar' (, 1((! to 5anuar' 12, 1((! or so-eti-e
prior thereto, in Ca&a'an de %ro Cit', Philippines, /ithin the Aurisdiction of this 1onorable Court, the said
accused, .#M%.E% A. 8ARC#A, 8#<BER. 8. NAB% and NER> .A8;PA, bein& then public officers or
e-plo'ees of the <and .ransportation %ffice *<.%+, Ca&a'an de %ro Cit', ta0in& advanta&e of their
respective official positions, and conspirin&, confederatin& and -utuall' helpin& one another and /ith intent
to &ain personal use or benefit, did then and there /illfull', unla/full' and feloniousl' borro/ %ne *1+ unit
Asian Auto-otive CenterBs $ervice Dehicle S 4iera Blue :B:-)!, in &ood runnin& condition, spare tire,
tools fro- %ro Asian Auto-otive Corporation, /hich is en&a&ed in the business of vehicle asse-bl' and
dealership in Ca&a'an de %ro Cit', 0no/in& that said corporation re&ularl' transacts /ith the accusedBs <.%
%ffice for the re&istration of its -otor vehicles, in the reportin& of its en&ine and chassis nu-bers as /ell as
the sub-ission of its vehicle dealerBs report and other si-ilar transactions /hich re@uire the prior approval
andTor intervention of the said accused Re&ional "irector and e-plo'ees andTor their said <.% office in
Ca&a'an de %ro Cit', to the da-a&e and preAudice of and undue inAur' to said %ro Asian Auto-otive
Corporation, includin& co-plainant Maria <ourdes Miranda.
H!I

.he fift'-six other #nfor-ations are si-ilarl' /orded except for the alle&ed dates of co--ission of the offense, and
the t'pesTdescriptions of the vehicles alle&edl' borro/ed b' the-. .he pertinent data in the other infor-ations are as
follo/sE

CASE
NUM:ER
5ATE O4 COMMISSION T/PEJ5ESCRIPTION O4
3EHIC0E

=2=! 5anuar' 13, 1((! to 5anuar'
1), 1((!
%ne *1+ unit 4#ERA B<;E

=2== 5anuar' !, 1((! to 5anuar'
=, 1((!
:B:-)!, service vehicle
ofAsian Auto-otive Center, in &ood
runnin& condition /ith tools, spare
tire
!9

=2=6 4ebruar' 3, 1((! to 4ebruar'
), 1((!
:B:-)!, in &ood runnin& condition
/ith tools

=2=3 4ebruar' 1!,
1((! to 4ebruar' 1=, 1((!
:B:-)!, in &ood runnin& condition
=2=) March 1!, 1((! to March 1=,
1((!
%ne *1+ unit .%>%.A
.AMARA? 'ello/, :BN-163, in
&ood runnin& condition, /ith tools
and spare tire

=2=9 Mornin& of March 2, 1((! to
afternoon of March 2, 1((!
%ne *1+ unit .%>%.A
1$P;R >E<<%? :BN-163, /ith
spare tools, in &ood condition

=2=( Mornin& of March ), 1((! to
afternoon of March ), 1((!
%ne *1+ unit .AMARA?
1$P;R, 'ello/ in color, :BN-163,
in &ood condition, /ith spare tire,
/ith Aac0 and tire /rench

=262 April =, 1((! to April 6,
1((!
1$P;R, >ello/ in color, :BN-163,
in &ood condition, /ith spare tire,
Aac0 and tire /rench

=261 April 6, 1((! and have been
returned after use
%ne *1+ unit AER% " DAN
:BN-936, -aroon in color Asian
Auto-otive CenterBs Dehicle, in
&ood runnin& condition, /ith spare
tire, tools, Aac0 and tire /rench

=26 Ma' 16, 1((! to Ma' 13,
1((!
%ne *1+ unit .%>%.A
4ierra, 'ello/ in color, en&ine no.
=0-2(2)13, chassis no. CMC#-
12(=)-C, in &ood condition, Aac0,
spare tire, tire /rench

=26! Ma' (, 1((! to Ma' !2,
1((!
1$P;R, :BN-163, 'ello/ in color,
in &ood runnin& condition, /T spare
tire, Aac0 and tire /rench

=26= 5une 6, 1((! to 5une 3, 1((! %ne *1+ unit .AMARA?

=266 5une 1(, 1((! to 5une 2,
1((!

=263 5une 3, 1((! to -ornin&
of5une 3, 1((!

=26) 5ul' 1), 1((! to 5ul' 19, 1((! %ne *1+ unit .AMARA?
!(

=269 5ul' !1, 1((! to Au&ust 1,
1((!

=26( 5ul' =, 1((! to 5ul' 6, 1((! %ne *1+ unit .AMARA?

=232 Au&ust ), 1((! to Au&ust 9,
1((!

=231 Au&ust 1=, 1((! to Au&ust
16, 1((!

=23 Au&ust 1, 1((! to Au&ust
, 1((!

=23! $epte-ber =,
1((! to$epte-ber 6, 1((!
%ne *1+ unit AER% "
1$P;R, :BP-!)6, /hite in color,
/ith en&ine no. C1(2-=9=!,
Chassis no. $MM(2-3)9)-C, in
&ood runnin& condition upholstered
seats

=23= Mornin& of $epte-ber 11,
1((! to evenin& of $epte-ber 11,
1((!
%ne *1+ unit AER% "
1$P;R, :BP-!)6, /hite in color, in
&ood runnin& condition, upholstered
seats, Aac0, tire /rench, spare tire

=236 $epte-ber 19,
1((! to$epte-ber 1(, 1((!
%ne *1+ unit AER% "
1$P;R, :BP-!)6, in &ood runnin&
condition, upholstered seats, side
vie/ -irrors, rear vie/ -irror, Aac0
/T handle, tire /rench, seats

=233 $epte-ber 6,
1((! to$epte-ber 3, 1((!
%ne *1+ unit AER% "
1$P;R, :BP-!)6, &ood runnin&

=23) %ctober !, 1((! to %ctober
=, 1((!
%ne *1+ unit AER% "

=2
=239 %ctober !2, 1((! to %ctober
!1, 1((!
%ne *1+ unit #$;M;, NN5-
(1), /hite in color, in &ood runnin&
condition, side vie/ -irror, Aac0 /T
tire /rench

=23( Nove-ber 3,
1((! toNove-ber ), 1((!
%ne *1+ unit AER% "

=2)2 Nove-ber 1!,
1((! toNove-ber 1=, 1((!
%ne *1+ unit AER% "

=2)1 Nove-ber ),
1((! toNove-ber 9, 1((!
%ne *1+ unit AER% "-##
condition, Aac0 /T handle, tire
/rench, spare tire

=2) "ece-ber =,
1((! to"ece-ber 6, 1((!
/rench, spare tire

=2)! "ece-ber 11,
1((! to"ece-ber 1, 1((!
%ne *1+ unit AER% "
1$P;R, /hite in color, :BP-!)6,
full in dash instru-entation, Aac0 /T
handle, tire /rench in &ood runnin&
condition

=2)= "ece-ber 19,
1((! to"ece-ber 1(, 1((!
%ne *1+ unit AER% "
condition

=2)6 5anuar' 9, 1((= to 5anuar' (,
1((=
%ne *1+ unit AER% "
condition

=2)3 Mornin& of 5anuar' 16,
1((= to late afternoon of 5anuar' 16,
1((=
%ne *1+ unit AER% "
condition.

=2)) 5anuar' (, 1((= to 5anuar'
!2, 1((=
%ne *1+ unit AER% "
1$P;R, :BP-!)6, /hite in color,
/To plate nu-ber

=2)9 ?ithdra/n per Court Resolution dated 5ul' !, 1((9,
p. 12! Cri-. Case V =2=

=1
=2)( 4ebruar' 6, 1((= to 4ebruar'
3, 1((=
%ne *1+ unit AER% "
condition

=292 4ebruar' 1,
1((= to 4ebruar' 1!, 1((=
/rench, spare tire

=291 4ebruar' 3,
1((= to 4ebruar' ), 1((=
%ne *1+ unit AER% "
condition

=29 March =, 1((= to March 6,
1((=
%ne *1+ unit AER% "
condition

=29! March 1, 1((= to March 1!,
1((=
%ne *1+ unit AER% "
condition

=29= March 1(, 1((= to March 2,
1((=
%ne *1+ unit AER% "
full in dash instru-entation, in &ood
runnin& condition, /ith Aac0, tire
/rench, spare tire.

=296 April (, 1((= to April 12, 1((= %ne *1+ unit AER% "
condition

=293 April !2, 1((= to Ma' 1, 1((= %ne *1+ unit AER% "
condition

=29) Ma' ), 1((= to Ma' 9, 1((= %ne *1+ unit AER% "
condition

=299 Ma' 1=, 1((= to Ma' 16,
1((=
%ne *1+ unit AER% "
condition

=
=29( Ma' 1, 1((= to Ma' ,
1((=
%ne *1+ unit AER% "
condition

=2(2 5une =, 1((= to 5une 6, 1((= %ne *1+ unit AER% "-##
/rench, spare tire

=2(1 5une 11, 1((= to 5une 1,
1((=
/rench, spare tire

=2( 5une 1), 1((= to 5une 1(,
1((=
/rench, spare tire

=2(! 5ul' , 1((= to 5ul' !, 1((= %ne *1+ unit AER% "
condition

=2(= 5ul' !, 1((= to 5ul' =, 1((= %ne *1+ unit AER% "
condition

=2(6 Au&ust 6, 1((= to Au&ust
9, 1((=
%ne *1+ unit AER% " DAN
/ith en&ine no. C1(2-6==13,
chassis no. $MM(2-9!)2-C, full in
dash instru-entation, -aroon in
color /ith plate no. :BN-936, in
&ood condition

=2(3 Mornin& of $epte-ber !,
1((=to afternoon of $epte-ber !,
1((=
%ne *1+ unit AER% "
full in dash instru-entation, Aac0,
tire /rench, in &ood runnin&
condition

=2() $epte-ber 1),
1((= to$epte-ber 19, 1((=
%ne *1+ unit AER% "
full in dash instru-entation, in &ood
runnin& condition

=2(9 Nove-ber 3,
1((= toNove-ber ), 1((=
%ne *1+ unit AER% "
condition
H=I

=!
%n Au&ust 1((), the $andi&anba'an issued orders for the arrest of the three accused
H6I
and for the holdin& of
their departure fro- the countr'.
H3I
%n 3 %ctober 1((), petitioner posted a consolidated suret' bond for his provisional
libert'.
H)I

#n a resolution dated ! 5ul' 1((9, the /ithdra/al of the infor-ation in Cri-inal Case No. =2)9 /as &ranted.
H9I

%n 1) Au&ust 1((9, /hen arrai&ned, petitioner and accused .a&upa, assisted b' counsel de #arte, pleaded
Qnot &uilt'R to the char&es.
H(I
Accused Nabo re-ains at lar&e.

%n 16 %ctober 1((9, pre-trial /as concluded.
H12I
.hereafter, trial ensued.

.he evidence of the prosecution, as su--ari7ed b' the $andi&anba'an, are as follo/sE

E$.AN#$<A% BARRE.E >;N8A% *hereinafter, Q>un&aoR+ declared that he /as e-plo'ed as the
driver and liaison officer of the %ro Asian Auto-otive Center Corporation *hereinafter, Qthe Co-pan'R+, an
establish-ent en&a&ed in the asse-bl' of -otor vehicles, durin& the period coverin& the 'ears 1((1 to
1((6. As such, >un&ao had to officiall' report to the <and .ransportation %ffice *Q<.%R+ of Ca&a'an de %ro
Cit' all the en&ine and chassis nu-bers prior to the asse-bl' of an' -otor vehicle. #n the process, the
Co-pan' had to secure fro- the <.% a Conduct Per-it after a -otor vehicle has been co-pletel'
asse-bled, for purposes of carr'in& out the necessar' road testin& of the vehicle concerned. After the said
road testin& and prior to its eventual saleTdisposition, the vehicle has to be first properl' re&istered /ith the
<.%. Accused 8arcia, in his capacit' as the "irector of the <.% of Ca&a'an de %ro Cit', durin& all ti-es
relevant to the instant cases, /as the approvin& authorit' on the aforesaid reportorial re@uire-ents and the
si&nator' of the said Conduct Per-its.

B' reason thereof, >un&ao 0ne/ accused 8arcia since 5anuar' of 1((1. >un&ao /ould
al/a's personall' tal0 to accused 8arcia re&ardin& the issuance of the re@uired Conduct Per-it for an'
ne/l' asse-bled vehicle. >un&ao /ould secure fro- accused 8arcia as -an' as !2 to =2 of such per-its
in a 'ear.

#n the process, accused 8arcia /ould re&ularl' su--on >un&ao to his office to tell hi- to
infor- either Aurora or Alon7o Chion&, the o/ners of the Co-pan', that he *accused 8arcia+ /ould borro/
a -otor vehicle for purposes of visitin& his far-. ?hen >un&ao could not be contacted, accused 8arcia
/ould personall' call up the Co-pan' and tal0 to the o/ners thereof to borro/ the vehicle. Accused 8arcia
confided to >un&ao that he could not utili7e the assi&ned &overn-ent vehicle for his o/n personal use
durin& $aturda's and $unda's. #t /as for this reason that he had to borro/ vehicles fro- the Chion&s to
enable hi- to visit his far-.

>un&ao -aintained that accused 8arcia had been re&ularl' borro/in& -otor vehicles fro-
the Chion&s durin& the period coverin& 5anuar' of 1((! up to and until Nove-ber of 1((=. Accused 8arcia
/ould al/a's as0 his representative to ta0e the Co-pan'Bs vehicle on a $aturda' -ornin&. 1o/ever,
>un&ao never reported for /or0 on $aturda'sG thus, he /as not the one /ho actuall' released the borro/ed
-otor vehicles to the representative of accused 8arcia. Nonetheless, >un&ao /ould be a/are of the fact
that accused 8arcia borro/ed the vehicles re@uested because, for ever' such instance, a correspondin&
deliver' receipt is issued, /hich is placed on top of his table for hi- to place in the Co-pan'Bs record files
on the follo/in& /or0in& da'. .he nu-erous deliver' receipts /ould sho/ and indicate the actual nu-ber of
ti-es accused 8arcia had borro/ed vehicles fro- the Co-pan'.

4inall', >un&ao identified the affidavit /hich he executed in connection /ith the subAect
cases.

%n cross-exa-ination, >un&ao testified that it /as his dut' to 0eep the per-its relatin& to
the road testin& of the -otor vehicles asse-bled b' the Co-pan'. .hese per-its /ere secured b' hi-
fro- accused 8arcia before the vehicles /ere eventuall' put on displa' or presented to potential
bu'ers. Althou&h there /as a Re&ulation %fficer at the <.% before /ho- the re@uest for the issuance of a
Conduct Per-it is to be presented, >un&ao /as often told to &o strai&ht up to the roo- of accused 8arcia
so that the latter could personall' si&n the said per-it. #t /as onl' /hen accused 8arcia is absent or is not
in office that the papers sub-itted to the <.% /ere attended to b' his assistant.

>un&ao testified that accused 8arcia /ould al/a's -a0e his re@uest to borro/ the
Co-pan'Bs -otor vehicle verball' and on a 4rida'. 1o/ever, >un&ao ad-itted that he /as not ver' fa-iliar
==
/ith the si&nature of accused 8arcia, and that the latterBs si&nature did not appear in an' of the deliver'
receipts.

"urin& all these 'ears, >un&ao could onl' recall one *1+ instance /hen accused 8arcia
failed to approve the Co-pan'Bs re@uest, and this /as a re@uest for an extension of the usual Q6-da' road
testR period &ranted to the Co-pan'. Nonetheless, the Co-pan' found the said disapproval to be
acceptable and proper.

%n @uestions propounded b' the Court, >un&ao testified that the na-es and si&natures of
the persons /ho actuall' received the Co-pan'Bs vehicles /ere reflected on the faces of the deliver'
receipts. 1o/ever, >un&ao does not reco&ni7e the si&natures appearin& on the said deliver' receipts,
includin& those purportedl' of accused .a&upa, because >un&ao /as not present /hen the vehicles /ere
ta0en.

.he prosecution had intended to present another /itness in the person of Ms. Ma. <ourdes
D. Miranda *hereinafter, QMirandaR+, /ho /as present at the ti-e >un&ao testified. Prior to her presentation,
ho/ever, the parties a&reed to enter into stipulations and ad-issions. .hus, it /as stipulated that Miranda
/as the -other of a child na-ed 5ane, /ho /as run over and 0illed in a vehicular accidentG that the driver of
the ill-fated -otor vehicle /as accused NaboG that Miranda, thereafter, successfull' traced the said vehicle
and eventuall' discovered the existence of nu-erous deliver' receipts in the files and possession of the
Co-pan'G and that said discover' led to the institution of the subAect cri-inal cases a&ainst herein
accused. As a result of such ad-issions and stipulations, the proposed testi-on' of Miranda /as,
thereafter, dispensed /ith.

A;R%RA 5. C1#%N8 *hereinafter, QChion&R+ declared that she is the Dice-President and
8eneral Mana&er of the Co-pan', a business establish-ent en&a&ed in the asse-bl' of -otor vehicles. #n
the process, the Co-pan' has to sub-it a "ealerBs Report to the <.% prior to the asse-bl' of a -otor
vehicle. After the asse-bl' is co-pleted, the Co-pan' has to secure a per-it fro- the <.% for purposes of
conductin& the necessar' road testin& of the ne/l' asse-bled -otor vehicle.

#n 1((!, accused 8arcia /as the Re&ional "irector of the <.% in Ca&a'an de %ro Cit'. 1e
/as the officer /ho approves the needed Conduction Per-it of ne/l' asse-bled -otor vehicles. 1e /as
also the <.% officer /ho approves and si&ns the Co-pan'Bs annual <.% Accreditation Certificate.

Chion& recounted that accused 8arcia has a far-, and that he /ould need a vehicle to
transport /ater thereto. 4or this purpose, he /ould, on a /ee0l' basis, borro/ fro- the Co-pan' a -otor
vehicle, either b' as0in& fro- Chion& directl' throu&h telephone calls or throu&h >un&ao, her <iaison
%fficer. Ever'ti-e accused 8arcia /ould borro/ a -otor vehicle, the Co-pan' /ould issue a deliver'
receipt for such purpose, /hich has to be si&ned b' the person /ho- accused 8arcia /ould send to pic0 up
the -otor vehicle. Chion& /as usuall' the co-pan' officer /ho si&ned the deliver' receipt for the release of
the borro/ed -otor vehicle to the representative of accused 8arcia. ?hen she /as not in office, she /ould
authori7e her personnel to place HtheirI initials on top of her na-e. %n several occasions, Chion& had seen
accused Nabo affixin& his si&nature on the deliver' receipt before ta0in& out the borro/ed -otor
vehicles. Chion& /as ver' sure that the driver /ho pic0ed up the -otor vehicle fro- the Co-pan' /as the
personnel of accused 8arcia because the latter /ould al/a's call her up first before sendin& his
representative to &et a vehicle. Chion& /as li0e/ise ver' fa-iliar /ith the voice of accused 8arcia because
she had been dealin& /ith hi- for a lon& period of ti-e alread', and all the /hile she had al/a's -aintained
a cordial relationship /ith hi-.

%n @uestions propounded b' the Court, Chion& testified that accused 8arcia /ould as0 his
driver to &et a vehicle on a $aturda' at around 3E!2 oBcloc0 in the -ornin&. 1e /ould return it in the late
afternoon of the sa-e da'. .here /as onl' one instance /hen accused 8arcia returned the -otor vehicle
on the da' after, and this /as the ti-e /hen the said vehicle had fi&ured in a vehicular accident /hich
resulted in the death of a certain 5ane, the dau&hter of Miranda. Chion& /as not the co-plainant in the said
vehicular accident case because she could not afford to offend or anta&oni7e accused 8arcia, and she had
al/a's considered the lendin& of -otor vehicles to accused 8arcia as a public relation thin&.

Chion& clarified that the subAect -otor vehicles occasionall' borro/ed b' accused 8arcia
/ere all co-pan' service cars and not ne/l' asse-bled vehicles. 4inall', she testified that she &ets
irritated /henever accused 8arcia /ould as0 for a vehicle at a ti-e /hen she herself /ould also need
it. 1o/ever, under the circu-stances, she had to &ive in to his re@uest.
H11I

=6

4or the defense, petitioner too0 the /itness stand, /hile accused .a&upa did not present an' evidence.

Petitioner testified that he /as the Re&ional "irector of the 12
th
Re&ional %ffice of the <.% fro- Au&ust, 1(9) to
"ece-ber, 1((=. 1e do/nri&ht denied borro/in& an' -otor vehicle fro- the Co-pan' ar&uin& that his si&natures never
appeared in the "eliver' Receipts
H1I
sub-itted b' the prosecution.
H1!I
1e ad-itted, thou&h, that the Co-pan' has been
continuall' transactin& business /ith his office properl' and officiall', and has not, even for a sin&le instance, violated an'
rules /ith respect to asse-bl' of -otor vehicles, and that there /as no reason for the o/ners of the Co-pan' to harbor an'
ill-feelin&s a&ainst hi-.
H1=I
1e further ad-itted that he had 0no/n Att'. Aurora Chion&, Dice-President and 8eneral Mana&er
of the Co-pan', even before he beca-e Re&ional "irector /hen he /as still the Chief of the %perations "ivision.
H16I
1e
added that e-plo'ees of the <.% are used to borro/in& vehicles fro- their friends and that this practice has been &oin& on
prior to his bein& Re&ional "irector. 1e clai-ed he repeatedl' /arned his subordinates about the ille&alit' of the sa-e but
the' -erel' turned a deaf ear.
H13I
<astl', he said his driver, accused Nabo, had, on several occasions, driven -otor vehicles
and visited hi- at his far-, and that he rode /ith hi- in &oin& ho-e /ithout alle&edl' 0no/in& that the vehicles driven b'
Nabo /ere -erel' borro/ed fro- his *Nabo+ friends.
H1)I

%n 3 Ma' 22, the $andi&anba'an pro-ul&ated the assailed decision convictin& petitioner of fift'-six counts of
violation of $ection !*b+ of Republic Act No. !21(, as a-ended. Accused .a&upa /as ac@uitted, /hile the cases a&ainst
accused Nabo, /ho re-ained at lar&e, /ere archived. .he decretal portion of the decision readsE

?1ERE4%RE, Aud&-ent is hereb' rendered findin& accused .#M%.E% A 8ARC#A 8;#<.>
be'ond reasonable doubt of fift'-six *63+ counts of violation of $ection !*b+ of Republic Act No. !21(,
other/ise 0no/n as .he Anti-8raft and Corrupt Practices Act. Accordin&l', said accused is hereb'
sentenced toE *i+ in each case, suffer an indeter-inate sentence of i-prison-ent for a period of six *3+ 'ears
and one *1+ -onth, as -ini-u-, to t/elve *1+ 'ears and one *1+ -onth, as -axi-u-G *ii+ suffer all
accessor' penalties conse@uent theretoG and *iii+ pa' the costs.

?ith respect to accused NER> .A8;PA, b' reason of the total lac0 of an' evidence
a&ainst hi-, he is hereb' ACN;#.E".

As for accused 8ilbert 8. Nabo, considerin& that he re-ained at lar&e and Aurisdiction over
his person had 'et to be ac@uired, let the case as a&ainst hi- be achieved.
H19I

Petitioner is no/ before us assi&nin& as errors the follo/in&E

1. .1E $AN"#8ANBA>AN ERRE" #N 1%<"#N8 .1A. A<< .1E E<EMEN.$ %4 $EC.#%N !*B+ %4
REP;B<#C AC. N%. !21( ?ERE PRE$EN. #N CR#M. CA$E$ N%$. =2= .% =2(9 *EPCEP.
=2)9+ AN" #N 4#N"#N8 .1E 1ERE#N PE.#.#%NER 8;#<.> %4 4#4.> $#P *63+ C%;N.$ %4
D#%<A.#%N .1ERE%4G

. .1E $AN"#8ANBA>AN ERRE" #N 4#N"#N8 .1E 1ERE#N PE.#.#%NER 8;#<.> BE>%N"
REA$%NAB<E "%;B. %4 4#4.> $#P *63+ C%;N.$ %4 D#%<A.#%N %4 $EC.#%N !*B+ %4
REP;B<#C AC. N%. !21( %N .1E BA$#$ %4 4A.A<<> "E4EC.#DE #N4%RMA.#%N$ ?1ERE#N
.1E 4AC.$ C1AR8E" NEDER C%N$.#.;.E" AN %44EN$EG

!. .1E $AN"#8ANBA>AN ERRE" #N 4#N"#N8 .1E 1ERE#N PE.#.#%NER 8;#<.> BE>%N"
REA$%NAB<E "%;B. %4 4#4.> $#P *63+ C%;N.$ %4 D#%<A.#%N %4 $EC.#%N !*B+ %4
REP;B<#C AC. N%. !21( %N .1E BA$#$ %4 ED#"ENCE ?1#C1 #$ #N$;44#C#EN. .% C%ND#C.
*EDEN 4%R A $#N8<E C%;N.+G

=. .1E $AN"#8ANBA>AN ERRE" AN" #N .1E PR%CE$$ D#%<A.E" .1E C%N$.#.;.#%NA< AN"
<E8A< R#81.$ %4 .1E 1ERE#N PE.#.#%NER ?1EN #. $;PP<#E" .1E "E4#C#ENC#E$ #N .1E
ED#"ENCE %4 .1E PR%$EC;.#%N ?#.1 A$$;MP.#%N$ ?1#C1 ?ERE N%. A. A<<
$;PP%R.E" B> .1E ED#"ENCE %N REC%R"G

6. .1E $AN"#8ANBA>AN ERRE" ?1EN #. %B$ERDE" "#44EREN. $.AN"AR"$ %4 5;$.#CE B>
ACN;#..#N8 .1E PE.#.#%NERB$ C%-ACC;$E" .A8;PA AN" C%ND#C.#N8 .1E 1ERE#N
PE.#.#%NER ?1EN .1E $AME REA$%N#N8 $1%;<" 1ADE <E" A<$% .% .1E ACN;#..A< %4
.1E PE.#.#%NER.

=3
#n an' cri-inal prosecution, it is necessar' that ever' essential in&redient of the cri-e char&ed -ust be proved
be'ond reasonable doubt in order to overco-e the constitutional ri&ht of the accused to be presu-ed innocent.
H1(I
.o be
convicted of violation of $ection !*b+
H2I
of Republic Act No. !21(, as a-ended, the prosecution has the burden of provin& the
follo/in& ele-entsE *1+ the offender is a public officerG *+ /ho re@uested or received a &ift, a present, a share a percenta&e,
or a benefit *!+ on behalf of the offender or an' other personG *=+ in connection /ith a contract or transaction /ith the
&overn-entG *6+ in /hich the public officer, in an official capacit' under the la/, has the ri&ht to intervene.
H1I

Petitioner -aintains that not all the ele-ents of $ection !*b+ have been established b' the prosecution. Petitioner
focuses pri-aril' on the fourth ele-ent. 1e ar&ues that the prosecution failed to sho/ the specific transactions of the
Co-pan' /ith the <.% of Ca&a'an de %ro that petitioner approved andTor intervened in so that he could borro/ fro-, or be
lent b', the Co-pan' a vehicle. #nas-uch as he /as convicted b' the $andi&anba'an of fift'-six counts of violation of
$ection !*b+ for alle&edl' borro/in& the Co-pan'Bs vehicle fift'-six ti-es, the $andi&anba'an, he stresses, should have at
least pointed out /hat these transactions /ere. .his, petitioner clai-s, the $andi&anba'an failed to sho/ /ith certaint' in its
decision. Petitioner adds that the prosecution did not even atte-pt to introduce evidence to sho/ /hat contract or
transaction /as pendin& before the <.% over /hich petitioner had the ri&ht to intervene bein& the Re&ional "irector /hen, at
the period stated in all the fift'-six infor-ations, he borro/ed a vehicle.

?e a&ree /ith petitioner that the prosecution -iserabl' failed to prove the existence of the fourth ele-ent. #t is ver'
clear fro- $ection !*b+ that the re@uestin& or receivin& of an' &ift, present, share, percenta&e, or benefit -ust be in
connection /ith Qa contract or transactionR
HI
/herein the public officer in his official capacit' has to intervene under the
la/. #n the case at bar, the prosecution did not specif' /hat transactions the Co-pan' had /ith the <.% that petitioner
intervened in /hen he alle&edl' borro/ed the vehicles fro- the Co-pan'. #t is insufficient that petitioner ad-itted that the
Co-pan' has continuall' transacted /ith his office. ?hat is re@uired is that the transaction involved should at least be
described /ith particularit' and proven. .o establish the existence of the fourth ele-ent, the relation of the fact of re@uestin&
andTor receivin&, and that of the transaction involved -ust be clearl' sho/n. .his, the prosecution failed to do. .he
prosecutionBs alle&ation that the Co-pan' re&ularl' transacts /ith petitionerBs <.% %ffice for the re&istration of its -otor
vehicles, in the reportin& of its en&ine and chassis nu-bers, as /ell as the sub-ission of its vehicle dealerBs report, and
other si-ilar transactions, /ill not suffice. .his &eneral state-ent failed to sho/ the lin0 bet/een the 63 alle&ed borro/in&s
/ith their correspondin& transactions.

4ailin& to prove one of the other ele-ents of the cri-e char&ed, /e find no need to discuss the presence or
absence of the ele-ents.

.he next @uestion to be resolved isE Can petitioner be convicted of an' other cri-e *i.e., "irect Briber' or #ndirect
Briber'+ char&ed in the infor-ationsU

.he cri-e of direct briber' as defined in Article 12
H!I
of the Revised Penal Code consists of the follo/in& ele-entsE
*1+ that the accused is a public officerG *+ that he received directl' or throu&h another so-e &ift or present, offer or pro-iseG
*!+ that such &ift, present or pro-ise has been &iven in consideration of his co--ission of so-e cri-e, or an' act not
constitutin& a cri-e, or to refrain fro- doin& so-ethin& /hich it is his official dut' to doG and *=+ that the cri-e or act relates
to the exercise of his functions as a public officer.
H=I
.hus, the acts constitutin& direct briber' areE *1+ b' a&reein& to perfor-,
or b' perfor-in&, in consideration of an' offer, pro-ise, &ift or present an act constitutin& a cri-e, in connection /ith the
perfor-ance of his official dutiesG *+ b' acceptin& a &ift in consideration of the execution of an act /hich does not constitute
a cri-e, in connection /ith the perfor-ance of his official dut'G or *!+ b' a&reein& to refrain, or b' refrainin&, fro- doin&
so-ethin& /hich is his official dut' to do, in consideration of an' &ift or pro-ise.
H6I

#n the case under consideration, there is utter lac0 of evidence adduced b' the prosecution sho/in& that petitioner
co--itted an' of the three acts constitutin& direct briber'. .he t/o prosecution /itnesses did not -ention an'thin& about
petitioner as0in& for so-ethin& in exchan&e for his perfor-ance of, or abstainin& to perfor-, an act in connection /ith his
official dut'. #n fact, Att'. Aurora Chion&, Dice-President and 8eneral Mana&er of the Co-pan', testified that the Co-pan'
co-plied /ith all the re@uire-ents of the <.% /ithout as0in& for an' intervention fro- petitioner or fro- an'bod' else fro-
said office.
H3I
4ro- the evidence on record, petitioner cannot li0e/ise be convicted of "irect Briber'.

Can petitioner be found &uilt' of #ndirect Briber'U

#ndirect briber' is co--itted b' a public officer /ho shall accept &ifts offered to hi- b' reason of his office. .he
essential in&redient of indirect briber' as defined in Article 11
H)I
of the Revised Penal Code is that the public officer
concerned -ust have accepted the &ift or -aterial consideration. #n the case at bar, /as the prosecution able to sho/ that
petitioner indeed accepted a &ift fro- the Co-pan'U .he alle&ed borro/in& of a vehicle b' petitioner fro- the Co-pan' can
be considered as the &ift in conte-plation of the la/. .o prove that petitioner borro/ed a vehicle fro- the Co-pan' for 63
ti-es, the prosecution adduced in evidence 63 deliver' receipts
H9I
alle&edl' si&ned b' petitionerBs representative /ho- the
latter /ould send to pic0 up the vehicle.
=)

.he prosecution /as not able to sho/ /ith -oral certaint' that petitioner trul' borro/ed and received the vehicles
subAect -atter of the 63 infor-ations. .he prosecution clai-s that petitioner received the vehicles via his representatives to
/ho- the vehicles /ere released. .he prosecution relies heavil' on the deliver' receipts. ?e, ho/ever, find that the
deliver' receipts do not sufficientl' prove that petitioner received the vehicles considerin& that his si&natures do not appear
therein. #n addition, the prosecution failed to establish that it /as petitionerBs representatives /ho pic0ed up the
vehicles. .he ac@uittal of one of the accused *Ner' .a&upa+ /ho alle&edl' received the vehicles fro- the Co-pan' further
stren&thens this ar&u-ent. #f the identit' of the person /ho alle&edl' pic0ed up the vehicle on behalf of the petitioner is
uncertain, there can also be no certaint' that it /as petitioner /ho received the vehicles in the end.

4actual findin&s of the $andi&anba'an are conclusive upon this Court except /hereE *1+ the conclusion is a findin&
&rounded entirel' on speculation, sur-ise and conAecturesG *+ the inference -ade is -anifestl' an error or founded on a
-ista0eG *!+ there is &rave abuse of discretionG *=+ the Aud&-ent is based on -isapprehension of factsG and *6+ the findin&s of
fact are pre-ised on a /ant of evidence and are contradicted b' evidence on record.
H(I
#n the case before us, /e are
constrained to appl' the exception rather than the rule. ?e find that the rulin& of the $andi&anba'an that petitioners actuall'
received the vehicles throu&h his representatives is &rounded entirel' on speculation, sur-ise, and conAectures, and not
supported b' evidence on record. .he certaint' of petitionerBs receipt of the vehicle for his alle&ed personal use /as not
substantiated.

WHERE4ORE, all the above considered, the petition is GRANTE5. .he "ecision of the $andi&anba'an in Cri-inal
Cases Nos. =2= to =2)) and =2)( to =2(9 isRE3ERSE5 and SET ASI5E. 4or insufficienc' of evidence, the petitioner
is hereb' AC?UITTE5 of the cri-e char&ed in the infor-ations. No costs.

SO OR5ERE5.

MINITA 3. CHICO&NA>ARIO
Associate 5ustice

?E C%NC;RE

ARTEMIO 3. PANGANI:AN
Chief 5ustice
Chairperson

CONSUE0O /NARES&SANTIAGO MA. A0ICIA AUSTRIA&MARTINE>
Associate 5ustice Associate 5ustice

ROMEO 1. CA00E1O, SR.
A77oc9"te 1%7t9ce

C E R T I 4 I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Article D###, $ection 1! of the Constitution, it is hereb' certified that the conclusions in the above
"ecision /ere reached in consultation before the case /as assi&ned to the /riter of the opinion of the CourtBs "ivision.

=9
Chief 5ustice
4IRST 5I3ISION
1UANITO T. MERENCI00O,
8.R. Nos. 1=!3(-)2
Pet9t9oer,
PresentE
P;N%, C.%., Chair#erson,
$AN"%DA<-8;.#ERREM,
& = e r 7 % 7 & C%R%NA,
AMC;NA and
8ARC#A, %%.
PEOP0E O4 THE PHI0IPPINES,
K
Re7-o,et. Pro-ul&atedE
April 1!, 22)
< & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & <

5 E C I S I O N
CORONA, J.B

.his petition for revie/
H1I
assails the 5une 19, 1((( decision
HI
of the $andi&anba'an in A.R. Case Nos. 22=-
226 affir-in&
H!I
the o-nibus decision
H=I
of the Re&ional .rial Court *R.C+ of .a&bilaran Cit', Branch =), in Cri-inal Case Nos.
(=9-9! findin& petitioner 5uanito .. Merencillo &uilt' of violatin& $ection !*b+ of RA !21(
H6I
and Article 12
H3I
of the Revised
Penal Code.

.he infor-ation char&in& petitioner for violation of $ection !*b+ of RA !21( in Cri-inal Case No. (=9 readE

.hat, on or about the 9
th
da' of $epte-ber, 1((6, in the Cit' of .a&bilaran, Philippines,
and /ithin the Aurisdiction of this 1onorable Court, the above-na-ed accused bein& then a public official
connected /ith the Bureau of #nternal Revenue as its 8roup $upervisin& Exa-iner, did then and there
/illfull', unla/full' and feloniousl' and /ith intent of personal &ain, directl' de-and and extort fro- a
certain Mrs. Maria An&eles Ra-asola Cesar the a-ount of .?EN.> .1%;$AN" PE$%$ *P2,222.22+,
Philippine Currenc', in connection, in consideration and in exchan&e for the release of the certification of
her pa'-ent of the capital &ains tax for the land purchased b' the Ra-asola H$uperstudioI #nc. fro- one
Catherine Corpu7 Enerio, a transaction /herein the aforesaid accused has to intervene in his official
capacit', and to /hich the said Mrs. Maria An&eles Ra-asola Cesar reluctantl' a&reed but upon prior
consultation /ith the -ilitar' authorities particularl' the ele-ents of the )2nd Cri-inal #nvesti&ation
Co--and HC#CI /ho set up the accused for a possible entrap-ent resultin& to *sic+ his bein& cau&ht in the
act of receivin& an envelope supposedl' containin& the a-ount of .?EN.> .1%;$AN" PE$%$
*P2,222.22+ but consistin& onl' of four *=+ -ar0ed one hundred peso bills and the rest all bo&us *paper+
=(
-onies, to the da-a&e and preAudice of the said Mrs. Maria An&eles Ra-asola Cesar in particular and the
public and the &overn-ent in &eneral in the a-ount to be proved durin& the trial of the case.

Acts co--itted contrar' to the provisions of $ection !*b+ of HRAI !21(.
H)I

%n the other hand, the infor-ation for direct briber' penali7ed under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code in
Cri-inal Case No. (=9! char&edE

.hat, on or about the 9
th
da' of $epte-ber, 1((6 in the Cit' of .a&bilaran, Philippines, and
/ithin the Aurisdiction of this 1onorable Court, the above-na-ed accused bein& then a public official
connected /ith the perfor-ance of official dut' as its 8roup $upervisin& Exa-iner, did then and there
/illfull', unla/full' and feloniousl' and /ith intent of personal &ain, de-and, extort and a&ree to perfor- an
act constitutin& a cri-e, an act /hich is in violation of the Anti-8raft and Corrupt Practices Act, that is S that
the certification for pa'-ent of the capital &ains tax relative to the land purchased b' the Ra-asola
$uperstudio #ncorporated fro- Catherine Corpus Enerio be released b' hi- onl' upon pa'-ent of an
additional under the table transaction in the a-ount of .?EN.> .1%;$AN" PE$%$ *P2,222.22+,
Philippine Currenc', /hich Mrs. Maria An&eles Ra-asola Cesar reluctantl' a&reed, but upon prior
consultation /ith the -ilitar' authorities particularl' the ele-ents of the )2
nd
Cri-inal H#nvesti&ationI
Co--and *C#C+ /ho set up the accused for a possible entrap-ent resultin& to *sic+ his bein& cau&ht in the
act of receivin& an envelope supposedl' containin& the a-ount of .?EN.> .1%;$AN" PE$%$
*P2,222.22+ but, consistin& onl' of four *=+ -ar0ed one hundred pesos bills and the rest all bo&us *paper+
-onies, an act perfor-ed b' the accused in his official capacit' as 8roup $upervisin& Exa-iner of the B#R,
to the da-a&e and preAudice of Mrs. Maria An&eles Ra-asola Cesar in particular and the public and the
&overn-ent in &eneral in the a-ount to be proved durin& the trial of the case.

Acts co--itted contrar' to the provisions of Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines.
H9I

Petitioner pleaded not &uilt' to both char&es /hen arrai&ned. .hereafter trial ensued and the cases /ere tried
Aointl'.

THE 4ACTS ESTA:0ISHE5
:/ THE PROSECUTION

#n the -ornin& of $epte-ber 1!, 1((6, <ucit Estillore /ent to the Bureau of #nternal Revenue *B#R+ office in
.a&bilaran Cit' to as0 for the co-putation of taxes due on the sale of real propert' to Ra-asola $uperstudio, #nc. and to
appl' for a certificate authori7in& re&istration *CAR+.
H(I
At the B#R office, she /as entertained b' revenue exa-iner <ourdes
4uentes /ho co-puted the docu-entar' sta-p tax *P!),622+ and capital &ains tax *P16,222+ due on the transaction. .he
co-putation /as approved b' petitioner in his capacit' as &roup supervisor. Estillore paid the taxes in the ban0 and returned
to appl' for a CAR. $he sub-itted the application to&ether /ith relevant docu-ents to 4uentes for processin&. 4uentes
prepared the revenue audit reports and sub-itted the- to&ether /ith the application for the CAR to petitioner for preli-inar'
approval. H.he application /as to be for/arded thereafter to the Revenue "istrict %fficer *R"%+ for final approval.I 4uentes
advised Estillore that the CAR /ould be released after seven da's.

At around 12E22 a.-. of the sa-e da', private co-plainant Maria An&eles Ra-asola Cesar
H12I
*Cesar+ received a
call fro- Estillore. $he /as told that petitioner /anted to see her Qfor so-e ne&otiation.R $he proceeded to petitionerBs office
/here the latter de-anded P2,222 in exchan&e for the approval of the CAR. Cesar replied that she needed to confer /ith
her t/o brothers /ho /ere her business associates.

.he follo/in& da', on $epte-ber 1=, 1((6, Cesar received a call fro- petitioner /ho /as follo/in& up his de-and.
<ater that da', Cesar received another call fro- petitioner /ho told her that she could &et the CAR after four or five da's.

Cesar /as able to return to the B#R onl' on $epte-ber 2, 1((6. ?hen petitioner sa/ her, he repeated his de-and
for P2,222 althou&h the CAR had in fact been si&ned b' R"% 8alahad Bala&on the da' before, on $epte-ber 1(, 1((6,
and /as therefore read' for release. %n CesarBs in@uir', the releasin& cler0, $usan Caban&on, infor-ed Cesar that she
*Caban&on+ /as still /aitin& for petitionerBs &o si&nal to release the docu-ent.
%n $epte-ber , 1((6, Cesar visited R"% Bala&on and co-plained about petitionerBs refusal to release the CAR
unless his de-and /as -et. R"% Bala&on assured Cesar that he /ould loo0 into her co-plaint. $ubse@uentl', Cesar
62
received a call fro- petitioner infor-in& her that she could &et the CAR but re-inded her of his de-and. 1e told her that he
/as /illin& to accept a lesser a-ount. #t /as at this point that Cesar decided to report the -atter to the authorities. $he
sou&ht the help of the Provincial "irector of the Philippine National Police *PNP+ in Bohol, $enior $uperintendent "ionaid
Bara&uer.

.he follo/in& da', $r. $upt. Bara&uer referred CesarBs co-plaint to the chief of police of .a&bilaran Cit' /ho
coordinated /ith Cesar for the entrap-ent of petitioner. Cesar /as instructed to prepare t/o bundles of bo&us -one' b'
puttin& a one-hundred peso bill on each side of each of the t/o bundles to -a0e it appear that the t/o bundles a-ounted
to P12,222 each or a total of P2,222. After the serial nu-bers of the four one-hundred peso bills /ere recorded, the
entrap-ent /as set for $epte-ber 9, 1((6.

%n the appointed da', Cesar called petitioner and pleaded for the release of the CAR as /ell as for the reduction of
petitionerBs de-and. Petitioner cautiousl' told Cesar not to tal0 about the -atter on the phone and as0ed her to see hi-
instead. Cesar /ent to petitionerBs office /ith the t/o bundles of bo&us -one' inside a /hite envelope.

Petitioner /as entertainin& a lad' visitor /hen Cesar arrived. .he -e-bers of the PNP entrap-ent tea- /ere
alread' in petitionerBs office posin& as civilians. %n seein& Cesar, petitioner handed the CAR to her and, as she /as si&nin&
the ac0no/led&-ent for the release of the CAR, he infor-ed her that he /as &oin& do/n to the second floor. Cesar too0 this
as a cue for her to follo/.

As petitioner left his office, he held the door open for Cesar to follo/. %n reachin& the third floor lobb', petitioner
uttered Q1ere onl'.R Cesar handed the envelope containin& the t/o bundles of -ar0ed -one' to petitioner /ho, upon
receivin& it, as0ed Q?h' is this thic0UR Before Cesar could ans/er, a -e-ber of the PNP entrap-ent tea- photo&raphed
petitioner holdin& the envelope. Petitioner panic0ed, hid the envelope behind his bac0 and turned to/ards the /indo/ at the
bac0 of the B#R buildin&. %n seein& that the /indo/ /as closed, he turned around to/ards the open /indo/ facin& the
street. 1e thre/ the envelope to/ards the /indo/ but it hit the ceilin& instead, bounced and fell to the first floor of the B#R
buildin&.
H11I
.he PNP entrap-ent tea- then introduced the-selves to petitioner and invited hi- to &o /ith the- to their
head@uarters.

Char&es /ere filed a&ainst petitioner. "urin& the trial, petitionerBs evidence consisted of nothin& -ore than a &eneral
denial of the char&es a&ainst hi-. 1e clai-ed that he never as0ed for -one' and that the alle&ations of de-and for -one'
existed onl' in CesarBs -ind after she /as told that there /as a -isclassification of the asset and additional taxes had to be
paid. 1e /as surprised /hen police-en suddenl' arrested hi- as soon as Cesar handed hi- a /hite envelope the contents
of /hich he suspected to be -one'.

After trial, the R.C found petitioner &uilt' as char&ed. .he dispositive portion of the decision readE

?1ERE4%RE, pre-ises considered, the Court finds the accused 5uanito .. Merencillo,
&uilt' be'ond reasonable doubt as principal b' direct participation, defined and penali7ed b' $ection
!*b+ of HRAI !21(, other/ise 0no/n as the Anti-8raft and Corrupt Practices Act, and sentences hi- to
suffer the indeter-inate penalt' of i-prison-ent for ei&ht *9+ 'ears and one *1+ -onth as -ini-u- to
fifteen *16+ 'ears as -axi-u-, there bein& a&&ravatin& circu-stances considered under $ection !*e+
and $ection *f+ of HRAI !21( in relation to Article 1=*1+ and *11+ of the HRPCI in the sense that the
offender have ta0en advanta&e of his public position, and that the cri-e /as co--itted in consideration
of a price or pro-ise, /ithout an' -iti&atin& or extenuatin& circu-stances to neutrali7e or offset an' of
the a&&ravatin& circu-stances, /ith perpetual dis@ualification fro- public office, and the Court further
finds the accused &uilt' be'ond reasonable doubt as principal b' direct participation, for the cri-e of
"irect Briber' defined and penali7ed b' Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code and sentences hi- to
suffer the indeter-inate penalt' of four *=+ 'ears and one *1+ da' as -ini-u- to ei&ht *9+ 'ears of
prision -a'or as -axi-u- and a fine of $ixt' .housand *P32,222.22+ Pesos, all as -andated b' la/.
.he accused 5uanito .. Merencillo li0e/ise is ordered to inde-nif' private co-plainant HCesarI to pa'
-oral da-a&es in the a-ount of P62,222.22 and attorne'Bs fees in the a-ount of 4ive .housand
*P6,222.22+ Pesos. Costs shall also be taxed a&ainst the accused.

C%N.RAR> .% <A?.
H1I

Petitioner appealed the R.C decision to the $andi&anba'an. .he $andi&anba'an, ho/ever, denied the appeal and
affir-ed the R.C decision /ith -odification reducin& the penalt' of i-prison-ent for violation of $ection !*b+ of RA !21( to
an indeter-inate sentence of six 'ears and one -onth of #rision mayor, as -ini-u-, to ten 'ears of #rision mayor, as
-axi-u-.
H1!I
.hus, this petition.

61
Petitioner basicall' raises t/o pointsE *1+ the $andi&anba'anBs refusal to believe his evidence over that of the
prosecutionBs and *+ the $andi&anba'anBs failure to reco&ni7e that he /as placed in double Aeopard'.

Petitioner faults the $andi&anba'an for affir-in& the R.C decision and disre&ardin& his evidence. 1e clai-s that,
had the R.C and the $andi&anba'an not i&nored the inconsistencies in the testi-onies of the prosecutionBs /itnesses,
H1=I
he
/ould have been ac@uitted. 1e also asserts that he /as placed t/ice in Aeopard' /hen he /as prosecuted for violation of
$ection !*b+ of RA !21( and for direct briber'.

Petitioner is /ron&.

TRIA0 COURTLS E3A0UATION O4
E3I5ENCE WI00 NOT :E 5ISTUR:E5

Both the R.C and the $andi&anba'an found the testi-onies of the prosecutionBs /itnesses *that petitioner
de-anded and received -one' fro- private co-plainant Cesar for the release of the CAR+ sufficient and credible enou&h to
sustain conviction.

.his not/ithstandin&, petitioner no/ as0s this Court to revie/ the entire evidence ane/, re-evaluate the credibilit'
of /itnesses and -a0e another factual deter-ination of the case S a course of action clearl' i-proper &iven the nature of
the instant petition.
H16I
Nuestions of fact cannot &enerall' be raised for the consideration of this Court.

.he calibration of evidence and the relative /ei&ht thereof belon&s to the appellate court.
H13I
#ts findin&s and
conclusions cannot be set aside b' this Court unless there is no evidence on record to support the-.
H1)I
#n this case,
ho/ever, the findin&s of fact of the $andi&anba'an, affir-in& the factual findin&s of the R.C, /ere a-pl' supported b'
evidence and the conclusions therein /ere not a&ainst the la/ and Aurisprudence. .here is no reason to disturb the
con&ruent findin&s of the trial and appellate courts.

Moreover, findin&s and conclusions of the trial court on the credibilit' of /itnesses enAo' the respect of appellate
courts because trial courts have the distinct advanta&e of observin& the de-eanor of /itnesses as the' testif'.
H19I
#n the
absence of an' arbitrariness in the trial courtBs findin&s and evaluation of evidence tendin& to sho/ that it overloo0ed certain
-aterial facts and circu-stances, its findin&s and evaluation of evidence should be respected on revie/.
H1(I
.he presidin&
Aud&e of the trial court had the opportunit' to actuall' observe the conduct and de-eanor of the /itnesses on the /itness
stand on direct exa-ination b' the prosecution, cross-exa-ination b' the defense as /ell as durin& clarificator' @uestionin&
b' the trial Aud&e hi-self.
H2I
Bet/een the trial Aud&e and this Court, the for-er /as concededl' in a better position to
deter-ine /hether or not a /itness /as tellin& the truth.
H1I
Based on the records, /e find no reason to disa&ree /ith the trial
courtBs assess-ent and to discredit the prosecutionBs /itnesses.

Contrar' to petitionerBs contention, the R.C and the $andi&anba'an considered the alle&ed inconsistencies in the
testi-onies of the prosecution /itnesses. Both courts, ho/ever, ruled that the inconsistencies referred onl' to -inor details
that did not detract fro- the truth of the prosecutionBs testi-onial evidence. ?e a&ree.

?itnesses testif'in& on the sa-e event do not have to be consistent in each and ever' detail. "ifferences in
the recollection of the event are inevitable and inconse@uential variances are co--onl' re&arded as si&ns of truth instead of
falsehood. #nconsistencies in the testi-onies of prosecution /itnesses /ith respect to -inor details and collateral -atters do
not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracit' or the /ei&ht of their testi-on'.
HI
#n fact, such -inor fla/s
-a' even enhance the /orth of a testi-on' for the' &uard a&ainst -e-ori7ed falsities.
H!I

Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies do not i-pair the essential inte&rit' of the prosecutionBs evidence as a /hole
or reflect on the /itnessesB honest'.
H=I
.he test is /hether the testi-onies a&ree on essential facts and /hether the
respective versions corroborate and substantiall' coincide /ith each other so as to -a0e a consistent and coherent /hole.
H6I
.hus, inconsistencies and discrepancies in details /hich are irrelevant to the ele-ents of the cri-e cannot be
successfull' invo0ed as &rounds for ac@uittal.
H3I

.he R.C and the $andi&anba'an correctl' ruled that the inconsistencies pointed out b' petitioner /ere neither
-aterial nor relevant to the ele-ents of the offenses for /hich he /as char&ed. 4or instance, /hether or not it /as petitioner
hi-self /ho handed the CAR to private respondent /as i--aterial. .he fact /as that petitioner de-anded and received
-one' in consideration for the issuance of the CAR.

PETITIONER WAS NOT P0ACE5
IN 5OU:0E 1EOPAR5/
6

$ection ! of RA !21( be&ins /ith the follo/in& state-entE

$ec. !. I ",,9t9o to "ct7 or o+9779o7 o$ -%b#9c o$$9cer7 "#re",8 -e"#9;e, b8 e<97t9. #"',
the follo/in& HactsI shall constitute corrupt practices of an' public officer and are hereb' declared unla/fulE

xxx xxx xxx *e-phasis supplied+

%ne -a' therefore be char&ed /ith violation of RA !21( in addition to a felon' under the Revised Penal Code for
the sa-e delictual act, that is, either concurrentl' or subse@uent to bein& char&ed /ith a felon' under the Revised Penal
Code.
H)I
.here is no double Aeopard' if a person is char&ed si-ultaneousl' or successivel' for violation of $ection ! of RA
!21( and the Revised Penal Code.

.he rule a&ainst double Aeopard' prohibits t/ice placin& a person in Aeopard' of punish-ent for the sa-e offense.
H9I
.he test is /hether one offense is identical /ith the other or is an atte-pt to co--it it or a frustration thereofG or /hether
one offense necessaril' includes or is necessaril' included in the other, as provided in $ection ) of Rule 11) of the Rules of
Court.
H(I
An offense char&ed necessaril' includes that /hich is proved /hen so-e of the essential ele-ents or in&redients of
the for-er, as alle&ed in the co-plaint or infor-ation, constitute the latterG and an offense char&ed is necessaril' included in
the offense proved /hen the essential in&redients of the for-er constitute or for- a part of those constitutin& the latter.
H!2I

A co-parison of the ele-ents of the cri-e of direct briber' defined and punished under Article 12 of the Revised
Penal Code and those of violation of $ection !*b+ of RA !21( sho/s that there is neither identit' nor necessar' inclusion
bet/een the t/o offenses.

$ection !*b+ of RA !21( providesE

$ec. !. #n addition to acts or o-issions of public officers alread' penali7ed b' existin& la/, the
follo/in& shall constitute corrupt practices of an' public officer and are hereb' declared unla/fulE

xxx xxx xxx

*b+ "irectl' or indirectl' re@uestin& or receivin& an' &ift, present, share percenta&e or benefit, for
hi-self or for an' other person, in connection /ith an' contract or transaction bet/een the
8overn-ent and an' other part', /herein the public officer in his official capacit' has to
intervene under the la/.

xxx xxx xxx

.he ele-ents of the cri-e penali7ed under $ection !*b+ of RA !21( areE
*1+ the offender is a public officerG

*+ he re@uested or received a &ift, present, share, percenta&e or benefitG

*!+ he -ade the re@uest or receipt on behalf of the offender or an' other personG

*=+ the re@uest or receipt /as -ade in connection /ith a contract or transaction /ith the &overn-ent and

*6+ he has the ri&ht to intervene, in an official capacit' under the la/, in connection /ith a contract or
transaction has the ri&ht to intervene.
H!1I

%n the other hand, direct briber' has the follo/in& essential ele-entsE

*1+ the offender is a public officerG

*+ the offender accepts an offer or pro-ise or receives a &ift or present b' hi-self or throu&h anotherG

6!
*!+ such offer or pro-ise be accepted or &ift or present be received b' the public officer /ith a vie/ to
co--ittin& so-e cri-e, or in consideration of the execution of an act /hich does not constitute a
cri-e but the act -ust be unAust, or to refrain fro- doin& so-ethin& /hich it is his official dut' to do
and

*=+ the act /hich the offender a&rees to perfor- or /hich he executes is connected /ith the perfor-ance
of his official duties.
H!I

Clearl', the violation of $ection !*b+ of RA !21( is neither identical nor necessaril' inclusive of direct briber'. ?hile
the' have co--on ele-ents, not all the essential ele-ents of one offense are included a-on& or for- part of those
enu-erated in the other. ?hereas the -ere re@uest or de-and of a &ift, present, share, percenta&e or benefit is enou&h to
constitute a violation of $ection !*b+ of RA !21(, acceptance of a pro-ise or offer or receipt of a &ift or present is re@uired in
direct briber'. Moreover, the a-bit of $ection !*b+ of RA !21( is specific. #t is li-ited onl' to contracts or transactions
involvin& -onetar' consideration /here the public officer has the authorit' to intervene under the la/. "irect briber', on the
other hand, has a /ider and -ore &eneral scopeE *a+ perfor-ance of an act constitutin& a cri-eG *b+ execution of an unAust
act /hich does not constitute a cri-e and *c+ a&reein& to refrain or refrainin& fro- doin& an act /hich is his official dut' to
do.

Althou&h the t/o char&es a&ainst petitioner ste--ed fro- the sa-e transaction, the sa-e act &ave rise to t/o
separate and distinct offenses. No double Aeopard' attached since there /as a variance bet/een the ele-ents of the
offenses char&ed.
H!!I
.he constitutional protection a&ainst double Aeopard' proceeds fro- a second prosecution for the sa-e
offense, not for a different one.
H!=I

WHERE4ORE, the petition is hereb' 5ENIE5. .he 5une 19, 1((( decision of the $andi&anba'an in A.R. Case
Nos. 22=-226 is A44IRME5.

Costs a&ainst petitioner.

SO OR5ERE5.

RENATO C. CORONA
Associate 5ustice

?E C%NC;RE

REYN!" S. P#N"
Chief 5ustice
Chairperson

ANGE0INA SAN5O3A0&GUTIERRE> A5O04O S. A>CUNA

CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate 5ustice

6=
$ E R ! % & % $ ! % " N

Pursuant to $ection 1!, Article D### of the Constitution, # certif' that the conclusions in the above decision had
been reached in consultation before the case /as assi&ned to the /riter of the opinion of the CourtBs "ivision.

REYN!" S. P#N"
Chief 5ustice
SUPREME COURT
Manila
.1#R" "#D#$#%N
G.R. No. 1F8566 M"rc! I1, 200@
0IN5A CA5IAO&PA0ACIOS, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOP0E O4 THE PHI0IPPINES, Respondent.
" E C # $ # % N
NACHURA, J.:
4or revie/ is the "ecision
1
of the $andi&anba'an dated 5anuar' 9, 226 in Cri-inal Case No. )=!=, findin& Dictor $.
Denturan7a *Denturan7a+ and petitioner <inda Cadiao-Palacios &uilt' be'ond reasonable doubt of violation of $ection !*b+,
Republic Act *R.A.+ No. !21(.
Petitioner /as the -a'or of the Municipalit' of Culasi, Province of Anti@ue fro- 5ul' 1((9 to 5une 221.
!
"urin& her
ad-inistration, there /ere infrastructure proAects that /ere initiated durin& the incu-benc' of her predecessor, then Ma'or
Aida Alpas, /hich re-ained partiall' unpaid. .hese included the 5anla&asi "iversion "a-, $an <uis "iversion "a-, Caridad-
Ba&aca' Road, and $an 5uan-.u-ao Road /hich /ere contracted b' <.$. 8a-otin Construction *<.$. 8a-otin+ /ith a total
proAect cost of P -illion. 4or the said proAects, the -unicipalit' o/ed the contractor P)(1,2=).22.
=
Relative to the aforesaid proAects, petitioner, to&ether /ith Denturan7a, then the Municipal $ecurit' %fficer, /as indicted in an
#nfor-ation for violation of $ection !*b+, R.A. No. !21(, the accusator' portion of /hich readsE
.hat in or about the -onth of 5anuar', 1(((, and for so-eti-e prior and subse@uent thereto, at the Municipalit' of Culasi,
Province of Anti@ue, Philippines, and /ithin the Aurisdiction of this 1onorable Court, above-na-ed accused, <#N"A CA"#A%
PA<AC#%$ and D#C DEN.;RANMA, public officers, bein& the Municipal Ma'or and $ecurit' %fficer to the Ma'or, respectivel',
of the Municipalit' of Culasi, Anti@ue, and as such, accused Ma'or is the approvin& authorit' of contracts involvin& the
Municipalit', in such capacit' and co--ittin& the offense in relation to office, connivin& and confederatin& to&ether and
-utuall' helpin& /ith each other, /ith deliberate intent, /ith intent of *sic+ &ain, did then and there /illfull', unla/full' and
feloniousl' de-and -one' fro- 8race $uperficial of <.$. 8a-otin Construction, /hich undertoo0 the construction of the
follo/in& &overn-ent proAects, for the Municipalit' of Culasi, Province of Anti@ue, to /itE
66
a+ Rehabilitation of .u-ao-$an 5uan RoadG
b+ Rehabilitation of Centro Norte-Buenavista RoadG and
c+ Rehabilitation of Ba&aca'-Buenavista Road
/hich proAects a-ounted to .?% M#<<#%N PE$%$ *P,222,222.22+, Philippine Currenc', /hich /as sourced fro- the
National "isaster Coordinatin& Council and channeled to the Municipalit' of Culasi, under condition that the final pa'-ents for
said proAects /ould not be released, if said a-ounts /ould not be &iven, and conse@uentl' received the a-ounts of 4#4.EEN
.1%;$AN" PE$%$ *P16,222.22+ in cash and %NE 1;N"RE" $#P.>-.?% .1%;$AN" 4%;R 1;N"RE" PE$%$
*P13,=22.22+ in <BP Chec0 No. !!(6)=, thus accused Ma'or <inda Cadiao Palacios, directl' or indirectl' throu&h her co-
accused Dic Denturan7a, de-anded or received -one' fro- a person, in connection /ith contracts or transactions bet/een
the &overn-ent, /herein the public officer in her official capacit' has to intervene under the la/.
C%N.RAR> .% <A?.
6
%n April 13, 22, both accused voluntaril' surrendered and, upon -otion, posted a reduced bail bond ofP16,222.22
each.
3
.he' /ere subse@uentl' arrai&ned /herein the' both pleaded ,Not 8uilt'.,
)
.rial thereafter ensued.
"urin& trial, the prosecution presented its sole /itnessFthe private co-plainant herself, 8race M. $uperficial *$uperficial+. 1er
testi-on' -a' be su--ari7ed as follo/sE
4or and on behalf of <.$. 8a-otin, she *$uperficial+ too0 char&e of the collection of the unpaid billin&s of the
-unicipalit'.
9
Prior to the full pa'-ent of the -unicipalit'Bs obli&ation, petitioner de-anded -one' fro- her, under threat that
the final pa'-ent /ould not be released unless she co-plied. Accedin& to petitionerBs de-and, she &ave the for-erBs
husband P16,222.22.
(
$o-eti-e in 5anuar' 1(((, petitioner de-anded fro- $uperficial the full pa'-ent of her total
,0ic0bac0, /hich should be 12W of the proAect cost. $uperficial thus proposed that she /ould deliver a chec0 in lieu of cash, to
/hich petitioner a&reed.
12
%n 5anuar' 6, 1(((, petitioner &ave to Neil $uperficial, then an incu-bent councilor and the husband of private co-plainant,
three chec0s
11
representin& the final pa'-ent for the construction proAects. .he follo/in& da', Denturan7a pic0ed up the chec0
pro-ised b' $uperficial as pa'-ent for the 12W ,0ic0bac0., #n accordance /ith petitionerBs instruction, the chec0 /as -ade
pa'able to Denturan7a in the a-ount of P13,=22.22. .he chec0 /as encashed b' Denturan7a at the <and Ban0 of the
Philippines *<BP+, $an 5ose, Anti@ue Branch, /hich is about (2-122 0ilo-eters a/a' fro- CulasiG and the a-ount /as
received b' Denturan7a.
1
#t /as Denturan7a also /ho deposited the three chec0s, representin& the full pa'-ent of the proAect,
to the account of $uperficial.
1!
$avv#hi$
.he prosecution li0e/ise offered the follo/in& docu-entar' evidenceE 1+ Minutes of the Meetin& of Pre-Nualification, HBidI and
A/ard Co--ittee *PBAC+ held at the Municipalit' of Anti@ueG
1=
+ <and Ban0 Chec0 No. !!(6)=P dated 5anuar' 3, 1((( in
the a-ount of P13,=22.22G
16
!+ Co-plainantBs Consolidated $ur-Repl'G
13
and =+ "eposit $lip of the three <BP Chec0s
representin& full pa'-ent of the proAect.
1)
.he defense, on the other hand, presented the follo/in& /itnessesE 1+ petitioner herself, + Denturan7a, !+ En&r. Ar-and
Cadi&al, =+ petitionerBs husband E--anuel Palacios, 6+ petitionerBs Executive Assistant Eu&ene de <os Re'es, and 3+ Att'.
Rex $ui7a Castillon. .heir testi-onies -a' be su--ari7ed as follo/sE
Petitioner denied $uperficialBs alle&ations. $he insisted that she onl' dealt /ith the o/ner of <.$. 8a-otin, En&r. <eobardo $.
8a-otin *En&r. 8a-otin+, relative to the infrastructure proAectsG thus, she could have -ade the de-and directl' fro- hi- and
not fro- $uperficial. Contrar' to $uperficialBs contention, it /as En&r. 8a-otin hi-self /ho clai-ed pa'-ent throu&h a
de-and letter addressed to petitioner.
19
$he added that she onl' -et $uperficial /hen the latter received the chec0s
representin& the final pa'-ent. $he further testified that she never entrusted an' hi&hl' sensitive -atter to Denturan7a since
her trusted e-plo'ee /as her chief of staff. $he also averred that she /as not the onl' person responsible for the release of
the chec0s since the vouchers also re@uired the si&natures of the -unicipal treasurer, the -unicipal bud&et officer, and the
-unicipal accountant.
1(
As far as Denturan7a /as concerned, she denied 0no/led&e of such transaction as he did not as0
per-ission fro- her /hen he used the vehicle of the -unicipalit' to &o to $an 5ose.
2
<astl', she clai-ed that the filin& of the
case a&ainst her /as politicall' -otivated.
1
63
E--anuel Palacios li0e/ise denied havin& received P16,222.22 fro- $uperficial. 1e clai-ed that he /as financiall' stable,
bein& a 4oresterG the -ana&er of a 22-hectare a&ricultural land and of a -ediu- pi&&er' establish-entG and the o/ner of a
residential house valued at no less than P3 -illion, a parcel of land and other properties.
1e also clai-ed that the institution

of the cri-inal case /as ill--otivated as Neil $uperficial, in fact, initiated a co-plaint a&ainst hi- for frustrated -urder.
!
Denturan7a, for his part, ad-itted that he indeed received the chec0 fro- $uperficial but denied that it /as ,&rease -one'.,
1e clai-ed that the said a-ount *P13,=22.22+ /as received b' hi- in the for- of a loan. 1e explained that he borro/ed fro-
$uperficial P162,222.22 to finance his trip to Australia so that he could attend the /eddin& of his nephe/G and as0ed for an
additional a-ount for his expenses in processin& his visa.
=
Denturan7a, ho/ever, failed to leave for Australia. %f the total
a-ount of his loan, he alle&edl' spentP16,222.22 in processin& his visa. Denturan7a stated that he /as able to repa' the
entire a-ount i--ediatel' because he obtained a loan fro- the Rural Ban0 of A0lan, Pandan Branch, to pa' the a-ount he
used in appl'in& for his visa. 1e further testified that he /as persuaded b' the $uperficials to ca-pai&n a&ainst petitioner.
6
%n 5anuar' 9, 226, the $andi&anba'an rendered a decision convictin& both accused of the cri-e char&ed, the dispositive
portion of /hich readsE
?1ERE4%RE, Aud&-ent is hereb' rendered findin& accused <#N"A CA"#A%-PA<AC#%$ and D#C.%R $. DEN.;RANMA
8;#<.> be'ond reasonable doubt of violation of $ection ! *b+ of Republic Act No. !21(, other/ise 0no/n as .he Anti-8raft
and Corrupt Practices Act. Accordin&l', in vie/ of the attendant -iti&atin& circu-stance of voluntar' surrender of both
accused, each of the- are hereb' sentenced to *i+ suffer an indeter-inate sentence of i-prison-ent for a period of six *3+
'ears and one *1+ -onth, as -ini-u-, to nine *(+ 'ears, as -axi-u-G *ii+ suffer all accessor' penalties conse@uent theretoG
and *iii+ pa' the costs.
$% %R"ERE".
3
.he $andi&anba'an concluded that the follo/in& circu-stances established the &uilt of both petitioner and Denturan7aE 1+ that
the -unicipalit' had outstandin& obli&ations /ith <.$. 8a-otin for the construction of several public /or0s that /ere co-pleted
in 1((9G + that petitioner /as the person authori7ed to effect the pa'-ent of said obli&ations /hich, in fact, she didG !+ that
Denturan7a /as a trusted e-plo'ee of petitioner as he /as in char&e of the securit' of the -unicipal buildin&s and personnel
as /ell as the adAoinin& officesG =+ that Denturan7a received the three <BP chec0s representin& the full pa'-ent to <.$.
8a-otin and the <BP chec0 bearin& the a-ount of P13,=22.22G 6+ that Denturan7a /ent to $an 5ose, Anti@ue on 5anuar'
3, 1((( to deposit the three chec0s and encashed the P13,=22.22 chec0G 3+ that Denturan7a did not receive the above
a-ount b' virtue of a loan a&ree-ent /ith $uperficial because there /as no evidence to prove itG )+ that Denturan7a used the
vehicle of the -unicipalit' to encash the chec0 in $an 5ose, Anti@ueG and 9+ that the a-ount of P16,222.22 initiall' &iven to
E--anuel Palacios and the P13,=22.22 appearin& on the chec0 corresponded to the 12W of the total proAect cost after
deductin& the 12W DA. and P12,222.22 En&ineerin& $upervision 4ee.
)
#n arrivin& at this conclusion, the $andi&anba'an &ave credence to the testi-on' of the lone /itness for the prosecution. #t
added that contrar' to the clai- of the defense, no ill -otive could be attributed to her in testif'in& a&ainst petitioner and
Denturan7a. .his is especiall' true in the case of the latter, as she /as related to hi-. #n findin& both accused &uilt', the
$andi&anba'an concluded that, to&ether, the' conspired in co--ittin& the offense char&ed.
A&&rieved, petitioner and Denturan7a separatel' appealed their conviction. .he latter petition /as doc0eted as 8.R. No.
1396=9 /hich /as denied b' this Court in a Resolution dated $epte-ber 3, 226. .he for-er, on the other hand, is no/
before us, -ainl' challen&in& the le&al and factual bases of the $andi&anba'an decision.
.he petition lac0s -erit.
$ection ! *b+ of the Anti-8raft and Corrupt Practices Act providesE
$EC. !. Corrupt practices of public officers. S #n addition to acts or o-issions of public officers alread' penali7ed b' existin&
la/, the follo/in& shall constitute corrupt practices of an' public officer and are hereb' declared to be unla/fulE
x x x x
*b+ "irectl' or indirectl' re@uestin& or receivin& an' &ift, present, share, percenta&e, or benefit, for hi-self or for an' other
person, in connection /ith an' contract or transaction bet/een the 8overn-ent and an' other part', /herein the public officer
in his official capacit' has to intervene under the la/.
6)
.o be convicted of violation of $ection !*b+ of R.A. No. !21(, the prosecution has the burden of provin& the follo/in&
ele-entsE 1+ the offender is a public officerG + /ho re@uested or received a &ift, a present, a share, a percenta&e, or benefitG !+
on behalf of the offender or an' other personG =+ in connection /ith a contract or transaction /ith the &overn-entG 6+ in /hich
the public officer, in an official capacit' under the la/, has the ri&ht to intervene.
9
At the ti-e -aterial to the case, petitioner /as the -a'or of the Municipalit' of Culasi, Anti@ue. As -a'or, her si&nature, both
in the vouchers and in the chec0s issued b' the -unicipalit', /as necessar' to effect pa'-ent to contractors *for &overn-ent
proAects+.
(
$ince the case involved the collection b' <.$. 8a-otin of the -unicipalit'Bs outstandin& obli&ation to the for-er,
the ri&ht of petitioner to intervene in her official capacit' is undisputed. .herefore, ele-ents 1, = and 6 of the offense are
present.
!2
PetitionerBs refutation of her conviction focuses on the evidence appreciated b' the $andi&anba'an establishin& that she
de-anded and received ,&rease -one', in connection /ith the transactionTcontract.
$ection !*b+ penali7es three distinct acts S 1+ de-andin& or re@uestin&G + receivin&G or !+ de-andin&, re@uestin& and
receivin& S an' &ift, present, share, percenta&e, or benefit for oneself or for an' other person, in connection /ith an' contract
or transaction bet/een the &overn-ent and an' other part', /herein a public officer in an official capacit' has to intervene
under the la/. Each of these -odes of co--ittin& the offense is distinct and different fro- one another. Proof of existence of
an' of the- suffices to /arrant conviction.
!1
.he $andi&anba'an vie/ed the case as one, the resolution of /hich hin&ed pri-aril' on the -atter of credibilit'. #t found
$uperficial and her testi-on' /orth' of credence, that petitioner de-anded ,&rease -one', as a condition for the release of
the final pa'-ent to <.$. 8a-otin. Aside fro- the de-and -ade b' petitioner, the $andi&anba'an li0e/ise concluded that,
indeed, she received the ,&rease -one', throu&h Denturan7a. .herefore, petitioner /as convicted both for de-andin& and
receivin& ,&rease -one'.,
?e find no co&ent reason to disturb the aforesaid conclusions.
?ell-settled is the rule that factual findin&s of the $andi&anba'an are conclusive upon this Court
!
save in the follo/in& casesE
1+ the conclusion is a findin& &rounded entirel' on speculation, sur-ise and conAectureG + the inference -ade is -anifestl' an
error or founded on a -ista0eG !+ there is &rave abuse of discretionG =+ the Aud&-ent is based on -isapprehension of factsG 6+
the findin&s of fact are pre-ised on a /ant of evidence and are contradicted b' evidence on recordG
!!
and 3+ said findin&s of
fact are conclusions /ithout citation of specific evidence on /hich the' are based.
!=
.he instant case does not fall under an' of
the fore&oin& exceptions.
.he assess-ent of the credibilit' of a /itness is pri-aril' the function of a trial court, /hich had the benefit of observin&
firsthand the de-eanor or deport-ent of the /itness.
!6
#t is /ithin the discretion of the $andi&anba'an to /ei&h the evidence
presented b' the parties, as /ell as to accord full faith to those it re&ards as credible and reAect those it considers perAurious or
fabricated.
!3
Bet/een the $andi&anba'an and this Court, the for-er /as concededl' in a better position to deter-ine /hether
or not a /itness /as tellin& the truth.
!)
Petitioner contends that it /as i-probable for her to have de-anded the ,&rease -one', fro- $uperficial, /hen she could
have tal0ed directl' to the contractor hi-self. $he insists that $uperficial /as never a part' to the transaction and that En&r.
8a-otin /as the one /ho personall' facilitated the full pa'-ent of the -unicipalit'Bs unpaid obli&ation.
.his contention does not persuade. As held in Preclaro v. $andi&anba'an,
!9
it is irrelevant fro- /ho- petitioner de-anded
her percenta&e share of the proAect cost S /hether fro- the contractor hi-self or fro- the latterBs representative. .hat
petitioner -ade such a de-and is all that is re@uired b' $ection !*b+ of R.A. No. !21(, and this ele-ent has been sufficientl'
established b' the testi-on' of $uperficial.
!(
Not/ithstandin& her clai- that the prosecution failed to present a special po/er of attorne' to sho/ $uperficialBs authorit' to
represent <.$. 8a-otin, petitioner ad-itted that it /as $uperficial *or her husband+ /ho received the three chec0s
representin& full pa'-ent of the -unicipalit'Bs obli&ation. Moreover, althou&h the chec0s /ere issued to <.$. 8a-otin, the
deposit slip sho/ed that the' /ere deposited b' Denturan7a to the account of $uperficial. .hus, contrar' to petitionerBs
contention, the evidence clearl' sho/s that $uperficial /as not a stran&er to the transaction bet/een the -unicipalit' and <.$.
8a-otin, for she, in fact, pla'ed an i-portant role in the receipt of the final pa'-ent of the &overn-entBs obli&ation. #t /as not,
therefore, i-possible for petitioner to have de-anded the ,&rease -one', fro- $uperficial, for after all, it /as the latter /ho
received the proceeds of the final pa'-ent. .his /as bolstered b' the fact that the P13,=22.22 chec0 in the na-e of
Denturan7a /as encashed b' hi- on the sa-e da' that he deposited the three chec0s. #f indeed the a-ount &iven to
69
Denturan7a /as in the for- of a loan to finance his trip to Australia, /h' /as the &rant of the loan dependent on the receipt of
the final pa'-ent to <.$. 8a-otinU
=2
?e cannot fatho- ho/ $uperficial could lend -one' out of the proceeds of the chec0s
/hich ad-ittedl' /ere received b' her not in her o/n capacit' but for and on behalf of another person *<.$. 8a-otin+. .he
onl' plausible explanation is that the a-ount &iven to Denturan7a /as ,&rease -one', ta0en fro- the proceeds of the chec0s
issued b' the -unicipalit'.
#n holdin& that petitioner and Denturan7a conspired in co--ittin& the offense, /e a&ree /ith the $andi&anba'an that the
circu-stances enu-erated above point to the culpabilit' of the accused. Ad-ittedl', there /as no direct evidence sho/in&
that petitioner de-anded and received the -one' but the testi-on' of $uperficial, corroborated b' the docu-entar' evidence
and the ad-issions of the /itnesses for the defense, sufficientl' establishes that Denturan7a received the -one' upon orders
of petitioner.
.he sad realit' in cases of this nature is that no /itness can be called to testif' since no third part' is ordinaril' involved to
/itness the sa-e. Nor-all', the onl' persons present are the ones /ho -ade the de-and and on /ho- the de-and /as
-ade.
=1
#n short, li0e briber', the &iver or briber is usuall' the onl' one /ho can provide direct evidence of the co--ission of
this cri-e.
=
?hile it is true that entrap-ent has been a tried and tested -ethod of trappin& and capturin& felons in the act of
co--ittin& clandestine cri-es
=!
li0e the instant case, /e cannot fault $uperficial in not resortin& to this -ethod because of the
position occupied b' petitioner durin& that ti-e, as /ell as the po/er attached to her office. .his is especiall' true in the instant
case as the person /ho -ade the de-and assi&ned another person to receive the ,&rease -one',G and ordered that the
chec0 be issued in the na-e of another person.
%ne final note. Proof be'ond reasonable doubt does not -ean evidence that /hich produces absolute certaint'G onl' -oral
certaint' is re@uired or that de&ree of proof /hich produces conviction in an unpreAudiced -ind.
==
?e find that such
re@uire-ent has been -et in the instant case.
?1ERE4%RE, pre-ises considered, the petition is hereb' "EN#E" for lac0 of -erit. .he "ecision of the $andi&anba'an
dated 5anuar' 9, 226 in Cri-inal Case No. )=!= is A44#RME".
$% %R"ERE".
Associate 5ustice
?E C%NC;RE
CONSUE0O /NARES&SANTIAGO
Associate 5ustice
Chairperson
MA. A0ICIA AUSTRIA&MARTINE>
Associate 5ustice
5ANTE O. TINGA
X
Associate 5ustice
5IOS5A5O M. PERA0TA
Associate 5ustice
A . . E $ . A . # % N
# attest that the conclusions in the above "ecision /ere reached in consultation before the case /as assi&ned to the /riter of
the opinion of the CourtBs "ivision.
Associate 5ustice
Chairperson, .hird "ivision
C E R . # 4 # C A . # % N
6(
Pursuant to $ection 1!, Article D### of the Constitution and the "ivision ChairpersonKs Attestation, # certif' that the conclusions
in the above "ecision had been reached in consultation before the case /as assi&ned to the /riter of the opinion of the
CourtBs "ivision.
RE/NATO S. PUNO
Chief 5ustice
SUPREME COURT
Manila
$EC%N" "#D#$#%N
G.R. No7. 16FIF8&F@ October 2I, 200I
MA5E0EINE MEN5O>A&ONG, petitioner,
vs.
HON. SAN5IGAN:A/AN ", PEOP0E O4 THE PHI0IPPINES, respondents.
R E $ % < ; . # % N
?UISUM:ING, J.:
.his special civil action for certiorari assails $andi&anba'an Resolution
1
dated Ma' 9, 222, den'in& petitionerBs Motion to
Nuash
the #nfor-ation in Cri-inal Case No. !9=9, for violation of $ection !*c+ of R.A. No. !21(,
!
as a-ended. Petitioner
also i-pu&ns said courtBs Resolution
=
dated Nove-ber (, 222, den'in& her Motion for Reconsideration.
.he facts of the case, as culled fro- the records, are as follo/sE
$o-eti-e in 4ebruar' 1((!, the $an&&unian& Ba'an of <aoan&, Northern $a-ar, passed Resolution No. (!-1!,
6
authori7in&
the -unicipalit' to borro/ heav' e@uip-ent fro- the Philippine Ar-'Bs 6!rd En&ineerin& Battalion, to be utili7ed in the
i-prove-ent of <aoan&Bs Bus .er-inal. Resolution No. (!-1! li0e/ise -andated the -unicipal &overn-ent to shoulder the
expenses for fuel, oil, and the subsistence allo/ances of the heav' e@uip-ent operators for the duration of the proAect.
Alle&edl', ho/ever, the borro/ed Ar-' e@uip-ent /as diverted b' the petitioner, /ho /as then the to/n -a'or
3
of <aoan&, to
develop so-e of her private properties in Ra/is, <aoan&, Northern $a-ar. A concerned citi7en and ex--e-ber of the
$an&&unian& Ba'an of <aoan&, 5uanito 8. Poso, $r., filed a co-plaint a&ainst petitioner and nine *(+ other -unicipal
officers
)
/ith the %ffice of the %-buds-an *%MB+, Disa'as, for violation of the Anti-8raft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Actin& on the co-plaint, 8raft #nvesti&ation %fficer Alfonso $. $ar-iento of the %MB ordered herein petitioner and her co-
accused to sub-it their respective counter-affidavits and other controvertin& evidence. .hereafter, in a Resolution
9
dated
Au&ust 13, 1((6, investi&ator $ar-iento reco--ended the filin& of the appropriate cri-inal action a&ainst petitioner for
violation of $ections !*c+ and *e+ of R.A. !21(, as a-ended.
(
"espite strenuous opposition and obAections b' the defense, on
Au&ust 1, 1((), t/o infor-ations /ere filed a&ainst her at the $andi&anba'an doc0eted as Cri-inal Cases Nos. !9=) and
!9=9, to /itE
*1+ Cri-inal Case No. !9=)
.hat on or about 16 4ebruar' 1((!, or so-eti-e thereafter, in the Municipalit' of <aoan&, Northern $a-ar, Philippines, and
/ithin the Aurisdiction of this 1onorable Court, accused Madeleine Mendo7a-%n&, a public officer, bein& then the Municipal
Ma'or of <aoan&, co--ittin& the cri-e herein char&ed in relation to, /hile in the perfor-ance and ta0in& advanta&e of her
official functions, did then and there /illfull', unla/full' and cri-inall', throu&h -anifest partialit' and evident bad faith, cause
32
undue inAur' to the 8overn-ent and &ive un/arranted benefits, advanta&e or preference to herself and spouses Mr. and Mrs.
Chupo <ao /hen she, in the dischar&e of her official or ad-inistrative functions, caused the i-prove-ent or develop-ent of
her private land in Baran&a' Ra/is throu&h the use of the e@uip-ent and resources of the Philippine Ar-', to the da-a&e and
preAudice of the 8overn-ent.
C%N.RAR> .% <A?.
12
.his, ho/ever, /as a-ended on %ctober ), 1((9, so that Cri-inal Case No. !9=) /ould read as follo/sE
official functions, did then and there /illfull', unla/full' and cri-inall', throu&h -anifest partialit' and evident bad faith, cause
undue inAur' to the 8overn-ent and &ive un/arranted benefits, advanta&e or preference to her husband, 1ector %n&, herself,
andTor her fa-il' and tospouses Mr. and Mrs. Chupo <ao /hen she, in the dischar&e of her official or ad-inistrative functions,
caused the i-prove-ent or develop-ent of a private land o/ned b' her husband, 1ector %n&, herself andTor her fa-il'in
Baran&a' Ra/is throu&h the use of the e@uip-ent and resources of the Philippine Ar-', to the da-a&e and preAudice of the
8overn-ent.
C%N.RAR> .% <A?.
11
*+ Cri-inal Case No. !9=9
official functions, did then and there /illfull', unla/full' and cri-inall', re@uest or receive, directl' or indirectl', a &ift, present or
other pecuniar' or -aterial benefit in the for- of five *6+ dru-s of diesel fuel, for herself or for another fro- the spouses Mr.
and Mrs. Chupo <ao, persons for /ho- accused Mendo7a-%n&, in an' -anner or capacit', has secured or obtained, or /ill
secure or obtain, an' Municipal 8overn-ent per-it or license anent the operation of the bus co-pan', 5B <ines, o/ned b'
the aforena-ed spouses, in consideration for the help &iven or to be &iven b' the accused.
C%N.RAR> .% <A?.
1
%n $epte-ber 16, 1(((, petitioner filed a Motion to Nuash /ith the $andi&anba'an alle&in& in the -ain thatE *1+ the
infor-ations especiall' in Cri-inal Case No. !9=9, failed to alle&e facts constitutin& an offenseG *+ that the officer /ho filed
the infor-ation has no authorit' to do soG and *!+ that the accused /as deprived of her ri&ht to due process and to the speed'
disposition of cases a&ainst her.
%n Ma' 9, 222, the $andi&anba'an denied petitionerBs Motion to Nuash.$a9#hi$.nBt Petitioner dul' -oved for
reconsideration but this /as li0e/ise denied b' the $andi&anba'an in its order dated Nove-ber (, 222.
1ence, the instant petition /ith assi&ned errors faultin& respondent court as follo/sE
#. RE$P%N"EN. C%;R. AC.E" ?#.1 8RADE AB;$E %4 "#$CRE.#%N AM%;N.#N8 .% <AC: %4 5;R#$"#C.#%N
?1EN #. 4A#<E" .% "#$M#$$ .1E #N4%RMA.#%N$ 4#<E" A8A#N$. PE.#.#%NER ?1#C1 C<EAR<> "% N%. A<<E8E
$;44#C#EN. 4AC.$ C%N$.#.;.#N8 .1E %44EN$E 1ENCE 4A#<#N8 .% A<<E8E A PR#MA 4AC#E CA$E A8A#N$.
PE.#.#%NER, ACC;$E" .1ERE#N.
##. RE$P%N"EN. C%;R. AC.E" ?#.1 8RADE AB;$E %4 "#$CRE.#%N ?1EN #. "EN#E" PE.#.#%NERB$ M%.#%N .%
N;A$1 .1E #N4%RMA.#%N$ 4#<E" B> AN %44#CER ?1% 1A$ N% A;.1%R#.> .% "% $% AN" "E$P#.E .1E 4AC.
.1A. .1E 1EA" %4 .1E PR%$EC;.#%N "#D#$#%N %4 RE$P%N"EN. C%;R. 1A" REC%MMEN"E" .1E "#$M#$$A<
%4 $A#" CA$E$.
###. RE$P%N"EN. C%;R. AC.E" ?#.1 8RADE AB;$E %4 "#$CRE.#%N ?1EN #. RE4;$E" .% "#$M#$$ .1E
#N4%RMA.#%N$ A8A#N$. ACC;$E" ?1% 1A" BEEN "EPR#DE" %4 ";E PR%CE$$ AN" $PEE"> "E.ERM#NA.#%N
%4 .1E CA$E #N C<EAR "#$RE8AR" %4 .1#$ 1%N%RAB<E C%;R.B$ R;<#N8$ .1A. #N%R"#NA.E "E<A> #N .1E
C%N";C. %4 PRE<#M#NAR> #NDE$.#8A.#%N$ ?%;<" ?ARRAN. "#$M#$$A< %4 .1E CA$E.
1!
31
$i-pl' put, /e find that the sole issue for resolution no/ is /hether the Sandiganbayan &ravel' erred or &ravel' abused its
discretion in den'in& the Motion to Nuash filed b' petitioner, particularl' on the &round that the infor-ation in Cri-inal Case
No. !9=9 does not constitute an offense. .he other assi&ned errors are, in our vie/, /ithout sufficient -erit and deserve no
further consideration.
Petitioner clai-s that in a cri-inal prosecution for violation of $ection !*c+ of R.A. !21( as a-ended, the la/ re@uires that the
&ift received should be ,-anifestl' excessive, as defined b' $ection *c+ of the sa-e Act. $he adds that it is i-perative to
specif' the exact value of the five dru-s of diesel fuel alle&edl' received b' Ma'or %n& as public officer to deter-ine /hether
such is ,-anifestl' excessive, under the circu-stances.
1=
.he funda-ental test of the viabilit' of a -otion to @uash on the &round that the facts averred in the infor-ation do not a-ount
to an offense is /hether the facts alle&ed /ould establish the essential ele-ents of the cri-e as defined b' la/. #n this
exa-ination, -atters aliunde are not considered.
16
Petitioner is char&ed specificall' /ith violation of $ection !*c+ of Republic Act No. !21(, as a-ended. .he pertinent portions of
said la/ provideE
SEC. I. $orrupt practices of public officers. S #n addition to acts or o-issions of public officers alread' penali7ed b'
existin& la/, the follo/in& shall constitute corrupt practices of an' public officer and are hereb' declared to be unla/fulE
Y
*c+ "irectl' or indirectl' re@uestin& or receivin& an' &ift, present or other pecuniar' or -aterial benefit, for hi-self or for
another, fro- an' person for /ho- the public officer, in an' -anner or capacit', has secured or obtained, or /ill secure or
obtain, an' 8overn-ent per-it or license, in consideration for the help &iven or to be &iven, /ithout preAudice to $ection
thirteen of this Act.
Y
Based on the fore&oin&, the ele-ents of the offense char&ed in the assailed infor-ation are as follo/sE *1+ the offender is a
public officerG *+ he has secured or obtained, or /ould secure or obtain, for a person an' &overn-ent per-it or licenseG *!+ he
directl' or indirectl' re@uested or received fro- said person an' &ift, present or other pecuniar' or -aterial benefit for hi-self
or for anotherG and *=+ he re@uested or received the &ift, present or other pecuniar' or -aterial benefit in consideration for help
&iven or to be &iven.
13
#n the instant case, /e find that the infor-ation in Cri-. Case No. !9=9 alle&ed thatE *1+ accused Madeleine Mendo7a-%n&, a
public officer, bein& then the Municipal Ma'or of <aoan&, *+ co--itted the cri-e char&ed in relation to, /hile in the
perfor-ance and ta0in& advanta&e of her official functions, *!+ did re@uest or receive directl' or indirectl', a &ift, present or
other pecuniar' or -aterial benefit in the for- of five dru-s of diesel fuel, for herself or for another, fro- spouses Mr. and Mrs.
Chupo <ao, persons for /ho- accused Mendo7a-%n&, *=+ has secured or obtained, or /ill secure or obtain, a Municipal
8overn-ent per-it or license anent the operation of the bus co-pan', 5B <ines, o/ned b' said spouses, in consideration for
help &iven or to be &iven b' the accused. After considerin& thorou&hl' this aver-ent as for-ulated b' the prosecution, /e are
not prepared to sa' that the i-pu&ned infor-ation o-itted an ele-ent needed to ade@uatel' char&e a violation of $ection !*c+
of R.A. !21(.
Petitioner pleads that the pertinent statute -ust be read in its entiret'. $he ar&ues that a provision of R.A. !21( such as
$ection !*c+ -ust be interpreted in li&ht of all other provisions, particularl' the definition of ,receivin& an' &ift,, under $ection
*a+ thereof, /hich reads as follo/sE
SEC. 2. 'efinition of terms.- As used in this Act, the ter- S
Y
*c+ ,Receivin& an' &ift, includes the act of acceptin& directl' or indirectl' a &ift fro- a person other than a -e-ber of the public
officerBs i--ediate fa-il', in behalf of hi-self or of an' -e-ber of his fa-il' or relative /ithin the fourth civil de&ree, either b'
consan&uinit' or affinit', even on the occasion of a fa-il' celebration or national festivit' li0e Christ-as, if the value of the &ift
is under the circu-stances -anifestl' excessive.
3
Y
Petitioner contends that pursuant to her readin& of the above provision, the value of the alle&ed &ift -ust be specified in the
infor-ation. But note that $ection *c+ abovecited -entions a situation /here *1+ the value of the &ift is -anifestl' excessiveG
*+ fro- a person /ho is not a -e-ber of the public officerBs i--ediate fa-il'G and *!+ even on the occasion of a fa-il'
celebration or national festivit'.
#n contrast, $ection ! *c+ earlier @uoted in the present case applies re&ardless of /hether the &iftBs value is -anifestl'
excessive or not, and re&ardless of the occasion. ?hat is i-portant here, in our vie/, is /hether the &ift is received in
consideration for help &iven or to be &iven b' the public officer. .he value of the &ift is not -entioned at all as an essential
ele-ent of the offense char&ed under $ection ! *c+, and there appears no need to re@uire the prosecution to specif' such
value in order to co-pl' /ith the re@uire-ents of sho/in& a #rima !acie case.
Evidentl' the le&islature is a/are that in i-ple-entin& R.A. !21(, it /ill be precedents that /ill &uide the court on the issue of
/hat is or /hat is not -anifestl' excessive.
1)
#n su-, /e are constrained to rule that respondent court did not co--it &rave abuse of discretion a-ountin& to lac0 or excess
of Aurisdiction, -uch less did it &ravel' err, in den'in& petitionerBs -otion to @uash the infor-ation filed a&ainst her in Cri-inal
Case No. !9=9. .his rulin&, ho/ever, is /ithout preAudice to the actual -erits of this cri-inal case as -a' be sho/n durin&
trial before the court a 7uo.
?1ERE4%RE, the petition is hereb' "#$M#$$E". .he assailed resolutions of the Sandiganbayan in Cri-inal Case No. !9=9
are A44#RME". No pronounce-ent as to costs.
$% %R"ERE".
Bellosillo, *Chair-an+, Austria-Martine7, CalleAo, $r., and .in&a, 55., concur.
SUPREME COURT
Manila
4IRST 5I3ISION
G.R. No. 1F7278 4ebr%"r8 27, 2008
ATT/. GI0 A. 3A0ERA, CPA&0C:, 5e-%t8 Co++9779oer, Re=e%e Co##ect9o Mo9tor9. Gro%-, :%re"% o$
C%7to+7, petitioner,
vs.
3!
O44ICE O4 THE OM:U5SMAN, re-. b8 Ho. OR0AN5O C. CASIMIRO, 5e-%t8 O+b%,7+" $or t!e ", M9#9t"r8 Ot!er
0"' E$orce+et O$$9ce7 )MO0EO*, 9 !97 c"-"c9t8 "7 Act9. O+b%,7+"C PNP&CI5G, re-. b8 59rector Geer"#
E,%"r,o S. M"t9##"o )-%b#9c co+-#"9"t*C ATT/. A5O04O CASARENO )-r9="te co+-#"9"t*C Ho. CESAR 3.
PURISIMA, Secret"r8 o$ 49"ce, 5e-"rt+et o$ 49"ceC Ho. A0:ERTO 5. 0INA, Co++9779oer o$ C%7to+7, :%re"%
o$ C%7to+7C Ho. RO:ERTO 5. GEOTINA, 5e-%t8 Co++9779oer $or Iter"# A,+997tr"t9o Gro%-, :%re"% o$
C%7to+7C ", HONORA:0E COURT O4 APPEA0S)4o%rt! 59=979o*, respondents.
5 E C I S I O N
PUNO, $.J.:
Public office is a public trust.
1
Public officers and e-plo'ees -ust at all ti-es be accountable to the people, serve the- /ith
ut-ost responsibilit', inte&rit', lo'alt' and efficienc', and act /ith patriotis- and Austice, and lead -odest lives.
?ith the
nu-erous ills and ne&ative perception surroundin& the revenue collection a&encies of the &overn-ent, this -andate of our
funda-ental la/ beco-es all the -ore relevant to the present petition. Petitioner, a "eput' Co--issioner of the Bureau of
Custo-s, see0s to reverse and set aside the "ecision
!
rendered b' the Court of Appeals /hich affir-ed the "ecision
=
of the
%ffice of the "eput' %-buds-an for the Militar' and other <a/ Enforce-ent %ffices *%MB-M%<E%+ findin& hi- &uilt' of
&rave -isconduct, and decreein& his dis-issal fro- the service /ith all the accessor' penalties appertainin& thereto.
.he records sho/ that petitioner 8il A. Dalera /as appointed b' President 8loria Macapa&al Arro'o as "eput' Co--issioner
of Custo-s in char&e of the Revenue Collection Monitorin& 8roup on 5ul' 1!, 221. 1e too0 his oath of office on Au&ust !,
221, and assu-ed his post on Au&ust ) of the sa-e 'ear.
%n "ece-ber 1, 221, he filed in the Re&ional .rial Court *R.C+ of Manila, for and on behalf of the Bureau of Custo-s, a
collection case /ith pra'er for the issuance of a /rit of preli-inar' attach-ent for the collection of P!),1(6,96(.22 in unpaid
duties and taxes a&ainst $teel Asia Manufacturin& Corporation *$AMC+, /hich utili7ed fraudulent tax credit certificates in the
pa'-ent of its duties. .he case, doc0eted as Civil Case No. 21-1262=, /as raffled off to Branch !( of the R.C of Manila.
%n 5anuar' 13, 22, a /rit of preli-inar' attach-ent /as issued a&ainst $AMC in the afore-entioned case. .he /rit /as
dul' i-ple-ented and the ra/ -aterials, finished products and plant e@uip-ent of $AMC /ere subse@uentl' attached.
Petitioner and $AMC entered into a co-pro-ise a&ree-ent /herein the latter offered to pa' on a sta&&ered basis throu&h
thirt' *!2+ -onthl' e@ual install-ents the P!),1(6,96(.22 duties and taxes sou&ht to be collected in the civil case.
%n Au&ust 2, 22!, the "irector of the Cri-inal #nvesti&ation and "etention 8roup of the Philippine National Police, Eduardo
Matillano, filed a letter-co-plaint a&ainst petitioner /ith the %-buds-an, /hich readsE
#nvesti&ation conducted disclosed that Att'. 8il A. Dalera /as appointed as "eput' Co--issioner, Bureau of
Custo-s b' the President on 5ul' 1!, 221, too0 his oath on Au&ust 2!, 221 and assu-ed his post on Au&ust 2),
221.
%n 5anuar' !2, 22, /hile in the perfor-ance of his official functions, Att'. 8il A. Dalera had co-pro-ised the case
a&ainst the $teel Asia Manufacturin& Corporation in Civil Case No. 21-1262= before Branch !(, R.C Manila /ithout
proper authorit' fro- the Co--issioner of the Bureau of Custo-s in violation of $ection !13 .CCP *Authorit' of the
Co--ission to -a0e Co-pro-ise+ and /ithout the approval of the President, in violation of Executive %rder No. 163
and Executive %rder No. !9. $uch ille&al acts of Att'. 8il A. Dalera indeed caused undue inAur' to the &overn-ent b'
havin& deprived the &overn-ent of its ri&ht to collect the #e."# 9tere7t, 7%rc!"r.e7, #9t9."t9o
e<-e7e7 and ,"+".e7and &ave the $teel Asia un/arranted benefits in the total uncollected a-ount
of 4OURTEEN MI00ION SE3EN HUN5RE5 SI2T/ TWO THOUSAN5 4OUR HUN5RE5 SI2T/ SE3EN PESOS
AN5 SE3ENT/ CENTA3OS *P1=,)3,=3).)2+, /hich is violative of $ections !*e+ and *&+ respectivel' of RA !21(.
4urther investi&ation disclosed that Att'. 8il A. Dalera /hile bein& a Bureau of Custo-s official directl' and indirectl'
had financial or pecuniar' interest in the CAC.;$ CAR8%E$ $>$.EM$ a bro0era&e /hose line of business or
transaction, in connection /ith /hich, he intervenes or ta0es part in his official capacit' b' /a' of causin& the
e-plo'-ent of his brother-in-la/, Ariel Manon&do, thus, violatin& !*h+ of RA !21( and RA 3)1! and $ection =, RA
!21( as a&ainst Ariel Manon&do.
3=
4inall', investi&ation also disclosed that on April 1, 22 Att'. 8il A. Dalera traveled to 1on&0on& /ith his fa-il'
/ithout proper authorit' fro- the office of the President in violation of Executive %rder No. (9 *forei&n travel of
&overn-ent personnel+ dated Ma' 1(, 1((6, thus, he co--itted an ad-inistrative offense of 8rave Misconduct.
6
.he ad-inistrative aspect of the co-plaint /as doc0eted as %MB-C-A-2!-2!)(-5. %n Nove-ber 1, 22!, then %-buds-an
$i-eon D. Marcelo issued a Me-orandu-
3
to $pecial Prosecutor "ennis M. Dilla-#&nacio, inhibitin& hi-self fro- the cases
a&ainst the petitioner, and directin& the latter to act in his stead and place. Actin& pursuant to this authorit', $pecial Prosecutor
Dilla-#&nacio -ade the findin& that b' enterin& into the co-pro-ise a&ree-ent, petitioner -a' have -ade concessions that
-a' be dee-ed hi&hl' preAudicial to the &overn-ent,i.e., /aiver of the le&al interest and the penalt' char&es i-posed b' la/,
as /ell as the virtual exoneration of $AMC of its fraudulent act of usin& spurious tax credit certificates. 1e issued an
%rder
)
placin& petitioner on preventive suspension for six *3+ -onths /ithout pa' pendin& ad-inistrative investi&ation on the
-atter.
%n March 1(, 22=, the petitioner filed his -otion for reconsideration of the preventive suspension order. ;pon the lapse of
the period
9
/ithin /hich the $pecial Prosecutor, as actin& %-buds-an, should have resolved the -otion for reconsideration,
petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Court of Appeals on March (, 22=, doc0eted as CA-8.R.
$P No. 9!2(1 and raffled off to the $pecial 4irst "ivision.
%n 5une 1=, 22=, $pecial Prosecutor Dilla-#&nacio inhibited hi-self fro- the cases of herein petitioner in vie/ of a co-plaint
filed b' the latter a&ainst hi-. %MB-C-A-2!-2!)(-5 /as next assi&ned to the %MB-M%<E%, represented b' respondent
%rlando C. Casi-iro.
%n 5une 6, 22=, the $pecial 4irst "ivision of the Court of Appeals rendered a "ecision
(
settin& aside the preventive
suspension order of $pecial Prosecutor Dilla-#&nacio and directin& hi- to desist fro- ta0in& an' further action in %MB-C-A-2!-
2!)(-5. #n so rulin&, the appellate court held -ainl' that $pecial Prosecutor Dilla-#&nacio /as not authori7ed b' la/ to si&n and
issue preventive suspension orders.
.he %MB-M%<E% perfected an appeal fro- this decision on 5ul' 13, 22=. .he appeal, doc0eted as 8.R. No. 13=62, /as
raffled off to the $econd "ivision of this Court, and /as eventuall' elevated motu #ro#rio to the Court En Banc.
#n the -eanti-e, the adAudication of %MB-C-A-2!-2!)(-5 continued and the respondent "eput' %-buds-an issued a
"ecision
12
findin& the petitioner ad-inistrativel' liable for &rave -isconduct and decreein& his dis-issal fro- the service, /ith
all the accessor' penalties appertainin& thereto. #t /as found that petitioner co--itted &rave -isconduct based on the
follo/in& char&esE
*i+ co-pro-isin& the case a&ainst $AMC in Civil Case No. 21-1262= before Branch !(, R.C Manila, /ithout proper
authorit' fro- the Co--issioner of the Bureau of Custo-s in violation of $ection !13
11
of the .ariff and Custo-s
Code, and /ithout the approval of the President in violation of $ection =*d+ of Executive %rder *E.%.+ No. 163 as
a-ended b' E.%. No. !9G
1
*ii+ causin& the e-plo'-ent of his brother-in-la/ /ith the Cactus Car&oes $'ste-s, #nc. /hose principal business
involves transactions /ith the Bureau of Custo-s in violation of $ection !*d+ of Republic Act *R.A.+ No. !21(G
1!
and
*iii+ travelin& to 1on&0on& /ithout confor-in& /ith the &uidelines on the application to travel abroad for private
purposes of public officials.
1=
.he petitioner @uestioned this decision before the Court of Appeals, via a petition for revie/, and the case /as raffled off to the
=
th
"ivision and doc0eted as CA 8.R. $P. No. 9391.
.he =
th
"ivision of the Court of Appeals refrained fro- rulin& on the first char&e a&ainst the petitioner in deference to this Court
in 8.R. No. 13=62. #t ho/ever found enou&h evidence to substantiate the second and third char&es and issued and
pro-ul&ated its assailed decision affir-in& the decision of respondent "eput' %-buds-an findin& petitioner &uilt' of &rave
-isconduct. #t held as follo/sE
After careful consideration of the -atter, this Court finds it -ore prudent to defer fro- decidin& the -atters raised in
connection /ith the first &round raised b' petitioner in deference to the $upre-e Court /hich is no/ tac0lin& the ver'
sa-e issues. Respondents the-selves ar&ued thatE
36
,Needless to state, the %ffice of the %-buds-an lost no ti-e in brin&in& the fore&oin& -atters to the
attention of the 1onorable $upre-e Court in a petition for revie/ *8.R. No. 13=62+. $ince then, the
$upre-e Court has motu #ro#rio elevated the case fro- the $econd "ivision to the Court En
Banc, apparentl' because of the serious nature of the issues raised a&ainst the honorable $pecial 4irst
"ivision., *Rollo, p. (+
#t should also be considered that a rulin& of the $upre-e Court on the applicabilit' of $ection !13 of the .CC is
deter-inative of the existence of a basis to the char&es -ade a&ainst petitioner.
Co-in& no/ to the second &round raised, petitioner asserted that the respondents erred in findin& hi- liable for the
e-plo'-ent of his brother-in-la/ Ariel N. Manon&do /ith CC$#, clai-in& that there is no evidence that he had an'
participation in the e-plo'-ent of said brother-in-la/, to /itE
,But, nothin& is contained in the decision under revie/, particularl' under the headin& Kevidence for the
co-plainantK, /hich sho/s that petitioner did an'thin& or perfor-ed an' act or participated in an' /a',
directl' or indirectl', in the e-plo'-ent of his brother-in-la/, Ariel N. Manon&do, /ith CC$#. $i-pl' put, the
findin& of fact is also a conclusion of la/ /ith no fact or iota of evidence to support the discussion and
conclusion in the decision under revie/., *Rollo, p. =9+
Respondents countered that petitioner not onl' used his ,official ascendanc', *Rollo, p. !=9+ to cause the
e-plo'-ent of his brother-in-la/ /ith CC$#, but the' further clai-ed that the Aoint-affidavit *Rollo, pp. 99-(!+ of the
ele-ents of the Cri-inal #nvesti&ation "etection 8roup *C#"8+ sho/ed that petitioner /as a co-o/ner of CC$# as
sho/n b' the fact that he invited his close friends and relatives to the blessin& of the bro0era&e fir-. .he relevant
portion of said Aoint-affidavit stated thatE
,1. 4urther, durin& the conduct of our surveillance on the lifest'le of Att'. Dalera, /e received infor-ation
that he has sent text -essa&es to his close friends and relatives for the blessin& of his bro0era&e. .he text
of the -essa&e is as follo/s, K%N ?E", #ND#.E :% :A>% $A B<E$$#N8 N8 BR%:ERA8E :%. R%%M
32=, 8<C Bld&., .M :A<A? cor MAB#N# 3 .% 9 PM.K
1!. Att'. 8il A. DaleraKs visitors /ere -ostl' his class-ates fro- Ra-on Ma&sa'sa' Cubao 1i&h $chool. 1e
&ave our asset his professional card *Annex K!6K+G
1=. %ur investi&ation disclosed that the 8<C Bld&. is o/ned b' a certain Mr. 8ERAR"% <. C%N.RERA$.
Accordin& to Ms. 5ENN#E E$8;ERRA, the buildin& ad-inistrator, part' on the 3
th
4loor /as the
inau&uration of the CAC.;$ CAR8%E$ $>$.EM$ represented b' its Mar0etin& Coordinator, Mr. AR#E<
M%N%N8"% *sic+. %ur infor-ation /as that Monon&do is the brother-in-la/ of Att'. Dalera. Attached are
the $EC Re&istration of Cactus Car&o #nc., *Annex K!3K+ and the Contract of <ease si&ned b' Mr. Ariel
Monon&do the Mar0etin& Mana&er of Cactus /ith the buildin& ad-inistrator *Annex K!)K+., *Rollo, pp. (1-(+
Respondents also asserted that CC$# is a custo-s bro0era&e fir- /hich necessaril' deals on a re&ular basis /ith
petitionerKs office, -ore particularl'E
,.he Code of Conduct and Ethical $tandards *R.A. No. 3)1!+, under $ection ), subpar. *b+*!+ thereof, is
ver' specific in cri-inali7in& the act of K*r+eco--end*in&+ an' person to an' position in a private enterprise
/hich has a re&ular or pendin& official transaction /ith their office.K %n the other hand, $ection ! *d+ of the
Anti 8raft and Corrupt Practices Act *sic+ *R.A. No. !21(+ punishes as cri-inal offense a public officerKs act
of K*a+cceptin& or havin& an' -e-ber of his fa-il' accept e-plo'-ent in a private enterprise /hich has
pendin& official business /ith hi- durin& the pendenc' thereof or /ithin one 'ear after its ter-ination.,
*Rollo, pp. !=(-!62+
Parentheticall', petitioner also ar&ued that this char&e /as also held b' the $pecial 4irst "ivision to be ,too trivial,.
1o/ever, the Court considers that state-ent to have been -ade in relation to the @uestion of /hether or not the
deput' o-buds-an had the po/er to order petitionerKs preventive suspension. .hat is, that state-ent should not be
read to be a disposition of the @uestion on the -erits.
No/, to dispose of the -atter, it should be noted that the findin&s of the respondent "eput' %-buds-an re&ardin&
the second char&e /as based on t/o *+ &roundsE first, the alle&ed act of usin& petitionerKs influence to obtain
33
e-plo'-ent for his brother-in-la/ and, second, the -ere fact of e-plo'-ent of his brother-in-la/ in a co-pan' /hich
has re&ular business /ith petitionerKs office.
?hile the evidence re&ardin& the alle&ed use of influence b' the petitioner to cause the e-plo'-ent of his brother-in-
la/ -a'be a little tenuous, the Court finds basis to the second &round. .he Court notes that petitioner did not den'
that CC$# has re&ular transactions /ith his office. Neither did he den' that Ariel Monon&do is his brother-in-la/.
;nder $ection !*d+ of R.A. No. !21(, as a-ended, -ere acceptance b' a -e-ber of his fa-il' of e-plo'-ent /ith a
private enterprise /hich has pendin& official business /ith the official involved is considered a corrupt practice. #t is
clear, therefore, that -ere acceptance b' Ariel Manon&do, a fa-il' -e-ber, of the e-plo'-ent /ith CC$# rendered
petitioner liable under the la/. .he Court, therefore, a&rees /ith respondent "eput' %-buds-an /hen he held thatE
,Moreover, the Anti-8raft and Corrupt Practices Act *R.A. !21(+ prohibits the public officerKs act of acceptin&
or havin& an' -e-ber of his fa-il' accept e-plo'-ent in a private enterprise /hich has pendin& official
business /ith hi- durin& the pendenc' thereof or /ithin one 'ear after its ter-ination. Ariel N. Manon&do,
as brother-in-la/ of respondent Dalera falls s@uarel' /ithin the definition of fa-il' under $ection = of the
sa-e la/., *Rollo, p. )2+
Co-in& no/ to the -atter of his travel to 1on&0on& /hich is the subAect -atter of the third obAection raised b'
petitioner, he first ar&ued that his constitutional ri&ht to be infor-ed of the char&es a&ainst hi- had been violated. 1e
asserted that /hile the Matillano Co-plaint char&ed hi- /ith violatin& E.%. No. )9, the @uestioned "ecision /as
based on E.%. No. !(.
.he Court does not a&ree /ith this assertion. #t should be re-e-bered that the present case is an ad-inistrative
case /hile $ection 1= of Art. ! of the 1(9) Constitution refers strictl' to cri-inal prosecution. $aid Constitutional
provision readsE
,$EC.#%N 1=. *1+ No person shall be held to ans/er for a cri-inal offense /ithout due process of la/. *+ #n
all cri-inal prosecutions, the accused shall be presu-ed innocent until the contrar' is proved, and shall
enAo' the ri&ht to be heard b' hi-self and counsel, to be infor-ed of the nature and cause of the accusation
a&ainst hi-, to have a speed', i-partial, and public trial, to -eet the /itnesses face to face, and to have
co-pulsor' process to secure the attendance of /itnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
1o/ever, after arrai&n-ent, trial -a' proceed not/ithstandin& the absence of the accused provided that he
has been dul' notified and his failure to appear is unAustifiable.,
#t is /ell-settled that in an ad-inistrative case, due process is served /hen the respondent /as &iven an opportunit'
to be heard *Ctto v. Comelec, !)6 $CRA 6! H22I+. #n the instant case, petitioner cannot den' that he /as &iven all
the opportunit' to present his side of the stor'. .hus, the Court a&rees /ith respondents /hen the' ar&uedE
,#t is, thus, unfortunate that instead of de-onstratin& that he either co-plied /ith the re@uire-ent of
presidential authorit' to travel that petitioner, as a la/'er, presu-abl' 0no/s to have existed *sic+, or that he
/as le&iti-atel' exe-pted therefro-, petitioner instead resorted to the unavailin& technicalit' that the
co-plaint did not properl' identif' b' the correct nu-ber HtheI E% in point. Petitioner invo0es the ri&ht to be
infor-ed of char&es a&ainst an accused /hich, needless to state, has specific application to cri-inal
char&es. Needlessl', ho/ever, even in cri-inal cases, /hat -atters is not the title of the la/ violated but
rather the alle&ations of acts constitutin& a cri-e. #n his case, the alle&ation in the co-plaint /as si-pl' that
petitioner did not co-pl' /ith the re@uire-ent for presidential authorit' to travel abroad. #t certainl' full'
infor-ed hi- of his infraction. After the issue /as Aoined on such factual alle&ation, identif'in& and enforcin&
the applicable la/ b' the public respondent si-pl' follo/ed as part and parcel of its @uasi-Audicial function.,
*Rollo, p. !6+
.urnin& no/ to his defense that his forei&n travel should not be ta0en a&ainst hi- because at the ti-e he -ade the
travel /ith his fa-il', he /as a private citi7en because he /as prevented b' a te-porar' restrainin& order issued b'
this Court in CA-8.R. $P No. 3(966 *in the case entitled Ros@ueta versus 1on. 5ud&e 5uan Nabon&+ fro- assu-in&
office and fro- dispossessin& then "eput' Co--issioner Ros@ueta of the position of "eput' Co--issioner.
.he Court cannot subscribe to this ar&u-ent. ;nder the theor' proposed b' petitioner, there /as in effect
an interegnum as to his &overn-ent service durin& the effectivit' of the .R%. But it cannot be denied that once CA-
8.R. $P No. 3(966 /as decided and petitioner /as allo/ed to assu-e his position, the effectivit' of his appoint-ent
retroacted to the ori&inal date of appoint-ent. ?hile the te-porar' restrainin& order /as in effect, he nevertheless
3)
continued to assert on his ri&ht to the office. .he Court also notes that petitioner did not even present an' evidence to
sho/ that he had dissociated hi-self fro- the office at the ti-e in @uestion. As pointed out b' the respondentsK
Co--entE
,4or that -atter, petitioner cannot clai- that he suffered a &ap in his public service durin& the period
covered b' the so-called .R%. 1e certainl' /as not dissociated fro- office durin& such period. 1e continued
to be a public officer, not/ithstandin&, such that the application on hi- of the presidential authorit' to travel
can not be dee-ed to have been then suspended., *Rollo, p. !63+
x x x
#n fine, /hile the Court refrained fro- tac0lin& the first char&e a&ainst petitioner, the Court finds that as to the second
and third char&es, respondent "eput' %-buds-an did not err in findin& petitioner &uilt' of &rave -isconduct.
16
%n $epte-ber !2, 226, /ithout &oin& into the issue of petitionerKs &uilt, the Court En Banc rendered a decision in 8.R. No.
13=62 rulin& that the po/er to place a public officer or e-plo'ee under preventive suspension pendin& an investi&ation is
lod&ed onl' /ith the %-buds-an or the "eput' %-buds-en and affir-ed the nullification and settin& aside b' the appellate
court of the preventive suspension order of the $pecial Prosecutor.
Petitioner no/ co-es before us pra'in& that he be absolved of the char&es a&ainst hi- and that the decision of the =
th
"ivision
of the Court of Appeals /hich effectivel' affir-ed the decision of the %MB-M%<E% be annulled and set aside.
?e shall no/ put a finis to this controvers' that has ra&ed bitterl' for the past several -onths and shun further dela' so as to
ensure that this case /ould reall' attain finalit' and resolve /hether petitioner is &uilt' of &rave -isconduct in connection /ith
ad-inistrative case %MB-C-A-2!-2!)(-5.
4irst, /e discuss the definition of &rave -isconduct as established b' AurisprudenceE
Misconduct is a trans&ression of so-e established and definite rule of action, -ore particularl', unla/ful behavior or &ross
ne&li&ence b' a public officer.
13
.he -isconduct is &rave if it involves an' of the additional ele-ents of corruption, /illful intent
to violate the la/ or disre&ard of established rules, /hich -ust be proved b' substantial evidence.
1)
At the onset, the Court /ould li0e to point out that in an ad-inistrative proceedin&, the @uantu- of proof re@uired for a findin&
of &uilt is onl' substantial evidence, that a-ount of relevant evidence /hich a reasonable -ind -i&ht accept as ade@uate to
Austif' a conclusion.
19
?e reiterate the /ell-settled rule that, /hen supported b' substantial evidence and absent an' clear
sho/in& of abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness, findin&s of fact of ad-inistrative a&encies, especiall' /hen affir-ed b' the
Court of Appeals, are bindin& and conclusive upon this Court.
1(
After a thorou&h exa-ination of the evidence on record, /e
find no reason to depart fro- this rule.
?ith respect to the second and third char&es a&ainst the petitioner, the =
th
"ivision of the Court of Appeals a&reed /ith the
findin&s of the %MB-M%<E%. .he petitioner utterl' failed to sho/ that the factual findin&s of the respondent, affir-ed b' the
appellate court, /ere attended /ith arbitrariness or abuse. .he Matillano letter-co-plaint as /ell as its supportin& affidavits
-ade clear alle&ations under oath that petitioner reco--ended his brother-in-la/, Ariel Manon&do, for e-plo'-ent /ith
Cactus Car&oes $'ste-s, #nc. *CC$#+, a custo-s bro0era&e fir- /hich necessaril' deals on a re&ular basis /ith petitionerKs
office. 4urther, the Matillano letter-co-plaint also cate&oricall' asserted that petitioner traveled to 1on&0on& /ithout obtainin&
the proper clearance. .hese alle&ations under oath constitute substantial evidence re@uired in ad-inistrative proceedin&s.
%n the other hand, petitioner did not den' that Ariel Manon&do is his brother-in-la/ or that CC$# has re&ular transactions /ith
his office. Neither did he den' that he failed to co-pl' /ith the re@uire-ent of presidential authorit' to travel abroad. #t is thus
unfortunate that instead of de-onstratin& that he is innocent of the char&es, the petitioner instead resorted to unavailin&
technicalities to disprove the alle&ations. .he $upre-e Court cannot /ei&h once -ore the evidence sub-itted not onl' before
the %ffice of the %-buds-an but also before the Court of Appeals. All told, /e are convinced that there is substantial
evidence to hold petitioner liable for the second and third char&es a&ainst hi-.
Be that as it -a', petitioner raises so-e le&al issues re&ardin& these char&es /hich /e shall settle.
39
Anent the second char&e, petitioner contends that under $ection !*d+ of R.A. No. !21(,
2
a brother-in-la/ is not included /ithin
the scope of the /ord ,fa-il', and therefore, he cannot be found liable under the said la/. #n ar&uin& so, petitioner refers to
the definition of the /ord ,fa-il', found under $ection !*&+ of R.A. No. 3)1!, /hich statesE
$EC. !. "efinition of .er-s. - A7 %7e, 9 t!97 Act, the ter-E
x x x
*&+ ,4a-il' of public officials or e-plo'ees, -eans their spouses and un-arried children under ei&hteen *19+ 'ears of
a&e.
.his contention deserves scant consideration.
$ection ! of R.A. No. 3)1! is une@uivocal in that its definition of ter-s is li-ited to "7 %7e, 9 t!e Act. ;nder R.A. No. 3)1!,
the ter- ,fa-il', /as used o#8 oce under $ection =, par. *h+,
1
/hich i-plores public officials and e-plo'ees and their
fa-ilies to observe ,si-ple livin&., .he restrictive definition accorded to the /ord ,fa-il', under the la/ is lo&ical since children
of public officials and e-plo'ees /ho are above ei&hteen and alread' e-ancipated b' la/ and freed fro- parental authorit'
should not be bound b' this standard /here their e-ancipation -a' lead the- to an other/ise private lifest'le or one /hich is
not beholden to the public trust.
.his other/ise perfect lo&ic /ould result in irrationalit' if /e follo/ the contention of petitioner that the definition of ,fa-il',
under R.A. No. 3)1! should also appl' to R.A. No. !21(. #t -a0es no rh'-e nor reason to suppose that public officials and
e-plo'ees are prohibited fro- havin& their children under ei&hteen 'ears accept e-plo'-ent in a private enterprise havin&
pendin& official business before their office, and 'et are allo/ed to have their children over ei&hteen 'ears, /hich is the
e-plo'able a&e, to do so.
?hat petitioner fails to -ention is that R.A. No. 3)1! itself prohibits the act of public officials and e-plo'ees durin& their
incu-benc' to reco--end "8 -er7o to an' position in a private enterprise /hich has a re&ular or pendin& official
transaction /ith their office.
Certainl', the definition of the /ord ,fa-il', under said la/ /ould undul' li-it and render
-eanin&less $ection !*d+ of R.A. No. !21( if applied to the latter. #n fact, fa-il' relation is defined under $ection = of R.A. No.
!21(
!
/hich, accordin& to the said section, ,shall include the spouse or relatives b' consan&uinit' or affinit' in the third civil
de&ree., .hus, /e need not loo0 be'ond the provisions of R.A. No. !21( to hold that a brother-in-la/ falls /ithin the definition
of fa-il' under $ection !*d+ thereof.
Proceedin& no/ to the le&al issue /ith respect to the third char&e, it is advanced b' petitioner that a public official reverts to
his 7uo ante status as a private citi7en upon bein& subAected to a te-porar' restrainin& order directin& hi- to refrain fro-
holdin& his office. 1ence, he need not co-pl' /ith the re@uire-ents for travelin& abroad durin& said period.
?e are not persuaded.
?e a&ree /ith the appellate court that petitioner suffered no &ap in his public service /hile the te-porar' restrainin& order
/as in effect. .he nature of a te-porar' restrainin& order /hich /ould have the effect of preventin& a public officer fro-
dischar&in& his office is provisional until a preli-inar' inAunction is issued b' the court hearin& the case. Because of its
te-porar' character, it /ould not have the effect of divestin& such officer of the public character of his office.
#t cannot be denied that once CA-8.R. $P No. 3(966 /as decided and petitioner /as allo/ed to re-assu-e his office, the
effectivit' of his appoint-ent retroacted to the ori&inal date of his appoint-ent. 1e certainl' re-ained as a public officer durin&
such period and it /as incu-bent upon hi-, especiall' since he /as continuousl' assertin& his ri&ht to the office, to co-pl'
/ith the &uidelines on the application to travel abroad for private purposes
=
of public officials.
?e no/ co-e to the pivotal first char&e facin& petitioner that /as left unresolved b' the Court of Appeals in deference to this
Court - that of co-pro-isin& the case a&ainst $AMC /ithout prior authori7ation fro- the Co--issioner of Custo-s in
violation of $ection !13
6
of the .ariff and Custo-s Code, and /ithout prior approval of the President as re@uired b' $ection
=*d+
3
of E.%. No. 163 as a-ended b' E.%. No. !9.
Prefatoril', /e e-phasi7e that violations or disre&ard of re&ulations &overnin& the collection of &overn-ent funds are
ad-inistrativel' sanctionable. #ntended to raise revenue for &overn-ent operations, these re&ulations -ust be follo/ed strictl'.
3(
%n the first provision of the special la/ alle&ed to have been violated b' petitioner, .itle D# Boo0 ## of the .ariff and Custo-s
Code entitled ,A"M#N#$.RA.#DE AN" 5;"#C#A< PR%CEE"#N8$, is divided as follo/sE
1. Part 1 - $earch, $ei7ure and Arrest,
. Part - Ad-inistrative Proceedin&s,
!. Part ! - 5udicial Proceedin&s,
=. Part = - $urchar&es, 4ines and 4orfeitures,
6. Part 6 - "isposition of Propert' in Custo-s Custod', and
3. Part ) - 4ees and Char&es. *NoteE No Part 3+
Accordin& to petitioner, $ections !21 up to !13 are provisions found under Part and pertain to ad-inistrative proceedin&s,
/hile $ections =21 and =2 are provisions found under Part ! and pertain to Audicial proceedin&s. $ection !13 providesE
$ection !13. Authority o! Commissioner to make Com#romise.4$ubAect to the approval of the $ecretar' of 4inance,
t!e Co++9779oer o$ C%7to+7 -a' co-pro-ise an' case arisin& under this Code or other la/s or part of la/s
enforced b' the Bureau of Custo-s involvin& the i-position of fines, surchar&es and forfeitures unless other/ise
specified b' la/.
?hile $ection =21 as a-ended, /hich /as -ade b' petitioner as basis for his enterin& into the co-pro-ise a&ree-ent,
providesE
$ection =21. Su#ervision and Control over Criminal and Civil (roceedings.4Civil and cri-inal actions and
proceedin&s instituted in behalf of the &overn-ent under the authorit' of this Code or other la/ enforced b' the
Bureau shall be brou&ht in the na-e of the &overn-ent of the Philippines and 7!"## be co,%cte, b8 c%7to+7
o$$9cer7 but no civil or cri-inal action for the recover' of duties or the enforce-ent of an' fine, penalt' or forfeiture
under this Code shall be filed in court /ithout the approval of the Co--issioner.
.hus, for petitioner, since the case /herein the co-pro-ise a&ree-ent /as entered into /as alread' pendin& before a re&ular
court, the re@uire-ent of prior authorit' of the Co--issioner of Custo-s to enter into a co-pro-ise is not necessar'.
.his contention -ust fail.
Basic is the -axi- in statutor' construction that a statute -ust be read or construed as a /hole or in its entiret'. All parts,
provisions, or sections, -ust be read, considered or construed to&ether, and each -ust be considered /ith respect to all
others, and in har-on' /ith the /hole.
)
A readin& of the provisions cited b' the petitioner /ill sho/ that there is reall' no conflict bet/een the-. $ection =21 covers
the -atter of the institution and filin& of civil and cri-inal actions b' custo-s officers, /hich is subAect to the approval of the
Co--issioner if filed for the recover' of duties or the enforce-ent of an' fine, penalt' or forfeiture under the Code. #t does not
cover the co-pro-ise of such civil or cri-inal actions, /hile $ection !13 is the provision that deals /ith such a situation. #n
fact, the latter is cate&orical in providin& an enco-passin& scope for the strict conditions for an' co-pro-ise. #ts covera&e
includes H"8 c"7e "r979. %,er t!97 co,e or ot!er #"'7 or -"rt o$ #"'7 e$orce, b8 t!e :%re"% o$ C%7to+7 9=o#=9.
t!e 9+-o79t9o o$ $9e7, 7%rc!"r.e7 ", $or$e9t%re7 %#e77 ot!er'97e 7-ec9$9e, b8 #"'.H "oubtless, civil cases for
collection of custo-s taxes and duties, includin& the one in the case at bar, /ould fall under this covera&e.
.o be sure, the adoption of petitionerKs interpretation of these provisions /ould result in absurdit' that could not have been
intended b' Con&ress. 4ollo/in& his lo&ic, the Co--issioner of Custo-s has to activel' participate and see0 the approval of
the $ecretar' of 4inance in co-pro-isin& ad-inistrative collection casesG /hereas, custo-s officers /ithout even see0in&
authorit' fro- the Co--issioner or approval fro- the $ecretar' of 4inance can proceed to bar&ain off -uch lar&er collection
cases in courts. Clearl', the Court cannot countenance the abuse and corruption en&endered b' this -isreadin& of the la/.
)2
Petitioner next clai-s that there /as no violation of $ection =*d+
9
of E.%. No. 163 as a-ended b' E.%. No. !9, /hen he
entered into the co-pro-ise a&ree-ent /ithout the express approval of the President.
E.%. No. 163, as a-ended b' E.%. No. !9, created a $pecial .as0 4orce to investi&ate and prosecute the irre&ularities relative
to the ,tax credit sca-, co--itted at the center of the "epart-ent of 4inance and to recover and collect revenues lost b' the
&overn-ent throu&h the ,sca-., $ection =*d+ thereof providesE
$ection =. (o9ers, 0uties and /unctions. .he .as0 4orce shall have the follo/in& po/ers, duties and functionsE
x x x
d+ .o reco--end the settle-ent of cases for approval of the President, subAect to appropriate rules on the settle-ent
of clai-s b' the &overn-entG
#n the case at bar, and durin& the ti-e relevant to this case,
(
specificall' on Ma' 12, 22, the then Chair-an of the .as0
4orce, "epart-ent of 4inance ;ndersecretar' Cornelio 8ison, reported to the then "epart-ent of 4inance $ecretar' 5ose
#sidro Ca-acho the successful collection b' petitioner of P!),1(6,96(.22 in the $AMC case. %n %ctober !, 22, in his
Me-orandu-,
!2
"epart-ent of 4inance ;ndersecretar' #nnocencio P. 4errer, 5r., /ho succeeded ;ndersecretar' 8ison, also
con&ratulated petitioner for his acco-plish-ent in the said case.
Petitioner invo0es the principle of @ualified political a&enc' /herein these acts of the $pecial .as0 4orce Chair-en - /ho both
approved the co-pro-ise a&ree-ent and lauded hi- for his acco-plish-ent in the recover' efforts a&ainst the ori&inal
&rantees and bu'ers of fraudulentl' secured tax credit certificates - should be considered as approval b' the President herself,
especiall' since she did not disapprove of nor reprobate their acts.
.his ar&u-ent is li0e/ise unavailin&.
E.%. No. 163, as a-ended b' E.%. No. !9, is clear in its re@uire-ent that 9 c"7e7 9=o#=9. t"< cre,9t 7c"+7 t!e $"=or"b#e
reco++e,"t9o $or "--ro="# b8 t!e S-ec9"# T"7( 4orce ", t!e "--ro="# b8 t!e Pre79,et o$ t!e Re-%b#9c "re bot!
reM%9re,. .he approval b' the Chair-en of the $pecial .as0 4orce is still subAect to approval of the President. Prior
presidential approval is the hi&hest for- of chec0 and balance /ithin the Executive branch of &overn-ent and cannot be
satisfied b' -ere failure of the President to reverse or reprobate the acts of subordinates. .o sanction other/ise /ould be to
as0 the Court to re/ard passivit' and render nu&ator' the funda-ental safe&uard re@uired under the la/.
.he Court notes that in Civil Case No. 21-1262=, $AMC defrauded the &overn-ent of the a-ount ofP!),1(6,96(.22 in
unpaid duties and taxes /ith the use of fraudulent tax credit certificates that /ere directl' and ori&inall' procured b' its officials
on the basis of inexistent supportin& docu-ents. .he le&al interest, surchar&es, liti&ation expenses and da-a&es of this
principal a-ount totaled a sta&&erin& P1=,)3,=3).)2, /hich petitioner effectivel' /aived throu&h his enterin& into a
co-pro-ise a&ree-ent /ith $AMC. ?e find la-entable the utter disre&ard of the le&al re@uire-ents for enterin& into a
co-pro-ise displa'ed b' petitioner /hich is further a&&ravated b' the fact that there /ere alread' sufficient properties of
$AMC that /ere attached in the said case to satisf' not onl' the principal a-ount o/ed but also the penalties, surchar&es and
interests.
No a-ount of reasonin& can infuse an e-pt' plea to Austif' this bloodlettin&. 4unda-ental it is in la/ that taxes bein& the
lifeblood of the &overn-ent,
!1
such -ust be continuousl' replenished and carefull' preserved-and no public official should
-aintain a standard lo/er than ut-ost dili&ence in 0eepin& our revenue s'ste- flo/in&. #t is not for an' &overn-ent official to
dee- it /ithin his co-plete control to let precious blood flo/ to the private sphere /here it /ould have been ri&htfull' and
la/full' collected b' the public throu&h the &overn-ent.
Persons appointed to the revenue collection a&encies of the &overn-ent, li0e petitioner, ou&ht to live up to the strictest
standards of honest' and inte&rit' in the public service and -ust at all ti-es be above suspicion. Because of the nature of
their office, the officials and e-plo'ees of the Bureau of Custo-s should serve as the pri-ar' role -odels in the faithful
observance of the constitutional canon that public office is a public trust. Petitioner, bein& a "eput' Co--issioner of the
Revenue Collection Monitorin& 8roup, should 0no/ that his actuations reflect adversel' on the inte&rit' and efficienc' of his
office and erode the faith and confidence of our people in its dail' ad-inistration. ?e find that the totalit' of petitionerKs acts
constitutes fla&rant disre&ard of established rules constitutive of &rave -isconduct.
)1
%ne final note. #t appears that petitioner is no lon&er a "eput' Co--issioner of Custo-s.
!
.his fact, ho/ever, does not
render this petition -oot and acade-ic. As held in 5allo v. CorderoD
. . . H.Ihe Aurisdiction that /as ours at the ti-e of the filin& of the ad-inistrative co-plaint /as not lost b' the -ere
fact that the respondent public official had ceased to be in office durin& the pendenc' of his case. .he Court retains
its Aurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent official innocent of the char&es or declare hi- &uilt' thereof. A
contrar' rule /ould be frau&ht /ith inAustices and pre&nant /ith dreadful and dan&erous i-plications. 4or /hat
re-ed' /ould the people have a&ainst a Aud&e or an' other public official /ho resorts to /ron&ful and ille&al conduct
durin& his last da's in officeU xxx #f innocent, respondent official -erits vindication of his na-e and inte&rit' as he
leaves the &overn-ent /hich he has served /ell and faithfull'G if &uilt', he deserves to receive the correspondin&
censure and a penalt' proper and i-posable under the situation.
!!
WHERE4ORE, pre-ises considered, the petition is 5ENIE5. .he assailed "ecision dated 4ebruar' 9, 226 of the Court of
Appeals in CA 8.R. $P. No. 9391 is hereb' A44IRME5.
SO OR5ERE5.
RE/NATO S. PUNO
Chief 5ustice
?E C%NC;RE
ANGE0INA SAN5O3A0&GUTIERRE>
Associate 5ustice
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate 5ustice
A5O04O S. A>CUNA
Associate 5ustice
Associate 5ustice
Pursuant to $ection 1!, Article D### of the Constitution, # certif' that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in
consultation before the case /as assi&ned to the /riter of the opinion of the CourtKs "ivision.
RE/NATO S. PUNO
Chief 5ustice
SUPREME COURT
Manila
$EC%N" "#D#$#%N
G.R. No. 1F0718 M"8 12, 2010
ANUNCIO C. :USTI00O, EMI0IO SUMI0HIG, 1R., ", AGUSTIN :I00E5O, 1R., Petitioners,
vs.
)
" E C # $ # % N
5E0 CASTI00O, J.:
#t is disputabl' presu-ed that official dut' has been re&ularl' perfor-ed. #n this case, this presu-ption re-ains unrebuttedG
hence, petitioners /ho /ere char&ed /ith violations of $ection !*e+ of Republic Act *RA+ No. !21(, deserve an ac@uittal. #t /as
not proven that the' &ave undue preference or acted in evident bad faith in effectin& the transfer of the properties o/ned b'
the local &overn-ent unit.
.his Petition for Revie/ on Certiorari
1
assails the 5ul' !1, 22! "ecision
of the Sandiganbayan in Cri-inal Case No. =)=1,

findin& herein petitioners &uilt' be'ond reasonable doubt of violation of $ection !*e+ of RA !21(. Also assailed is the
Nove-ber 3, 22! Resolution
!
den'in& the Motion for Reconsideration.
4"ct%"# Atece,et7
Con&ress-an Ceferino Paredes, 5r. *Con&ress-an Paredes+ used a portion of his Countr'side "evelop-ent 4und *C"4+ to
purchase one unit of .o'ota .a-ara/ 4P and six units of :a/asa0i -otorc'cles. All vehicles /ere re&istered in the na-e of
the Municipalit' of Buna/an and /ere turned over to the -unicipalit' throu&h its -a'or, herein petitioner Anuncio C. Bustillo
*Bustillo+.
%n Ma' 1), 1((6, the Sangguniang Bayan of Buna/an passed Resolution No. (6-)
=
/hich authori7ed the transfer /ithout
cost of the aforesaid vehicles to the $an 4rancisco ?ater "istrict *$4?"+. Pursuant thereto, Bustillo executed on 5une 1(,
1((6, a "eed of .ransfer
6
relative to the afore-entioned vehicles in favor of the $4?" represented b' its 8eneral Mana&er,
El-er .. <u7on *<u7on+.
%n 5ul' ), 1((6, the Sangguniang (anlala9igan of A&usan del $ur passed Resolution No. 19!
3
disapprovin&
the Sangguniang BayanEs Resolution No. (6-) for bein& violative of $ection !91
)
of RA )132 or the <ocal 8overn-ent Code.
%n Au&ust 1), 1((6, it passed Resolution No. =3
9
cancelin& and declarin& the "eed of .ransfer as null and void for bein&
hi&hl' irre&ular and &rossl' violative of $ection !91 of RA )132.
%n Ma' !, 1((3, a co-plaint
(
/as filed char&in& Bustillo, Dice-Ma'or A&ustin Billedo, 5r. *Billedo+, andSangguniang
Bayan -e-bers .eo&enes .ortor *.ortor+, E-ilio $u-ilhi&, 5r. *$u-ilhi&+, Ruth C. %rot *%rot+, and Ernesto A-ador, 5r., /ith
violation of $ection !*e+ of RA !21(. Also included in the co-plaint /ere Antonio .aotao and <u7on, the Board $ecretar' and
8eneral Mana&er, respectivel', of $4?".
%n Au&ust 1!, 1((3, the %ffice of the %-buds-an for Mindanao issued a Resolution /hich providesE
?1ERE4%RE, PREM#$E$ C%N$#"ERE", this %ffice finds probable cause to prosecute respondents Antonio C. Bustillo,
A&ustin Billedo, 5r., .eo&enes .ortor, E-ilio $u-ilhi&, 5r., Ruth C. %rot, Ernesto A-ador, 5r., and El-er .. <u7on for violation
of $ection ! *e+ of Republic Act !21(. #t is hereb' reco--ended that the enclosed #nfor-ation be filed /ith the
$andi&anba'an a&ainst the above-na-ed respondents.
4#N"#N8 insufficient evidence to hold respondent Antonio .aotao, Board $ecretar' of $4?", liable for the char&e, let the
instant case a&ainst hi- be dis-issed.
$% RE$%<DE".
12
Conse@uentl', on 5une =, 1((9, an #nfor-ation /as filed /ith the $andi&anba'an doc0eted as Cri-inal Case No. =)=1
char&in& Bustillo, Billedo, .ortor, $u-ilhi&, %rot, A-ador, and <u7on, for violation of $ection !*e+ of RA !21(, co--itted as
follo/sE
.hat on or about 1( 5une 1((6, or shortl' prior or subse@uent thereto, in $an 4rancisco, A&usan del $ur, and /ithin the
Aurisdiction of this 1onorable Court, the accused Anuncio C. Bustillo, a public officer bein& then the Ma'or of Buna/an,
A&usan del $ur, /ith salar' &rade ), A&ustin Billedo, 5r., Dice Ma'or of Buna/an, A&usan del $ur, .eo&enes .ortor, E-ilio
$u-ilhi&, 5r., Ruth C. %rot, Ernesto A-ador, bein& then -e-bers of the $an&&unian& Ba'an *$B+ of Buna/an, and El-er ..
<u7on, 8eneral Mana&er of $an 4rancisco ?ater "istrict *$4?"+, all public officers /ith salar' &rades belo/ ), co--ittin&
the offense in relation to their official duties and ta0in& advanta&e of their official positions, conspirin& and confederatin& /ith
)!
each other HsicI, thru evident bad faith, did there and then, /illfull', unla/full' and cri-inall', cause undue inAur' to the
&overn-ent, b' passin& $an&&unian& Ba'an Resolution No. (6-) /hich transferred /ithout cost one *1+ unit of .a-ara/ 4P
vehicle and six *3+ units of :E :a/asa0i -otorc'cles purchased for the Municipalit' of Buna/an out of the Countr'side
"evelop-ent 4und of Con&ress-an Ceferino Paredes, 5r. and -unicipal counterpart fund and /hich /ere ne/l' purchased
and in perfect runnin& condition, to the $an 4rancisco ?ater "istrict in violation of $ection !91 of R.A. )132, and despite the
subse@uent nullification of $B Resolution No. (6-) b' the $an&&unian& Panlala/i&an of A&usan del $ur and the repeated
de-ands b' the -unicipal &overn-ent of Buna/an, accused El-er .. <u7on and the $an 4rancisco ?ater "istrict refused to
surrender the afore-enu-erated -otor vehicle and -otorc'cles to the Municipalit' of Buna/an, thereb' deprivin& it of the
possession, o/nership and use thereof, to the da-a&e and preAudice of said local &overn-ent unit.
C%N.RAR> .% <A?.
11
All the accused posted their respective bail for their provisional libert', /ith the exception of %rot /ho died on 5une 9, 1((9.
1
%n April 13, 1(((, Bustillo, Billedo, .ortor and $u-ilhi& entered pleas of ,Not 8uilt',.
1!
"urin& pre-trial conference
1=
held on 5une ), 1(((, the follo/in& facts /ere ad-itted b' both the prosecution and the defenseE
,1+ At the ti-e -aterial to this case all the accused are public officers na-el', Anuncio C. Bustillo as Municipal Ma'or
and A&ustin Billedo, 5r., as Dice Ma'or, .eo&enes .ortor and E-ilio $u-ilhi&, 5r., as -e-bers of the $an&&unian&
Ba'an all of the Municipalit' of Buna/an, A&usan del $urG
+ .hat durin& the local election held on Ma' 9, 1((6, accused Anuncio C. Bustillo /as not re-elected as Ma'or of the
Municipalit' of Buna/an, A&usan del $urG
!+ .hat on Ma' 1), 1((6, the $an&&unian& Ba'an of Buna/an, A&usan del $ur, durin& its 1)th re&ular session
passed Resolution No. (6-) transferrin& /ithout an' consideration and cost to the $an 4rancisco ?ater "istrict the
follo/in& propertiesE one *1+ unit of .a-ara/ .o'ota 4P and six *3+ units of :a/asa0i Motorc'clesG Accused A&ustin
Billedo, 5r., .eo&enes .ortor and E-ilio $u-ilhi&, 5r., /ere a-on& the -e-bers of the said council /ho voted to
approve said ResolutionG
=+ .hat on 5une 1(, 1((6, accused Anuncio C. Bustillo in behalf of the Municipalit' of Buna/an, A&usan del $ur
executed a "eed of .ransfer relative to the above -entioned vehicles in favor of $an 4rancisco ?ater "istrict
represented b' El-er .. <u7on, 8eneral Mana&erG
6+ .hat on 5ul' ), 1((6, the $an&&unian& Panlala/i&an of A&usan del $ur in its !rd re&ular session passed
Resolution No. 19!, series of 1((6 disapprovin& $an&&unian& Ba'an Resolution No. (6-) of the Municipalit' of
Buna/anG
3+ .hat on Au&ust 1), 1((6, the $an&&unian& Panlala/i&an of A&usan del $ur passed Resolution No. =3, series of
1((6, cancelin& and declarin& the afore-entioned "eed of .ransfer executed b' and bet/een the Municipalit' of
Buna/an and $an 4rancisco ?ater "istrict as null and voidG
)+ .hat, in a letter dated 5ul' 11, 1((6, of <eonardo Barrios, Municipal Ma'or of Buna/an, A&usan del $ur addressed
to the "irector of $an 4rancisco ?ater "istrict, it /as re@uested that the subAect .a-ara/ 4P and :a/asa0i
Motorc'cles o/ned b' the Municipalit' of Buna/an, A&usan del $ur be returned to the Municipalit' of Buna/anG
9+ .hat in response to said letter dated 5ul' 11, 1((6, of Municipal Ma'or <eonardo Barrios, Antonio .ao-.ao, Actin&
Board $ecretar' of $an 4rancisco ?ater "istrict on his letter dated 5ul' 13, 1((6, refused to return the subAect
vehiclesG
(+ .hat the subAect vehicles are all ne/l' purchased and serviceable and in &ood runnin& condition at the ti-e of the
transfer in @uestionG,
.he other set of facts a&reed upon /ereE
)=
a+ .hat the purchase price or value of the .o'ota .a-ara/ 4P /as P=22,222.22 and the six *3+ units :a/asa0i
Motorc'cles P!26,122.22, or a total purchase price or value of P)26,122.22 PesosG
b+ .hat Resolution No. (6-) /as unani-ousl' approved b' the -e-bers of the $an&&unian& Ba'an of Buna/an,
A&usan del $ur and /as not Audiciall' declared null and void.
%n 5une 16, 1(((, the $4?" executed a "eed of "onation
16
effectin& the transfer of the aforesaid vehicles in favor of the
Municipalit' of Buna/an because accordin& to $4?", the /ater proAects funded b' the C"4 of Con&ress-an Paredes /ere
alread' co-pleted.
.hereafter, <u7on and A-ador also entered pleas of ,Not 8uilt',.
%n "ece-ber (, 1(((, the Sandiganbayan /as infor-ed of the death of .ortor.
13
"urin& trial, the prosecution presented three /itnesses, na-el'E 1+ 4lorencia #lorde, + <ilia 5. Nacorda, and !+ <eonardo
Barrios. After the testi-onies of the /itnesses and the ad-ission of its exhibits, the prosecution rested its case.
1)
%n "ece-ber 3, 1(((, herein petitioners filed a "e-urrer to Evidence
19
but it /as denied
1(
for lac0 of -erit. <u7onBs "e-urrer
to Evidence
2
/as li0e/ise denied on 4ebruar' =, 222.
1
.hus, the defense presented its evidence. 4our /itnesses, na-el'E
1+ <u7on, + Beni&no 8. Asis, !+ $u-ilhi&, and =+ Ceferino $. Paredes, /ere presented alon& /ith other exhibits.
R%#9. o$ t!e S",9."b"8"
%n 5ul' !1, 22!, the Sandiganbayan rendered its "ecision
findin& petitioners &uilt' be'ond reasonable doubt of violation of

$ection !*e+ of RA !21(. <u7on and A-ador /ere ac@uitted for failure of the prosecution to prove their &uilt be'ond
reasonable doubt. .he case a&ainst .ortor and %rot /as dis-issed on account of their de-ise.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration
!
/hich /as denied in a Resolution dated Nove-ber 3, 22!.
=
I77%e
1ence this Petition for Revie/ on Certiorari faultin& the $andi&anba'an for findin& petitioners &uilt' of violation of $ection !*e+
of RA !21(.
O%r R%#9.
.he Sandiganbayan based its conviction of *Ma'or+ Bustillo, *Dice-Ma'or+ Billedo and *Councilor+ $u-ilhi& on the findin& that
the' conspired to effect the transfer of the vehicles to the preAudice of the Municipalit' of Buna/an in violation of the provision
of $ection !*e+ of RA !21(.
$ection !*e+ of RA !21( providesE
$ection !. Corrupt practices of public officers. S #n addition to acts or o-issions of public officers alread' penali7ed b' existin&
x x x x
*e+ Causin& an' undue inAur' to an' part', includin& the 8overn-ent, or &ivin& an' private part' an' un/arranted benefits,
advanta&e or preference in the dischar&e of his official, ad-inistrative or Audicial functions throu&h -anifest partialit', evident
bad faith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence. .his provision shall appl' to officers and e-plo'ees of offices or &overn-ent
corporations char&ed /ith the &rant of licenses or per-its or other concessions.
.he ele-ents of the offense are as follo/sE *1+ that the accused are public officers or private persons char&ed in conspirac'
/ith the-G *+ that said public officers co--it the prohibited acts durin& the perfor-ance of their official duties or in relation to
their public positionsG *!+ that the' caused undue inAur' to an' part', /hether the 8overn-ent or a private part'G *=+ that such
)6
inAur' is caused b' &ivin& un/arranted benefits, advanta&e or preference to such partiesG and *6+ that the public officers have
acted /ith -anifest partialit', evident bad faith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence.
6
#n this case, onl' the first ele-ent /as proven. At the ti-e -aterial to this case, all the petitioners are public officers, na-el',
Bustillo as Municipal Ma'or, Billedo as Dice Ma'or, and $u-ilhi& as -e-ber of theSangguniang Bayan.
All the other ele-ents /ere not present. #t cannot be denied that the transfer of the vehicles to $4?" /as -ade in furtherance
of the purpose for /hich the funds /ere released /hich is ,to help in the plannin&, -onitorin& and coordination of the
i-ple-entation of the /ater/or0s proAects located throu&hout the Province of A&usan del $ur., .he "eed of "onation
expressl' provided that the subAect vehicles shall be used for the sa-e purpose for /hich the' /ere purchased.
Moreover, the transfer /as -ade to ensure the success of the i-ple-entation of the C"4-funded /ater/or0s proAects of the
province of A&usan del $ur. #n the Me-orandu- of A&ree-ent dated 4ebruar' 12, 1((!, $4?" /as desi&nated to
i-ple-ent, control or supervise all the C"4-funded /ater/or0s proAects. Clearl', the vehicles /ere donated to $4?" not
because it /as &iven an' preference, un/arranted benefits or undue advanta&e, but in reco&nition of its technical expertise.
?e find no evidence on record /hich /ould sho/ that petitioners /ere -otivated b' bad faith /hen the' transferred the
vehicles to $4?". Bustillo, as Ma'or, is authori7ed b' la/ to enter into contracts for and in behalf of the local &overn-ent unit.
Billedo, as Dice Ma'or, acted as the Presidin& %fficer of the Sangguniang Bayan and did not even vote for the passa&e of
Resolution No. (6-). $aid Resolution /as unani-ousl' passed b' the Sangguniang Bayan and $u-ilhi& /as onl' one of
those /ho voted for its passa&e.ten.lih#9al
#n su-, the petitioners have in their favor the presu-ption of re&ularit' in the perfor-ance of official duties /hich the records
failed to rebut. .he presu-ption of re&ularit' of official acts -a' be rebutted b' affir-ative evidence of irre&ularit' or failure to
perfor- a dut'. .he presu-ption, ho/ever, prevails until it is overco-e b' no less than clear and convincin& evidence to the
contrar'. .hus, unless the presu-ption in rebutted, it beco-es conclusive. Ever' reasonable intend-ent /ill be -ade in
support of the presu-ption and in case of doubt as to an officerBs act bein& la/ful or unla/ful, construction should be in favor
of its la/fulness.
3
WHERE4ORE, the 5ul' !1, 22! "ecision of the Sandiganbayan in Cri-inal Case No. =)=1 and its Nove-ber 3, 22!
Resolution are RE3ERSE5 ", SET ASI5E. Petitioners Anuncio C. Bustillo, A&ustin Billedo, 5r. and E-ilio $u-ilhi&, 5r., are
hereb' "cM%9tte, for failure to prove their &uilt be'ond reasonable doubt.
$% %R"ERE".
Associate 5ustice
?E C%NC;RE
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate 5ustice
Chairperson
ARTURO 5. :RION
Associate 5ustice
RO:ERTO A. A:A5
Associate 5ustice
1OSE PORTUGA0 PERE>
Associate 5ustice
A . . E $ . A . # % N
# attest that the conclusions in the above "ecision had been reached in consultation before the case /as assi&ned to the /riter
of the opinion of the CourtBs "ivision.
)3
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate 5ustice
Chairperson, $econd "ivision
C E R . # 4 # C A . # % N
Pursuant to $ection 1!, Article D### of the Constitution, and the "ivision ChairpersonBs attestation, it is hereb' certified that the
conclusions in the above "ecision had been reached in consultation before the case /as assi&ned to the /riter of the opinion
of the CourtBs "ivision.
RE/NATO S. PUNO
Chief 5ustice
SUPREME COURT
.1#R" "#D#$#%N
G.R. No. 1I66@I A%.%7t 1F, 2005
:UENCAMINO CRU>, Petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORA:0E SAN5IGAN:A/AN ", THE PEOP0E O4 THE PHI0IPPINES, Respondents.
" E C # $ # % N
GARCIA, J.B
.hru this petition for revie/ on certiorari under Rule =6 of the Rules of Court, petitioner Buenca-ino Cru7 see0s to set aside
the "ecision dated !2 5anuar' 1((9
1
of the $andi&anba'an in its Cri-inal Case No. 9!2, findin& hi- &uilt' of violation of
$ection !*e+ of Republic Act *R.A.+ No. !21(, as a-ended, other/ise 0no/n as theAnti45ra!t and Corru#t (ractices Act, and
its Resolution dated 1= 5ul' 1((9,
den'in& petitionerBs -otion for reconsideration.

.he factual antecedents are not at all disputedE
4ollo/in& the Ma' 1(( local elections and his procla-ation as -a'or-elect of the Municipalit' of Bacoor, Cavite, Dictor
Miranda sou&ht an audit investi&ation of the -unicipalit'Bs 1((1-1(( financial transactions. Petitioner Buenca-ino Cru7
served as -unicipal -a'or of the to/n in 1((1 until his ter- ended in the -iddle of 1((.
Actin& on the re@uest, the Co--ission on Audit *C%A+ issued C%A %rder No. 1(-1)22 constitutin& a $pecial Audit .ea-. #n
the course of the investi&ation, the $pecial Audit .ea- discovered that certain ano-alous and irre&ular transactions transpired
durin& the covered period, the -ost serious bein& the purchase of construction -aterials evidenced b' $ales #nvoices No.
1!11=6 and 1!11!) in the a&&re&ate a-ount of P6=,6=.63, for /hich pa'-ent out of -unicipal funds /as effected t/ice. .he
double pa'-ents /ere -ade in favor of 8elly -umber and Construction Su##ly *8elly -umber, for short+ and /ere
acco-plished throu&h the issuance of t/o *+ disburse-ent vouchers *"Ds+, i.e., "D No. 121-(-23-1 and "D No. 121-(-
21-1(6. Petitioner si&ned the vouchers and encashed the t/o *+ correspondin& PNB chec0s, both of /hich /ere pa'able to
his order.
.he findin&s of the Audit .ea- /ere e-bodied in a !!3-pa&e $A% Report No. (!-9, on the basis of /hich petitioner /as
char&ed /ith violation of $ection !*e+ of R.A. !21(. .he provision readsE
$ec. !. Corrupt Practices of Public %fficers. #n addition to acts or o-issions of public officers alread' penali7ed b' existin& la/,
the follo/in& shall constitute corrupt practices of an' public officer and are declared to be unla/fulE
xxx xxx xxx
))
e+ Causin& an' undue inAur' to an' part', includin& the &overn-ent, or &ivin& an' private part' an' un/arranted benefits,
bad faith, or &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence. .his provision shall appl' to officers and e-plo'ees of offices or &overn-ent
.he #nfor-ation
!
a&ainst petitioner, filed before the $andi&anba'an and thereat doc0eted as Cri-inal Case No. 9!2,
alle&edE
.hat on 5une 3, 1((, or so-eti-e prior or subse@uent thereto, in the Municipalit' of Bacoor, Cavite, Philippines, and /ithin
the Aurisdiction of this 1onorable Court, the above-na-ed accused Buenca-ino M. Cru7, a public officer bein& then the
Municipal Ma'or of Bacoor, Cavite and /hile in the perfor-ance of his official function, actin& in evident bad faith, did then and
there /ilfull', *sic+ unla/full' and cri-inall' pa' :ell' <u-ber and Construction $uppl' the a-ount of 4ift' 4our .housand 4ive
1undred 4ort'-./o Pesos and 63T122 *P6=,6=.63+, Philippine Currenc', despite the fact that said account had been
previousl' paid b' the Municipalit', thus, causin& undue inAur' to the 8overn-ent in the a-ount aforestated.
C%N.RAR> .% <A?.
;pon arrai&n-ent, petitioner entered a plea of ,Not 8uilt',. #n ti-e, trial ensued.
#n a decision
=
dated !2 5anuar' 1((9, the respondent court found petitioner &uilt' be'ond reasonable doubt of violation of
$ection !*e+ of R.A. !21( and sentenced hi- Fto serve im#risonment o! Seven )*, years, and One )$,, month as minimum, to
>en )$;, years o! #rision mayor as ma&imum, 9ith conse7uent #er#etual dis7uali!ication !rom holding #ublic o!!ice, as
#rovided by la9.F
.he anti-&raft court predicated its Aud&-ent of conviction on the stren&th of the follo/in& -ain pre-isesE
.he nu-erous, other alle&ed ano-alies and irre&ularities full' detailed and outlined in said $.A.%. Report No. (!-9 did not
appear to the $pecial Audit .ea-, as -eritin& prosecution of those /ho -i&ht have been &uilt' thereof. But, the sa-e report
stron&l' reco--ended prosecution as not/ithstandin& . . . the subse@uent refundof the total a-ount of P6=,6=.63 fro- the
supplier, :ell' <u-ber . . . for the alle&ed double pa'-ent especiall' due . . . to the fact that the a-ount /as not directl' paid
to the supplier but the Municipal Ma'or, as sho/n in Exh. ,1, for P162,222.22 and Exh. ,1, for P2,222.22 and Exhs. ,1-1,
and ,1-1B sho/in& that the said t/o chec0s /ere actuall' encashed b' the Municipal Ma'or, respondent herein * $eeE p.1( of
the $.A.%. Report No. (!-9+. A painful exa-ination of Exhs. ,B, and ,B-1, to ,B-11B sho/s that althou&h there /as a total
su- due of P!1,1(9.21 and supported b' docu-ents under "isburse-ent Doucher No. 121-(21-1(=, the' are reall', onl'
supported b' docu-ents sho/in& the state-ent of the account thereof and 'et $ales #nvoice No. 1!11=6 /as not attached to
support the voucher. Besides, said $ales #nvoice No. 1!11=6 had alread' been paid previousl' as sho/n b' a photocop'
of PNB Chec0 No. 1=)96, dated 5anuar' !2, 1(( *see. Exh. ,B--A,+ /hich proves that pa'-ent /as -ade upon the prior
re@uest of the accused Buenca-ino M. Cru7, and that the said a-ount of P1,2=1.63 had alread' been paid under the sa-e
Doucher No. 121-(21-1(=. Also Exhs. ,E,, ,E-1, to ,E-), sho/ that under "isburse-ent Doucher No. 113!, dated 5une
3,1((, pa'-ent had been -ade to&ether /ith other invoices, per PNB Chec0 No. 1()91! in the total su- of P162,222.22G
/hereas, the sa-e account of P!!,621.22 had alread' been paid on 5anuar' !2, 1((, thereb', sho/in& that there is double
pa'-ent and the t/o chec0s issued in pa'-ent of these t/o invoices to the accusedE Buenca-ino Mallari-Cru7as pa'ee,
sho/s indubitabl', that there /as a /illful act, /ith -alice aforethou&ht, in havin& a second pa'-ent -ade, in order that
the accused -a' be able to poc0et the -one', as he in fact did b' encashin& the said t/o chec0s. 4or it is li0e/ise evident
under the principle RE$ #P$A <%N;#.%R *.he thin& spea0s for itself+, na-el'E that if the -one' of P6=,6=.63 /ere indeed
pa'-ent for the &oods delivered b' the supplier-:ell' <u-ber and Construction $uppl', si-ple reason and /ell accepted
co--ercial practice de-and for the chec0s in the first place, to -ade pa'able to the suppliers of &oods sold in pa'-ent
thereof. But, /h' should pa'-ent be -ade to Ma'or Buenca-ino M. Cru7, /hen he ou&ht not to derive an' -aterial benefits,
/hatsoever, or an' pecuniar' interest fro- the transactions entered into b' hi-, for and on behalf of the Municipalit', . . . .
.he onl' excuse &iven b' the accused /hen he finall' testified in his o/n defense, in ver' la-e. 4or the excuse he &ave, in
explainin& the ano-al' or irre&ularit' is that he /as not a/are of the double pa'-ent and that, he Aust si&ned the voucher for
pa'-ent, as the last officer to si&n the voucher, in order to effect pa'-ent thereon, to the supplier . . ., and that it /as the dut'
of the Municipal .reasurer to verif' the actual deliveries of the &oods sold and their pa'-ent after/ards. .his -a' be true, if
the ensuin& chec0s issued in pa'-ent of the &oods covered b' the voucher for pa'-ent, /ere -ade pa'able, indeed, to the
real suppliers of the &oods, and not -ade pa'able to the Ma'or, . . ., and /ho in fact encashed the chec0s. .he onl' real
defense put up here b' the accused is thatE .he supplier-:ell' <u-ber and Construction $uppl' had subse@uentl' rei-bursed
the Municipalit' of the a-ount of P6=,6=.63 thereb' precludin& denial of the double pa'-ent as sho/n in Exh. ,1, of the
accused, . . . . *;nderscorin& in the ori&inal+.
)9
?ith his -otion for reconsideration havin& been denied, per the &raft courtBs resolution of 1) 5ul' 1((9,
6
petitioner is no/ /ith
us via the instant recourse.
Petitioner ac0no/led&es si&nin& the "Ds /hich paved the /a' for the double pa'-ent situation. 1e also ad-its encashin& the
chec0s correspondin& to the "Ds in @uestion. 1e nonetheless ur&es the settin& aside of the assailed decision, anchorin& his
virtual plea for ac@uittal on four *=+ basic issues, to /itE *1+ the fatall' fla/ed #nfor-ation filed a&ainst hi-G *+ the applicabilit'
in his favor of /hat he ta&&ed as the Arias 0octrineG *!+ the absence of bad faith on his partG and *=+ the refund of the a-ount
representin& overpa'-ent.
?e have carefull' revie/ed the records of this case and found nothin& therein to /arrant a reversal of the challen&ed decision
of the respondent court.
Petitioner -aintains, anent the first issue, that the #nfor-ation filed a&ainst hi- /as fatall' defective in that it did not alle&e that
he is an officer ,charged 9ith the grant o! licenses or #ermits or other concessions.F
PetitionerBs contention is fla/ed b' the ver' pre-ises holdin& it to&ether. 4or, it presupposes that $ection !*e+ of R.A. !21(
covers onl' public officers vested /ith the po/er of &rantin& licenses, per-its or si-ilar privile&es. Petitioner has obviousl' lost
si&ht, if not alto&ether una/are, of our rulin& in .e1orada vs. Sandiganbayan,
3
/here /e held that a prosecution for violation of
$ection !*e+ of the Anti-8raft <a/ /ill lie re&ardless of /hether or not the accused public officer is ,charged 9ith the grant o!
licenses or #ermits or other concessionsF. 4ollo/in& is an excerpt of /hat /e said in .e1oradaE
$ection ! cited above enu-erates in eleven subsections the corrupt practices of an' public officers *sic+ declared unla/ful. #ts
reference to ,an' public officer, is /ithout distinction or @ualification and it specifies the acts declared unla/ful. ?e a&ree /ith
the vie/ adopted b' the $olicitor 8eneral that the last sentence of para&raph H$ection !I *e+ is intended to -a0e clear the
inclusion of officers and e-plo'ees of officers *sic+ or &overn-ent corporations /hich, under the ordinar' concept of ,public
officers, -a' not co-e /ithin the ter-. 't is a strained construction o! the #rovision to read it as a##lying e&clusively to #ublic
o!!icers charged 9ith the duty o! granting licenses or #ermits or other concessions. *E-phasis and /ords in brac0et supplied+
At an' rate, the <ocal 8overn-ent Code, particularl' $ection === *b+*!+*iv and v+, Chapter !, .itle ##, Boo0 ###
thereof,
)
e-po/ers -unicipal -a'ors to issue licenses and per-its. An' su&&estion that a reference to such po/er in the
infor-ation is a condition sine 7ua non for a successful prosecution for violation of $ection !*e+ of RA !21( has to be reAected.
As the $olicitor 8eneral aptl' observed, -atters of la/ are dee-ed incorporated or read into the infor-ation.
$till, /ith respect to the first issue, petitioner sub-its that a conviction could arise onl' for an inculpator' act alle&ed in the
infor-ation and dul' established in the trial, ar&uin& in this re&ards that the infor-ation alle&ed that 8elly -umber /as paid
t/ice for the sa-e -aterials but /hat /as found durin& the trial /as that the said pa'-ent /as &iven to petitioner. Pressin&
the point, petitioner states in fine that a variance obtains bet/een /hat /as alle&ed in the #nfor-ation filed in this case and
/hat /as proven durin& trial.
?e are not persuaded.
As held in Socrates vs. Sandiganbayan and (eo#le o! the (hili##ines
9
E
xxx Evidentiar' facts need not be alle&ed in the infor-ation because these are -atters of defense. #nfor-ations need onl'
state the ulti-ate factsG the reasons therefor could be proved durin& the trial. x x x *;nderscorin& supplied+
And /hat petitioner too0 to be a variance bet/een the alle&ation in the infor-ation, i.e., the excess pa'-ent /as &iven
to 8elly -umber, and the acts proven, i.e., the pa'-ent in excess /as &iven to petitioner, is -ore apparent than real. .he
perceived variance cannot plausibl' be ta0en as invalidatin& the infor-ation and necessaril' petitionerBs conviction. As -a' be
noted, the infor-ation in @uestion states that ,x x & accused Buencamino .. Cruz, a #ublic o!!icer being then the .unici#al
.ayor o! Bacoor, Cavite and 9hile in the #er!ormance o! his o!!icial !unction, acting in evident bad !aith, did then and there
9ill!ully, unla9!ully and criminally #ay 8elly -umber and Construction Su##ly the amount o! /i!ty /our >housand /ive Hundred
/orty4>9o (esos and ?AG$;; )(?@,?@+.?A,, (hili##ine Currency & & &F. ?hat /as found durin& the trial, ho/ever, /as that,
albeit double pa'-ent /as eventuall' -ade, or appeared to have been -ade, to 8elly -umber, the coverin& chec0s initiall'
/ere -ade pa'able to petitioner. As a -atter of fact, 8elly -umber /as even -ade to appear to have refunded and returned
the second or double pa'-ent, as de-onstrated b' a Certi!ication to this effect issued on the 1(th da' of March 1(() and
si&ned b' Bacoor Municipal .reasurer $alo-e ;. Esa&unde, /hich Certi!ication reads in its -aterial part, as follo/sE
)(
C E R . # 4 # C A . # % N
.% ?1%M #. MA> C%NCERNE
.1#$ #$ .% CER.#4> that as per records of this office, :ell' 1ard/are O Construction $uppl' paid this office the follo/in&E
1. Refund to double pa'-ent on Doucher No. 121-(-23-1, paid under %RV=61=21 dated $epte-ber !2,
1((!YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY P!!,622.22
. Refund to double pa'-ent on Doucher No. 121-(-21-1(6, paid under %R No. =61=2 dated $epte-ber !2,
1((!YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY1,2=1.63
.otal S *posted at CBDV 121-(!2(-)!+YY...P 6=,6=.63
#ssued this 1(
th
da' of March, 1(() upon re@uest of ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ for /hatsoever le&al purpose this -a' serve.
*$i&ned+
$A<%ME ;. E$A8;N"E
Municipal .reasurer
Moreover, petitioner even ad-itted in his -e-orandu-
(
that ,the re!und by 8elly -umber and Construction Su##ly is the best
#roo! that he did not #ay himsel! !or the costs o! the su##ly & & &.F
#t bears stressin& that an infor-ation needs onl' alle&e the acts or o-issions co-plained of as constitutin& the offense
12
, in
this case, the fact that petitioner -ade pa'-ent to 8elly -umber t/ice, /ithout need of &oin& into specifics of ho/ such
pa'-ent /as -ade. .he acco-pan'in& details of the process of pa'-ent can be established durin& trial throu&h evidentiar'
offer.
#nvo0in& the lessons tau&ht in Arias vs. Sandiganbayan
11
, petitioner next ar&ues that he cannot be held &uilt' of violation of
$ection !*e+ of RA !21( for, follo/in& the doctrine established in that case, he had ever' ri&ht to rel', to a reasonable extent,
on the bona !ides of his subordinates, referrin& to the -unicipal treasurer and accountant, /ho prepared the "Ds and the
chec0s in @uestion.
PetitionerBs reliance on Arias is ver' -uch -isplaced. As -a' be recalled, this Court, in ac@uittin& the accused in Arias, -ade
the follo/in& pronounce-entsE
?e can, in retrospect, ar&ue that Arias should have probed records, inspected docu-ents, received procedures, and
@uestioned persons. #t is doubtful if an' auditor for a fairl'-si7ed office could #ersonally do all these thin&s in all vouchers
presented for his si&nature. .he Court /ould be as0in& for the i-possible. All heads of offices have to rel' to a reasonable
extent on their subordinates and on the &ood faith of those /ho prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into ne&otiations. #f a
depart-ent secretar' entertains i-portant visitors, the auditor is not ordinaril' expected to call the restaurant about the a-ount
of the bill, @uestion each &uest /hether he /as present at the luncheon, in@uire /hether the correct a-ount of food /as
served, and other/ise#ersonally loo0 into the rei-burse-ent voucherBs accurac', propriet', and sufficienc'. .here has to be
so-e added reason /h' he should exa-ine each voucher in such detail. An' executive head of even small&overn-ent
a&encies or co--issions can attest to the volu-e of papers that -ust be si&ned. .here are hundreds of docu-ents, letters,
-e-oranda, vouchers, and supportin& papers that routinel' pass throu&h his hands. x x x.
.here should be other &rounds than the -ere si&nature or approval appearin& on a voucher to sustain a conspirac' char&e
and conviction. *#talics in the ori&inalG ;nderscorin& supplied+.
;nli0e in Arias, ho/ever, there exists in the present case an exceptional circu-stance /hich should have prodded petitioner, if
he /ere out to protect the interest of the -unicipalit' he s/ore to serve, to be curious and &o be'ond /hat his subordinates
prepared or reco--ended. #n fine, the added reason conte-plated in Arias/hich /ould have put petitioner on his &uard and
exa-ine the chec0Ts and vouchers /ith so-e de&ree of circu-spection before si&nin& the sa-e /as obtainin& in this case.
92
?e refer to the unusual fact that the chec0s issued as pa'-ent for construction -aterials purchased b' the -unicipalit' /ere
not -ade pa'able to the supplier, 8elly -umber, but to petitioner hi-self even as the disburse-ent vouchers attached thereto
/ere in the na-e of 8elly -umber. .he discrepanc' bet/een the na-es indicated in the chec0s, on one hand, and those in
the disburse-ent vouchers, on the other, should have alerted petitioner - if he /ere conscientious of his duties as he purports
to be - that so-ethin& /as definitel' a-iss. .he fact that the chec0s for the -unicipalit'Bs purchases /ere -ade pa'able upon
his order should, /ithout -ore, have pro-pted petitioner to exa-ine the sa-e further to&ether /ith the supportin& docu-ents
attached to the-, and not rel' heavil' on the reco--endations of his subordinates.
#t need no stretchin& of the -ind to understand that the person or entit' in /hose favor a voucher is processed should also be
the pa'ee appearin& in the chec0s issued to satisf' the sa-e. >et, for still unexplained reasons, petitioner chose to deviate
fro- /hat to us is an ordinar' accountin& procedure, doubtless for a consideration less than honest.
Apropos the third issue, it is petitionerBs sub-ission that, /hile he -i&ht have been ne&li&ent in the perfor-ance of his duties,
the prosecution had not, at its end, established his bein& in bad faith.
?hether or not petitioner acted in &ood or bad faith in effectin& /hat, at botto-, is an unauthori7ed double pa'-ent,
addresses a @uestion of credibilit'. As a &eneral proposition, the deter-ination of credibilit' is the do-ain of the trial court, not
this Court.
1
And it cannot be overe-phasi7ed that the respondent court has declared petitioner to have acted /ith ,malice
a!terthought,, a disposition /hich, in the lan&ua&e of that court, ,is evident !rom checks originally issued in #ayment !or goods
#aid t9ice made in !avor o! the accused himsel!.F
1!
Added the respondent courtE
#ndeed b' the -ere fact that the accused herein had t/o *+ chec0s issued to hi- in his na-e, and then, collectin& the -one'
in cash /ithout an' reason therefore *sic+, is evident bad faith, as a&ainst bona!ides*&ood faith+ for his ver' act of havin& these
t/o *+ chec0s in his na-e runs a&ainst the L&a-utB of public accountabilit' . . . .
<est it be overloo0ed, the offense defined under $ection ! *e+ of R.A. !21( -a' be co--itted even if bad faith is not
attendant, the ele-ents of the cri-e bein&E
*1+ that the accused are public officers or private persons char&ed in conspirac' /ith the-G
*+ that the prohibited actTs /ere done in the dischar&e of the public officerBs official, ad-inistrative or Audicial functionsG
*!+ that the' cause undue inAur' to an' part', /hether 8overn-ent or a private personG
*=+ that such inAur' is caused b' &ivin& an' un/arranted benefits, advanta&e or preference to such part'G and
*6+ that the public officers acted /ith -anifest partialit', evident bad faith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence.
1=
#n Sistoza vs. 0esierto, et al.,
16
/e heldE
xxx Evidentl', -ere bad faith or partialit' and ne&li&ence #er se are not enou&h for one to be held liable under the la/ since
the act of bad faith or partialit' -ust in the first place be evident or mani!est, respectivel', /hile the ne&li&ent deed should both
be gross and ine&cusable. Pxx
8iven the above perspective, it is abundantl' clear that a violation of $ection !*e+ of R.A. !21( -a' be co--itted even
throu&h ne&li&ence provided that said ne&li&ence is both gross and ine&cusable.
Assu-in&, in gratia argumenti, that petitioner did not act in bad faith, he cannot plausibl' den' that his ne&li&ence under the
pre-ises /as not onl' &ross but also inexcusable. 4or, althou&h the chec0s /ere on their face pa'able to hi- even as the
supportin& disburse-ent vouchers /ere in the na-e of 8elly -umber, petitioner still affixed his si&nature thereon. #t is
unthin0able that such irre&ularit', &iven his stature and the nature of his position, /ould have passed hi- unnoticed. #n turn,
his subordinates could not have so easil', and /ith such darin&, presented hi- /ith a set of @uestionable docu-ents - as
petitioner /ould /ant to i-press this Court - /ithout his instructions.
91
4inall', it is puerile for petitioner to contend that 8elly -umberEs act of refundin& the a-ount subAect of double pa'-ent ar&ues
a&ainst the idea of the &overn-ent sufferin& da-a&es. .he inAur' suffered b' the &overn-ent is be'ond cavil. .his conclusion
/as aptl' explained b' the $andi&anba'an in the follo/in& /iseE
"a-a&e to the &overn-ent in that instance Hreferrin& to the alle&ed double pa'-entI is inevitable for the si-ple reason that
-one' ta0en fro- the coffers /as used b' so-eone else for about t/o 'ears and /ithout pa'in& interest and /ithout authorit'
for its use. *N.B. 1( March 1(() is onl' t/o -onths short of t/o 'ears fro- filin& of this case+.
Moreover, refund of the a-ount subAect of the prosecution is not one of those enu-erated under Article 9( of the Revised
Penal Code
13
/hich /ould totall' extin&uish cri-inal liabilit'. Article 9( of the Revised Penal Code applies in a suppletor'
character as provided for under Article 12
1)
of the sa-e Code.
As re&ards the penalt' i-posed b' the respondent court, /e find the sa-e to be proper in point of severit', albeit its
e-plo'-ent of the ter- ,#rision mayor, is inappropriate. #t is proper because $ection ( of R.A. !21( providesE
$EC.#%N (. (enalties !or violations S
*a+ An' public officer or private person co--ittin& an' of the unla/ful acts or o-ission enu-erated in $ections !, =, 6 and 3 of
this Act shall be punished /ith i-prison-ent for not less than six 'ears and one -onth nor -ore than fifteen 'ears, perpetual
dis@ualification fro- public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the 8overn-ent of an' prohibited interest and
unexplained /ealth -anifestl' out of proportion to his salar' and other la/ful inco-e.
#n the sa-e breath, ho/ever, the use of the sa-e ter- is inappropriate because the penalt' of #rision mayor is i-posable onl'
for felonies punishable under the Revised Penal Code or /hen a special la/ specificall' provides for such penalt' for a &iven
cri-e. As /e have said in (eo#le vs. SimonE
19
?ith respect to the first exa-ple, /here the penalties under the special la/ are different fro- and are /ithout reference or
relation to those under the Revised Penal Code, there can be no suppletor' effect of the rules for the application of penalties
under said Code or b' other relevant statutor' provisions based on or applicable onl' to said rules for felonies under the Code.
#n this t'pe of special la/, the le&islative intend-ent is clear.
.he sa-e exclusionar' rule /ould appl' to the last &iven exa-ple, Republic Act No. 36!(. ?hile it is true that the penalt' of
1= 'ears and 9 -onths to 1) 'ears and = -onths is virtuall' e@uivalent to the duration of the -ediu- period of reclusion
tem#oral , such technical ter- under the Revised Penal Code is not &iven to that penalt' for carnappin& . Besides, the other
penalties for carnappin& attended b' the @ualif'in& circu-stances stated in the la/ do not correspond to those in the Code.
.he rules on penalties in the Code, therefore, cannot suppletoril' appl' to Republic Act No. 36!( and special la/s of the sa-e
for-ulation. *#talics in the ori&inalG ;nderscorin& supplied+
Republic Act !21( under /hich petitioner /as prosecuted and convicted is a special la/ /hich does not provide for a penalt'
of ,prision -a'or, for an' of the acts punishable therein. Accordin&l', a -odification of the decision under revie/ /ith respect
to its penalt' co-ponent is in order.
WHERE4ORE, the instant petition is 5ENIE5 and the assailed decision and resolution of the $andi&anba'anA44IRME5, /ith
the -odification that petitioner B;ENCAM#N% MA<<AR#-CR;M is hereb' sentenced to a prison ter- of seven *)+ 'ears and
one *1+ -onth, as -ini-u-, to ten *12+ 'ears, as -axi-u-, /ith perpetual dis@ualification fro- holdin& public office, as
provided b' la/.
SO OR5ERE5.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate 5ustice
?E C%NC;RE
9
Associate 5ustice
Chair-an
ANGE0INA SAN5O3A0&GUTIERRE>
Associate 5ustice
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate 5ustice
CONCHITA CARPIO MORA0ES
Associate 5ustice
A T T E S T A T I O N
# attest that the conclusions in the above decision /ere reached in consultation before the case /as assi&ned to the /riter of
Associate 5ustice
Chair-an, .hird "ivision
Pursuant to Article D###, $ection 1! of the Constitution, and the "ivision Chair-anKs Attestation, it is hereb' certified that the
conclusions in the above decision /ere reached in consultation before the case /as assi&ned to the /riter of the opinion of the
Court.
HI0ARIO G. 5A3I5E, 1R.
Chief 5ustice
SUPREME COURT
Manila
.1#R" "#D#$#%N
G.R. No. 18I161 Se-te+ber 18, 200@
E5GAR5O H. CATIN5IG, petitioner,
vs.
THE PEOP0E O4 THE PHI0IPPINES ", ATT/. 5ANIE0 P. 4AN5IEO, 1R. Respondents.
" E C # $ # % N
CHICO&NA>ARIO, J.:
.his case is a Petition for Revie/ on Certiorari under Rule =6 of the 1(() Revised Rules of Civil Procedure see0in& to reverse
and set aside the "ecision
1
dated 1= $epte-ber 22) and Resolution
dated 1= Ma' 229 of the Court of Appeals in CA-8.R.

$P No. (3(!. #n its assailed "ecision, the Court of Appeals annulled and set aside the follo/in& %rders of the Re&ional .rial
Court *R.C+ of Cala-ba Cit', Branch !6, in Cri-inal Case No. 1!962-26-C for violation of $ection !*e+,
!
Republic Act No.
!21(, as a-ended, to /itE *1+ %rder dated = Ma' 223
=
directin& the issuance of a /arrant of arrest a&ainst herein private
respondent Att'. "aniel 4andiCo, 5r. *Att'. 4andiCo+ and his co-accused
6
therein and their suspension pendente lite fro- their
position as Chair-an and -e-bers of the Board of "irectors of the Cala-ba ?ater "istricts *C?"+, respectivel', for a period
9!
of 32 da's pursuant to $ection 1!
3
of Republic Act No. !21(, as a-endedG
)
and *+ %rder dated 6 5ul' 223 den'in& the
Motion for Reconsideration of private respondent and his co-accused therein. #n its @uestioned Resolution, the Court of
Appeals denied the Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner Ed&ardo 1. Catindi& *Catindi&+.
1erein petitioner Catindi& is an incu-bent -e-ber of the $an&&unian& Pa-ba'an of Cala-ba Cit', <a&una, /hile private
respondent Att'. 4andiCo is the dul' elected Chair-an of the Board of "irectors of C?".
.he factual antecedents of this case are as follo/sE
$o-eti-e in 221, a tea- of auditors fro- the Co--ission on Audit *C%A+ conducted a rate audit of C?", Cala-ba,
<a&una, coverin& its operations and financial transactions for calendar 'ear 221. .he audit /as -ade to deter-ine the
reasonableness of the /ater rate increase &ranted b' the <ocal ?ater ;tilities Ad-inistration *<?;A+ to the /ater districts to
cover Po/er Cost AdAust-ent *PCA+ and 4orei&n Exchan&e Cost AdAust-ent *4ECA+.
"urin& the exa-ination, the C%A audit tea- found that the Board of "irectors of C?" passed several resolutions &rantin&
benefits and allo/ances to officers, e-plo'ees and -e-bers of its Board of "irectors in the total a-ount of P16,=66,=(2.1=
supposedl' /ithout le&al basis and be'ond the allo/able li-it. .he said a-ount /as divided as follo/sE *1+ P=,!)9,(29.69
&ranted to the Board of "irectors of C?" over and above per die-s /ithout le&al basisG *+ P12,32,69).39 &ranted to C?"
officers and e-plo'ees /ithout le&al basisG and *!+ P=66,((!.99 &ranted to C?" officers and e-plo'ees in a-ounts over the
authori7ed li-its.
.he aforesaid findin&s of the C%A audit tea- /ere e-bodied in its Report No. 22-23.
9
.he C%A audit tea- explained
therein that the functions of the -e-bers of the Board of "irectors of the ?ater "istricts /ere li-ited to polic'--a0in&, as
clearl' stated in $ection 19
(
of Presidential "ecree No. 1(9, as a-ended. Moreover, even the <?;A, in its Resolution No.
!1!, $eries of 1((6, ac0no/led&ed that directors of ?ater "istricts a not or&anic personnel, and that their function is li-ited
onl' to polic'--a0in&. Also, $ection 1!
12
of Presidential "ecree No. 1(9, as a-ended, cate&oricall' provides that each
-e-ber of the Board of "irectors of the ?ater "istricts is entitled onl' to receive per die-, and no director shall receive other
co-pensation for services to the district. .hus, the C%A audit tea- stated in its audit report that the co-pensation, benefits
and allo/ances a-ountin& to P=,!)9,(29.69 received b' the Board of "irectors of C?" /ere in clear violation of $ection 1!
of Presidential "ecree No. 1(9, as a-ended. 4ro- the said a-ount, onl' P!33,!22 /as allo/ed, representin& the per die-
per board -eetin&. 4urther-ore, the allo/ances &ranted to the officers and e-plo'ees of C?" a-ountin& to P12,32,69).39
b' a -ere board resolution issued b' the Board of "irectors of C?" /ere /ithout basis, as these are not authori7ed b' la/.
Accordin&l', the audit tea- -ade the follo/in& reco--endationsE *1+ that the C?" -a0e a re-evaluation of the benefits and
allo/ances &ranted to its Board of "irectors, officers and e-plo'ees to ensure that the sa-e /ere authori7ed and /ithin the
li-its allo/ed under existin& la/s and re&ulationsG and *+ that the <?;A should adhere to the la/, particularl' Presidential
"ecree No. 1(9, as a-ended, in re&ulatin& the &rant of benefits and allo/ances to the C?" Board of "irectors, officials and
e-plo'ees to ensure that the sa-e are /ithin the authori7ed li-its.
%n the basis thereof, petitioner filed on ) 5ul' 22= a Co-plaint before the %ffice of the %-buds-an for <u7on *%-buds-an+
a&ainst private respondent and the other -e-bers of the Board of "irectors of C?" for a series of acts of &ross violation of
$ection !*i+
11
of Republic Act No. !21(, as a-ended, in conspirac' /ith one another, and in relation to their duties as public
officers of C?", /ith a pra'er for i--ediate preventive suspension a&ainst all of the-. .he said Co-plaint /as doc0eted as
%MB-<-C-2=-2)2(-1.
After &oin& over the records, the %-buds-an /as convinced that the findin&s of fact -ade b' the C%A audit tea- can sustain
char&es for violation of $ection !*e+ of Republic Act No. !21(, as a-ended, a&ainst private respondent and the other
-e-bers of the Board of "irectors of C?". .he %-buds-an then issued a Resolution
1
dated 3 Au&ust 226
reco--endin& the filin& of t/o #nfor-ations,
1!
both for violation of $ection !*e+ of Republic Act No. !21(, as a-ended, a&ainst
private respondent and the other -e-bers of the Board of "irectors of C?".
1=
.hereafter, t/o #nfor-ations, both dated 3 Au&ust 226, /ere filed a&ainst private respondent and the other -e-bers of the
Board of "irectors of C?" -- both for violation of $ection !*e+ of Republic Act No. !21(, as a-ended -- before the R.C of
Cala-ba Cit'. .he first #nfor-ation, doc0eted as Cri-inal Case No. 1!962-26-C,
16
/as raffled to Branch !6 of the R.C of
Cala-ba Cit'G /hile the other #nfor-ation, doc0eted as Cri-inal Case No. 1!961-26-C
13
/as raffled to Branch !3 thereof.
.he #nfor-ation doc0eted as Cri-inal Case No. 1!962-26-C, the subAect of this Petition, readsE
9=
.hat on or about the period fro- 1((!-221, or so-eti-e prior or subse@uent thereto, in the Municipalit' of Cala-ba,
Province of <a&una, Philippines, and /ithin the Aurisdiction of this 1onorable Court, the above-na-ed accused, HA..>.
4AN"#[%I, D#DENC#% P. <E;$, $><D#A D. .ANCAN8C%, $EDER#N% M. ARAMB;<%, public officers, bein& -e-bers of
the Board of "irectors of HC?"I, /hile in the perfor-ance of their official functions, co--ittin& the cri-e char&ed in relation to
their office, and ta0in& advanta&e of the sa-e, throu&h -anifest partialit', evident bad faith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence,
did then and there /illfull', unla/full' and feloniousl' allo/ and &rant unto the-selves the total a-ount of P=,!)9,(29.22 as
benefits consistin& of directorBs fee, RA.A, extra and -iscellaneous expense, -id-'ear productivit' incentive, anniversar'
incentive, 1!th -onth pa', Christ-as incentive, 'ear-end incentive, unifor- allo/ance, -edical and hospitali7ation, travelin&
and per die- durin& official business and e-plo'erBs contribution to HBoard of "irectorsBI share in the /elfareTprovident fund
/hen in truth and in fact the' are not allo/ed b' la/ because the' are not or&anic personnel of the /ater district /hose
functions are li-ited onl' to polic' -a0in& and not in the detailed -ana&e-ent of the district, thereb' causin& undue inAur' to
the &overn-ent in the aforestated a-ount.
1)
*E-phases supplied.+
%n 1 "ece-ber 226, the private respondent and the other -e-bers of the Board of "irectors of C?" filed in Cri-inal Case
No. 1!962-26-C an %-nibus Motion for "eter-ination of the Existence of Probable Cause, Motion to "is-iss for <ac0 of
Probable Cause and Motion to 1old in Abe'ance the #ssuance of ?arrant of Arrest.
19
.hen, on 1( "ece-ber 226, the' filed a
$upple-ental Motion to their %-nibus Motion for "eter-ination of the Existence of Probable Cause, Motion to "is-iss for
<ac0 of Probable Cause and Motion to 1old in Abe'ance the #ssuance of ?arrant of Arrest.
1(
%n = Ma' 223, the R.C of Cala-ba Cit', <a&una, Branch !6, issued an %rder findin& probable cause for the issuance of a
/arrant of arrest a&ainst the private respondent and the other -e-bers of the Board of "irectors of C?". .he dispositive
portion of the %rder readsE
?1ERE4%RE, pre-ises considered, let a /arrant for the arrest of the Hherein private respondent and the other -e-bers of
the Board of "irectors of C?"I be issued.
<i0e/ise, pursuant to $ection 1!, R.A. HNo.I !21(, Has a-endedI, this Court hereb' orders the suspension pendente lite of Hthe
private respondent and the other -e-bers of the Board of "irectors of C?"I fro- their position as -e-bers of the Board of
"irectors, Cala-ba ?ater "istricts for a period of sixt' *32+ da's, to ta0e effect i--ediatel' upon receipt hereof.
<et a cop' of this %rder be furnished to the HC?"I for the i-ple-entation of the suspension order.
.he said HC?"I shall infor- this Court of an' action ta0en thereon /ithin ten *12+ da's fro- receipt thereof and its authori7ed
official or dul' authori7ed representative shall advise this Court of the date of the actual i-ple-entation of the suspension of
the Hprivate respondent and his co-accused thereinI as /ell as the expiration of the sixtieth da' hereof so that the sa-e -a'
be lifted at the proper ti-e.
$end a cop' of this order to the %ffice of the Cit' Prosecutor and Att'. Brion, 5r.
2
*E-phases supplied.+
.he private respondent and the other -e-bers of the Board of "irectors of C?" -oved for the reconsideration of the
aforesaid %rder, but the -otion /as denied in the court a @uoBs other %rder dated 6 5ul' 223.
.he private respondent /as the onl' one /ho elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule
36 of the 1(() Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. 1e challen&ed the aforesaid t/o %rders of the court a @uo for havin& been
issued /ith &rave abuse of discretion a-ountin& to lac0 or excess of Aurisdiction, as the facts on record did not establish pri-a
facie probable causeG thus, Cri-inal Case No. 1!962-26-C should have been dis-issed.$avv#hi$
%n 1= $epte-ber 22), the Court of Appeals rendered its "ecision &rantin& the Petition of the private respondent, thereb'
annullin& and settin& aside the t/o %rders dated = Ma' 223 and 6 5ul' 223 of the court a @uo.
.he Court of Appeals stated in its "ecision that the e-plo'ees and officers, includin& the Board of "irectors of the C?", had
received the disputed allo/ances and benefits lon& before this Court declared as ille&al such pa'-ent of additional
co-pensationG thus, it could be reasonabl' concluded that private respondent and his co-accused in the case belo/ received
the sa-e in &ood faith. .he Court of Appeals also elucidated that in prosecutin& cases involvin& violation of $ection !*e+ of
Republic Act No. !21(, as a-ended, the public officers -ust have acted /ith -anifest partialit', evident bad faith or &ross
inexcusable ne&li&ence in perfor-in& their le&al duties. #n the absence of bad faith, private respondent and his co-accused in
the case belo/ cannot be held liable for violation of $ection !*e+ of Republic Act No. !21(, as a-ended.
96
A&&rieved, petitioner -oved for a reconsideration of the aforesaid "ecision of the Court of Appeals, but the -otion /as denied
b' the appellate court in its Resolution dated 1= Ma' 229.
1ence, this Petition /ith the follo/in& assi&n-ent of errorsE
A
.1E C%;R. %4 APPEA<$ ERRE" AN" 8RADE<> AB;$E" #.$ 5;R#$"#C.#%N ?1EN #. R;<E" .1E
PE.#.#%N .1ERE#N BA$E" %N 4AC.;A< #$$;E RA.1ER .1AN %N .1E #$$;E %4 5;R#$"#C.#%N %4 .1E
.R#A< C%;R., $#NCE #. ?A$ 4%R CER.#%RAR# ;N"ER R;<E 36 %4 .1E 1(() R;<E$ %4 C#D#<
PR%CE";RE, A$ AMEN"E".
B
.1E C%;R. %4 APPEA<$ ERRE" AN" 8RADE<> AB;$E" #.$ "#$CRE.#%N ?1EN #. "#" N%. %;.R#81.<>
"#$M#$$ .1E PE.#.#%N #N N;E$.#%N $#NCE .1E #$$;E$ RA#$E" .1ERE#N ?ERE $;B$.AN.#A<<> .1E
$AME #N CA-8.R. $P N%. (=)=, ?1#C1 #. A<REA"> 4#NA<<> "#$M#$$E" %;.R#81.<> %N H9 "ECEMBER
226I <%N8 BE4%RE .1E PE.#.#%N #N N;E$.#%N #N CA-8.R. $P N%. (3(! ?A$ 4#<E" ?#.1 .1#$
1%N%RAB<E C%;R. "A.E" H= A;8;$. 223I.
C
.1E C%;R. %4 APPEA<$ ERRE", #N 8RADE AB;$E %4 #.$ "#$CRE.#%N ?1EN #. 4A#<E" .% N%.#CE
CER.A#N RE<EDAN. 4AC.$ #N #.$ N;E$.#%NE" "EC#$#%N AN" RE$%<;.#%N ?1#C1, #4 PR%PER<>
C%N$#"ERE", ?#<< 5;$.#4> A "#44EREN. C%NC<;$#%N .1ERE%4.
"
.1E C%;R. %4 APPEA<$ ERRE" AN" 8RADE<> AB;$E" #.$ "#$CRE.#%N ?1EN #. "#" N%. ;P1%<" .1E
A$$A#<E" .?% %R"ER$ #N N;E$.#%N %4 .1E .R#A< C%;R..
8iven the fore&oin&, the issues that -ust be resolved in this Petition areE
#. ?hether the Court of Appeals erred in pronouncin& that the private respondent and the other -e-bers of the Board
of "irectors of the C?" acted in &ood faith in receivin& the disputed benefits and allo/ances pursuant to <?;A
Resolution No. !1!, as a-ended, in a Petition for Certiorari, /hich is -eant onl' to correct errors of Aurisdiction and
&rave abuse of discretion.
##. ?hether the Court of Appeals erred in not outri&htl' dis-issin& CA-8.R. $P No. (3(! on the &round of res
Audicata.
.he present Petition is not i-pressed /ith -erit.
Petitioner ar&ues that a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 36 of the 1(() Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, /hich /as used b'
the private respondent in challen&in& the %rders dated = Ma' 223 and 6 5ul' 223 of the court a @uo, is intended onl' to
correct errors of Aurisdiction and &rave abuse of discretion or excess of Aurisdiction co--itted b' the trial court. #t cannot be
used to correct an error of Aud&-ent or si-ple abuse of discretion. Also, it cannot be le&all' used for an' other purpose.
Petitioner, thus, holds that the Court of Appeals erred /hen it ruled not onl' on the issue of &rave abuse of discretion but also
on the -erits of the case, that is, b' rulin& that the private respondent and the other -e-bers of the Board of "irectors of
C?" acted in &ood faith in receivin& the disputed benefits and allo/ances pursuant to <?;A Resolution No. !1!.
At the outset, the %-buds-an reco--ended the filin& of t/o #nfor-ations /ith the R.C of Cala-ba Cit' a&ainst the private
respondent and the other -e-bers of the Board of "irectors of C?" for violation of $ection !*e+ of Republic Act No. !21(, as
a-ended. %ne of the t/o #nfor-ations /as lod&ed before Branch !6 of the R.C of Cala-ba Cit', and is no/ the subAect of
this Petition. After the #nfor-ation /as filed /ith the court a @uo, the private respondent and the other -e-bers of the Board of
"irectors of C?" conversel' filed an %-nibus Motion for "eter-ination of the Existence of Probable Cause, Motion to
"is-iss for <ac0 of Probable Cause and Motion to 1old in Abe'ance the #ssuance of ?arrant of Arrest. #n resolvin& the said
93
%-nibus Motion, the trial court issued an %rder dated = Ma' 223 findin& probable cause for the issuance of a /arrant of
arrest a&ainst the private respondent and the other -e-bers of the Board of "irectors of C?". .he trial court, thus, directed
the issuance of a /arrant of arrest and the suspension pendente lite of private respondent and the other -e-bers of the
Board of "irectors of C?". #n effect, the trial court denied the %-nibus Motion of the private respondent and the other
-e-bers of the Board of "irectors of C?", thus, sustainin& the %-buds-anBs findin&s of probable cause a&ainst thefor
violation of $ection !*e+ of Republic Act No. !21(, as a-ended. .he subse@uent Motion for Reconsideration of the private
respondent and the other -e-bers of the Board of "irectors of C?" /as denied in the trial courtBs %rder dated 6 5ul' 223.
Conse@uentl', the private respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari /ith the Court of Appeals @uestionin& the aforesaid t/o
%rders of the court a @uo.
#t is a funda-ental principle that an order den'in& a Motion to "is-iss is an interlocutor' order, /hich neither ter-inates nor
finall' disposes of a case, as it leaves so-ethin& to be done b' the court before the case is finall' decided on the -erits. As
such, the &eneral rule is that the denial of a Motion to "is-iss cannot be @uestioned in a special civil action for certiorari,
/hich is a re-ed' desi&ned to correct errors of Aurisdiction and not errors of Aud&-ent. Neither can a denial of a Motion to
"is-iss be the subAect of an appeal unless and until a final Aud&-ent or order is rendered. #n order to Austif' the &rant of the
extraordinar' re-ed' of certiorari, the denial of the Motion to "is-iss -ust have been tainted /ith &rave abuse of discretion
a-ountin& to lac0 or excess of Aurisdiction.
1
.here is ,&rave abuse of discretion, /here ,a po/er is exercised in an arbitrar', capricious, /hi-sical or despotic -anner b'
reason of passion or personal hostilit', so patent and so &ross as to a-ount to evasion of positive dut' or virtual refusal to
perfor- a dut' enAoined b', or in conte-plation of la/.,
?ith the aforesaid definition, it cannot be said that the trial court &ravel' abuse its discretion in findin& probable cause for the
issuance of a /arrant of arrest a&ainst the private respondent and the other -e-bers of the Board of "irectors of C?", thus,
den'in& their %-nibus Motion. #t bears e-phasis that the trial court itself carefull' scrutini7ed the docu-ents sub-itted b' the
parties and personall' evaluated the Resolution of the %-buds-an findin& probable cause for the filin& of the #nfor-ation
a&ainst the private respondent and the other -e-bers of the Board of "irectors of C?" for violation of $ection !*e+ of
Republic Act No. !21(, as a-ended. After it /as convinced that probable cause exists to issue a /arrant of arrest, it /as onl'
then that it directed the issuance thereof.
.he aforesaid &eneral rule, ho/ever, is not absolute. ?here special circu-stances clearl' de-onstrate the inade@uac' of an
appeal, then the special civil action of certiorari -a' exceptionall' be allo/ed. .his Court cate&oricall' stated in $alon&a v.
Cru7 PaCo
!
that under certain situations, recourse to the extraordinar' le&al re-edies of certiorari, prohibition or -anda-us
to @uestion the denial of a -otion to @uash is considered proper in the interest of -ore enli&htened and substantial Austice.
=
After a careful revie/ of the records, this Court finds that such special circu-stance obtains in the present case. $i-pl' stated,
the existin& evidence is insufficient to establish probable cause a&ainst the private respondent to prosecute hi- for violation of
$ection !*e+ of Republic Act No. !21(, as a-ended, vis-\-vis to establish probable cause for the issuance of a /arrant of
arrest a&ainst hi-.
.he %-buds-an, in arrivin& at the conclusion that probable cause exists to prosecute the private respondent and the other
-e-bers of the Board of "irectors of C?" for violation of $ection !*e+ of Republic Act No. !21(, as a-ended, relied heavil'
on the findin&s of fact of the C%A audit tea- and the rulin& of this Court in Ba'ba' ?ater "istrict v. Co--ission on
Audit.
6
$uch findin& of probable cause b' the %-buds-an /as affir-ed b' the trial court in its t/o %rders dated = Ma' 223
and 6 5ul' 223 resultin& in its issuance of a /arrant of arrest a&ainst the private respondent and the other -e-bers of the
Board of "irectors of C?",
.he findin&s of fact of the C%A audit tea- revealed that the Board of "irectors of C?" passed several resolutions &rantin&
benefits and allo/ances to its officers, e-plo'ees and -e-bers of its Board of "irectors, includin& the private respondent.
.he said benefits and allo/ances &ranted to the -e-bers of the Board of "irectors of C?" a-ountin& to P=,!)9,(29.69, are
as follo/sE *1+ directorBs feeG *+ RA.AG *!+ extra and -iscellaneous expenseG *=+ -id-'ear productivit' incentiveG *6+
anniversar' incentiveG *3+ 1!th -onth pa'G *)+ Christ-as incentiveG *9+ 'earend incentiveG *(+ unifor- allo/anceG *12+ -edical
and hospitali7ation, and travelin& and per die- durin& official businessG and *11+ e-plo'erBs contribution to the Board of
"irectorsB share in the /elfareTprovident fund. .he C%A audit tea- in its audit report stated that the aforesaid benefits and
allo/ances &ranted to the -e-bers of the Board of "irectors of C?" /ere /ithout basis. .he C%A audit tea- explained that
the functions of the -e-bers of the Board of "irectors of ?ater "istricts are li-ited onl' to polic'--a0in& as provided for in
$ection 19, Presidential "ecree No. 1(9, as a-ended. Moreover, $ection 1! of Presidential "ecree No. 1(9, as a-ended,
explicitl' states that the director of /ater districts shall receive no other co-pensation other than the per die-.
9)
#n Ba'ba' ?ater "istrict v. Co--ission on Audit,
3
this Court -ade a cate&orical pronounce-ent that Presidential "ecree No.
1(9, as a-ended, expressl' prohibits the &rant of co-pensation other than the pa'-ent of per die-s, to directors of /ater
districts. .he erroneous application and enforce-ent of the la/ b' public officers does not estop the 8overn-ent fro- -a0in&
a subse@uent correction of such errors. More specificall', /here there is an express provision of la/ prohibitin& the &rant of
certain benefits, the la/ -ust be enforced even if it preAudices certain parties due to an error co--itted b' public officials in
&rantin& the benefit. Practice, /ithout -ore, no -atter ho/ lon& continued, cannot &ive rise to an' vested ri&ht if it is contrar'
to la/.
"espite the fore&oin&, this Court stron&l' holds that there /as no probable cause to prosecute the private respondent and the
other -e-bers of the Board of "irectors of C?" for violation of $ection !*e+ of Republic Act No. !21(, as a-ended, and to
issue /arrant of arrest a&ainst the-.
$ection !*e+ of Republic Act No. !21(, as a-ended, providesE
$EC. !. Corrupt practices of public officers. F #n addition to acts or o-issions of public officers alread' penali7ed b' existin&
x x x x
4ro- the afore@uoted provisions, the ele-ents of violation of $ection !*e+ of Republic Act No. !21(, as a-ended, are as
follo/sE *1+ the accused -ust be a public officer dischar&in& ad-inistrative, Audicial or official functionsG *+ he -ust have acted
/ith -anifest partialit', evident bad faith or inexcusable ne&li&enceG and *!+ his action caused undue inAur' to an' part',
includin& the &overn-ent, or &ave an' private part' an un/arranted benefit, advanta&e or preference in the dischar&e of his
functions.
)
#n the present case, the second ele-ent of violation of $ection !*e+ of Republic Act No. !21(, as a-ended, i.e., that the
private respondent and the other -e-bers of the Board of "irectors of C?" acted /ith -anifest partialit', evident bad faith or
inexcusable ne&li&ence, is absent.
#n $oriano v. Marcelo,
9
citin& Albert v. $andi&anba'an,
(
this Court discussed the second ele-ent, to /itE
.here is ,-anifest partialit', /hen there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person
rather than another. ,Evident bad faith, connotes not onl' bad Aud&-ent but also palpabl' and patentl' fraudulent and
dishonest purpose to do -oral obli@uit' or conscious /ron&doin& for so-e perverse -otive or ill /ill. ,Evident bad faith,
conte-plates a state of -ind affir-ativel' operatin& /ith furtive desi&n or /ith so-e -otive or self-interest or ill /ill or for
ulterior purposes. ,8ross inexcusable ne&li&ence, refers to ne&li&ence characteri7ed b' the /ant of even the sli&htest care,
actin& or o-ittin& to act in a situation /here there is a dut' to act, not inadvertentl' but /illfull' and intentionall', /ith
conscious indifference to conse@uences insofar as other persons -a' be affected. *E-phases supplied.+
Based on the fore&oin& definitions, this Court does not find the act of the private respondent and the other -e-bers of the
Board of "irectors of C?" of passin& resolutions &rantin& benefits and allo/ances to have been co--itted /ith -anifest
i-partialit', evident bad faith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence.
#t bears stressin& that in &rantin& those benefits and allo/ances, the Board of "irectors of C?" relied on Resolution No. !1!,
$eries of 1((6, as a-ended b' Resolution No. !(, $eries of 1((3, entitled ,Polic' 8uidelines on Co-pensation and %ther
Benefits to ?ater "istrict Board of "irectors,, /hich /as issued b' the <?;A itself, the bod' that oversees and re&ulates the
operations of the local /ater districts. .he benefits &ranted b' the said <?;A Resolution No. !1!, $eries of 1((6, to the board
of directors of /ater districts are the follo/in&E rata, travel allo/ance, extraordinar' and -iscellaneous expense, Christ-as
bonus, cash &ift, unifor- allo/ance, rice allo/ance, -edicalTdental benefits and productivit' incentive bonus.
!2
More so, at the ti-e that the private respondent and the other -e-bers of the Board of "irectors of C?" passed the
resolutions fro- 1((!-221 &rantin& benefits and allo/ances, this Court had not 'et decided Ba'ba' ?ater "istrict v.
Co--ission on Audit, /hich /as pro-ul&ated onl' in 22. Also, it /as onl' in "e 5esus v. Co--ission on Audit,
!1
appl'in&
99
Ba'ba' ?ater "istrict v. Co--ission on Audit, that this Court declared that <?;A Resolution No. !1!, $eries of 1((6, /hich
&rants co-pensation and other benefits to the -e-bers of the Board of "irectors of <ocal ?ater "istricts, is not in confor-it'
/ith $ection 1! of Presidential "ecree No. 1(9, as a-ended.
.herefore, in rel'in& on <?;A Resolution No. !1!, $eries of 1((6 in passin& several resolutions &rantin& the disputed
benefits and allo/ances, the private respondent and the other -e-bers of the Board of "irector of C?" acted in &ood faith,
as the' /ere of the honest belief that <?;A Board Resolution No. !1!, as a-ended, /as valid.
Bad faith is never presu-ed, /hile &ood faith is al/a's presu-edG and the chapter on 1u-an Relations of the Civil Code
directs ever' person, inter alia, to observe &ood faith, /hich sprin&s fro- the fountain of &ood conscience.
!
#n the absence of -anifest partialit', evident bad faith or inexcusable ne&li&ence in passin& several resolutions &rantin&
benefits and allo/ances, there can be no probable cause to prosecute the private respondent and the other -e-bers of the
Board of "irectors of C?" for violation of $ection !*e+ of Republic Act No. !21(, as a-ended. Conse@uentl', there /as also
no probable cause for the issuance of a /arrant of arrest a&ainst the-.
Clearl', /here the evidence patentl' de-onstrates the innocence of the accused, as in this case, this Court finds no reason to
continue /ith his prosecutionG other/ise, persecution a-ountin& to &rave and -anifest inAustice /ould be the inevitable
result.
!!
#n Principio v. Barrientos,
!=
petitioner therein filed a -otion /ith the trial court pra'in& that its -otion for reconsideration filed
/ith the %-buds-an be &iven due course and thereafter, rule that no probable cause exists. .he trial court denied the said
-otion of the petitioner, thus, affir-in& the findin& of probable cause. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari /ith the Court of
Appeals, but it dis-issed the petition and affir-ed the R.C. %n appeal to this Court via a Petition for Revie/ on Certiorari, this
Court ratiocinated thatE
At the outset, /e reiterate the funda-ental principle that an order den'in& a -otion to @uash is interlocutor' and therefore not
appealable, nor can it be the subAect of a petition for certiorari. x x x .he proper procedure to be follo/ed is to enter a plea, &o
to trial, and if the decision is adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal fro- the final Aud&-ent. x x x.
1o/ever, the &eneral rule is not absolute. ?here special circu-stances clearl' de-onstrate the inade@uac' of an appeal,
then the special civil action of certiorari or prohibition -a' exceptionall' be allo/ed. x x x.
After a careful revie/ of the records, /e find that such special circu-stance obtains in the case at bar. $i-pl' stated, the
existin& evidence is insufficient to establish probable cause a&ainst the petitioner and therefore, the petition -ust be &ranted.
x x x x
4urther-ore, the %-buds-an cannot i-pute bad faith on the part of the petitioner on the assu-ption that he, to&ether /ith
other B$P officials, /as part of a cabal to appl' pressure on RB$M# to sell out b' subAectin& it to -an' i-positions throu&h the
Monetar' Board. Bad faith is never presu-ed /hile &ood faith is al/a's presu-ed x x x. .herefore, he /ho clai-s bad faith
-ust prove it. x x x .he %-buds-an should have first deter-ined the facts indicatin& bad faith instead of rel'in& on the
tenuous assu-ption that there /as an orchestrated atte-pt to force RB$M# to sell out.
As a &eneral rule, courts do not interfere /ith the discretion of the %-buds-an to deter-ine /hether there exists reasonable
&round to believe that a cri-e has been co--itted and that the accused is probabl' &uilt' thereof and, thereafter, to file the
correspondin& infor-ation /ith the appropriate courts. .here are, ho/ever, /ell-reco&ni7ed exceptions to this rule, such as
those enu-erated in Broc0a v. Enrile H8.R. Nos. 3(93!-36, "ece-ber 12, 1((2, 1( $CRA 19!, 199-19(I to /itE
a. .o afford ade@uate protection to the constitutional ri&hts of the accused x x xG
b. ?hen necessar' for the orderl' ad-inistration of Austice or to avoid oppression or -ultiplicit' of actions x x xG
c. ?hen there is a pre-Audicial @uestion /hich is subAudice x x xG
d. ?hen the acts of the officer are /ithout or in excess of authorit' x x xG
9(
e. ?here the prosecution is under an invalid la/, ordinance or re&ulation x x xG
f. ?hen double Aeopard' is clearl' apparent x x xG
&. ?here the court has no Aurisdiction over the offense x x xG
h. ?here it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution x x x G
i. ?here the char&es are -anifestl' false and -otivated b' the lust for ven&eance x x xG
A. ?hen there is clearl' no pri-a facie case a&ainst the accused and a -otion to @uash on that &round has been
denied x x xG and
0. Preli-inar' inAunction has been issued b' the $upre-e Court to prevent the threatened unla/ful arrest of
petitioners x x x.
.his is not the first ti-e that /e are dis-issin& a case for /ant of probable cause. #n Cabahu& v. People H=3 Phil. =(2, 612
*22+I, /e too0 exception to the %-buds-anBs deter-ination of probable cause and accordin&l' dis-issed the case a&ainst
the accused before the $andi&anba'an. .herein, /e observedE
?hile it is the function of the %-buds-an to deter-ine /hether or]not the petitioner should be subAected to the expense,
ri&ors and e-barrass-ent of trial, he cannot do so arbitraril'. .his see-in&l' exclusive and unilateral authorit' of the
%-buds-an -ust be te-pered b' the Court /hen po/ers of prosecution are in dan&er of bein& used for persecution.
"is-issin& the case a&ainst the accused for palpable /ant of probable cause not onl' spares her the expense, ri&ors and
e-barrass-ent of trial, but also prevents needless /aste of the courtsB ti-e and saves the precious resources of the
&overn-ent. *E-phases supplied.+
.hus, the Court of Appeals did not err in &rantin& the Petition for Certiorari of the private respondent and in pronouncin& that
he and the other -e-bers of the Board of "irectors of C?" acted in &ood faith.
$i-ilarl', petitioner contends that the substantial facts and issues involved in the Petition for Revie/ in CA-8.R. $P No. (=)=
/ere the sa-e facts and issues raised in the Petition for Certiorari in CA-8.R. $P No. (3(!, the subAect of the present
Petition. ?ith the dis-issal of the Petition for Revie/ in CA-8.R. $P No. (=)=, /hich beca-e final and executor' on (
March 223, petitioner insists that the Court of Appeals should have also dis-issed outri&ht the private respondentBs Petition
for Certiorari in CA-8.R. $P No. (3(! on the &round of res Audicata.$avv#hi$
Res Audicata exists /hen the follo/in& ele-ents are presentE *a+ the for-er Aud&-ent -ust be finalG *b+ the court that rendered
it had Aurisdiction over the parties and the subAect -atterG *c+ it -ust be a Aud&-ent on the -eritsG and *d+ there -ust be --
bet/een the first and the second actions -- identit' of parties, subAect -atter, and cause of action.
!6
E-phasis -ust be &iven to the fact that CA-8.R. No. (=)= /as dis-issed based on pure technicalities and not on the -erits,
to /itE *1+ therein petitionersB *no/ private respondentBs+ counsels failed to indicate their respective #nte&rated Bar of the
Philippines *#BP+ %fficial Receipt nu-bers, in violation of Bar Matter No. 11!G *+ the Petition did not contain an affidavit of
service, as re@uired b' $ection 1!, Rule 1! and $ection 6, Rule =!, of the Rules of Procedure, as proof that cop' of the said
Petition had been served on the adverse part'G *!+ the Petition does not contain an' explanation of /h' a personal service
upon therein private respondent *no/ petitioner+ /as not resorted to pursuant to $ection 11, Rule 1!G and therein petitioners
failed to furnish the %-buds-an and the %ffice of the $olicitor 8eneral *%$8+ /ith a cop' of their Petition.
Clearl' fro- the fore&oin&, the dis-issal of CA-8.R. $P No. (=)= /as based on sheer technicalit'. $ince no Aud&-ent on the
-erits /as rendered after consideration of the evidence or stipulation sub-itted b' the parties at the trial of the case, it falls
short of one of the essential re@uisites of res Audicata, that the Aud&-ent should be one on the -erits.
!3
?1ERE4%RE, pre-ises considered, the instant Petition for Revie/ on Certiorari is hereb' "EN#E". No costs.
$% %R"ERE".
(2
MINITA 3. CHICO&NA>ARIO
Associate 5ustice
?E C%NC;RE
Associate 5ustice
Chairperson
Associate 5ustice
Associate 5ustice
5IOS5A5O M. PERA0TA
Associate 5ustice
A . . E $ . A . # % N
# attest that the conclusions in the above "ecision /ere reached in consultation before the case /as assi&ned to the /riter of
Associate 5ustice
C E R . # 4 # C A . # % N
Pursuant to $ection 1!, Article D### of the Constitution, and the "ivision ChairpersonBs Attestation, it is hereb' certified that the
conclusions in the above "ecision /ere reached in consultation before the case /as assi&ned to the /riter of the opinion of
the CourtBs "ivision.
RE/NATO S. PUNO
Chief 5ustice
SUPREME COURT
Manila
4#R$. "#D#$#%N
G.R. No. 16682I 5ece+ber 8, 200I
GRACIANO P. 5E0A CHICA, M%9c9-"# M"8or, ", E3AN C. ACE3E5A, M%9c9-"# E.9eer, :"co, Or9et"#
M9,oro, petitioners,
vs.
HON. SAN5IGAN:A/AN, 6t! 59=979o, ", PEOP0E O4 THE PHI0IPPINES, respondents.
" E C # $ # % N
A>CUNA, J.:
#n this special civil action for certiorari /ith pra'er for te-porar' restrainin& order andTor preli-inar' inAunction, petitioners
8raciano P. "ela Chica and Evan C. Aceveda are challen&in& t/o resolutions issued b' the =th "ivision of the
$andi&anba'an in Cri-inal Case No. 6199, in /hich petitioners stand char&ed for violation of $ection !*e+ of Republic Act
*R.A.+ No. !21(, as a-ended, other/ise 0no/n as the Anti-8raft and Corrupt Practices Act. .he resolutions assailed are
those dated April 1=, 222,
1
/hich ordered the suspension#endente lite of petitioners for a period of ninet' da'sG and dated
$epte-ber 1, 222,
/hich denied petitionersB de-urrer to evidence and -otion for reconsideration of the suspension order.
(1
.he records sho/ that in an infor-ation dated 4ebruar' 9, 1(((, the %ffice of the "eput' %-buds-an for <u7on char&ed
petitioners before the $andi&anba'an for violation of $ection ! *e+, R.A. No. !21(, /hich reads, as follo/sE
.hat on Nove-ber 9, 1((6 or so-eti-e prior or subse@uent thereto, in Baco, %riental Mindoro and /ithin the Aurisdiction of
this 1onorable Court, accused, Municipal Ma'or 8raciano P. "ela Chica and Municipal En&ineer Evan C. Aceveda, of the
Municipalit' of Baco, %riental Mindoro, /hile in the perfor-ance of their official functions, and ta0in& advanta&e of the sa-e,
actin& in conspirac' /ith one another, did then and there /ilfull', unla/full' and cri-inall' cause undue inAur' to the
&overn-ent b' -a0in& revisions in the co-pletion of the -unicipal buildin& /ithout prior approval b' the proper authorities
resultin& to cost deficienc' of P!)6,39.!, to the da-a&e and inAur' of the &overn-ent, in the a-ount aforestated.
!
%n Au&ust 2, 1(((, petitioners /ere arrai&ned and both entered a plea of not &uilt'.
=
Petitioners thereafter sou&ht to @uestion the sufficienc' of the infor-ation b' filin& a -otion for bill of particulars, pra'in& that
the prosecution be directed to specif' the persons referred to in the infor-ation as ,proper authorities., .his /as, ho/ever,
denied b' the $andi&anba'an, as it ruled that the arrai&n-ent had barred it fro- approvin& a-end-ents be'ond the -atter of
for-.
%n "ece-ber !, 1(((, the prosecution filed a Motion to $uspend Accused (endente -ite pursuant to $ection 1!, R.A. No.
!21(.
6
Petitioners thereafter filed an opposition thereto, on the &round that the infor-ation is invalid as not all the essential
ele-ents of the offense char&ed /ere alle&ed therein, particularl' the ele-ent of ,evident bad faith, -anifest partialit' or &ross
inexcusable ne&li&ence.,
3
.he $andi&anba'an handed do/n the first assailed resolution on April 1=, 222, orderin& petitionersB suspension #endente
lite for (2 da's.
)
#t ruled that in its previous order den'in& petitionersB -otion for bill of particulars, it in effect upheld the
sufficienc' of the infor-ation, hence the -andator' suspension #endent liteof petitioners is called for. Petitioners filed a -otion
for reconsideration, /hich respondent court denied in its subse@uent resolution on $epte-ber 1, 222.
9
Petitioners no/ alle&e that respondent $andi&anba'an acted /ith &rave abuse of discretion a-ountin& to lac0 of Aurisdiction in
issuin& the @uestioned resolutions. Petitioners cite the follo/in& as errorsE
A. RE$P%N"EN. C%;R. 8RADE<> ERRE" #N 4#N"#N8 AN" C%NC<;"#N8 .1A. .1E #N4%RMA.#%N
ANNEP LCB 1ERE%4, #$ DA<#".
B. RE$P%N"EN. C%;R. C%MM#..E" A $ER#%;$ ERR%R %4 <A? AN" HAC.E"I ?#.1 8RADE AB;$E %4
"#$CRE.#%N #N %R"ER#N8 .1E $;$PEN$#%N %4 PE.#.#%NER$ 4%R N#NE.> *(2+ "A>$.
C. RE$P%N"EN. C%;R. ERRE" #N N%. N;A$1#N8 H.1E #N4%RMA.#%NI %N H.1EI 8R%;N" %4 H#.$I
#NDA<#"#.> AN" <AC: %4 CA;$E %4 AC.#%N.
(
.hese assi&ned errors boil do/n to one pivotal issueE the validit' of the infor-ation under /hich petitioners stand char&ed.
Petitioners contend that respondent court /ron&l' ordered their suspension despite the patent defect of the infor-ation. .he'
posit that the failure to alle&e the essential ele-ent of ,-anifest partialit', evident bad faith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence,
as defined b' R.A. !21( renders the infor-ation invalid, as it fails to co-pl' /ith the re@uire-ents of the Rules of Cri-inal
Procedure. At the sa-e Auncture, the' see0 a te-porar' restrainin& order andTor preli-inar' inAunction to restrain the
respondent court fro- i-ple-entin& its order of suspension.
Respondents, on the other hand, -aintain that the facts alle&ed in the infor-ation clearl' and sufficientl' constituted the cri-e
of violation of $ection !*e+ of R.A. !21(. .he' contend that an infor-ation is valid as lon& as the statutor' desi&nation of the
offense and the acts or o-issions constitutive thereof are distinctl' stated therein.
.he Court finds -erit in the petition.
.he issue on ho/ the acts or o-issions constitutin& the offense should be -ade in order to -eet the standard of sufficienc'
has lon& been settled.
12
#t is funda-ental that ever' ele-ent of /hich the offense is co-posed -ust be alle&ed in the
infor-ation.
11
No infor-ation for a cri-e /ill be sufficient if it does not accuratel' and clearl' alle&e the ele-ents of the cri-e
char&ed.
1
$ection 3, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court re@uires,inter alia, that the infor-ation -ust state the acts or
(
o-issions so co-plained of as constitutive of the offense.
1!
Recentl',
1=
this Court e-phasi7ed that the test in deter-inin&
/hether the infor-ation validl' char&es an offense is /hether the -aterial facts alle&ed in the co-plaint or infor-ation /ill
establish the essential ele-ents of the offense char&ed as defined in the la/. #n this exa-ination, -atters aliunde are not
considered.
16
.he la/ essentiall' re@uires this to enable the accused suitabl' to prepare his defense, as he is presu-ed to
have no independent 0no/led&e of the facts that constitute the offense.
13
?hat facts and circu-stances are necessar' to be stated in the infor-ation -ust be deter-ined b' reference to the definitions
and the essentials of the specific cri-e.
1)
$ection !*e+ of R.A. No. !21(, under /hich petitioners are char&ed, providesE
$EC. !. Corru#t #ractices o! #ublic o!!icers H #n addition to acts or o-issions of public officers alread' penali7ed b' existin&
x x x x x x x x x
#n a nu-ber of cases,
19
the ele-ents of this offense have been bro0en do/n as follo/sE
*1+ .hat the accused are public officers or private persons char&ed in conspirac' /ith the-G
*+ .hat said public officers co--itted the prohibited acts durin& the perfor-ance of their official duties or in relation
to their public positionsG
*!+ .hat the' caused undue inAur' to an' part', /hether the 8overn-ent or a private part'G
*=+ .hat such inAur' /as caused b' &ivin& un/arranted benefits, advanta&e or preference to such partiesG and
*6+ .hat the public officers acted /ith -anifest partialit', evident bad faith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence.
A scrutin' of the infor-ation in this case discloses that petitioners are accused of the follo/in& acts, as stated in the pertinent
portion of the infor-ationE
Y./ilfull', unla/full' and cri-inall' causHin&I undue inAur' to the &overn-ent b' -a0in& revisions in the co-pletion of the
-unicipal buildin& /ithout prior approval b' the proper authorities resultin& to cost deficienc' of P!)6,39.!, to the da-a&e
and inAur' of the &overn-ent, in the a-ount aforestated.
Evidentl', the infor-ation failed to alle&e that petitioners, in causin& undue inAur' to the &overn-ent b' revisin& the co-pletion
of the -unicipal buildin& /ithout prior approval of the proper authorities, did the sa-e throu&h ,-anifest partialit', evident bad
faith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence,, an essential ele-ent of the cri-e char&ed. Neither did the infor-ation e-bod' /ords
/hich /ould have characteri7ed the ele-ents, such as ,partialit',, or bias /hich excites a disposition to see and report -atters
as the' are /ished for rather than as the' areG ,bad faith,, /hich connotes not onl' bad Aud&-ent or ne&li&ence but also a
dishonest purpose or conscious /ron&doin&G or ,&ross ne&li&ence,, /hich is ne&li&ence characteri7ed b' the /ant of even
sli&ht care, or actin& or o-ittin& to act in a situation /here there is a dut' to act /illfull' and intentionall', /ith a conscious
indifference to conse@uences as far as other persons are concerned.
1(
Respondents /ould, ho/ever, ar&ue that $ection (, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court,
2
does not re@uire that the
infor-ation be /orded in the ter-s of the statute definin& the offense, as lon& as it enables a person of co--on
understandin& to 0no/ the offense bein& char&ed and the court to pronounce Aud&-ent.
RespondentsB contention is untenable. #t is not enou&h to alle&e that the acts /ere /illfull', unla/full' or cri-inall' caused
/ithout statin& that the sa-e /as done in a -anner b' /hich the accused could be held liable for the specific offense char&ed.
.his Court has ruled that in order that one -a' be held cri-inall' liable under $ection !*e+ of R.A. !21(, the act of the accused
/hich caused undue inAur' -ust have been done /ith evident bad faith or /ith &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence.
1
.his dra/s
-ore si&nificance considerin& that &ood faith and re&ularit' are al/a's presu-ed in the perfor-ance of official duties b' public
(!
officers.
.herefore, -anifest partialit', evident bad faith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence -ust be alle&ed /ith particularit' in
the infor-ation sufficientl' to infor- the accused of the char&e a&ainst hi- and to enable the court properl' to render a
decision.
Respondents, ho/ever, @uestion petitionersB ri&ht to raise the issue of the validit' of the infor-ation at this sta&e, ar&uin& that
b' enterin& a plea of not &uilt' durin& the arrai&n-ent, petitioners had /aived all possible obAections to the sufficienc' of the
infor-ation.
.he ar&u-ent is /ithout le&al basis. #t is true that pursuant to $ection (, Rule 11) of the Revised Rules of Court, the failure of
the accused to assert an' &round for a -otion to @uash before he pleads to the infor-ation shall be dee-ed a /aiver of the
&rounds for a -otion to @uash. Respondents, ho/ever, -a' have overloo0ed that the sa-e section ad-its of certain
exceptions, as /henE *1+ no offense /as char&ed, *+ the court tr'in& the case has no Aurisdiction over the offense char&ed, *!+
the offense or penalt' has been extin&uished, and *=+ the accused /ould be t/ice put to Aeopard'.
!
#n the present case, &iven
that the infor-ation failed sufficientl' to char&e the offense, petitioners are not precluded fro- attac0in& its validit' even after
their arrai&n-ent.
Considerin& the fore&oin&, this Court finds the infor-ation in the present case to be fatall' defective. ?here it is clear that the
infor-ation does not reall' char&e an offense, the case a&ainst the accused -ust be dropped i--ediatel'.$avv#hi$ .here is
no point in proceedin& under a defective infor-ation that can never be the basis of a valid conviction.
=
WHERE4ORE, the petition is 8RAN.E". .he @uestioned resolutions dated April 1=, 222 and $epte-ber 1, 222 of the
$andi&anba'an, =th "ivision, are hereb' $E. A$#"E. .he 4ebruar' 9, 1((( infor-ation for violation of $ection !*e+ of R.A.
!21( filed a&ainst petitioners 8raciano P. dela Chica and Evan C. Aceveda is hereb' "#$M#$$E".
No pronounce-ent as to costs.
$% %R"ERE".
"avide, 5r., C.5., *Chair-an+, Pan&aniban, >nares-$antia&o, and Carpio, 55.
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No7. 0&510F5&72 1%e I0, 1@87
ARTURO A. ME1ORA5A, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORA:0E SAN5IGAN:A/AN ", THE PEOP0E O4 THE PHI0IPPINES, respondents.
CORTES, J.:
.his petition for certiorari see0s to reverse the Ma' !, 1()( decision of the $andi&anba'an findin& the accused Arturo A.
MeAorada in Cri-inal Cases Nos. 22-22( &uilt' be'ond reasonable doubt of violatin& $ection !*E+ of Republic Act No. !21(,
other/ise 0no/n as the Anti-8raft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Ei&ht infor-ations /ere filed b' the Provincial 4iscal a&ainst the petitioner and Aointl' tried before the $andi&anba'an. .he
ei&ht infor-ations substantiall' alle&e the sa-e set of circu-stances constitutin& the offense char&ed, Cri-inal Case No. 22
reads as follo/sE
.hat in *sic+ or about and durin& the period co-prised fro- %ctober 1()) to 4ebruar' 1()9, in the
-unicipalit' of Pasi&, Metro Manila, Philippines and /ithin the Aurisdiction of this 1onorable Court, the
(=
above-na-ed accused, bein& e-plo'ed in the %ffice of the 1i&h/a' "istrict En&ineer, Pasi&, Metro Manila,
as Ri&ht-of-?a'-A&ent conspirin& and confederatin& to&ether /ith t/o *+ other 5ohn "oes /hose true
#dentities and present /hereabouts are still un0no/n, /ith evident bad faith, and for personal &ain, did then
and there /ilfull', unla/full' and feloniousl', directl' intervene, /or0 for, and facilitate the approval of one
#sa&ani de <eonKs clai- for the pa'-ent in the re-oval and reconstruction of his house and a part of his
land expropriated b' the &overn-ent havin& been affected b' the proposed Pasi&-$ta Cru7-Cala-ba Road.
nd #BR" ProAect at Binan&onan, Ri7al, /hile the accused, Arturo A. MeAorada is in the dischar&e of his
official andTor ad-inistrative functions and after said clai- /as approved and the correspondin& PNB Chec0
No. $N 636)=9 /as issued and encashed in the a-ount of P),22.22 &iven onl' P1,222.22 to clai-ant
*#sa&ani de <eon+, appropriatin&, appl'in& and convertin& to the-selves the a-ount of P3,22.22, thereb'
causin& da-a&e and preAudice to #sa&ani de <eon and the &overn-ent in the afore-entioned a-ount of
P3,22.22.
Contrar' to la/.
Except for the date of the co--ission of the offense, the na-e of the a&&rieved private part', the PNB Chec0 nu-ber, the
a-ount involved and the nu-ber or 5ohn "oes, the seven other infor-ations are verbati- repetitions of the above.
.he facts are found b' the respondent $andi&anba'an are as follo/sE
Arturo A. MeAorada /as a public officer /ho /as first e-plo'ed as a te-porar' s0illed laborer in the Bureau of Public ?or0s
on March 13, 1(=), and then as ri&ht-of-/a' a&ent in the %ffice of the 1i&h/a' "istrict En&ineer, Pasi&, Metro Manila, fro-
4ebruar', 1()= up to "ece-ber !1, 1()9. As a ri&ht-of-/a' a&ent, his -ain dut' /as to ne&otiate /ith propert' o/ners
affected b' hi&h/a' constructions or i-prove-ents for the purpose of co-pensatin& thefor the da-a&es incurred b' said
o/ners.
A-on& those /hose lots and i-prove-ents /ere affected b' the /idenin& of the proposed Pasi&-$ta. Cru7-Cala-ba Road.
nd #BR" ProAect, at Binan&onan, Ri7al /ere #sa&ani de <eon, #saac Carlos, Napoleon Ma'bituin, "o-in&a Dillaro7a,
4lorentino de la Cru7, Cipriano Aran, Celestina $. Mallari and Rodolfo Rivera, all residents of Ma-bo&, Binan&onan, Ri7al.
$o-eti-e in %ctober or Nove-ber 1()), petitioner contacted the aforena-ed persons and infor-ed the- that he could /or0
out their clai-s for pa'-ent of the values of their lots andTor i-prove-ents affected b' the /idenin& of said hi&h/a'. #n the
process, MeAorada re@uired the clai-ants to si&n blan0 copies of the ,$/orn $tate-ent on the Correct and 4air Mar0et Dalue
of Real Properties, and ,A&ree-ent to "e-olish, Re-ove and Reconstruct i-prove-ents, pertinent to their clai-s. .he
clai-ants co-plied /ithout botherin& to find out /hat the docu-ents /ere all about as the' /ere onl' interested in the
pa'-ent of da-a&es.
#n said ,$/orn $tate-ents, and ,A&ree-ents to "e-olish,, the value of the respective properties of the clai-ants /ere -ade
to appear ver' -uch hi&her than the actual value clai-ed b' the-. <i0e/ise, the said ,A&ree-ents to "e-olish, reflected the
value of the i-prove-ents as per assessor, /hich on the avera&e /as onl' P,222.22 lo/er than the value declared b' the
o/ners in their s/orn state-ents. .he value as per assessor /as, in turn, supported b' the "eclarations of Real Propert' in
the na-es of the clai-ants containin& an assessed value exactl' the sa-e as that stated in the A&ree-ents to "e-olish ,as
per assessor,, except the clai-s of "e la Cru7 and Aran /here there is onl' a difference of P=22.22 and P22.22,
respectivel'. #t turned out, ho/ever, that said "eclarations of Propert' are not reall' intended for the clai-ants as the' /ere
re&istered in the na-es of other persons, thus sho/in& that the' /ere all falsified.
A fe/ -onths after processin& the clai-s, accused acco-panied the clai-ants to the %ffice of the 1i&h/a' "istrict En&ineer
at the provincial capitol of Pasi&, Metro Manila, to receive pa'-ents and personall' assisted the clai-ants in si&nin& the
vouchers and encashin& the chec0s b' certif'in& as to their #dentities and &uaranteein& pa'-ent.
Ri&ht after the clai-ants had received the proceeds of their chec0s, accused acco-panied the- to his car /hich /as par0ed
nearb' /here the' /ere divested of the a-ounts paid to the- leavin& onl' the su- of P1,222.22 to each, except #saac Carlos
to /ho- P6,222.22 /as left, explainin& to the- that there /ere -an' /ho /ould share in said a-ounts. All the clai-ants /ere
helpless to co-plaint because the' /ere afraid of the accused and his ar-ed co-panion.
.he clai-ants, throu&h the assistance of counsel, filed their co-plaints /ith the Provincial 4iscalKs %ffice of Pasi&, Metro
Manila, narratin& in their supportin& s/orn state-ents /hat the' later testified to in court.
(6
4ive issues are raised in this petition to revie/ the decision of the $andi&anba'anE
#. ?hether or not the essential ele-ents constitutin& the offense penali7ed b' section !*e+ of Republic Act No. !21(, other/ise
0no/n as the Anti-8raft and Corrupt Practices Act have been clearl' and convincin&l' proven b' the prosecutionG
##. ?hether or not the $andi&anba'an is a court of co-petent Aurisdiction dul' constituted in accordance /ith Pres. "ec. No.
1323G
###. ?hether or not the penalt' i-posed upon the petitioner is excessive and contrar' to the three-fold rule as provided for b'
Article )2 of the Revised Penal CodeG
#D. ?hether or not there is a variance bet/een the offense char&ed in the infor-ation and the offense provedG
D. ?hether or not the conclusion dra/n fro- the record of the $andi&anba'an in arrivin& at a verdict of conviction of petitioner
is correct is a @uestion of la/ /hich this 1onorable Court is authori7ed to pass upon.
#. Petitioner contends that the ei&ht infor-ations filed a&ainst hi- before the $andi&anba'an are fatall' defective in that it
failed to alle&e the essential in&redients or ele-ents constitutin& the offense penali7ed b' $ection !*e+ of Rep. Act No. !21(.
.he section under /hich the accused-petitioner /as char&ed providesE
$ec. !. Corrupt practices of public officers. #n addition to acts or o-issions of public officers alread'
penali7ed b' existin& la/, the follo/in& shall constitute corrupt practices of an' public officer and are hereb'
declared to be unla/ful.
xxx xxx xxx
*e+ Causin& an' undue inAur' to an' part', includin& the 8overn-ent, or &ivin& an' private part' an'
un/arranted benefits, advanta&e or preference in the dischar&e of his official ad-inistrative or Audicial
functions throu&h -anifest partialit', evident bad faith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence. .his provision shall
appl' to officers and e-plo'ees of offices or &overn-ent corporations char&ed /ith the &rant of licenses or
per-its or other concessions.
Petitioner enu-erated three ele-ents /hich, in his opinion, constitute a violation of $ection !*e+.
/irst, that the accused -ust be a public officer char&ed /ith the dut' of &rantin& licenses or per-its or other concessions.
Petitioner contends that inas-uch as he is not char&ed /ith the dut' of &rantin& licenses, per-its or other concessions, then
he is not the officer conte-plated b' $ection ! *e+.
$ection ! cited above enu-erates in eleven subsections the corrupt practices of an' public officers declared unla/ful. #ts
reference to ,an' public officer, is /ithout distinction or @ualification and it specifies the acts declared unla/ful. ?e a&ree /ith
the vie/ adopted b' the $olicitor 8eneral that the last sentence of para&raph *e+ is intended to -a0e clear the inclusion of
officers and e-plo'ees of officers or &overn-ent corporations /hich, under the ordinar' concept of ,public officers, -a' not
co-e /ithin the ter-. #t is a strained construction of the provision to read it as appl'in& exclusivel' to public officers char&ed
/ith the dut' of &rantin& licenses or per-its or other concessions.
.he first ele-ent, therefore, of $ection ! *e+ is that the accused -ust be a public officer. .his, the infor-ations did not fail to
alle&e.
Second, that such public officer caused undue inAur' to an' part', includin& the 8overn-ent, or &ave an' private part'
un/arranted benefits, advanta&e or preference in the dischar&e of his official ad-inistrative or Audicial functions.
Petitioner denies that there /as inAur' or da-a&e caused the 8overn-ent because the pa'-ents /ere alle&edl' -ade on the
basis of a docu-ent solel' -ade b' the 1i&h/a' "istrict En&ineer to /hich petitioner had no hand in preparin&. .he fact,
ho/ever, is that the &overn-ent suffered undue inAur' as a result of the petitionerKs havin& inflated the true clai-s of
co-plainants /hich beca-e the basis of the report sub-itted b' the 1i&h/a' "istrict En&ineer to the Re&ional "irector of the
(3
"epart-ent of 1i&h/a's and /hich eventuall' beca-e the basis of pa'-ent. 1is contention that he had no participation is
belied b' the fact that as a ri&ht-of-/a'-a&ent, his dut' /as precisel' to ne&otiate /ith propert' o/ners /ho are affected b'
hi&h/a' constructions for the purpose of co-pensatin& the-.
%n the part of the co-plainants, the inAur' caused to the- consists in their bein& divested of a lar&e proportion of their clai-s
and receivin& pa'-ent in an a-ount even lo/er than the actual da-a&e the' incurred. .he' /ere deprived of the Aust
co-pensation to /hich the' are entitled.
>hird, the inAur' to an' part', or &ivin& an' private part' an' un/arranted benefits, advanta&e or preference /as done throu&h
-anifest, partialit', evident bad faith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence.
Petitioner ar&ues that for the third ele-ent to be present, the alle&ed inAur' or da-a&e to the co-plainants and the
&overn-ent -ust have been caused b' the public officer in the dischar&e of his official, ad-inistrative or Audicial functions and
inas-uch as /hen the da-a&e /as caused to the co-plainants, he /as no lon&er dischar&in& his official ad-inistrative
functions, therefore, he is not liable for the offense char&ed.
.he ar&u-ent is devoid of -erit. .he $andi&anba'an established the fact that the petitioner too0 advanta&e of his position as
a ri&ht-of-/a'-a&ent b' -a0in& the clai-ants si&n the afore-entioned a&ree-ents to de-olish and s/orn state-ents /hich
contained falsified declarations of the value of the i-prove-ents and lots. .here /as evident bad faith on the part of the
petitioner /hen he inflated the values of the true clai-s and /hen he divested the clai-ants of a lar&e share of the a-ounts
due the-.
#n vie/ of the above holdin&. ?e also dispose of the fourth issue /hich relates to the alle&ation that petitioner cannot be
convicted for a violation of the Anti-8raft <a/ because the evidence adduced b' the prosecution is not the violation of $ection
! *e+ but the cri-e of robber'. Contrar' to the petitioner aver-ent. ?e find no variance bet/een the offense char&ed in the
infor-ation and the offense proved. .he prosecution /as able to establish throu&h the corroboratin& testi-onies of the
/itnesses presented ho/ throu&h evident bad faith, petitioner caused da-a&e to the clai-ants and the 8overn-ent. .he
-anner b' /hich the petitioner divested the private parties of the co-pensation the' received /as part ofK the sche-e /hich
co--enced /hen the petitioner approached the clai-ants and infor-ed the- that he could /or0 out their clai-s for pa'-ent
of the values of their lots andTor i-prove-ents affected b' the /idenin& of the Pasi&-$ta. Cru7-Cala-ba Road. .he evidence
presented b' the prosecution clearl' establish a violation of $ection !*e+.
##. .he petitioner also assails the co-petenc' of the $andi&anba'an to hear and decide this case. 1e ar&ues that before the
$andi&anba'an could le&all' function as a Audicial bod', at least t/o *+ divisions, or -aAorit' of the Austices shall have been
dul' constituted and appointed.
?e previousl' ruled on this -atter in the case of 0e 5uzman v. (eo#le *8.R. No. 6=99, "ece-ber 16, 1(9, 11( $CRA
!!)+. #n that case, the petitioner "e 8u7-an @uestioned the authorit' of the $andi&anba'an to hear and decide his case on
the sa-e &round that herein petitioner assails its Aurisdiction. .he Court upheld the authorit' of the $andi&anba'an sa'in& thatE
Althou&h the $andi&anba'an is co-posed of a Presidin& 5ustice, and ei&ht Associate 5ustices, it does not
-ean that it cannot validl' function /ithout all of the "ivisions constituted. $ection ! of P.". 1323 provides
that the ,$andi&anba'an shall sit in three divisions of three Austices each, /hile $ection 6 thereof provides
that the unani-ous vote of three Austices of a division shall be necessar' for the pronounce-ent of a
Aud&-ent.
.hus the $andi&anba'an functions in "ivisions of three 5ustices each and each "ivision functions
independentl' of the other. As lon& as a division has been dul' constituted it is a Audicial bod' /hose
pronounce-ents are bindin& as Aud&-ents of the $andi&anba'an.
.he Aud&-ent convictin& petitioner /as a unani-ous "ecision of the 4irst "ivision dul' constituted. #t thus
-et the re@uire-ent for the pronounce-ent of a Aud&-ent as re@uired b' $ection 6 of P.". 1323 su#ra.
###. .he third issue raised b' the petitioner concerns the penalt' i-posed b' the $andi&anba'an /hich totals fift'-six *63+ 'ears
and ei&ht *9+ da's of i-prison-ent. Petitioner i-pu&ns this as contrar' to the three-fold rule and insists that the duration of the
a&&re&ate penalties should not exceed fort' *=2+ 'ears.
()
Petitioner is -ista0en in his application of the three-fold rule as set forth in Article )2 of the Revised Penal Code. .his article is
to be ta0en into account not in the i-position of the penalt' but in connection /ith the service of the sentence i-posed *People
v. Escares, 12 Phil. 3)) H1(6)I+. Article )2 spea0s of ,service, of sentence, ,duration, of penalt' and penalt' ,to be inflicted,.
No/here in the article is an'thin& -entioned about the ,i-position of penalt',. #t -erel' provides that the prisoner cannot be
-ade to serve -ore than three ti-es the -ost severe of these penalties the -axi-u- of /hich is fort' 'ears.
.he $andi&anba'an, therefore, did not co--it an' error in i-posin& ei&ht penalties for the ei&ht infor-ations filed a&ainst the
accused-petitioner. As ?e pointed out in the case of (eo#le v. (eralta, *No. <-1(23(, %ctober (, 1(39, 6 $CRA )6(, )9!-
)9=+E
... Even /ithout the authorit' provided b' Article )2, courts can still i-pose as -an' penalties as there are
separate and distinct offenses co--itted, since for ever' individual cri-e co--itted, a correspondin&
penalt' is prescribed b' la/. Each sin&le cri-e is an outra&e a&ainst the $tate for /hich the latter, thru the
courts of Austice, has the po/er to i-pose the appropriate penal sanctions.
#n the li&ht of the above reasons, petitioner cannot assail the penalt' i-posed upon hi- as harsh, cruel and unusual *$ee
Denie&as v. People, 8.R. No. 6)321-23 5ul' 2, 1(9, 116 $CRA )(2, )(+.
?e dee- it unnecessar' to pass upon the fifth issue raised in vie/ of the fore&oin& discussion.
?1ERE4%RE, the petition is denied for lac0 of -erit.
$% %R"ERE".
>eehankee, C.%., a#, /ernan, 3arvasa, .elencio4Herrera, 5utierrez, %r., Cruz, (aras, /eliciano, 5ancayco, (adilla, Bidin
and Sarmiento, %%., concur.
$EC%N" "#D#$#%N
NG.R. No. 1I1I@@. October 17, 200IO
ANGE0ITA AMPARO GO, petitioner, vs. O44ICE O4 THE OM:U5SMAN, INSURANCE COMMISSIONER E5UAR5O T.
MA0INIS ", NOR:ERTO 4. CASTRO,respondents.
5 E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA&MARTINE>, J.B
#n this petition for revie/ on certiorari under Rule =6 of the Rules of Court, petitioner An&elita A-paro 8o see0s the
reversal of the Resolution of the %ffice of the %-buds-an in %MB-2-(3-6 dis-issin& her char&es a&ainst #nsurance
Co--issioner Eduardo .. Malinis and 1earin& %fficer Norberto 4. Castro for Diolation of $ection ! HeI of Republic Act No.
!21(, other/ise 0no/n as Anti-8raft and Corrupt Practices Act, /hich providesE
$ec. !. $orrupt practices of public officers. -- #n addition to acts o-issions of public officers alread' penali7ed b' existin&
. . .
(9
.he facts of the case are as follo/sE
Petitioner is the .reasurer and Dice-President of ?ear Me 8ar-ent Manufacturin& #nc. /hose business and factor' are
located in Nadurata $t., 8race Par0, Caloocan Cit'. "ue to a fire on 5ul' 1, 1((! that &utted do/n ?ear Me 8ar-entBs
factor' as /ell as its -achineries and stoc0s, petitioner filed separate insurance clai-s a&ainst each of the follo/in& 1=
insurance co-paniesE
*1+ Prudential 8uarentee O Assurance #nc. P 6,222,222.22
*+ %riental Assutance Corporation P !,622,222.22
*!+ Cibeles #nsurance Corporation P 1,222,222.22
*=+ Pioneer Asia #nsurance Corporation P 1,622,222.22
*6+ ?estern 8uarant' Corp. P ,622,222.22
*3+ <ibert' #nsurance Corporation P =,222,222.22
*)+ 4ilipino Merchants #nsurance Co. P 1,222,222.22
*9+ Reliance $uret' O #nsurance Co., #nc. P 622,222.22
*(+ Central $uret' O #nsurance Co. P ,222,222.22
*12+ Phil. British Assurance Corporation P 1,622,222.22
*11+ Philippine 4irst #nsurance Co., #nc. P 1,622,222.22
*1+ Blue Cross #nsurance Co., #nc. P ,622,222.22
*1!+ Co--on/ealth #nsurance Co. P ,222,222.22
*1=+ #-perial #nsurance Co. #nc. P 1,)9,222.22
/hich total P(,))9,222.22.
4eelin& that the resolutions of her clai-s have been undul' dela'ed, petitioner sou&ht the assistance of the #nsurance
Co--ission *Co--ission for brevit'+ throu&h her letter dated 5anuar' 19, 1((=.
H1I
Actin& on said letter, the Public Assistance
O #nfor-ation "ivision of the Co--ission held a conference on 4ebruar' 16, 1((= /herein petitioner and the insurance
co-paniesB respective representatives -et. .he insurers -anifested their official stance to den' the clai-s of petitioner.
HI
As
a result, the conference /as ter-inated /ithout preAudice to petitionerBs option to pursue other le&al re-edies.
H!I

Petitioner then sou&ht the intercession of several -e-bers and co--ittees of the <e&islature, such as, then $enate
President Ed&ardo An&ara,
H=I
$enator 1eherson Alvare7 and the $enate Blue Ribbon Co--ittee
H6I
and the 1ouse Co--ittee
on Ban0s and 4inancial #nter-ediaries,
H3I
accusin& the Co--ission of actin& in conspirac' /ith the insurance co-panies in
den'in& and dela'in& her clai-s.
H)I
.he le&islators and the co--ittees sent co--unications to the Co--ission re&ardin&
petitionerBs clai-s.
H9I
Actin& on the -atter, the Co--ission conducted several -eetin&s /ith petitioner and the insurance
co-panies in order to settle the clai-s. .he Co--ission apprised the le&islators and their co--ittees of the actions ta0en b'
the Co--ission and vehe-entl' denied petitionerBs accusations.
H(I

%n 5une 2, 1((=, petitioner filed /ith the Co--ission a co-plaint for Revocation andTor $uspension of <icenses
a&ainst the fourteen insurance co-panies, doc0eted as Ad-. Case No. R"-163, based on alle&ed violation b' the insurance
co-panies and their respective adAusters of $ection =1 *b+, *c+, *d+ and *e+ of the #nsurance Code, as a-ended, to /itE
$EC. =1. *1+ No insurance co-pan' doin& business in the Philippines shall refuse, /ithout Aust cause, to pa' or settle
clai-s arisin& under covera&es provided b' its policies, nor shall an' such co-pan' en&a&e in unfair clai- settle-ent
practices. An' of the follo/in& acts b' an insurance co-pan', if co--itted /ithout Aust cause and perfor-ed /ith such
fre@uenc' as to indicate a &eneral business practice, shall constitute unfair clai- settle-ent practicesE
. . .
*b+ 4ailin& to ac0no/led&e /ith reasonable pro-ptness pertinent co--unications /ith respect to clai-s arisin& under its
policiesG
*c+ 4ailin& to adopt and i-ple-ent reasonable standards for the the pro-pt investi&ation of clai-s arisin& under its policiesG
*d+ Not atte-ptin& in &ood faith to effectuate pro-pt, fair and e@uitable settle-ent of clai-s sub-itted in /hich liabilit' has
beco-e reasonabl' clearG or
((
*e+ Co-pellin& polic'holders to institute suits to recover a-ounts due under its policies b' offerin& /ithout Austifiable reason
substantiall' less than the a-ount ulti-atel' recovered in suits brou&ht b' the-.
-andatin& pro-pt investi&ation and settle-ent of clai-s.
H12I

Conse@uentl', the Co--ission infor-ed the concerned le&islative bodies that the' could not -ediate an' lon&er
petitionerBs clai-s a&ainst the insurers because to do so /ill conflict /ith its position to -aintain strict i-partialit' in the
adAudication of Ad-. Case No. R"-163.
H11I
Preli-inar' hearin&s /ere conducted in Ad-. Case No. R"-163.
H1I
%n Nove-ber =, 1((=, the co-plaint /as a-ended
includin& therein several adAusters as part'-defendants.
H1!I
Petitioner also filed a 5oint Affidavit, to&ether /ith her husband,
H1=I
and a Motion to Ad-it A-ended Co-plaint and Affidavit in <ieu of "irect .esti-on'.
H16I

%n 4ebruar' ), 1((6, /hile Ad-. Case No. R"-163 is pendin& before the Co--ission, petitioner filed /ith the Re&ional
.rial Court of Nue7on Cit' *Branch + a civil case for $pecific Perfor-ance /ith "a-a&es, doc0eted as Civil Case No. N-
(6-!1!6, a&ainst the sa-e defendants in Ad-. Case No. R"-163.
H13I
.he co-plaint pra'ed that defendants be ordered to
perfor- their respective obli&ations as insurers under the insurance policies and to pa' da-a&es and attorne'Bs fees.
H1)I
%n March 9, 1((6, the pre-trial in Ad-. Case No. R"-163 /as ter-inated and consolidated hearin&s on the case
ensued.
H19I
#n its %rder dated Ma' 1), 1((6, the Co--ission ad-itted petitionerBs A-ended Co-plaint and 5oint Affidavit.
H1(I
ConsolidatedTAoint hearin&s on the case then proceeded.
H2I
%n -otion to dis-iss b' t/o of the insurers, the Co--ission ordered the suspension of Ad-. Case No. R"-163 until
final deter-ination of Civil Case No. N-(6-!1!6.
H1I
.he Co--ission /as of the opinion that the ad-inistrative case for
revocationTsuspension of license of respondents and the civil case for specific perfor-ance /ith the Re&ional .rial Court
involve the sa-e set of parties, facts and circu-stancesG and that the deter-ination b' the Co--ission of the validit' of the
clai-s -i&ht conflict /ith that of the court, or vice-versa.
HI
A&&rieved, petitioner filed /ith the %ffice of the %-buds-an a Co-plaint-Affidavit a&ainst Co--issioner Malinis and
1earin& %fficer Castro of the Re&ulation "ivision, char&in& the- of Diolation of $ection ! HeI of Rep. Act No. !21(, as herein
@uoted earlier.
#n a &ist, petitioner alle&es in her Co-plaint-Affidavit, as follo/sE
$o-e ti-e in March 1((=, petitioner /ent to the office of respondent Co--issioner Malinis to discuss her clai-s and he
infor-ed her that he can settle the clai-s. 1o/ever, because respondent Malinis did not fulfill his pro-ise, she decided to file
Ad-. Case No. R"-163, /hich /as raffled to respondent Castro. Petitioner a&ain visited respondent Malinis on Ma' 2, 1((=,
and the latter told her that he /ill settle the clai-s if she &ives hi- 62W of it. #n order for petitioner to accede to
respondent MalinisB de-and, he ordered Castro to conduct separate hearin&s on the clai-s. Castro ad-itted to petitioner that
it /as respondent Malinis /ho instructed hi- to conduct separate hearin&s. Petitioner as0ed respondent Malinis to consolidate
the hearin&s but instead, Malinis a&ain propositioned that he /ill settle her clai-s if petitioner &ives hi- 62W.
Respondent Malinis then ordered the suspension of Ad-. Case No. R"-163 in his %rder dated Au&ust (, 1((6, /hich is
patentl' void since he /as not the hearin& officer, and the order violates E.%. No. 3 and #nsurance Circular Me-orandu- 1-
(! on the earl' disposition of insurance clai-s.
H!I
#n his Counter-Affidavit, respondent Malinis denies petitionerBs alle&ations.
H=I
1e contends that the Co--ission attended
to petitionerBs clai-s as earl' as 5anuar' 1((= and that despite the fact that it /as be'ond the Aurisdiction of the Co--ission
and the insurance co-panies refused to &rant the clai-s, he nevertheless exerted efforts to -ediate the dispute.
H6I
Respondent Castro also denies petitionerBs accusations. 1e -aintains that he did not tell petitioner that the holdin& of
separate hearin&s /as upon the instructions of Co--issioner Malinis, as in fact, records sho/ that Aoint hearin&s /ere held in
Ad-. Case No. R"-163G and, that the suspension of Ad-. Case No. R"-163 /as based on a -otion to dis-iss filed b' the
insurance co-panies, after due hearin& on the -otion.
H3I
8raft #nvesti&ation %fficer 8ine7-5abalde reco--ended the dis-issal of the char&es a&ainst respondents per Resolution
dated 5anuar' 1!, 1((). 1o/ever, %-buds-an "esierto ordered furtherclarificator' hearin&s.
H)I
%n March 19,
1((), a clarificator' hearin& /as held /herein respondent Castro explained that althou&h he scheduled separate hearin&s, it
/as because the situation called for it as there /ere various insurance co-panies, adAusters and issues involved in the clai-s.
H9I

.hereafter, the %-buds-an approved the reco--endation of the 8raft #nvesti&ation %fficer to dis-iss the char&es
a&ainst respondents.
H(I
;pon denial b' the %-buds-an of her -otion for reconsideration,
H!2I
petitioner filed the present
petition for revie/ on certiorari.
122
Petitioner raises the follo/in& issuesE
CAN AN A"M#N#$.RA.#DE CA$E PEN"#N8 BE4%RE AN A"M#N#$.RA.#DE .R#B;NA< BE P;R$;E" ;NABA.E" AN"
#N"EPEN"EN.<> "E$P#.E $;B$EN;EN. 4#<#N8 %4 A C#D#< CA$E #N A RE8;<AR C%;R. %4 5;$.#CE ?1ERE#N #N
B%.1 CA$E$, #. *sic+ #ND%<DE .1E $AME PAR.#E$ AN" RE<A.#DE<> #ND%<DE .1E $AME #NC#"EN.U
?1E.1ER .1E C%N";C. %4 A *sic+ $EPARA.E 1EAR#N8$ 4%R EAC1 RE$P%N"EN.$ *sic+ C%N$#$.#N8 %4
4%;R.EEN *1=+ #N$;RANCE C%MPAN#E$ AN" $#P *3+ A"5;$.MEN. C%MPAN#E$ %N .1E %NE 1AN" AN" %NE *1+
C%MP<A#NAN. %N .1E %.1ER 1AN", RE$%R.E" B> .1E 1EAR#N8 %44#CER #N AN A"M#N#$.RA.#DE CA$E
PRE"#CA.E" %N .1E $AME #$$;E AN" .1E $AME $E. %4 4AC.$ AN" C#RC;M$.ANCE$, AN" .1E $;B$EN;EN.
$;$PEN$#%N %4 .1E PR%CEE"#N8$ .1ERE%N D#%<A.E$ $EC.#%N 13, AR.#C<E #D %4 .1E C%N$.#.;.#%N A$
?E<< A$ EPEC;.#DE %R"ER N%. 3 AN" #N$;RANCE MEM%RAN";M C#RC;<AR 1-(! MAN"A.#N8 .1E $PEE">
"#$P%$#.#%N %4 A"M#N#$.RA.#DE CA$E$.
H!1I
.he Court finds the petition devoid of -erit. .he %-buds-an did not co--it an' &rave abuse of discretion /hen it
found no probable cause and dis-issed the Co-plaint-Affidavit a&ainst respondents.
.he %-buds-an resolved to dis-iss the char&es a&ainst respondents as the latter /ere able to satisfactoril' explain the
reason for the holdin& of separate hearin&s, i.e., expedienc', and the Co--ission is allo/ed under its rules of procedure to
order the suspension of Ad-. Case No. R"-163. .he %-buds-an concludedE
.he conduct of separate hearin&s and issuance of the %rder /ere all done in the re&ular perfor-ance of duties b' the
respondents #nsurance Co--issioner and 1earin& %fficer respetivel' *sic+. Moreover, the' /ere done /ithin the purvie/ of
the rules of procedure &overnin& the functions of the #nsurance Co--ission.
4inall', co-plainant failed to substantiate her char&e /ith an' concrete evidence, thus /e can si-pl' re&ard the char&e
a&ainst respondent Eduardo .. Malinis and Norberto 4. Castro as if it does not exist at all.
H!I
Petitioner insists that the filin& of Civil Case No. N-(6-!1!6 before the re&ular court does not abate or suspend the
proceedin&s in Ad-. Case No. R"-163. Petitioner ar&ues further that the holdin& of separate hearin&s violates her
constitutional ri&ht to the speed' disposition of her case.
#t has been the CourtBs polic' to refrain fro- interferin& /ith the %-buds-anBs exercise of its investi&ator'
and prosecutor' po/ers, unless there are &ood and co-pellin& reasons to rule other/ise.
H!!I
?e find no co&ent reason that
Austifies the reversal of the dis-issal of the char&es a&ainst respondents.
#n her Affidavits, petitioner alle&es that respondent MalinisB act of de-andin& 62W of the insurance clai-s, instructin&
respondent Castro to conduct separate hearin&s, and suspendin& Ad-. Case No. R"-163, caused her undue inAur' and &ave
the insurance co-panies un/arranted benefits, advanta&e and preference.
H!=I
Aside fro- such bare alle&ations, there is
nothin& on record provin& that respondent Malinis in fact de-anded such 62W, or that the holdin& of the separate hearin&s
and the suspension of the proceedin&s /ere done in order to coerce petitioner into accedin& to MalinisB de-and.
Petitioner ar&ues that respondent Malinis did not den' her accusations and failed to ans/er the char&es a&ainst hi-,
indicatin& therefore the truth of her alle&ations.
H!6I
#ndeed, the &eneral rule is that failure to den' alle&ations in the co-plaint
results in ad-ission thereof.
H!3I
$uch rule, ho/ever, is not absolute and ad-its of exceptions.
H!)I
#n /lorentino Atillo ''' vs.
Court o! A##eals, Amancor , 'nc. and .ichell -huillier ,
H!9I
/e held that in spite of the presence of Audicial ad-issions in a part'Bs
pleadin&, the trial court is still &iven lee/a' to consider other evidence presentedG
H!(I
or, as in the present case, the absence of
evidence for the petitioner to prove her clai-.
#t is funda-ental that upon hi- /ho alle&es rests the burden of proofG
H=2I
hence, it is incu-bent upon petitioner to prove
her alle&ations /ith co-petent evidence.
H=1I
$he cannot si-pl' rel' on respondentMalinisB failure to specificall' den' her
alle&ations to prove that there /as such an ille&al proposition. Respondents -a' not be indicted on -ere presu-ptions.
A revie/ of the records sho/s that petitioner failed to prove her clai- such that respondents -a' not be indicted for the
acts co-plained of. As aptl' found b' the %-buds-an, there /as no concrete evidence presented b' petitioner to
substantiate her char&e.
H=I

.o establish probable cause for Diolation of $ection !HeI of R.A. !21(, the follo/in& ele-ents -ust be presentE
*1+ .he accused is a public officer or a private person char&ed in conspirac' /ith the for-erG
121
*+ .he said public officer co--its the prohibited acts durin& the perfor-ance of his or her official duties or in
relation to his or her public positionsG
*!+ .hat he or she causes undue inAur' to an' part', /hether the &overn-ent or a private part'G
*=+ $uch undue inAur' is caused b' &ivin& un/arranted benefits, advanta&e or preference to such partiesG and
*6+ .hat the public officer has acted /ith -anifest partialit', evident bad faith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence.
H=!I

.he causin& of undue inAur' or the &ivin& of an' un/arranted benefits, advanta&e or preference throu&h -anifest
partialit', evident bad faith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence constitutes the ver' act punished under the fore&oin& section.
H==I
Petitioner co-plains that she found it Qdifficult and burdenso-e to prosecute her case a&ainst the insurers Y not to
-ention that she had been rendered despondent b' the loss of her business due to confla&ration.R
H=6I
$uch difficult' and
burden, ho/ever, do not, #er se, constitute the undue inAur' conte-plated b' la/.
5urisprudence has consistentl' interpreted the ter- Qundue inAur'R as s'non'-ous to Qactual da-a&e.R
H=3I
#n -lorente, %r.
vs. Sandiganbayan,
H=)I
/e explained the concept of Qundue inAur'R as an ele-ent of the offense punishable under $ection ! HeI
of Rep. Act No. !21(, to /itE
Y ;ndue has been defined as Q-ore than necessar', not proper, HorI ille&alGR and inAur' as Qan' /ron& or da-a&e done to
another, either in his person, ri&hts, reputation or propert'HGI Hthat is, theI invasion of an' le&all' protected interest of
another.R Actual da-a&e, in the context of these definitions, is a0in to that in civil la/.
Y
Petitioner -a' have been frau&ht /ith attendin& and liti&atin& her clai-s a&ainst each of the fourteen insurers as /ell as
the insurance adAusters, individuall', but inconvenience is certainl' not constitutive of undue inAur'.
H=9I

Moreover, petitioner failed to sho/ that the conduct of separate hearin&s /as done b' respondents throu&h -anifest
partialit', evident bad faith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence.
Records sho/ that as earl' as 5anuar' 1((=, /hen petitioner first brou&ht the -atter of the dela' in her insurance clai-s
to the Co--ission, respondent Malinis, upon the re@uest of petitioner, exerted efforts to -ediate bet/een her and the
insurance co-panies in order to a-icabl' settle the clai-s not/ithstandin& the fact that it /as be'ond the Aurisdictional
a-ount co&ni7able b' the Co--ission under the #nsurance Code, as a-ended.
Para&raph 1, $ection =13 of the Code provides that the #nsurance Co--issioner shall have the po/er to adAudicate
clai-s and co-plaints involvin& an' loss, da-a&e or liabilit' for /hich an insurer -a' be ans/erable under an' 0ind of polic'
or contract of insurance /here the a-ount of an' such loss, da-a&e or liabilit' does not exceed in an' sin&le clai- one
hundred thousand pesos. ?hen the insurance co-panies -ade 0no/n their official position to den' the clai-s,
respondent Malinis persisted in holdin& -eetin&s bet/een the parties. #t /as onl' after petitioner for-all' filed a co-plaint for
Revocation andTor $uspension of <icenses /ith the Co--ission that settle-ent discussions /ere discontinued as it -a'
co-pro-ise the Co--issionBs i-partialit'.
H=(I
.hese clearl' are not indicative of evident bad faith, -anifest partialit' or &ross
inexcusable ne&li&ence on respondentsB part. .hus, respondent Malinis cannot be faulted for atte-ptin& to -ediate a-on&
the parties.
Records also sho/ that the separate hearin&s on the case /ere held onl' durin& the earl' part of the proceedin&s in
Ad-. Case No. R"-163, particularl' on Au&ust 16, 13, 1), 1((=, and $epte-ber 3, ), 9, (, 1, 1!, 1=, 13, 1(, 2, 1, , !,
1((=.
H62I
"urin& the clarificator' hearin& held before the %ffice of the %-buds-an, respondent Castro explained that the
conduct of separate hearin&s /as necessar' because petitionerBs clai-s involved several insurance co-panies, adAusters and
peculiar issues for each of the co-panies.
H61I
?hat petitioner convenientl' o-itted to add is that consolidatedTAoint hearin&s
/ere in fact held on Au&ust 6, (, 1((=, April 3, 1((6, Ma' 1, 1((6, 5une 6, 1((6, and 5ul' !, 1((6.
H6I
.his ne&ates
petitionerBs alle&ation that respondents /ere deliberatel' holdin& separate hearin&s to her preAudice. Notabl', it /as durin&
the hearin& of 5ul' !, 1((6 that the -otion to dis-iss the A-ended Co-plaint /as heard and ar&ued before respondent
Castro /ho eventuall' decided to order the suspension of the proceedin&s.
H6!I

.he fact that the Co--ission suspended the proceedin&s due to the pendenc' of Civil Case No. N-(6-!1!6 does not
constitute an indictable offense under $ection ! HeI of R.A. No. !21(.
#n Almendras .ining Cor#oration vs. O!!ice o! the 'nsurance Commission,
H6=I
the Court expounded on the t/o-fold po/ers
of the #nsurance Co--ission under the #nsurance Code, as a-ended,
H66I
to /itE
12
. . . t!e O$$9ce o$ t!e I7%r"ce Co++9779o 97 " ",+997tr"t9=e ".ec8 =e7te, '9t! re.%#"tor8 -o'er "7 'e## "7 '9t!
",D%,9c"tor8 "%t!or9t8. A-on& the several re.%#"tor8 or o&M%"79&D%,9c9"# ,%t9e7 of the #nsurance Co--issioner under
the #nsurance Code is the authorit' to issue, or refuse issuance of, a Certificate of Authorit' to a person or entit' desirous of
en&a&in& in insurance business in the Philippines, and to revo0e or suspend such Certificate of Authorit' upon a findin& of the
existence of statutor' &rounds for such revocation or suspension. .he &rounds for revocation or suspension of an insurerKs
Certificate of Authorit' are set out in $ection =1 and in $ection =) of the #nsurance Code as a-ended. .he &eneral
re&ulator' authorit' of the #nsurance Co--issioner is described in $ection =1= of the #nsurance Code, as a-ended, in the
follo/in& ter-sE
$ec. =1=. .he #nsurance Co--issioner shall have the dut' to see that all la/s relatin& to insurance, insurance co-panies
and other insurance -atters, -utual benefit associations, and trusts for charitable uses are faithfull' executed and to perfor-
the duties i-posed upon hi- b' this Code, and shall, not/ithstandin& an' existin& la/s to the contrar', have sole and
exclusive authorit' to re&ulate the issuance and sale of variable contracts as defined in section t/o hundred thirt'-t/o and to
provide for the licensin& of persons sellin& such contracts, and to issue such reasonable rules and re&ulations &overnin& the
sa-e.
. . .
.he ",D%,9c"tor8 "%t!or9t8 of the #nsurance Co--issioner is &enerall' described in $ection =13 of the #nsurance Code, as
a-ended, /hich reads as follo/sE
$ec. =13. .he Co--issioner shall have the po/er to adAudicate clai-s and co-plaints involvin& an' loss, da-a&e or liabilit'
for /hich an insurer -a' be ans/erable under an' 0ind of polic' or contract of insurance, or for /hich such insurer -a' be
liable under a contract of suret'ship, or for /hich a reinsurer -a' be sued under an' contract or reinsurance it -a' have
entered into, or for /hich a -utual benefit association -a' be held liable under the -e-bership certificates it has issued to its
-e-bers, /here the a-ount of an' such loss, da-a&e or liabilit', excludin& interests, cost and attorne'Ks fees, bein& clai-ed
or sued upon an' 0ind of insurance, bond, reinsurance contract, or -e-bership certificate does not exceed in an' sin&le clai-
one hundred thousand pesos. *E-phasis supplied+
;nder its ",D%,9c"tor8 "%t!or9t8, the #nsurance Co--ission has the ori&inal Aurisdiction to adAudicate and settle
insurance clai-s and co-plaints /here the a-ount bein& clai-ed does not exceed in an' sin&le clai- one hundred thousand
pesos, as provided in $ection =13 of the Code. $uch ori&inal Aurisdiction is concurrent /ith that of the Metropolitan
.rial Courts, the Municipal .rial Courts and the Municipal Circuit .rial Courts.
H63I

#n addition to such adAudicator' po/er, the Co--issioner has the re.%#"tor8 "%t!or9t8 to revo0e or suspend the
certificate or authorit' of an insurance co-pan' upon findin& the le&al &rounds for such revocation or suspension under
$ections =1 and =) of the #nsurance Code. $ection =1 is @uoted in the earl' part of herein "ecision. $ection =)
providesE
$EC. =). #f the Co--issioner is of the opinion upon exa-ination or other evidence that an' do-estic or forei&n insurance
co-pan' is in an unsound condition, or that it has failed to co-pl' /ith the provisions of la/ or re&ulations obli&ator' upon it,
or that its condition or -ethods of business is such as to render its proceedin&s ha7ardous to the public or to its polic'holders,
or that its paid-up capital stoc0, in the case of a do-estic stoc0 co-pan', or its available cash assets, in the case of do-estic
-utual co-pan', or its securit' deposits, in the case of a forei&n co-pan', is i-paired or deficient, or that the -ar&in of
solvenc' re@uired of such co-pan' is deficient, the Co--issioner is authori7ed to suspend or revo0e all certificates of
authorit' &ranted to such insurance co-pan', its officers and a&ents, and no ne/ business shall thereafter be done b' such
co-pan' or for such co-pan' b' its a&ent in the Philippines /hile such suspension, revocation or disabilit' continues or until
its authorit' to do business is restored b' the Co--ission. Before restorin& such authorit', the Co--issioner shall re@uired
the co-pan' concerned to subAect to hi- a business plan sho/in& the co-pan'Bs esti-ated receipts and disburse-ents, as
/ell as the basis therefore, for the next succeedin& three 'ears. *As a-ended b' P.". No. 1=66+
Petitioner pursued her fire insurance clai-s throu&h the re&ular courts /hen she filed Civil Case No. N-(6-!1!6 for
$pecific Perfor-ance /ith "a-a&es /ith the R.C-Nue7on Cit' *Branch +, her clai-s bein& be'ond the Aurisdiction of the
Co--ission. #n resolvin& petitionerBs clai-s, the trial court -ust therefore deter-ine /hether there /as unreasonable denial
or /ithholdin& of the clai-s b' the insurance co-panies.
%n the other hand, in Ad-. Case No. R"-163 pendin& before the #nsurance Co--ission, the Co--issioner is called
upon to deter-ine /hether there /as unreasonable dela' or /ithholdin& of the clai-s, as petitionerBs action is one for the
Revocation andTor $uspension of <icenses on &rounds of alle&ed violations of $ection =1 *b+, *c+, *d+ and *e+ of the #nsurance
Code, as a-ended, on pro-pt investi&ation and settle-ent of clai-s. .he Aurisdiction of the Co--ission in this case is one
12!
that calls for the exercise of its re&ulator' or non-@uasi-Audicial dut', i.e., the authorit' to revo0e or suspend an insurerBs
certificate of authorit'.
H6)I
Aside fro- the revocationTsuspension of license, the #nsurance Co--issioner also has the
discretion to i-pose upon the errin& insurance co-panies and its directors, officers and a&ents, fines and penalties, as set out
in $ection =16, vi7.E
$EC. =16. #n addition to the ad-inistrative sanction provided else/here in this Code, the #nsurance Co--issioner is hereb'
authori7ed, at his discretion, to i-pose upon insurance co-panies, their directors andTor officers andTor a&ents, for an' /illful
failure or refusal to co-pl' /ith, or violation of an' provision of this Code, or an' order, instruction, re&ulation or rulin& of the
#nsurance Co--issioner, or an' co--ission of irre&ularities, andTor conductin& business in an unsafe or unsound -anner as
-a' be deter-ined b' the #nsurance Co--issioner, the follo/in&E
*a+ 4ines not in excess of five hundred pesos a da'G and
*b+ $uspension, or after due hearin&, re-oval of directors andTor officers andTor a&ents.
.he findin&s of the trial court /ill not necessaril' foreclose the ad-inistrative case before the Co--ission, or vice
versa. .rue, the parties are the sa-e, and both actions are predicated on the sa-e set of facts, and /ill re@uire identical
evidence. But the issues to be resolved, the @uantu- of evidence, the procedure to be follo/ed and the reliefs to be adAud&ed
b' these t/o bodies are different.
PetitionerBs causes of action in Civil Case No. N-(6-!1!6 are predicated on the insurersB refusal to pa' her fire
insurance clai-s despite notice, proofs of losses and other supportin& docu-ents. .hus, petitioner pra's in her co-plaint that
the insurers be ordered to pa' the full-insured value of the losses, as e-bodied in their respective policies.
H69I
Petitioner also
sou&ht pa'-ent of interests and da-a&es in her favor caused b' the alle&ed dela' and refusal of the insurers to pa' her
clai-s.
H6(I
.he principal issue then that -ust be resolved b' the trial court is /hether or not petitioner is entitled to the
pa'-ent of her insurance clai-s and da-a&es. .he -atter of /hether or not there is unreasonable dela' or denial of the
clai-s is -erel' an incident to be resolved b' the trial court, necessar' to ascertain petitionerBs ri&ht to clai- da-a&es,
as prescribed b' $ection == of the #nsurance Code.
%n the other hand, the core, if not the sole bone of contention in Ad-. Case No. R"-163, is the issue of /hether or not
there /as unreasonable dela' or denial of the clai-s of petitioner, and if in the affir-ative, /hether or not that /ould Austif' the
suspension or revocation of the insurersB licenses.
Moreover, in Civil Case No. N-(6-!1!6, petitioner -ust establish her case b' a #re#onderance o! evidence, or si-pl'
put, such evidence that is of &reater /ei&ht, or -ore convincin& than that /hich is offered in opposition to it.
H32I
#n Ad-. Case
No. R"-163, the de&ree of proof re@uired of petitioner to establish her clai- is substantial evidence, /hich has been defined
as that a-ount of relevant evidence that a reasonable -ind -i&ht accept as ade@uate to Austif' the conclusion.
H31I
#n addition, the procedure to be follo/ed b' the trial court is &overned b' the Rules of Court,
H3I
/hile the Co--ission has
its o/n set of rules
H3!I
and it is not bound b' the ri&idities of technical rules of procedure.
H3=I
.hese t/o bodies conduct
independent -eans of ascertainin& the ulti-ate facts of their respective cases that /ill serve as basis for their respective
decisions.
#f, for exa-ple, the trial court finds that there /as no unreasonable dela' or denial of her clai-s, it does not auto-aticall'
-ean that there /as in fact no such unreasonable dela' or denial that /ould Austif' the revocation or suspension of the
licenses of the concerned insurance co-panies. #t onl' -eans that petitioner failed to prove b' preponderance of evidence
that she is entitled to da-a&es. $uch findin& /ould not restrain the #nsurance Co--ission, in the exercise of its re&ulator'
po/er, fro- -a0in& its o/n findin& of unreasonable dela' or denial as lon& as it is supported b' substantial evidence.
?hile the possibilit' that these t/o bodies /ill co-e up /ith conflictin& resolutions on the sa-e issue is not far-fetched,
the findin& or conclusion of one /ould not necessaril' be bindin& on the other &iven the difference in the issues involved, the
@uantu- of evidence re@uired and the procedure to be follo/ed.
Moreover, public interest and public polic' de-and the speed' and inexpensive disposition of ad-inistrative cases.
H36I
1ence, Ad-. Case No. R"-163 -a' proceed alon&side Civil Case No. N-(6-!1!6.
.he suspension of Ad-. Case No. R"-163 b' respondents, albeit erroneous, is not sufficient indicia of evident bad faith,
-anifest partialit' or &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence. RespondentsB -ista0en sense of prudence and Aud&-ent, dictated the
suspension of the proceedin&s. .o hold respondents responsible for such error /ould be nothin& short of harass-ent. 4or no
one called upon to tr' the facts or interpret the la/ in the process of ad-inisterin& Austice can be infallible in his Aud&-ent.
H33I
WHERE4ORE, the instant petition for revie/ on certiorari is hereb' "EN#E" for lac0 of -erit. 1o/ever, in the interest of
orderl' ad-inistration of Austice, the #nsurance Co--ission is directed to proceed /ith i--ediate dispatch in conductin& the
12=
hearin&s of Ad-. Case No. R"-163 to deter-ine /hether or not the licenses of the insurance co-panies and adAusters -a'
be revo0ed or suspended as pra'ed for b' petitioner.
No costs.
SO OR5ERE5.
Bellosillo, )Chairman,, 2uisumbing, Calle1o, Sr., and >inga, %%., concur.
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 815FI 5ece+ber 1@, 1@8@
AMA5O C. ARIAS, petitioner,
vs.
THE SAN5IGAN:A/AN, respondent.
G.R. No. 82512 5ece+ber 1@, 1@8@
CRESENCIO 5. 5ATA, petitioner,
vs.
THE SAN5IGAN:A/AN, respondent.
(aredes -a9 O!!ice !or #etitioner.
GUTIERRE>, 1R., J.:
.he facts of this case are stated in the dissentin& opinion of 5ustice Carolina C. 8riCo-A@uino /hich follo/s this -aAorit'
opinion. .he dissent substantiall' reiterates the draft report prepared b' 5ustice 8riCo-A@uino as a /or0in& basis for the
CourtKs deliberations /hen the case /as bein& discussed and for the subse@uent votes of concurrence or dissent on the
action proposed b' the report.
.here is no dispute over the events /hich transpired. .he division of the Court is on the conclusions to be dra/n fro- those
events and the facts insofar as the t/o petitioners are concerned. .he -aAorit' is of the vie/ that Messrs. Arias and "ata
should be ac@uitted on &rounds of reasonable doubt. .he Court feels that the @uantu- of evidence needed to convict
petitioners Arias and "ata be'ond reasonable doubt, as co-conspirators in the conspirac' to cause undue inAur' to the
8overn-ent throu&h the irre&ular disburse-ent and expenditure of public funds, has not been satisfied.
#n ac@uittin& the petitioners, the Court a&rees /ith the $olicitor-8eneral
1
/ho, in 92 pa&es of his consolidated -anifestation
and -otion, reco--ended that Messrs. Arias and "ata be ac@uitted of the cri-e char&ed, /ith costs de oficio. Earlier,
.anodba'an $pecial Prosecutor Eleuterio 4. 8uerrero had also reco--ended the droppin& of Arias fro- the infor-ation
before it /as filed.
.here is no @uestion about the need to ferret out and convict public officers /hose acts have -ade the biddin& out and
construction of public /or0s and hi&h/a's s'non'-ous /ith &raft or cri-inal inefficienc' in the public e'e. 1o/ever, the
re-ed' is not to indict and Aail ever' person /ho -a' have ordered the proAect, /ho si&ned a docu-ent incident to its
construction, or /ho had a hand so-e/here in its i-ple-entation. .he careless use of the conspirac' theor' -a' s/eep into
Aail even innocent persons /ho -a' have been -ade un/ittin& tools b' the cri-inal -inds /ho en&ineered the defraudation.
;nder the $andi&anba'anKs decision in this case, a depart-ent secretar', bureau chief, co--ission chair-an, a&enc' head,
and all chief auditors /ould be e@uall' culpable for ever' cri-e arisin& fro- disburse-ents /hich the' have approved. .he
depart-ent head or chief auditor /ould be &uilt' of conspirac' si-pl' because he /as the last of a lon& line of officials and
126
e-plo'ees /ho acted upon or affixed their si&natures to a transaction. 8uilt -ust be pre-ised on a -ore 0no/in&, personal,
and deliberate participation of each individual /ho is char&ed /ith others as part of a conspirac'.
.he records sho/ that the six accused persons /ere convicted in connection /ith the overpricin& of land purchased b' the
Bureau of Public ?or0s for the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAect. .he proAect /as intended to ease the perennial floods in Mari0ina
and Pasi&, Metro Manila.
.he accused /ere prosecuted because 1(,22= s@uare -eters of ,riceland, in Rosario, Pasi& /hich had been assessed at
P6.22 a s@uare -eter in 1()! /ere sold as residential land, in 1()9 for P92.22 a s@uare -eter. .he land for the flood/a' /as
ac@uired throu&h ne&otiated purchase,
?e a&ree /ith the $olicitor-8eneral that the assessorKs tax valuation of P6.22 per s@uare -eter of land in Rosario, Pasi&,
Metro Manila is co-pletel' unrealistic and arbitrar' as the basis for conviction.
1erein lies the first error of the trial court.
#t -ust be stressed that the petitioners are not char&ed /ith conspirac' in the falsification of public docu-ents or preparation
of spurious supportin& papers. .he char&e is causin& undue inAur' to the 8overn-ent and &ivin& a private part' un/arranted
benefits throu&h -anifest partialit', evident bad faith, or inexcusable ne&li&ence.
.he alle&ed undue inAur' in a nutshell is the 8overn-ent purchase of land in Pasi&, Ri7al for P92.22 a s@uare -eter instead of
the P6.22 value per s@uare -eter appearin& in the tax declarations and fixed b' the -unicipal assessor, not b' the lando/ner.
.he $andi&anba'an, /ithout an' clear factual basis for doin& so has assu-ed that the P6.22 per s@uare -eter value fixed b'
the assessor in the tax declarations /as the correct -ar0et value of the Man&ahan propert' and if the 8overn-ent purchased
the land for P92.22 a s@uare -eter, it follo/s that it -ust have suffered undue inAur'.
.he $olicitor 8eneral explains /h' this conclusion is erroneousE
1. 3o undue in1ury 9as caused to the 5overnment
a. >he (=;.;; #er s7uare rneter ac7uisition cost is 1ust !air and reasonable.
#t bears stress that the A&leha- propert' /as ac@uired throu&h ne&otiated purchase. #t /as, therefor,
nothin& -ore than an ordinar' contract of sale /here the purchase price had to be arrived at b' a&ree-ent
bet/een the parties and could never be left to the discretion of one of the contractin& parties *Article 1=)!,
Ne/ Civil Code+. 4or it is the essence of a contract of sale that there -ust be a -eetin& of the -inds
bet/een the seller and the bu'er upon the thin& /hich is the obAect of the contract and upon the price
*Article 1=)6, Ne/ Civil Code+. Necessaril', the parties have to ne&otiate the reasonableness of the price,
ta0in& into consideration such other factors as location, potentials, surroundin&s and capabilities. After
ta0in& the fore&oin& pre-ises into consideration, the parties have, thus, arrived at the a-ount of P92.22 per
s@uare -eter as the fair and reasonable price for the A&leha- propert'.
#t bears stress that the prosecution failed to adduce evidence to prove that the true and fair -ar0et value in
1()9 of the A&leha- propert' /as indeed P6.22 per s@uare -eter onl' as stated b' the assessor in the tax
declaration *Exhibit ?+. %n the contrar', the prosecutionKs principal /itness Pedro %col, the Assistant
Municipal Assessor of Pasi&, ad-itted that the purchase price of P92.22 per s@uare -eter paid for the
A&leha- propert' as stated in the "eed of $ale *Exhibit 8+ is reasonable *tsn, Au&ust 1(,1(9!, p. 2+ and
fair *'bid, p. )3+G that Kthe value of lands /ithin the to/n of Pasi& ran&es fro- P92.22 to P622.22K * 'bid, p.
1+G that the A&leha- propert' is ,around !22 -eters, fro- %rti&as Avenue, ,adAacent to the existin&
<eon&son H<ia-sonI $ubdivision ... and near Eastland 8ar-ent Buildin&, *'bid, pp. 1-1!+G that said propert'
is surrounded b' factories, co--ercial establish-ents and residential subdivisions *'bid, pp. )!-)=+G that the
P6.22 per s@uare -eter assessed valuation of the A&leha- propert' appearin& on the tax declaration
*Exhibit ?+ /as based on actual use onl' *lbid, pp. 3-)+, it bein& the unifor- rate for all ricefields in Pasi&
irrespective of their locations *'bid, pp. )-)=+ and did not ta0e into account the existence of -an' factories
and subdivisions in the area *'bid., pp. 6-), )-)=+, and that the assessed value is different fro- and
al/a's lo/er than the actual -ar0et value *'bid, pp. -!+. *At pp. 63-6(, Rollo+
123
A ne&otiated purchase -a' usuall' entail a hi&her bu'in& price than one arrived at in the course of expropriation proceedin&s.
#n E&#ort (rocessing Ione Authority v. 0ulay *1=( $CRA !26, !12 H1(9)I+ /e struc0 do/n the -artial la/ decree that pe&&ed
Aust co-pensation in e-inent do-ain cases to the assessed value stated b' a lando/ner in his tax declaration or fixed b' the
-unicipal assessor, /hichever is lo/er. %ther factors -ust be considered. .hese factors -ust be deter-ined b' a court of
Austice and not b' -unicipal e-plo'ees.
#n the instant case, the assessorKs lo/ evaluation, in the fixin& of /hich the lando/ner had no participation, /as used for a
purpose infinitel' -ore /ei&ht' than -ere expropriation of land. #t for-s the basis for a cri-inal conviction.
.he Court is not prepared to sa' that P92.22 to P622.22 a s@uare -eter for land in Pasi& in 1()9 /ould be a fair evaluation.
.he value -ust be deter-ined in e-inent do-ain proceedin&s b' a co-petent court. ?e are certain, ho/ever, that it cannot
be P6.22 a s@uare -eter. 1ence, the decision, insofar as it sa's that the ,correct, valuation is P6.22 per s@uare -eter and on
that basis convicted that petitioners of causin& undue inAur', da-a&e, and preAudice to the 8overn-ent because of &ross
overpricin&, is &rounded on sha0' foundations.
.here can be no overpricin& for purposes of a cri-inal conviction /here no proof adduced durin& orderl' proceedin&s has
been presented and accepted.
.he CourtKs decision, ho/ever, is based on a -ore basic reason. 1erein lies the principal error of the respondent court.
?e /ould be settin& a bad precedent if a head of office pla&ued b' all too co--on proble-s-dishonest or ne&li&ent
subordinates, over/or0, -ultiple assi&n-ents or positions, or plain inco-petence is suddenl' s/ept into a conspirac'
conviction si-pl' because he did not personall' exa-ine ever' sin&le detail, painsta0in&l' trace ever' step fro- inception, and
investi&ate the -otives of ever' person involved in a transaction before affixin&, his si&nature as the final approvin& authorit'.
.here appears to be no @uestion fro- the records that docu-ents used in the ne&otiated sale /ere falsified. A 0e' tax
declaration had a t'pe/ritten nu-ber instead of bein& -achine-nu-bered. .he re&istration sta-p-ar0 /as antedated and the
land reclassified as residential instead of ricefield. But /ere the petitioners &uilt' of conspirac' in the falsification and the
subse@uent char&e of causin& undue in inAur' and da-a&e to the 8overn-entU
?e can, in retrospect, ar&ue that Arias should have probed records, inspected docu-ents, received procedures, and
@uestioned persons. #t is doubtful if an' auditor for a fairl' si7ed office could #ersonally do all these thin&s in all vouchers
presented for his si&nature. .he Court /ould be as0in& for the i-possible. All heads of offices have to rel' to a reasonable
extent Kon their subordinates and on the &ood faith of those prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into ne&otiations. #f a
depart-ent secretar' entertains i-portant visitors, the auditor is not ordinaril' expected to call the restaurant about the a-ount
of the bill, @uestion each &uest /hether he /as present at the luncheon, in@uire /hether the correct a-ount of food /as
served and other/ise#ersonally loo0 into the rei-burse-ent voucherKs accurac', propriet', and sufficienc'. .here has to be
so-e added reason /h' he should exa-ine each voucher in such detail. An' executive head of even small&overn-ent
a&encies or co--issions can attest to the volu-e of papers that -ust be si&ned. .here are hundreds of docu-ent , letters
and supportin& paper that routinel' pass throu&h his hands. .he nu-ber in bi&&er offices or depart-ents is even -ore
appallin&.
.here should be other &rounds than the -ere si&nature or approval appearin& on a voucher to sustain a conspirac' char&e
and conviction.
?as petitioner Arias part of the plannin&, preparation, and perpetration of the alle&ed conspirac' to defraud the &overn-entU
Arias Aoined the Pasi& office on 5ul' 1(, 1()9. .he ne&otiations for the purchase of the propert' started in 1()). .he deed of
sale /as executed on April 2, 1()9. .itle /as transferred to the Republic on 5une 9, 1()9. #n other /ords, the transaction
had alread' been consu--ated before his arrival. .he pre-audit, incident to pa'-ent of the purchase, /as conducted in the
first /ee0 of %ctober, 1()9. Arias points out that apart fro- his si&nature lin0in& hi- to the si&nature on the voucher, there is
no evidence transaction. %n the contrar', the other co-accused testified the' did not 0no/ hi- personall' and none
approached hi- to follo/ up the pa'-ent.
$hould the bi& a-ount of P1,62,!2.22 have caused hi- to investi&ate . &ate the s-allest detains of the transactionU
12)
>es, if the land /as reall' /orth onl' P6.22 a s@uare -eter. 1o/ever, if land in Pasi& /as alread' /orth P92.22 a s@uare
-eter at the ti-e, no /arnin& bell of intuition /ould have sounded an inner alar-. <and alon& %rti&as Avenue on the /a' to
Pasi& is no/ /orth P2,222.22 to P!2,222.22 a s7uare meter. .he falsification of the tax declaration b' chan&in& ,riceland, to
,residentialK /as done before Arias /as assi&ned to Pasi& besides, there is no such thin& as ,riceland, in inner Metro Manila.
$o-e lots in outl'in& or easil' flooded areas -a' still be planted to rice or 0an&0on& but this is onl' until the place is dedicated
to its real purpose /hich is co--ercial, industrial, or residential. #f the $andi&anba'an is &oin& to send so-ebod' to Aail for six
'ears, the decision should be based on fir-er foundation.
.he $andi&anba'an as0ed /h' Arias 0ept the docu-ents fro- %ctober, 1()9 to 5une !, 1(9. Arias explained that the rules
of the Co--ission on Audit re@uire auditors to 0eep these d docu-ents and under no circumstance to relin@uish custod' to
other persons. Arias /as auditor of the Bureau of Public ?or0s in Pasi& up to $epte-ber 1, 1(91. .he seven -onths dela' in
the for-al turnover of custod' to the ne/ auditor /as explained b' prosecution /itness 5ulito Pesa'co, /ho succeeded hi- as
auditor and /ho too0 over the custod' of records in that office.
.he -ain reason for the Aud&-ent of conviction, for the findin& of undue inAur' and da-a&e to the 8overn-ent is the alle&ed
&ross overprice for the land purchased for the flood/a' proAect. Assu-in& that P92.22 is indeed exorbitant, petitioner Arias
cites his testi-on' as follo/sE
N #n conductin& the pre-audit, did 'ou deter-ine the reasonableness of the price of the
propert'U
A #n this case, the price has been stated, the transaction had been consu--ated and the
correspondin& .ransfer Certificate of little had been issued and transferred to the
&overn-ent of the Philippines. .he auditors have no -ore lee/a' to return the papers
and then @uestion the purchase price.
N #s it not a procedure in 'our office that before pa'-ent is &iven b' the &overn-ent to
private individuals there should be a pre-audit of the papers and the correspondin& chec0s
issued to the vendorU
A Correct, >our 1onor, but it depends on the 0ind of transaction there is.
N >es, but in this particular case, the papers /ere transferred to the &overn-ent /ithout
pa'in& the price "id 'ou not consider that rather odd or unusualU *.$N, pa&e 1), April
),1(9)+.
A No, >our 1onor.
N ?h' notU
A Because in the "eed of $ale as bein& noted there, there is a condition that no pa'-ents
/ill be -ade unless the correspondin& title in the pa'-ent of the Republic is co--itted is
-ade.
N 'n this case you said that the title is already in the name o! the governmentJ
A es, our Honor. >he only thing 9e do is to determine 9hether there is an a##ro#riation
set aside to cover the said s#eci!ication. As o! the #rice it is under the sole authority o! the
#ro#er o!!icer making the sale.
N M' point is this. "id 'ou not consider it unusual for a piece of propert' to be bou&ht b'
the &overn-entG the sale /as consu--atedG the title /as issued in favor of the
&overn-ent /ithout the price bein& paid first to the sellerU
A 3o, our Honor. 'n all cases usually, #ayments made by the government comes later
than the trans!er.
129
N >hat is usual #rocedure utilized in road right o! 9ay transactionJ
A >es, >our 1onor. *.$N, p. 19, April ),1(9)+.
N And of course as auditor, K/atch-do&K of the &overn-ent there is also that function 'ou
are also called upon b' &oin& over the papers . . . *.$N, pa&e , April ),1(9)+. # ...
vouchers called upon to deter-ine /hether there is an' irre&ularit' as at all in this
particular transaction, is it notU
A >es, MaKa-.
N And that /as in fact the reason /h' 'ou scrutini7ed also, not onl' the tax declaration
but also the certification b' Mr. 5ose and Mr. Cru7U
A As /hat do 'ou -ean of the certification, -aKa-U
N Certification of Mr. 5ose and Mr. Cru7 in relation to P" No. (3, A .he' are not re@uired
docu-ents that an auditor -ust see. *.$N, pa&e !, April ),1(9)+.
and continuin&E
A ... .he @uestionin& of the purchase price is no/ be'ond the authorit' of the auditor
because it is inas-uch as the a-ount involved is be'ond his counter-si&nin& authorit'.
*.$N, pa&e !6, April ), 1(9)+. *At pp. 16-13, Petition. ;nderlinin&s supplied b' petitioner+
.he $olicitor 8eneral su--ari7es the participation of petitioner "ata as follo/sE
As re&ards petitioner "ataKs alle&ed participation, the evidence on record sho/s that as the then "istrict
En&ineer of the Pasi& En&ineerin& "istrict he created a co--ittee, headed b' En&r. Priscillo 4ernando /ith
Ricardo Asuncion, Alfonso Mendo7a, <adislao Cru7, Pedro 1uco- and Carlos 5ose, all e-plo'ees of the
district office, as -e-bers, specificall' to handle the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAect, &ather and verif'
docu-ents, conduct surve's, ne&otiate /ith the o/ners for the sale of their lots, process clai-s and prepare
the necessar' docu-entsG he did not ta0e an' direct and active part in the ac@uisition of land for the
Man&ahan flood/a'G it /as the co--ittee /hich deter-ined the authenticit' of the docu-ents presented to
thefor processin& and on the basis thereof prepared the correspondin& deed of saleG thereafter, the
co--ittee sub-itted the deed of sale to&ether /ith the supportin& docu-ents to petitioner "ata for si&nin&G
on the basis of the supportin& certified docu-ents /hich appeared re&ular and co-plete on their face,
petitioner "ata, as head of the office and the si&nin& authorit' at that level, -erel' si&ned but did not
approve the deed of sale *Exhibit 8+ as the approval thereof /as the prero&ative of the $ecretar' of Public
?or0sG he thereafter trans-itted the si&ned deed of sale /ith its supportin& docu-ents to "irector Anolin of
the Bureau of Public ?or0s /ho in turn reco--ended approval thereof b' the $ecretar' of Public ?or0sG
the deed of sale /as approved b' the Asst. $ecretar' of Public ?or0s after a revie/ and re-exa-ination
thereof at that levelG after the approval of the deed of sale b' the hi&her authorities the coverin& voucher for
pa'-ent thereof /as prepared /hich petitioner "ata si&nedG petitioner "ata did not 0no/ 8utierre7 and had
never -et her durin& the processin& and pa'-ent of her clai-s *tsn, 4ebruar' 3, 1(9), pp. 12-1=, 13-=,
!1-!+. *At pp. 3)-39, Rollo.+
%n the alle&ed conspirac', the $olicitor 8eneral ar&uesE
#t is respectfull' sub-itted that the prosecution li0e/ise has not sho/n an' positive and convincin& evidence
of conspirac' bet/een the petitioners and their co-accused. .here /as no direct findin& of conspirac'.
Respondent CourtKs inference on the alle&ed existence of conspirac' -erel' upon the purported Kpre-
assi&ned roles *of the accused+ in the co--ission of the *alle&ed+ ille&al acts in @uestion is not supported b'
an' evidence on record. No/here in the sevent'- ei&ht *)9+ pa&e "ecision /as there an' specific allusion to
so-e or even one instance /hich /ould lin0 either petitioner Arias or "ata to their co-accused in the
plannin&, preparation andTor perpetration, if an', of the purported fraud and falsifications alle&ed in the
infor-ation .hat petitioners "ata and Arias happened to be officials of the Pasi& "istrict En&ineerin& %ffice
/ho si&ned the deed of sale and passed on pre-audit the &eneral voucher coverin& the subAect sale,
12(
respectivel', does hot raise an' presu-ption or inference, that the' /ere part of the alle&ed plan to defraud
the 8overn-ent, as indeed there /as none. #t should be re-e-bered that, as abovesho/n, there /as no
undue inAur' caused to the 8overn-ent as the ne&otiated purchase of the A&leha- propert' /as -ade at
the fair and reasonable price of P92.22 per s@uare -eter.
.hat there /ere erasures and superi-positions of the /ords and fi&ures of the purchase price in the deed of
sale fro- P1,6=3,=2.22 to P1,62,!2.22 does not prove conspirac'. #t -a' be noted that there /as a
reduction in the affected area fro- the esti-ated 1(,!9 s@uare -eters to 1(,22= s@uare -eters as
approved b' the <and Re&istration Co--ission, /hich resulted in the correspondin& reduction in the
purchase price fro- P1,6=3,=2.22 to Pl,62,!2.22. .he erasures in the deed of sale /ere si-ple
corrections that even benefited the 8overn-ent.
Moreover, contrar' to the respondent CourtKs suspicion, there /as nothin& irre&ular in the use of the
unapproved surve' planTtechnical description in the deed of sale because the approval of the surve' planT
technical description /as not a prere@uisite to the approval of the deed of sale. ?hat is i-portant is that
before an' pa'-ent is -ade b' the 8overn-ent under the deed of sale the title of the seller -ust have
alread' been cancelled and another one issued to the 8overn-ent incorporatin& therein the technical
description as approved b' the <and Re&istration Co--ission, as /hat obtained in the instant case. *At pp.
)!-)6, Rollo+
?e a&ree /ith the counsel for the People. .here is no ade@uate evidence to establish the &uilt of the petitioners, A-ado C.
Arias and Cresencio ". "ata, be'ond reasonable doubt. .he inade@uate evidence on record is not sufficient to sustain a
conviction.
?1ERE4%RE, the @uestioned decision of the $andi&anba'an insofar as it convicts and sentences petitioners A-ado C. Arias
and Cresencio ". "ata is hereb' $E. A$#"E. Petitioners Arias and "ata are ac@uitted on &rounds of reasonable doubt. No
costs.
$% %R"ERE".
/ernan, C.%., 3arvasa, .elencio4Herrera, Cruz, (aras, 5ancayco, Bidin, Cortes and .edialdea, %%., concur.
Se-"r"te O-99o7

GRIEO&A?UINO, J., dissentin&E
.he lone issue in these consolidated petitions for revie/ is /hether the $andi&anba'an co--itted a reversible error in
convictin& the petitioners, A-ado C. Arias and Cresencio ". "ata, of havin& violated $ection !, para&raph *e+, of the Anti 8raft
and Corrupt Practices Act, in connection /ith the scandalous overpricin& of land purchased b' the 8overn-ent as ri&ht of /a'
for its Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAect in Pasi&, Ri7al. .he pertinent provision of the Anti-8raft <a/ reads as follo/sE
$EC. !. Corrupt Practices of Public %fficers-#n addition to acts or o-issions of public officers alread'
penali7ed b' existin& la/. the follo/in& shall constitute corrupt practices of an' public officer and are hereb'
declared to be unla/fulE
x x x x x x x x x
.he a-ended infor-ation a&ainst the-, to /hich the' pleaded not &uilt', alle&edE
112
.hat on or about the period coverin& April, 1()9 to %ctober 1()9, in Rosario, Pasi&, Metro Manila,
Philippines, and /ith the Aurisdiction of this 1onorable Court, accused Cresencio 0. 0ata, bein& then the
district En&ineer of the province of Ri7al, Ministr' of Public ?or0s, and as such, headed and supervised the
ac@uisition of private lands for the ri&ht-of-/a' of the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAect of the 8overn-ent at
$itio Man&ahan, Rosario, Pasi&, Metro ManilaG accused (riscillo 5. /ernando, then the $upervisin&
En&ineer of the %ffice of the "istrict En&ineer of Ri7al, Ministr' of Public ?or0s /ho acted as assistant of
accused Cresencio ". "ata in the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAectG accused -adislao 5. Cruz, then the $enior
En&ineer of the %ffice of the "istrict En&ineer of Ri7al, Ministr' of Public ?or0s, /ho /as char&ed /ith the
ac@uisition of lots needed for the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAectG accused Carlos -. %ose then the
#nstru-ent-an of the office of the "istrict En&ineer of Ri7al, Ministr' of Public ?or0s /ho acted as the
surve'or of the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAectG accused Claudio H. Arcaya, then the Ad-inistrative %fficer # of
the Ri7al "istrict En&ineerKs %ffice, Ministr' of Public ?or0s /ho passed upon all papers and docu-ents
pertainin& to private lands ac@uired b' the 8overn-ent for the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAectG and
accusedAmado C. Arias, then the Auditor of Ri7al En&ineerin& "istrict, Pasi&, Metro Manila, /ho passed
upon and approved in audit the ac@uisition as /ell as the pa'-ent of lands needed for the Man&ahan
4lood/a' ProAect all taking advantage o! their #ublic and o!!icial #ositions, and cons#iring, con!ederating
and con!abulating 9ith accused 3atividad C. 5utierrez, the attorney4in4!act o! Ben1amin Agleham, 9ho is the
registered o9ner o! a #arcel o! land situated at Rosario, (asig, .etro .anila and covered by Original
Certi!icate o! >itle 3o. ;;:*, 9ith accused -adislao 5. Cruz, Carlos -. 4%ose and Claudio Arias, actin& /ith
evident bad faith, /hile accused Cresencio ". "ata, Priscillo 8. 4ernando and A-ado C. Arias, actin& /ith
-anifest partialit' in the dischar&e of their official public andTor ad-inistrative functions, did then and there
/ilfull', unla/full' and feloniousl' cause undue inAur', da-a&e and preAudice to the 8overn-ent of the
Republic of the Philippines b' causin&, allo/in& andTor approvin& the ille&al and irre&ular disburse-ent and
expenditure of public funds in favor of and in the na-e of BenAa-in P. A&leha- in the a-ount of
P1,62,!2.22 under 8eneral Doucher No. 9-2=), supported b' a certification, dated $epte-ber 1=, 1()9,
/hich /as purportedl' issued b' the Municipal .reasurer of Pasi&, and certified xerox copies of .ax
"eclarations Nos. =)9(6 and A-219-22(1 1, both in the na-e of BenAa-in P. A&leha-, and an alle&ed
o/nerKs cop' of .ax "eclaration No. =((=9, in the na-e of the Republic of the Philippines, said su##orting
documents having been !alsi!ied by the accused to make it a##ear that the land mentioned in the above4
stated su##orting #a#ers is a residential land 9ith a market value o! (=;.;; per s@uare -eter and that
1(,22= s@uare -eters thereof /ere transferred in the na-e of the 8overn-ent of the Republic of the
Philippines under .ax "eclaration No. =((=9, /hen in truth and in fact, the afore-stated land is actuall' a
riceland /ith a true and actual -ar0et value of P6.22 per s@uare -eter onl' and .ax "eclaration No. =((=9
/as trul' and officiall' re&istered in the na-es of spouses Moises 5avillonar and $ofia $an Andres, not in
the na-e of the 8overn-ent, and refers to a parcel of land at $a&ad, Pasi&, Metro ManilaG that the
fore&oin& falsities /ere co--itted b' the accused to conceal the fact that the true and actual pace of the
1(,22= s@uare -eters of land of BenAa-in P. A&leha-, /hich /as ac@uired in behalf of the 8overn-ent b'
/a' of ne&otiated purchase b' the accused officials herein for the ri&ht of /a' of the Man&ahan 4lood/a'
proAect at an overprice of P1,62,!2.22 /as P(,22.22 onl'G and finall', upon receipt of the overpriced
a-ount, the accused -isappropriated, converted and -isapplied the excess of the true and actual value of
the above--entioned land, i.e., P1,=9,!22.22 for their o/n personal needs, uses and benefits, to the
da-a&e and preAudice of the 8overn-ent in the a-ount of P1,=9,!22.22. *pp. (!1, Rollo of 8.R. No.
9163!.+
Priscillo 4ernando did not face trial for he has re-ained at lar&e, his present /hereabouts bein& un0no/n *p. =9,
$andi&anba'an "ecision, p. )6, Rollo of 8.R. No. 9163!+.
#n 1()6, the Bureau of Public ?or0s initiated the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAect to ease the perennial floods affectin& the to/ns
of Mari0ina and Pasi&, Metro Manila. .he proAect /ould traverse the northern and southern portions of %rti&as Avenue in
Pasi&, Metro Manila *Exhibits A and A-1+. An announce-ent /as published in leadin& ne/spapers advisin& affected propert'
o/ners to file their applications for pa'-ent at the "istrict En&ineerKs %ffice *p. (, $andi&anba'an "ecision, p. 63, 'bid.+.
.he i-ple-entation of the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAect /as entrusted to the Pasi& En&ineerin& "istrict headed b' the "istrict
En&ineer, Cresencio "ata. 1e for-ed a co--ittee co-posed of $upervisin& Civil En&ineer Priscillo 4ernando, as over-all in
char&e, Alfonso Mendo7a and Pedro 1uco- for ac@uisition of i-prove-ents, and #nstru-ent-an Carlos 5ose for surve's *p.
3, $andi&anba'an "ecision, p. 6!, 'bid.+. .he tea- /as tas0ed to notif' lot o/ners affected b' the proAect of the i-pendin&
expropriation of their properties and to receive and process applications for pa'-ent.
.he reclassification of all lands around the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAect /as suspended in 1()6 b' order of the President *p.
=6, $andi&anba'an "ecision, p. ), 'bid.+. #-ple-entin& that order, a -e-orandu- /as sent to "ata on Au&ust ),1()3, b'
Public ?or0s "irector "esiderio Anolin, directin& that all affected lands covered b' the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAect shall be
111
excluded fro- reevaluation and reassess-ent *Annex A, Exh. "", Counter-Affidavit of "ata, p. )2, $andi&anba'an "ecision,
P. (), 'bid+.
A-on& the lots affected /as a 1(,22=-s@uare--eter portion of a !2,13(-s@uare--eter riceland in Pasi& re&istered in the na-e
of BenAa-in A&leha- under %ri&inal Certificate of .itle No. 22() issued on Ma' 6, 1()) *Exh. 1+. .he land /as previousl'
o/ned b' Andrea Arabit and Evaristo 8utierre7, parents of the accused Natividad 8utierre7.
After A&leha- ac@uired the !-hectare land in 1()! fro- the 8utierre7 spouses, he had it subdivided into three *!+ lots under
plan *<RC+ Psd-)9=63 /hich /as approved b' the <and Re&istration Co--ission on 5une 1, 1()9 *Entr' No. )!((T12)1,
Exh. 1+. <ot 1, /ith an area of 1(,22= s@uare -eters, is the portion that A&leha-, throu&h Natividad 8utierre7, sold to the
8overn-ent in 1()9 for the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAect.
%n "ece-ber 16, 1()!, A&leha-Ks propert', classified as a ,ricefield, /ith an area of !. hectares, /as declared for taxation
under .ax "eclaration No. 9=3 *Exh->+. #ts assessed value /as P=,922 or P2.16 per s@uare -eter *p. 12, $andi&anba'an
"ecision, p. !), #bid.+. %n 4ebruar' ), 1()9, another .ax "eclaration No. =)9(6 *Exh. >-1+ /as issued for the sa-e ricefield,
/ith a revised area of !2,13( s@uare -eters. .he declared -ar0et value /as P162,962 *or P6 per s@uare -eter+, and the
assessed value /as P32,!=2.
.en -onths later, or on "ece-ber 16, 1()9, .ax "eclaration No. =)9(6 /as cancelled and replaced b' .ax "eclaration No.
A219- 22(11 *Exh. >-+ /herein the -ar0et value of the sa-e ,ricefield,, Au-ped to P!21,3(2 *P12 per s@uare -eter+. #ts
assessed value /as fixed at P12,392. .he description and value of the propert', accordin& to Pedro %col, the assistant
Municipal Assessor of Pasi&, /as based on the actual use of the propert' *riceland+ not on its potential use *p. 1!,
$andi&anba'an "ecision, p. =2, 'bid.+. .he valuation /as based on a co-pilation of sales &iven to the Municipal AssessorKs
office b' the Re&ister of "eeds, fro- /hich transactions the Assessor obtained the avera&e valuation of the properties in the
sa-e vicinit' *p. 1=, $andi&anba'an "ecision, p. =1, 'bid.+.
A-on& those /ho filed an application for pa'-ent *Exhs. 44 and 44-1+ at the "istrict En&ineerKs %ffice /as the accused,
Natividad 8utierre7, /ho /as ar-ed /ith a $pecial Po/er of Attorne' alle&edl' executed on 4ebruar' =,1()9 b' BenAa-in
A&leha- in her favor *Exhs. C and C-1+. $he sub-itted a falsified xerox cop' of .ax "eclaration No. =)9(6 *Exh. B+ bearin& a
false dateE "ece-ber 16,1()! *instead of 4ebruar' ), 1()9+ and describin& A&leha-Ks !2,13(-s@uare--eter propert' as
,residential, *instead of riceland+, /ith a fair -ar0et value of P,=1!,62 or P92 per s@uare -eter *instead of P162,9=6 at P6
per s@uare -eter+. #ts assessed value appeared to be P)=,263 *instead of P32,!=2+. 8utierre7 sub-itted A&leha-Ks %ri&inal
Certificate of .itle No. 22() *Exh. 1-1+, the technical description of the propert', and a xerox cop' of a ,$/orn $tate-ent of
the .rue Current and 4air Mar0et Dalue of Real Propert', re@uired under P.". No. )3 *Exh. 1+. .he xerox cop' of .ax
"eclaration No. =)9(6 /as supposedl' certified b' the Municipal .reasurer of Pasi&, Alfredo Prudencio.
.he docu-ents supportin& A&leha-Ks clai- /ere ,exa-ined, b' the Ad-inistrative %fficer, accused Claudio Arca'a, /ho,
after initiatin& the-, turned the- over to accused <adislao 8. Cru7, A "eed of Absolute $ale for <ot 1 *1(,22= s@uare -eters
valued at P92 per s@uare -eter+ /as prepared b' Cru7 /ho also initialed the supportin& docu-ents and trans-itted the- to
"istrict En&r. "ata.
%n April 2,1()9, the "eed of Absolute $ale *Exhs. 8 and 8-1+ /as si&ned b' "ata and 8utierre7 *as attorne'-in-fact of
A&leha-+. .hereafter, "ata sent the papers to "irector "esiderio Anolin of the Bureau of Public ?or0s /ho reco--ended to
the Assistant $ecretar' of Public ?or0s the approval of the "eed of $ale *Exh. 8-1+. After/ards, the docu-ents /ere returned
to "ataKs office for the transfer of title to the 8overn-ent. %n 5une 9, 1()9, the sale /as re&istered and .ransfer Certificate of
.itle No. .-12)1 *Exh. .+ /as issued in the na-e of the 8overn-ent.
8eneral Doucher *Exh. $+ No. 96--)92(-6 dated ,(T(T)9, for the a-ount of P1,62,!2 bore fourth certifications of. *1+
Cru7 as $enior Civil En&ineerG *+ Priscillo 8. 4ernando as $upervisin& Civil En&ineer ##G *!+ Cresencio "ata as "istrict
En&ineer ## and *=+ Cesar D. 4ranco as ProAect Actin& Accountant *p. 63, $andi&anba'an "ecision, p. 9!, #bid.+.
%n %ctober !, 1()9, the voucher and its supportin& docu-ents /ere pre-audited and approved for pa'-ent b' the accused,
A-ado C. Arias, as auditor of the En&ineerin& "istrict. .he next da', %ctober =, 1()9, sixteen *13+ PNB chec0s /ith $erial
Nos. 1996! to 1996=), inclusive *Exhs. P to P-1 6+, for the total su- of Pl,62,!2.22 /ere issued to 8utierre7 as pa'-ent
for A&leha-Ks 1(,22=-s@uare--eter lot.
#n %ctober, 1()(, an investi&ation /as conducted b' the Ministr' of National "efense on the &ross overpricin& of A&leha-Ks
propert'. "urin& the investi&ation, s/orn state-ents /ere ta0en fro- Alfredo Prudencio, Municipal .reasurer of Pasi& *Exh.
AA+, Pedro %col, Assistant Municipal Assessor of Pasi& *Exh. BB+, and the accused Claudio Arca'a *Exh. EE+. Prudencio
11
denied havin& issued or si&ned the certification dated $epte-ber 1=,1()9 *Exh. 5+, attestin& that A&leha-Ks propert' covered
b' .ax "eclaration No. =)9(6 had a -ar0et value of P,=1!,62 and that the taxes had been paid fro- 1()6 to 1()9.
Prudencio also i-pu&ned the initial *purportin& to be that of his subordinate Ruben 8atchalian, Chief of the <and .ax "ivision+
that /as affixed belo/ PrudencioKs t'pe/ritten na-e in Exhibit 5. Both Prudencio and 8atchalian diso/ned the t'pe/ritten
certification. .he' declared that such certifications are usuall' issued b' their office on -i-eo&raphed for-s *Exh. 5-1+.
Assistant Municipal Assessor Pedro %col produced and #dentified the ori&inal or &enuine .ax "eclaration No. =)9(6 dated
4ebruar' ), 1()9, and a certified cop' thereof *Exh. >-1+. .herein, A&leha-Ks propert' of !2,13( s@uare -eters /as
classified as a ,ricefield, and appraised at P6 per s@uare -eter, /ith an assessed value of P32,!=2 and a -ar0et value of P#
62,962. %col testified that the supposed xerox cop' of .ax "eclaration No. =)9(6 *Exh. B+, /hich 8utierre7 sub-itted as one
of the supportin& docu-ents of the &eneral voucher *Exh. $+, /as fa0e, because of the follo/in& tell-tale si&nsE
*1+ the tax declaration nu-ber /as t'pe/ritten, not -achine nu-bered as in the &enuine tax declaration, Exhibit >G
*+ the sta-p-ar0 of re&istration /as antedated to "ece-ber 16, 1()! in the fa0e, instead of the correct date 4ebruar' ),
1()9-- in the &enuine tax declarationG
*!+ the classification of the propert' /as ,residential,, instead of ,ricefield, /hich is its classification in the &enuine docu-entG
and
*=+ the lot /as over priced at P92 per s@uare -eter in the fa0e tax declaration, instead of the appraised value of onl' P6 per
s@uare -eter appearin& in the &enuine declaration.
Also found to be fa0e /as .ax "eclaration No. =((=9 in the na-e of the Republic of the Philippines *Exhs. : and :-1+. .he
&enuine .ax "eclaration No. =((=9 *Exhs. ; and D-+ /as actuall' filed on %ctober 19, 1()9 in the na-es of the spouses
Moises 5avillonar and $ofia Andres, for their 6(9-s@uare--etersK residential propert' /ith a declared -ar0et value of P61,3!2.
.he A&leha- deed of sale /as pre-audited b' the auditor of the Ri7al En&ineerin& "istrict, A-ado Arias, /ho approved the
pa'-ent of Pl,62,!2 to 8utierre7 /ithout @uestionin& the fact that the a-ount of the purchase price therein had been
altered, i.e., ,sno/-fla0ed *sic+ and later superi-posed b' the a-ount of P1,62,!2 in /ords and fi&ures, *p. )1,
$andi&anba'an "ecision, p. (9, 'bid.+, nor chec0in& the veracit' of the supportin& docu-ents listed at the bac0 of the 8eneral
Doucher *Exh. $+, nu-berin& fifteen *16+ in all, a-on& /hich /ereE
*1+ the fa0e .ax "eclaration No. =)9(6 sho/in& that the value of the land /as P92 per s@uare -eter *Exh. B+G
*+ fa0e .ax "eclaration No. =((=9 #n the na-e of the Republic of the Philippines *Exh. :+
*!+ the for&ed certification of Municipal .reasurer Prudencio that the fair -ar0et value of Kthe land /as P122 per s@uare -eter
*Exh. 5+G
*=+ a false certification *Exh. "+ dated $epte-ber 1(, 1()9 si&ned b' accused Cru7, 5ose, and 4ernando, certif'in& that the
A&leha- propert' /as upon ocular inspection b' the-, found to be ,residentialG,
*6+ a falsel' dated certification /here the ori&inal date /as erased and a false date *4ebruar' 16, 1()9+ /as superi-posed
*Exh.E+, issued b' En&r. 4ernando pursuant to "P?.C Circular No. 66), certif'in& that he had exa-ined the real estate tax
receipts of the A&leha- propert' for the last three *!+ 'earsG
*3+ the technical description of the land *Exhs. 4 and 4-1+ attached to the deed of sale dated April 2, 1()9 /as not an
approved technical description for the subdivision surve' executed b' 8eodetic En&ineer Cipriano C. Caro /as verified and
approved b' the <and Re&istration Co--ission on Ma' 9,1()9 onl'. .here /ere ,substantial variations, noted b' the
$andi&anba'an bet/een the approved technical description and the technical description of the land in the deed of sale *p. 31,
$andi&anba'an "ecision, p. 99, 'bid.+G
*)+ the special po/er of attorne' dated 4ebruar' =, 1()9, supposedl' &iven to 8utierre7 b' A&leha- *Exhs. C, C-1+ bore a
fictitious residence certificate A&leha- *p. 3=, $andi&anba'an "ecision, p. (1, 'bid.+G and
11!
*9+ the fa0e $/orn $tate-ent on the Current and 4air Mar0et Dalue of Real Properties *Exh. M+ dated %ctober 1, 1()!,
contained a for&ed si&nature of A&leha-, presu-abl' -ade b' 8utierre7 herself .he $andi&anba'an observed that
A&leha-Ks supposed si&nature ,appears to be identical to accused 8utierre7K si&natures in the 8eneral Doucher *Exh. $+, in
the release and Nuitclai- /hich she si&ned in favor of A&leha- on 5ul' 2, 1(9! *Exh. CC+, and in her affidavits *Exhs. 44
and 44-1+., *pp. 3=-36, $andi&anba'an "ecision, pp. (1-(, 'bid.+.
After pa'-ent of the A&leha- clai-, all the supportin& docu-ents /ere 0ept b' Arias. Even after he had been replaced b'
5ulito Pesa'co on $epte-ber 1, 1(91, as auditor of the Ri7al En&ineerin& "istrict, he did not turn over the docu-ents to
Pesa'co. #t /as onl' on 5une !, 1(9, after this case had been filed in the $andi&anba'an and the trial had be&un, that Arias
delivered the- to Pesa'co *Exh. .-1+.
After a trial lastin& nearl' six 'ears, the $andi&anba'an rendered a )9-pa&e decision on Nove-ber 13, 1(9), /hose
dispositive portion reads as follo/sE
?1ERE4%RE, Aud&-ent is hereb' rendered findin& accused Natividad 8. 8utierre7, Cresencio ". "ata,
<adislao 8. Cru7, Carlos <. 5ose, Claudio 1. Arca'a and A-ado C. Arias 8;#<.> be'ond reasonable doubt
of the violation of $ection !, para&raph *e+ of Republic Act No. !21(, as ascended, other/ise 0no/n as the
Anti-8raft and Corrupt Practices Act, and hereb' sentences each of the- to suffer the penalt' of
i-prison-ent for .1REE *!+ >EAR$, as -ini-u- to $#P *3+ >EAR$, as -axi-u-G to further suffer
perpetual dis@ualification fro- public officeG to inde-nif' Aointl' and severall', the 8overn-ent of the
Republic of the Philippines in the a-ount of P1,=6,!22, and to pa' their proportional costs of this action. *p.
12=, Rollo of 8.R. No. 9163!.+
Both Arias and "ata appealed.
Arias anchors his petition for revie/ of the $andi&anba'anKs decision *8.R. No. 9163!+ on his contention that the courtKs
findin&s that he conspired /ith his co-accused and that he /as &rossl' ne&li&ent are based on -isapprehension of facts,
speculation, sur-ise, and conAecture.
"ataKs -ain defense is that the ac@uisition of the A&leha- propert' /as the /or0 of the co--ittee of Prescillo 4ernando iii
/hich he did not ta0e an active part, and that the price /hich the &overn-ent paid for it /as reasonable. 1ence, it uttered no
Aur' in the transaction.
#n his consolidated brief or co--ent for the $tate, the $olicitor 8eneral reco--ends the ac@uittal of the petitioners because
the A&leha- propert' /as alle&edl' not &rossl' overpriced.
After deliberatin& on the petitions in these cases, /e find no error in the decision under revie/. .he $andi&anba'an did not err
in findin& that the petitioners conspired /ith their co-accused to cause inAur' to the 8overn-ent and to undul' favor the lot
o/ner, A&leha-.
A conspirac' need not be proved b' direct evidence of the acts char&ed, but -a' and &enerall' -ust be proven b' a nu-ber
of indefinite acts, conditions and circu-stances *People vs. Maralit, 8.R. No. )11=!, $ept. 1(,1(99G People vs. Roca, 8.R.
No. ))))(, 5une ), 1(99+.
.his case presents a conspirac' of silence and inaction /here chiefs of office /ho should have been vi&ilant to protect the
interest of the 8overn-ent in the purchase of A&leha-Ks t/o-hectare riceland, accepted as &ospel truth the certifications of
their subordinates, and approved /ithout @uestion the -illion-peso purchase /hich, b' the standards prevailin& in 1()3-)9,
should have pric0ed their curiosit' and pro-pted the- to -a0e in@uiries and to verif' the authenticit' of the docu-ents
presented to thefor approval. .he petitioners 0ept silent /hen the' should have as0ed @uestions the' loo0ed the other /a'
/hen the' should have probed deep into the transaction.
$ince it /as too -uch of a coincidence that both petitioners /ere ne&li&ent at the sa-e ti-e over the sa-e transaction, the
$andi&anba'an /as Austified in concludin& that the' connived and conspired to act in that -anner to approve the ille&al
transaction /hich /ould favor the seller of the land and defraud the 8overn-ent.
?e cannot accept AriasK excuse that because the deed of sale had been si&ned and the propert' transferred to the
8overn-ent /hich received a title in its na-e, there /as nothin& else for hi- to do but approve the voucher for pa'-ent. .he
11=
pri-ar' function of an auditor is to prevent irre&ular, unnecessar', excessive or extrava&ant expenditures of &overn-ent
funds.
.he auditorial function of an auditor, as a representative of the Co--ission on Audit, co-prises three aspectsE *1+
exa-inationG *+ auditE and *!+ settle-ent of the accounts, funds, financial transactions and resources of the a&encies under
their respective audit Aurisdiction *$ec. =!, 8overn-ent Auditin& Code of the Phil.+. Exa-ination, as applied to auditin&, -eans
,to probe records, or inspect securities or other docu-entsG revie/ procedures, and @uestion persons, all for the purpose of
arrivin& at an opinion of accurac', propriet', sufficienc', and the li0e., *$tate Audit Code of the Philippines, Annotated b'
.antuico, 1(9 Ed., p. 6).+
Arias ad-itted that he did not chec0 or verif' the papers supportin& the &eneral voucher that /as sub-itted to hi- for pa'-ent
of Pl,62,!2 to A&leha- or his attorne'-in-fact, Natividad 8utierre7. Arias did not @uestion an' person for the purpose of
deter-inin& the accurac' and inte&rit' of the docu-ents sub-itted to hi- and the reasonableness of the price that the
8overn-ent /as pa'in& for the less than t/o-hectare riceland. ?e reAect his casuistic explanation that since his subordinates
had passed upon the transaction, he could assu-e that it /as la/ful and re&ular for, if he /ould be a -ere rubber sta-p for
his subordinates, his position as auditor /ould be useless and unnecessar'.
?e -a0e the sa-e observation concernin& "istrict En&ineer Cresencio "ata /ho clai-s innocence because he alle&edl' did
not ta0e an' direct and active participation in the ac@uisition of the A&leha- propert', thro/in& the bla-e on the co--ittee
/hich he created, co-posed of 4ernando, Asuncion, Mendo7a, Cru7, 1uco- and 5ose that ne&otiated /ith the propert'
o/ners for the purchase of properties on the path of the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAect. 1e in effect /ould hide under the s0irt of
the co--ittee /hich he hi-self selected and to /hich he dele&ated the tas0 that /as assi&ned to his office to identif' the lots
that /ould be traversed b' the flood/a' proAect, &ather and verif' docu-ents, -a0e surve's, ne&otiate /ith the o/ners for the
price, prepare the deeds of sale, and process clai-s for pa'-ent. B' appointin& the co--ittee, he did not cease to be
responsible for the i-ple-entation of the proAect. ;nder the principle of co--and responsibilit', he /as responsible for the
-anner in /hich the co--ittee perfor-ed its tas0s for it /as he /ho in fact si&ned the deed of sale prepared b' the
co--ittee. B' si&nin& the deed of sale and certifications prepared for his si&nature b' his co--ittee, he in effect, -ade their
acts his o/n. 1e is, therefore, e@uall' &uilt' /ith those -e-bers of the co--ittee *4ernando, Cru7 and 5ose+ /ho accepted
the fa0e tax declarations and -ade false certifications re&ardin& the use and value of the A&leha- propert'.
.he $olicitor 8eneral has pointed out that "ata si&ned, but did not approve, the deed of sale of A&leha-Ks propert' because
the approval thereof /as the prero&ative of the $ecretar' of Public ?or0s. #t should not be overloo0ed, ho/ever, that "ataKs
si&nature on the deed of sale /as e@uivalent to an attestation that the transaction /as fair, honest and le&al. #t /as he /ho
/as char&ed /ith the tas0 of i-ple-entin& the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAect /ithin his en&ineerin& district.
?e find no -erit in the $olicitor 8eneralKs ar&u-ent that the A&leha- riceland /as not overpriced because the price of P92
per s@uare -eter fixed in the deed of sale /as reasonable, hence, the petitioners are not &uilt' of havin& caused undue inAur'
and preAudice to the 8overn-ent, nor of havin& &iven un/arranted benefits to the propert' o/ner andTor his attorne'-in-fact,
8utierre7. 1e further ar&ues that the valuation in the o/nerKs &enuine tax declaration -a' not be used as a standard in
deter-inin& the fair -ar0et value of the propert' because P" Nos. )3 and =3= *-a0in& it -andator' in expropriation cases to
fix the price at the value of the propert' as declared b' the o/ner, or as deter-ined b' the assessor, /hichever is lo/er+, /ere
declared null and void b' this Court in the case of E&#ort (rocessing Ione Authority )E(IA, vs. 0ulay, 1=( $CRA !26, and
other related cases.
.hat ar&u-ent is not /ell ta0en because P" Nos. )3 and =3= *before the' /ere nullified+ applied to the expropriation of
propert' for public use. .he ac@uisition of A&leha-Ks riceland /as not done b' expropriation but throu&h a ne&otiated sale. #n
the course of the ne&otiations, there /as absolutel' no allegation nor #roo!that the price of P92 per s@uare -eter /as its fair
-ar0et value in 1()9, i.e., eleven *11+ 'ears a&o. ?hat the accused did /as to prove the value of the land throu&h fa0e tax
declarations *Exhs. B, 4, :+, false certifications *Exhs. 5, " and E+ and a for&ed s/orn state-ent on the current and fair -ar0et
value of the real propert' *Exh. M+ sub-itted b' the accused in support of the deed of sale. Because fraudulent docu-ents
/ere used, it -a' not be said that the $tate a&reed to pa' the price on the basis of its fairness, for the 8overn-ent /as in fact
deceived concernin& the reasonable value of the land.
?hen %col testified in $:=< that P92 /as a reasonable valuation for the A&leha-Ks land, he did not clarif' that /as also its
reasonable value in 1()6, before real estate values in Pasi& soared as a result of the i-ple-entation of the Man&ahan
4lood/a' ProAect. 1ence, %colKs testi-on' /as insufficient to rebut the valuation in A&leha-Ks &enuine 1()9 .ax "eclaration
No. =)9(6 that the fair valuation of the riceland then /as onl' P6 per s@uare -eter. A .ax "eclaration is a &uide or indicator of
the reasonable value of the propert' *EPMA vs. "ula', su#ra+.
116
.he petitionerKs partialit' for A&leha-T8utierre7 -a' be inferred fro- their havin& deliberatel' closed their e'es to the defects
and irre&ularities of the transaction in his favor and their see-in& ne&lect, if not deliberate o-ission, to chec0, the authenticit'
of the docu-ents presented to thefor approval. $ince partialit' is a -ental state or predilection, in the absence of direct
evidence, it -a' be proved b' the attendant circu-stance instances.
?1ERE4%RE, # vote to affir- in toto the decision of the $andi&anba'an in $B Cri-. Case No. 212, /ith costs a&ainst the
petitioners, A-ado Arias and Cresencio "ata.
/eliciano, (adilla, Sarmiento, and Regalado, %%., concur.

Se-"r"te O-99o7
GRIEO&A?UINO, J., dissentin&E
.he lone issue in these consolidated petitions for revie/ is /hether the $andi&anba'an co--itted a reversible error in
convictin& the petitioners, A-ado C. Arias and Cresencio ". "ata, of havin& violated $ection !, para&raph *e+, of the Anti 8raft
and Corrupt Practices Act, in connection /ith the scandalous overpricin& of land purchased b' the 8overn-ent as ri&ht of /a'
for its Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAect in Pasi&, Ri7al. .he pertinent provision of the Anti-8raft <a/ reads as follo/sE
$EC. !. Corrupt Practices of Public %fficers-#n addition to acts or o-issions of public officers alread'
penali7ed b' existin& la/. the follo/in& shall constitute corrupt practices of an' public officer and are hereb'
declared to be unla/fulE
x x x x x x x x x
.he a-ended infor-ation a&ainst the-, to /hich the' pleaded not &uilt', alle&edE
.hat on or about the period coverin& April, 1()9 to %ctober 1()9, in Rosario, Pasi&, Metro Manila,
Philippines, and /ith the Aurisdiction of this 1onorable Court, accused Cresencio 0. 0ata, bein& then the
district En&ineer of the province of Ri7al, Ministr' of Public ?or0s, and as such, headed and supervised the
ac@uisition of private lands for the ri&ht-of-/a' of the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAect of the 8overn-ent at
$itio Man&ahan, Rosario, Pasi&, Metro ManilaG accused (riscillo 5. /ernando, then the $upervisin&
En&ineer of the %ffice of the "istrict En&ineer of Ri7al, Ministr' of Public ?or0s /ho acted as assistant of
accused Cresencio ". "ata in the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAectG accused -adislao 5. Cruz, then the $enior
En&ineer of the %ffice of the "istrict En&ineer of Ri7al, Ministr' of Public ?or0s, /ho /as char&ed /ith the
ac@uisition of lots needed for the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAectG accused Carlos -. %ose then the
#nstru-ent-an of the office of the "istrict En&ineer of Ri7al, Ministr' of Public ?or0s /ho acted as the
surve'or of the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAectG accused Claudio H. Arcaya, then the Ad-inistrative %fficer # of
the Ri7al "istrict En&ineerKs %ffice, Ministr' of Public ?or0s /ho passed upon all papers and docu-ents
pertainin& to private lands ac@uired b' the 8overn-ent for the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAectG and
accusedAmado C. Arias, then the Auditor of Ri7al En&ineerin& "istrict, Pasi&, Metro Manila, /ho passed
upon and approved in audit the ac@uisition as /ell as the pa'-ent of lands needed for the Man&ahan
4lood/a' ProAect all taking advantage o! their #ublic and o!!icial #ositions, and cons#iring, con!ederating
and con!abulating 9ith accused 3atividad C. 5utierrez, the attorney4in4!act o! Ben1amin Agleham, 9ho is the
registered o9ner o! a #arcel o! land situated at Rosario, (asig, .etro .anila and covered by Original
Certi!icate o! >itle 3o. ;;:*, 9ith accused -adislao 5. Cruz, Carlos -. 4%ose and Claudio Arias, actin& /ith
evident bad faith, /hile accused Cresencio ". "ata, Priscillo 8. 4ernando and A-ado C. Arias, actin& /ith
-anifest partialit' in the dischar&e of their official public andTor ad-inistrative functions, did then and there
/ilfull', unla/full' and feloniousl' cause undue inAur', da-a&e and preAudice to the 8overn-ent of the
Republic of the Philippines b' causin&, allo/in& andTor approvin& the ille&al and irre&ular disburse-ent and
113
expenditure of public funds in favor of and in the na-e of BenAa-in P. A&leha- in the a-ount of
P1,62,!2.22 under 8eneral Doucher No. 9-2=), supported b' a certification, dated $epte-ber 1=, 1()9,
/hich /as purportedl' issued b' the Municipal .reasurer of Pasi&, and certified xerox copies of .ax
"eclarations Nos. =)9(6 and A-219-22(1 1, both in the na-e of BenAa-in P. A&leha-, and an alle&ed
o/nerKs cop' of .ax "eclaration No. =((=9, in the na-e of the Republic of the Philippines, said su##orting
documents having been !alsi!ied by the accused to make it a##ear that the land mentioned in the above4
stated su##orting #a#ers is a residential land 9ith a market value o! (=;.;; per s@uare -eter and that
1(,22= s@uare -eters thereof /ere transferred in the na-e of the 8overn-ent of the Republic of the
Philippines under .ax "eclaration No. =((=9, /hen in truth and in fact, the afore-stated land is actuall' a
riceland /ith a true and actual -ar0et value of P6.22 per s@uare -eter onl' and .ax "eclaration No. =((=9
/as trul' and officiall' re&istered in the na-es of spouses Moises 5avillonar and $ofia $an Andres, not in
the na-e of the 8overn-ent, and refers to a parcel of land at $a&ad, Pasi&, Metro ManilaG that the
fore&oin& falsities /ere co--itted b' the accused to conceal the fact that the true and actual pace of the
1(,22= s@uare -eters of land of BenAa-in P. A&leha-, /hich /as ac@uired in behalf of the 8overn-ent b'
/a' of ne&otiated purchase b' the accused officials herein for the ri&ht of /a' of the Man&ahan 4lood/a'
proAect at an overprice of P1,62,!2.22 /as P(,22.22 onl'G and finall', upon receipt of the overpriced
a-ount, the accused -isappropriated, converted and -isapplied the excess of the true and actual value of
the above--entioned land, i.e., P1,=9,!22.22 for their o/n personal needs, uses and benefits, to the
da-a&e and preAudice of the 8overn-ent in the a-ount of P1,=9,!22.22. *pp. (!1, Rollo of 8.R. No.
9163!.+
Priscillo 4ernando did not face trial for he has re-ained at lar&e, his present /hereabouts bein& un0no/n *p. =9,
$andi&anba'an "ecision, p. )6, Rollo of 8.R. No. 9163!+.
#n 1()6, the Bureau of Public ?or0s initiated the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAect to ease the perennial floods affectin& the to/ns
of Mari0ina and Pasi&, Metro Manila. .he proAect /ould traverse the northern and southern portions of %rti&as Avenue in
Pasi&, Metro Manila *Exhibits A and A-1+. An announce-ent /as published in leadin& ne/spapers advisin& affected propert'
o/ners to file their applications for pa'-ent at the "istrict En&ineerKs %ffice *p. (, $andi&anba'an "ecision, p. 63, 'bid.+.
.he i-ple-entation of the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAect /as entrusted to the Pasi& En&ineerin& "istrict headed b' the "istrict
En&ineer, Cresencio "ata. 1e for-ed a co--ittee co-posed of $upervisin& Civil En&ineer Priscillo 4ernando, as over-all in
char&e, Alfonso Mendo7a and Pedro 1uco- for ac@uisition of i-prove-ents, and #nstru-ent-an Carlos 5ose for surve's *p.
3, $andi&anba'an "ecision, p. 6!, 'bid.+. .he tea- /as tas0ed to notif' lot o/ners affected b' the proAect of the i-pendin&
expropriation of their properties and to receive and process applications for pa'-ent.
.he reclassification of all lands around the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAect /as suspended in 1()6 b' order of the President *p.
=6, $andi&anba'an "ecision, p. ), 'bid.+. #-ple-entin& that order, a -e-orandu- /as sent to "ata on Au&ust ),1()3, b'
Public ?or0s "irector "esiderio Anolin, directin& that all affected lands covered b' the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAect shall be
excluded fro- reevaluation and reassess-ent *Annex A, Exh. "", Counter-Affidavit of "ata, p. )2, $andi&anba'an "ecision,
P. (), 'bid+.
A-on& the lots affected /as a 1(,22=-s@uare--eter portion of a !2,13(-s@uare--eter riceland in Pasi& re&istered in the na-e
of BenAa-in A&leha- under %ri&inal Certificate of .itle No. 22() issued on Ma' 6, 1()) *Exh. 1+. .he land /as previousl'
o/ned b' Andrea Arabit and Evaristo 8utierre7, parents of the accused Natividad 8utierre7.
After A&leha- ac@uired the !-hectare land in 1()! fro- the 8utierre7 spouses, he had it subdivided into three *!+ lots under
plan *<RC+ Psd-)9=63 /hich /as approved b' the <and Re&istration Co--ission on 5une 1, 1()9 *Entr' No. )!((T12)1,
Exh. 1+. <ot 1, /ith an area of 1(,22= s@uare -eters, is the portion that A&leha-, throu&h Natividad 8utierre7, sold to the
8overn-ent in 1()9 for the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAect.
%n "ece-ber 16, 1()!, A&leha-Ks propert', classified as a ,ricefield, /ith an area of !. hectares, /as declared for taxation
under .ax "eclaration No. 9=3 *Exh->+. #ts assessed value /as P=,922 or P2.16 per s@uare -eter *p. 12, $andi&anba'an
"ecision, p. !), #bid.+. %n 4ebruar' ), 1()9, another .ax "eclaration No. =)9(6 *Exh. >-1+ /as issued for the sa-e ricefield,
/ith a revised area of !2,13( s@uare -eters. .he declared -ar0et value /as P162,962 *or P6 per s@uare -eter+, and the
assessed value /as P32,!=2.
.en -onths later, or on "ece-ber 16, 1()9, .ax "eclaration No. =)9(6 /as cancelled and replaced b' .ax "eclaration No.
A219- 22(11 *Exh. >-+ /herein the -ar0et value of the sa-e ,ricefield,, Au-ped to P!21,3(2 *P12 per s@uare -eter+. #ts
assessed value /as fixed at P12,392. .he description and value of the propert', accordin& to Pedro %col, the assistant
11)
Municipal Assessor of Pasi&, /as based on the actual use of the propert' *riceland+ not on its potential use *p. 1!,
$andi&anba'an "ecision, p. =2, 'bid.+. .he valuation /as based on a co-pilation of sales &iven to the Municipal AssessorKs
office b' the Re&ister of "eeds, fro- /hich transactions the Assessor obtained the avera&e valuation of the properties in the
sa-e vicinit' *p. 1=, $andi&anba'an "ecision, p. =1, 'bid.+.
A-on& those /ho filed an application for pa'-ent *Exhs. 44 and 44-1+ at the "istrict En&ineerKs %ffice /as the accused,
Natividad 8utierre7, /ho /as ar-ed /ith a $pecial Po/er of Attorne' alle&edl' executed on 4ebruar' =,1()9 b' BenAa-in
A&leha- in her favor *Exhs. C and C-1+. $he sub-itted a falsified xerox cop' of .ax "eclaration No. =)9(6 *Exh. B+ bearin& a
false dateE "ece-ber 16,1()! *instead of 4ebruar' ), 1()9+ and describin& A&leha-Ks !2,13(-s@uare--eter propert' as
,residential, *instead of riceland+, /ith a fair -ar0et value of P,=1!,62 or P92 per s@uare -eter *instead of P162,9=6 at P6
per s@uare -eter+. #ts assessed value appeared to be P)=,263 *instead of P32,!=2+. 8utierre7 sub-itted A&leha-Ks %ri&inal
Certificate of .itle No. 22() *Exh. 1-1+, the technical description of the propert', and a xerox cop' of a ,$/orn $tate-ent of
the .rue Current and 4air Mar0et Dalue of Real Propert', re@uired under P.". No. )3 *Exh. 1+. .he xerox cop' of .ax
"eclaration No. =)9(6 /as supposedl' certified b' the Municipal .reasurer of Pasi&, Alfredo Prudencio.
.he docu-ents supportin& A&leha-Ks clai- /ere ,exa-ined, b' the Ad-inistrative %fficer, accused Claudio Arca'a, /ho,
after initiatin& the-, turned the- over to accused <adislao 8. Cru7, A "eed of Absolute $ale for <ot 1 *1(,22= s@uare -eters
valued at P92 per s@uare -eter+ /as prepared b' Cru7 /ho also initialed the supportin& docu-ents and trans-itted the- to
"istrict En&r. "ata.
%n April 2,1()9, the "eed of Absolute $ale *Exhs. 8 and 8-1+ /as si&ned b' "ata and 8utierre7 *as attorne'-in-fact of
A&leha-+. .hereafter, "ata sent the papers to "irector "esiderio Anolin of the Bureau of Public ?or0s /ho reco--ended to
the Assistant $ecretar' of Public ?or0s the approval of the "eed of $ale *Exh. 8-1+. After/ards, the docu-ents /ere returned
to "ataKs office for the transfer of title to the 8overn-ent. %n 5une 9, 1()9, the sale /as re&istered and .ransfer Certificate of
.itle No. .-12)1 *Exh. .+ /as issued in the na-e of the 8overn-ent.
8eneral Doucher *Exh. $+ No. 96--)92(-6 dated ,(T(T)9, for the a-ount of P1,62,!2 bore fourth certifications of. *1+
Cru7 as $enior Civil En&ineerG *+ Priscillo 8. 4ernando as $upervisin& Civil En&ineer ##G *!+ Cresencio "ata as "istrict
En&ineer ## and *=+ Cesar D. 4ranco as ProAect Actin& Accountant *p. 63, $andi&anba'an "ecision, p. 9!, #bid.+.
%n %ctober !, 1()9, the voucher and its supportin& docu-ents /ere pre-audited and approved for pa'-ent b' the accused,
A-ado C. Arias, as auditor of the En&ineerin& "istrict. .he next da', %ctober =, 1()9, sixteen *13+ PNB chec0s /ith $erial
Nos. 1996! to 1996=), inclusive *Exhs. P to P-1 6+, for the total su- of Pl,62,!2.22 /ere issued to 8utierre7 as pa'-ent
for A&leha-Ks 1(,22=-s@uare--eter lot.
#n %ctober, 1()(, an investi&ation /as conducted b' the Ministr' of National "efense on the &ross overpricin& of A&leha-Ks
propert'. "urin& the investi&ation, s/orn state-ents /ere ta0en fro- Alfredo Prudencio, Municipal .reasurer of Pasi& *Exh.
AA+, Pedro %col, Assistant Municipal Assessor of Pasi& *Exh. BB+, and the accused Claudio Arca'a *Exh. EE+. Prudencio
denied havin& issued or si&ned the certification dated $epte-ber 1=,1()9 *Exh. 5+, attestin& that A&leha-Ks propert' covered
b' .ax "eclaration No. =)9(6 had a -ar0et value of P,=1!,62 and that the taxes had been paid fro- 1()6 to 1()9.
Prudencio also i-pu&ned the initial *purportin& to be that of his subordinate Ruben 8atchalian, Chief of the <and .ax "ivision+
that /as affixed belo/ PrudencioKs t'pe/ritten na-e in Exhibit 5. Both Prudencio and 8atchalian diso/ned the t'pe/ritten
certification. .he' declared that such certifications are usuall' issued b' their office on -i-eo&raphed for-s *Exh. 5-1+.
Assistant Municipal Assessor Pedro %col produced and #dentified the ori&inal or &enuine .ax "eclaration No. =)9(6 dated
4ebruar' ), 1()9, and a certified cop' thereof *Exh. >-1+. .herein, A&leha-Ks propert' of !2,13( s@uare -eters /as
classified as a ,ricefield, and appraised at P6 per s@uare -eter, /ith an assessed value of P32,!=2 and a -ar0et value of P#
62,962. %col testified that the supposed xerox cop' of .ax "eclaration No. =)9(6 *Exh. B+, /hich 8utierre7 sub-itted as one
of the supportin& docu-ents of the &eneral voucher *Exh. $+, /as fa0e, because of the follo/in& tell-tale si&nsE
*1+ the tax declaration nu-ber /as t'pe/ritten, not -achine nu-bered as in the &enuine tax declaration, Exhibit >G
*+ the sta-p-ar0 of re&istration /as antedated to "ece-ber 16, 1()! in the fa0e, instead of the correct date 4ebruar' ),
1()9-- in the &enuine tax declarationG
*!+ the classification of the propert' /as ,residential,, instead of ,ricefield, /hich is its classification in the &enuine docu-entG
and
119
*=+ the lot /as over priced at P92 per s@uare -eter in the fa0e tax declaration, instead of the appraised value of onl' P6 per
s@uare -eter appearin& in the &enuine declaration.
Also found to be fa0e /as .ax "eclaration No. =((=9 in the na-e of the Republic of the Philippines *Exhs. : and :-1+. .he
&enuine .ax "eclaration No. =((=9 *Exhs. ; and D-+ /as actuall' filed on %ctober 19, 1()9 in the na-es of the spouses
Moises 5avillonar and $ofia Andres, for their 6(9-s@uare--etersK residential propert' /ith a declared -ar0et value of P61,3!2.
.he A&leha- deed of sale /as pre-audited b' the auditor of the Ri7al En&ineerin& "istrict, A-ado Arias, /ho approved the
pa'-ent of Pl,62,!2 to 8utierre7 /ithout @uestionin& the fact that the a-ount of the purchase price therein had been
altered, i.e., ,sno/-fla0ed *sic+ and later superi-posed b' the a-ount of P1,62,!2 in /ords and fi&ures, *p. )1,
$andi&anba'an "ecision, p. (9, 'bid.+, nor chec0in& the veracit' of the supportin& docu-ents listed at the bac0 of the 8eneral
Doucher *Exh. $+, nu-berin& fifteen *16+ in all, a-on& /hich /ereE
*1+ the fa0e .ax "eclaration No. =)9(6 sho/in& that the value of the land /as P92 per s@uare -eter *Exh. B+G
*+ fa0e .ax "eclaration No. =((=9 #n the na-e of the Republic of the Philippines *Exh. :+
*!+ the for&ed certification of Municipal .reasurer Prudencio that the fair -ar0et value of Kthe land /as P122 per s@uare -eter
*Exh. 5+G
*=+ a false certification *Exh. "+ dated $epte-ber 1(, 1()9 si&ned b' accused Cru7, 5ose, and 4ernando, certif'in& that the
A&leha- propert' /as upon ocular inspection b' the-, found to be ,residentialG,
*6+ a falsel' dated certification /here the ori&inal date /as erased and a false date *4ebruar' 16, 1()9+ /as superi-posed
*Exh.E+, issued b' En&r. 4ernando pursuant to "P?.C Circular No. 66), certif'in& that he had exa-ined the real estate tax
receipts of the A&leha- propert' for the last three *!+ 'earsG
*3+ the technical description of the land *Exhs. 4 and 4-1+ attached to the deed of sale dated April 2, 1()9 /as not an
approved technical description for the subdivision surve' executed b' 8eodetic En&ineer Cipriano C. Caro /as verified and
approved b' the <and Re&istration Co--ission on Ma' 9,1()9 onl'. .here /ere ,substantial variations, noted b' the
$andi&anba'an bet/een the approved technical description and the technical description of the land in the deed of sale *p. 31,
$andi&anba'an "ecision, p. 99, 'bid.+G
*)+ the special po/er of attorne' dated 4ebruar' =, 1()9, supposedl' &iven to 8utierre7 b' A&leha- *Exhs. C, C-1+ bore a
fictitious residence certificate A&leha- *p. 3=, $andi&anba'an "ecision, p. (1, 'bid.+G and
*9+ the fa0e $/orn $tate-ent on the Current and 4air Mar0et Dalue of Real Properties *Exh. M+ dated %ctober 1, 1()!,
contained a for&ed si&nature of A&leha-, presu-abl' -ade b' 8utierre7 herself .he $andi&anba'an observed that
A&leha-Ks supposed si&nature ,appears to be #dentical to accused 8utierre7K si&natures in the 8eneral Doucher *Exh. $+, in
the release and Nuitclai- /hich she si&ned in favor of A&leha- on 5ul' 2, 1(9! *Exh. CC+, and in her affidavits *Exhs. 44
and 44-1+., *pp. 3=-36, $andi&anba'an "ecision, pp. (1-(, 'bid.+.
After pa'-ent of the A&leha- clai-, all the supportin& docu-ents /ere 0ept b' Arias. Even after he had been replaced b'
5ulito Pesa'co on $epte-ber 1, 1(91, as auditor of the Ri7al En&ineerin& "istrict, he did not turn over the docu-ents to
Pesa'co. #t /as onl' on 5une !, 1(9, after this case had been filed in the $andi&anba'an and the trial had be&un, that Arias
delivered the- to Pesa'co *Exh. .-1+.
After a trial lastin& nearl' six 'ears, the $andi&anba'an rendered a )9-pa&e decision on Nove-ber 13, 1(9), /hose
dispositive portion reads as follo/sE
?1ERE4%RE, Aud&-ent is hereb' rendered findin& accused Natividad 8. 8utierre7, Cresencio ". "ata,
<adislao 8. Cru7, Carlos <. 5ose, Claudio 1. Arca'a and A-ado C. Arias 8;#<.> be'ond reasonable doubt
of the violation of $ection !, para&raph *e+ of Republic Act No. !21(, as ascended, other/ise 0no/n as the
Anti-8raft and Corrupt Practices Act, and hereb' sentences each of the- to suffer the penalt' of
i-prison-ent for .1REE *!+ >EAR$, as -ini-u- to $#P *3+ >EAR$, as -axi-u-G to further suffer
perpetual dis@ualification fro- public officeG to inde-nif' Aointl' and severall', the 8overn-ent of the
Republic of the Philippines in the a-ount of P1,=6,!22, and to pa' their proportional costs of this action. *p.
12=, Rollo of 8.R. No. 9163!.+
11(
Both Arias and "ata appealed.
Arias anchors his petition for revie/ of the $andi&anba'anKs decision *8.R. No. 9163!+ on his contention that the courtKs
findin&s that he conspired /ith his co-accused and that he /as &rossl' ne&li&ent are based on -isapprehension of facts,
speculation, sur-ise, and conAecture.
"ataKs -ain defense is that the ac@uisition of the A&leha- propert' /as the /or0 of the co--ittee of Prescillo 4ernando iii
/hich he did not ta0e an active part, and that the price /hich the &overn-ent paid for it /as reasonable. 1ence, it uttered no
Aur' in the transaction.
#n his consolidated brief or co--ent for the $tate, the $olicitor 8eneral reco--ends the ac@uittal of the petitioners because
the A&leha- propert' /as alle&edl' not &rossl' overpriced.
After deliberatin& on the petitions in these cases, /e find no error in the decision under revie/. .he $andi&anba'an did not err
in findin& that the petitioners conspired /ith their co-accused to cause inAur' to the 8overn-ent and to undul' favor the lot
o/ner, A&leha-.
A conspirac' need not be proved b' direct evidence of the acts char&ed, but -a' and &enerall' -ust be proven b' a nu-ber
of indefinite acts, conditions and circu-stances *People vs. Maralit, 8.R. No. )11=!, $ept. 1(,1(99G People vs. Roca, 8.R.
No. ))))(, 5une ), 1(99+.
.his case presents a conspirac' of silence and inaction /here chiefs of office /ho should have been vi&ilant to protect the
interest of the 8overn-ent in the purchase of A&leha-Ks t/o-hectare riceland, accepted as &ospel truth the certifications of
their subordinates, and approved /ithout @uestion the -illion-peso purchase /hich, b' the standards prevailin& in 1()3-)9,
should have pric0ed their curiosit' and pro-pted the- to -a0e in@uiries and to verif' the authenticit' of the docu-ents
presented to thefor approval. .he petitioners 0ept silent /hen the' should have as0ed @uestions the' loo0ed the other /a'
/hen the' should have probed deep into the transaction.
$ince it /as too -uch of a coincidence that both petitioners /ere ne&li&ent at the sa-e ti-e over the sa-e transaction, the
$andi&anba'an /as Austified in concludin& that the' connived and conspired to act in that -anner to approve the ille&al
transaction /hich /ould favor the seller of the land and defraud the 8overn-ent.
?e cannot accept AriasK excuse that because the deed of sale had been si&ned and the propert' transferred to the
8overn-ent /hich received a title in its na-e, there /as nothin& else for hi- to do but approve the voucher for pa'-ent. .he
pri-ar' function of an auditor is to prevent irre&ular, unnecessar', excessive or extrava&ant expenditures of &overn-ent
funds.
.he auditorial function of an auditor, as a representative of the Co--ission on Audit, co-prises three aspectsE *1+
exa-inationG *+ auditE and *!+ settle-ent of the accounts, funds, financial transactions and resources of the a&encies under
their respective audit Aurisdiction *$ec. =!, 8overn-ent Auditin& Code of the Phil.+. Exa-ination, as applied to auditin&, -eans
,to probe records, or inspect securities or other docu-entsG revie/ procedures, and @uestion persons, all for the purpose of
arrivin& at an opinion of accurac', propriet', sufficienc', and the li0e., *$tate Audit Code of the Philippines, Annotated b'
.antuico, 1(9 Ed., p. 6).+
Arias ad-itted that he did not chec0 or verif' the papers supportin& the &eneral voucher that /as sub-itted to hi- for pa'-ent
of Pl,62,!2 to A&leha- or his attorne'-in-fact, Natividad 8utierre7. Arias did not @uestion an' person for the purpose of
deter-inin& the accurac' and inte&rit' of the docu-ents sub-itted to hi- and the reasonableness of the price that the
8overn-ent /as pa'in& for the less than t/o-hectare riceland. ?e reAect his casuistic explanation that since his subordinates
had passed upon the transaction, he could assu-e that it /as la/ful and re&ular for, if he /ould be a -ere rubber sta-p for
his subordinates, his position as auditor /ould be useless and unnecessar'.
?e -a0e the sa-e observation concernin& "istrict En&ineer Cresencio "ata /ho clai-s innocence because he alle&edl' did
not ta0e an' direct and active participation in the ac@uisition of the A&leha- propert', thro/in& the bla-e on the co--ittee
/hich he created, co-posed of 4ernando, Asuncion, Mendo7a, Cru7, 1uco- and 5ose that ne&otiated /ith the propert'
o/ners for the purchase of properties on the path of the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAect. 1e in effect /ould hide under the s0irt of
the co--ittee /hich he hi-self selected and to /hich he dele&ated the tas0 that /as assi&ned to his office to #dentif' the lots
that /ould be traversed b' the flood/a' proAect, &ather and verif' docu-ents, -a0e surve's, ne&otiate /ith the o/ners for the
price, prepare the deeds of sale, and process clai-s for pa'-ent. B' appointin& the co--ittee, he did not cease to be
12
responsible for the i-ple-entation of the proAect. ;nder the principle of co--and responsibilit', he /as responsible for the
-anner in /hich the co--ittee perfor-ed its tas0s for it /as he /ho in fact si&ned the deed of sale prepared b' the
co--ittee. B' si&nin& the deed of sale and certifications prepared for his si&nature b' his co--ittee, he in effect, -ade their
acts his o/n. 1e is, therefore, e@uall' &uilt' /ith those -e-bers of the co--ittee *4ernando, Cru7 and 5ose+ /ho accepted
the fa0e tax declarations and -ade false certifications re&ardin& the use and value of the A&leha- propert'.
.he $olicitor 8eneral has pointed out that "ata si&ned, but did not approve, the deed of sale of A&leha-Ks propert' because
the approval thereof /as the prero&ative of the $ecretar' of Public ?or0s. #t should not be overloo0ed, ho/ever, that "ataKs
si&nature on the deed of sale /as e@uivalent to an attestation that the transaction /as fair, honest and le&al. #t /as he /ho
/as char&ed /ith the tas0 of i-ple-entin& the Man&ahan 4lood/a' ProAect /ithin his en&ineerin& district.
?e find no -erit in the $olicitor 8eneralKs ar&u-ent that the A&leha- riceland /as not overpriced because the price of P92
per s@uare -eter fixed in the deed of sale /as reasonable, hence, the petitioners are not &uilt' of havin& caused undue inAur'
and preAudice to the 8overn-ent, nor of havin& &iven un/arranted benefits to the propert' o/ner andTor his attorne'-in-fact,
8utierre7. 1e further ar&ues that the valuation in the o/nerKs &enuine tax declaration -a' not be used as a standard in
deter-inin& the fair -ar0et value of the propert' because P" Nos. )3 and =3= *-a0in& it -andator' in expropriation cases to
fix the price at the value of the propert' as declared b' the o/ner, or as deter-ined b' the assessor, /hichever is lo/er+, /ere
declared null and void b' this Court in the case of E&#ort (rocessing Ione Authority )E(IA, vs. 0ulay, 1=( $CRA !26, and
other related cases.
.hat ar&u-ent is not /ell ta0en because P" Nos. )3 and =3= *before the' /ere nullified+ applied to the expropriation of
propert' for public use. .he ac@uisition of A&leha-Ks riceland /as not done b' expropriation but throu&h a ne&otiated sale. #n
the course of the ne&otiations, there /as absolutel' no allegation nor #roo!that the price of P92 per s@uare -eter /as its fair
-ar0et value in 1()9, i.e., eleven *11+ 'ears a&o. ?hat the accused did /as to prove the value of the land throu&h fa0e tax
declarations *Exhs. B, 4, :+, false certifications *Exhs. 5, " and E+ and a for&ed s/orn state-ent on the current and fair -ar0et
value of the real propert' *Exh. M+ sub-itted b' the accused in support of the deed of sale. Because fraudulent docu-ents
/ere used, it -a' not be said that the $tate a&reed to pa' the price on the basis of its fairness, for the 8overn-ent /as in fact
deceived concernin& the reasonable value of the land.
?hen %col testified in $:=< that P92 /as a reasonable valuation for the A&leha-Ks land, he did not clarif' that /as also its
reasonable value in 1()6, before real estate values in Pasi& soared as a result of the i-ple-entation of the Man&ahan
4lood/a' ProAect. 1ence, %colKs testi-on' /as insufficient to rebut the valuation in A&leha-Ks &enuine 1()9 .ax "eclaration
No. =)9(6 that the fair valuation of the riceland then /as onl' P6 per s@uare -eter. A .ax "eclaration is a &uide or indicator of
the reasonable value of the propert' *EPMA vs. "ula', su#ra+.
.he petitionerKs partialit' for A&leha-T8utierre7 -a' be inferred fro- their havin& deliberatel' closed their e'es to the defects
and irre&ularities of the transaction in his favor and their see-in& ne&lect, if not deliberate o-ission, to chec0, the authenticit'
of the docu-ents presented to thefor approval. $ince partialit' is a -ental state or predilection, in the absence of direct
evidence, it -a' be proved b' the attendant circu-stance instances.
?1ERE4%RE, # vote to affir- in toto the decision of the $andi&anba'an in $B Cri-. Case No. 212, /ith costs a&ainst the
petitioners, A-ado Arias and Cresencio "ata.
/eliciano, (adilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, %%., concur.
SUPREME COURT
Manila
$EC%N" "#D#$#%N
G.R. No. 1872F8 Se-te+ber 6, 201I
1O3ITO C. P0AMERAS, Petitioner,
vs.
" E C # $ # % N
11
PERE>, J.:
.his resolves the appeal interposed b' petitioner 5ovito C. Pla-eras *petitioner+, /ho at the ti-e relevant to the case at bench
/as dischar&in& the duties of a 8overnor of the Province of Anti@ue, fro- the "ecision
1
pro-ul&ated on "ece-ber 229 b'
the $andi&anba'an in Cri-inal Case No. 31) entitled People of the Philippines v. 5ovita C. Pla-eras. .he dispositive
portion of the decision appealed fro- is hereunder @uoted as follo/sE
?1ERE4%RE, findin& accused 5ovito C. Pla-eras, 5r. 8uilt' be'ond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of $ection
!*e+ of Republic Act No. !21( *R.A. No. !21(+, Aud&-ent is hereb' rendered sentencin& the said accused to an indeter-inate
prison ter- of $#P * 3+ 'ears and %NE *1+ -onth as -ini-u- to .EN *12+ 'ears as -axi-u-, and to suffer perpetual
dis@ualification fro- public office.
.he 4acts
.his case ste-s fro- the i-ple-entation of a proAect 0no/n as the ,Purchase of $chool "es0s Pro&ra-, piloted b' the
"epart-ent of Education, Culture and $ports *"EC$+ Central %ffice, throu&h the Povert' Alleviation 4und *PA4+ for the
purpose of &ivin& assistance to the -ost depressed provinces in the countr'. .he Province of Anti@ue /as a-on& the
beneficiaries, /ith a bud&et allocation of P6,333,33).22.
#t /as on 1 March 1((), durin& his incu-benc' as Provincial 8overnor of the Province of Anti@ue, that petitioner Pla-eras
received t/o*+ chec0s fro- the "EC$-PA4 in the total a-ount of P6,333,33).22 dra/n a&ainst the <and Ban0 of the
Philippines *<BP+, for the purchase of school des0s and ar-chairs. .he chec0s /ere deposited /ith the <BP, $an 5ose,
Anti@ue Branch, /here the Province of Anti@ue -aintains an account. <ater on, the Province of Anti@ue, throu&h the petitioner,
issued a chec0 dra/n a&ainst its account at the <BP $an 5ose, Anti@ue Branch in the sa-e a-ount and deposited it to the
<BP Pasi& Cit' Branch.
%n 9 April 1((), petitioner si&ned a Purchaser-$eller A&ree-ent for the $uppl' and "eliver' of Monobloc0 8raderBs
"es0s
!
/ith C:< Enterprises, as represented b' 5esusa .. "ela Cru7 *"ela Cru7+, the sa-e enterprise /hich the "EC$
Central %ffice had entered into, throu&h a ne&otiated contract for the suppl' of des0s, so-eti-e in 1((3.
Conse@uentl', on 1 April 1((), petitioner applied /ith the <BP 1ead %ffice for the openin& of an #rrevocable "o-estic <etter
of Credit
=
in behalf of the Provincial $chool Board of Anti@ue in the a-ount of P6,333,322.22 in favor of C:< EnterprisesT"ela
Cru7. $uch application /as approved b' the <BPG thus, the issuance of <etter of Credit No.()2)!T"
6
/as issued on April
1(() in favor of "ela Cru7.
#n both the <BP application for- and <etter of Credit, it /as dul' noted that ,All docu-ents dated prior to <C openin& date
acceptable. .his <TC is transferable and /ithdra/able.,
%n = April 1((), the petitioner si&ned $ales #nvoice No. 22
3
and accepted <BP "raft No. "B()11.
)
.he sales invoice
stated that the petitioner received and accepted 1,!6= &raderBs des0s and 6,=3 table ar-chairs in &ood order and condition
for the total value of P6,333,322.22.
%n even date, "ela Cru7 of C:< Enterprises sub-itted the said sales invoice and draft to the <BP 1ead %ffice. .hereupon,
the said ban0 full' ne&otiated the letter of credit for the full a-ount and re-itted its proceeds to <and Ban0 Pasi& Cit' Branch
for credit to the account of C:< EnterprisesT"ela Cru7, char&in& the full pa'-ent to the Provincial $chool BoardT8overnor
5ovito Pla-eras, 5r. Province of Anti@ue.
%n March 1((9,
9
upon in@uir' b' the petitioner, the %ffice of the Provincial Co--ittee %n A/ard reported that C:< had
delivered onl' 1,(= pieces of &raderBs des0s and 1,9!9 pieces of tablet ar-chairs as of (5ul' 1(().
#n a letter dated = March 1((9,
(
the petitioner de-anded fro- C:< EnterprisesT"ela Cru7, the co-plete deliver' of the
purchased ite-s. ;nheeded, the petitioner, in a letter dated 6 March 1((9,
12
re@uested the <BP for the copies of pertinent
docu-ents pertainin& to the <etter of Credit in favor of C:< Enterprises as /ell as debit -e-os or status of the fund deposited
therein. #n addition, the petitioner, in a separate letter dated 3 Nove-ber 1((9,
11
as0ed assistance fro- the <BP to co-pel
C:< Enterprises to co-plete the deliver' of the purchased ite-s under the <etter of Credit and to settle the case a-icabl',
clai-in& so-e deception or -isrepresentation in the execution of the sales invoice.
1
4or failure to settle the -atter, a case /as filed b' the Province of Anti@ue, represented b' its ne/ 8overnor, Exe@uiel B.
5avier before the Re&ional .rial Court *R.C+, Branch 1 of $an 5ose, Anti@ue doc0eted as Civil Case No. ((-6-!11
1
to
co-pel C:< Enterprises to refund the a-ount of P6,333,322.22 /ith interests at the le&al rate.
?hile the civil case /as pendin& in court, 8overnor 5avier li0e/ise instituted a cri-inal co-plaint before the %ffice of the
%-buds-an a&ainst petitioner Pla-eras for Diolation of $ection !*e+ of R.A. No. !21(.
#n its Resolution
1!
dated 19 Ma' 222, the %ffice of the %-buds-an for Disa'as found probable cause to indict petitioner for
the offense char&ed. #t concluded, a-on& others, thatE
.he purchase of 1,!63 des0s and 6,=3 ar-chairs b' the Province of Anti@ue /as -ade in apparent violation of existin& rules
and re&ulations as evident HsicI b' the follo/in& factsE
1. Pa'-ent /as -ade before the des0s and chairs /ere deliveredG
. Procure-ent /as -ade /ithout the re@uired authori7ation fro- the Provincial $chool BoardG
!. Proper procedure /as disre&arded, there bein& no biddin& process.
As a result thereof, deliver' of des0s and ar-chairs /as dela'ed and the said des0s and ar-chairs delivered are defective.
Moreover, the re-ainin& !,=39 des0s and chairs a-ountin& to P,3(),139.22 have not been delivered b' the supplier despite
de-ands. ;n/arranted benefit /as thus &iven to the supplier and undue inAur' /as caused to the &overn-ent.
RespondentBs evident bad faith and -anifest partialit' are indicated b' the fact that the purchase and pa'-ent of the des0s
and chairs /ere -ade in clear violation of existin& C%A rules and re&ulations.
.he pendin& civil case filed b' the Province of Anti@ue for the rei-burse-ent of the a-ount of P6,333,322.22 is not
deter-inative of the &uilt or innocence of respondent in this case. .he issues in the civil case are independent of the issue of
/hether or not there is a pri-a facie case a&ainst respondent for Diolation of $ec. !*e+ of R.A. !21(, as a-ended. No
preAudicial @uestion therefore, need be resolved in this case.
1=
Conse@uentl', an #nfor-ation
16
/as filed before the $andi&anba'an, the accusator' portion of /hich readsE
.hat in or about the -onth of April 1((), at the Municipalit' of $an 5ose, Province of Anti@ue, Philippines, and /ithin the
Aurisdiction of this 1onorable Court, above-na-ed accused, a public officer, bein& then the Provincial 8overnor of the Province
of Anti@ue, in such capacit' and co--ittin& the offense in relation to office, /ith deliberate intent, /ith -anifest partialit' and
evident bad faith, did then and there /illfull', unla/full' and feloniousl' disburse or cause the pa'-ent of the a-ount of 4#DE
M#<<#%N $#P 1;N"RE" $#P.>-$#P .1%;$AN" $#P1;N"RE" PE$%$ *P6,333,322.22+, Philippine Currenc', to 5esusa
.."ela Cru7TC:< Enterprises,+ for the purchase of 1,!63 des0s and 6,=3ar-chairs, /ithout authori7ation fro- the Provincial
$chool Board and /ithout observance of the proper procedure, there bein& no biddin& process, and before deliver' of the said
des0s and chairs purchased b' the Province of Anti@ue, resultin& in dela'ed deliver' of des0s and ar-chairs /hich are
defective, and non-deliver' of sixt' *32+ des0s valued at $EDEN.> .1REE .1%;$AN" .1REE 1;N"RE" $#P.>
PE$%$*P)!,!32.22+, Philippine Currenc', and three thousand four hundred ei&ht*!,=29+ ar-chairs, valued at .?% M#<<#%N
$#P 1;N"RE" N#NE.>-$EDEN %NE 1;N"RE" $#P.>-E#81. PE$%$ *P,3(),139.22+,Philippine Currenc', thus, accused
in the course of the perfor-ance of his official functions had &iven un/arranted benefit to 5esusa .. "ela Cru7TC:<
Enterprises, to the da-a&e and inAur' of the Province of Anti@ue, and detri-ent public interest.
13
Prior to his arrai&n-ent, or on 13 Au&ust 222, petitioner filed a Motion for Reinvesti&ation andTor $uspend
Proceedin&s
1)
/hich /as &ranted in the ! Au&ust 222 Resolution of the $andi&anba'an cancelin& the arrai&n-ent and
further directin& the %ffice of the $pecial Prosecutor *%$P+to reevaluate its findin&s and conclusions of the case. As a result,
the %$P issued the ( Ma' 221 %rder,
19
reco--endin& the /ithdra/al of the #nfor-ation due to the existence of undisputed
facts that led to irrefutable conclusions ne&atin& cri-inal liabilit' on the part of the petitioner.
1(
1o/ever, upon revie/, the
%ffice of the %-buds-an in its 19 5ul' 221Me-orandu-,
2
set aside and i&nored said reco--endation ratiocinatin& that the
&rounds, as set forth, are -atters of evidence to be ventilated in court.
.hus, arrai&n-ent proceeded /here the petitioner pleaded not &uilt'.
1
1!
.hereafter, trial on the -erits ensued.
.he prosecution presented seven *)+ /itnesses, na-el'E Exe@uiel D.5avier, M'ril ". Arro'o, Cesar Maranon, Pedro B. 5uluat,
5r., $herlita Mahando&, Att'. Eufracio R. Rara, 5r. and Eli7abeth Arevalo, /hose testi-onies pri-aril' supported the
alle&ations in the co-plaint.
After the prosecution had rested its case, the petitioner filed a Motion for <eave of Court to 4ile "e-urrer to Evidence,
/hich
the $andi&anba'an &ranted in its Resolution dated !2 Au&ust 223.
!
1o/ever, in its Resolution dated 16 5anuar' 22),
=
the
$andi&anba'an denied the "e-urrer to Evidence
6
filed b' the petitioner. <i0e/ise, the Motion for Reconsideration thereof
/as denied in the $andi&anba'anBs Resolution of 1 April 22).
3
.he petitioner thereb' proceeded /ith the presentation of his testi-onial and docu-entar' evidence. Petitioner offered his
testi-on'
)
and that of his t/o *+ /itnesses, na-el'E 4lorante Moscoso *Moscoso+, thefor-er 1ead Executive Assistant
9
of
petitioner, and Att'. Marciano 8."elson,
(
<e&al Counsel of for-er "EC$ ;ndersecretar' Antonio B. Nachura *Nachura+ and
the late for-er "EC$ $ecretar' Ricardo .. 8loria*8loria+. .a0en to&ether, the testi-onies of both the petitioner and Moscoso
as su--ari7ed b' the court a @uo, hereto @uoted in part, sho/ thatE
x x x. %n March 1, 1((), he HMoscosoI /as in the &overnorBs office /hen an unidentified .a&alo&-spea0in& "EC$ lad'
representative and 5esusa dela Cru7 of C:< Enterprises visited the accused in the latterBs office to personall' hand, and in fact
the' handed, to the &overnor t/o chec0s /orth P6,333,33).22, as the share of the province fro- the Povert' Alleviation 4und
of "EC$ fro- the national &overn-ent. .he chec0s /ere intended for the Anti@ue Provincial $chool Board for the
procure-ent of chairs and des0s to be used b' the ele-entar' and hi&h school students of the different -unicipalities of
Anti@ue. #n ans/er to the @uestion of the &overnor, the "EC$ representative told the &overnor that there /as no need for a
public biddin& inas-uch as a public biddin& /as alread' held in the Central %ffice of "EC$, and it failed because there /as
onl' one bidder, C:< Enterprises, in vie/ of /hich the "EC$ resorted to a ne&otiated contract /ith the lone bidder. ?hen
as0ed b' the accused if there /as still a need for public biddin& inas-uch as the fund /as fro- the national &overn-ent, the
provincial treasurer said the procure-ent entered into b' the national &overn-ent should be resorted to inas-uch as those
/ere national funds and do not involve the local procedures. .hereupon, on the instruction of the accused, he called so-e of
the -e-bers of the provincial school board at the office of the accused for consultation. .he accused infor-ed the -e-bers
of the school board present about the funds received fro- "EC$ and that in as -uch as it /as onl' a consultation dialo&ue
that the' /ere havin&, the procure-ent s'ste- b' the national &overn-ent /ould be follo/ed li0e rest of the recipient
provinces had done.
After al-ost a -onth later, or on April 9, 1((), the sa-e "EC$ representative and 5esusa dela Cru7 returned to the office of
the accused brin&in& /ith the- the Purchaser-$eller A&ree-ent, /hich the accused, after readin&, si&ned. After that, the
accused &ave hi- a cop' of the a&ree-ent. #n a -atter of da's thereafter, or on April 1, 1((), the t/o ladies ca-e bac0
handin& t/o docu-ents that is, the sales invoice and the ban0 draft, for the si&nature of the accused. Because of the
volu-inous routine /or0 of the accused, and because the "EC$ representative and 5esusa dela Cru7 told hi- that the sales
invoice and the ban0 draft /ould satisf' the conditions of the Purchaser-$eller A&ree-ent, the accused Aust i--ediatel'
si&ned the sales invoice and the ban0 draft
!2
x x x.
#n his o/n testi-on', petitioner added thatE
x x x. .he "EC$ representative told hi- that such Purchaser-$eller A&ree-ent /as the standard for-at of the "EC$ that /as
follo/ed b' all the beneficiar' provinces. .he "EC$ representative infor-ed hi- that so-eti-e in Nove-ber 1((3, "EC$
conducted a public biddin& for the purchase of des0s and ar-chairs but it resulted to a failure and so "EC$ resorted to a
ne&otiated contract and a/arded the contract to C:< Enterprises. 1e for&ot the na-e of the lad' "EC$ representative.
Althou&h the "EC$ representative told hi- that the resolution of Provincial $chool Board -a' no lon&er be necessar', after
he had si&ned the Purchaser-$eller A&ree-ent, he still consulted the -e-bers of the Provincial $chool Board about the
Purchaser-$eller A&ree-ent and about the assistance fro- the Povert' Alleviation 4und of the "EC$. 1e 0ne/ and /as
a/are that an i-portant condition of the Purchaser-$eller A&ree-ent /as that pa'-ent shall be effected upon sub-ission of
deliver' receipts, inspection report, acceptance report, sales invoice and letter to the ban0 to effect pa'-ent e@ual to the
e@uivalent a-ounts of the units delivered. After si&nin& the a&ree-ent, he applied for a letter of credit /ith <and Ban0, Pasi&
Branch, and he attached to the application a cop' of the Purchaser-$eller A&ree-ent to infor- <and Ban0 of the conditions of
pa'-ent, because it /as <and Ban0 that /ould pa' the supplier. 1e paid <and Ban0 for the letter of credit the a-ount
of P6,333,322.22 throu&h a chec0 on April 13, 1((). .he application /as approved b' the <and Ban0 the da' after he filed it,
/hich approval he ca-e to 0no/ because <and Ban0 infor-ed C:< about it throu&h the #rrevocable "o-estic <etter of Credit
No. ()2)!T". <and Ban0 also issued a draft. %n April =, 1((), 5esusa dela Cru7 returned to the accusedBs office and had hi-
si&n $ales #nvoice No. 22 as /ell as assured hi- that ,the other re@uired docu-ents /ill follo/,, referrin& to the deliver'
receipt, acceptance report, sales invoice and letter of the ban0 /hich /ill prove perfor-ance of the seller under the contract
1=
and /hich perfor-ance /ill be the basis of pa'-ent b' <and Ban0. 1e si&ned the sales invoice and the ban0 draft upon this
assurance of 5esusa dela Cru7 thin0in& that the re@uired docu-ents /ill pass his office. %n March ,1((9 Provincial 8eneral
$ervices %fficer Pedro 5uluat, 5r. &ave hi- a $u--ar' Report on the des0s and ar-chairs delivered to the province b' C:<
sho/in& a shorta&e of deliver'. Mean/hile, on the sa-e da' that he si&ned the sales invoice and the ban0 draft on April =,
1(() C:< EnterprisesT5esusa .. dela Cru7 ne&otiated the letter of credit and <and Ban0 full' paid C:< /hich he ca-e to
0no/ after /ritin& <and Ban0 on Nove-ber 3, 1((9, and /hich full ne&otiation and full pa'-ent <and Ban0 certified on
"ece-ber =, 1((9. <and Ban0 Pasi& branch, throu&h its -ana&er <eila C. Martin, infor-ed hi- throu&h a letter, dated
"ece-ber 11, 1((9, that the ne&otiation /as based on the ban0 draft and the sales invoice. $K9#hi$ .here /as
-isrepresentation in securin& his si&nature on the sales invoice because he /as assured that the other *re@uired+ docu-ents
/ill follo/, onl' to reali7e that the letter of credit /as full' ne&otiated that sa-e da'. 8ov. Exe@uiel 5avier filed a case a&ainst
hi- at the %ffice of the %-buds-an.
!1
4or his part, Att'. Marciano 8. "elson stated thatE
1e handled the ad-inistrative case of for-er "EC$ ;ndersecretar' Nachura and the late for-er $ecretar' 8loria before the
%ffice of the %-buds-an in connection /ith the purchase of ar-chairs and des0s fro- C:< Enterprises throu&h a ne&otiated
contract. .here /as a failed biddin& so the "EC$ proceeded /ith the execution of the ne&otiated contract. .he Povert'
Alleviation Pro&ra- of the "EC$ /as a proAect for the ac@uisition of school des0s for the poorest provinces around the
countr'. .he -ode of pa'-ent in that contract /as a letter of credit opened b' the "EC$ Central %ffice /ith the <and Ban0,
/ith the pa'-ent to C:< conditioned that deliver' of the des0s to the recepients.
!
#n rebuttal, the prosecution presented another /itness na-ed <'dia de Asis,
!!
1ead of #nternational Ban0in& "epart-ent of
the <BP /ho testified that /hen her depart-ent received the <etter of Credit Application 4or- fro- <BP Pasi& Branch, onl'
the application /ith the sales invoice and the dul' accepted beneficiar'Bs draft /ere received /ithout an' cop' of the
Purchaser-$eller A&ree-ent. ;nder the <etter of Credit, onl' those t/o docu-ents /ere re@uired, /ith the draft dul' accepted
b' the petitioner.
After assessin& the facts and evidence of the case, the $andi&anba'an issued its "ece-ber 229 "ecision, no/ bein&
assailed in this petition.
#n @uestionin& the rulin& contained in the assailed decision, the petitioner clai-s -isappreciation of facts and evidence.
Petitioner contends that he never profited fro- the transaction. .he school des0 procure-ent pro&ra- /as i-ple-ented b'
the then "EC$, /ith the Province of Anti@ue /here petitioner /as then 8overnor, as a -ere beneficiar'. Petitioner insists that
he had no hand in choosin& the procure-ent -ethod and the -eans of effectin& pa'-ent throu&h <etter of Credit adopted b'
"EC$ as the i-ple-entin& a&enc'. Also, petitioner did not actuall' pa' the supplier since b' the ter-s of the <etter of Credit,
it /as the <BP that /as tas0ed to release the pa'-ent onl' after co-pliance /ith so-e re@uire-ents, such as the deliver'
receipts, a-on& others. Accordin& to hi-, there /as patent collusion /ith the "EC$ and <BP personnel that enabled the
supplier to i--ediatel' ne&otiate and encash the <etter of Credit /ithout his 0no/led&e and /ithout the re@uired docu-ents
for the release of pa'-ent. >et, the "EC$ people are scot-free, the <BP personnel &ot off the hoo0, and the supplier /as
spared. .he petitioner, on the other hand, /as convicted.
1ence, this petition at bench assi&nin& as errors the follo/in&E
A.
.1E 1%N%RAB<E $AN"#8ANBA>AN 8RADE<> ERRE" #N.REA.#N8 .1E P;RC1A$ER-$E<<ER
A8REEMEN.EN.ERE" #N.% B> C:< ?#.1 .1E PR%D#NCE %4 AN.#N;E$EPARA.E AN" #N"EPEN"EN. %4
.1E M%.1ER C%N.RAC.EN.ERE" #N.% B> C:< ?#.1 .1E "EPAR.MEN. %4E";CA.#%N, C;<.;RE AN"
$P%R.$. .1E$E .?% *+ A8REEMEN.$ ?ERE C%MP%NEN.$ %4 %N<> %NE PR%5EC.?1#C1 ?A$ .1E
P%DER.> A<<ED#A.#%N 4;N" *PA4+ P;RC1A$E %4 $C1%%< "E$:$ PR%8RAM %4 .1E"EPAR.MEN. %4
E";CA.#%N C;<.;RE AN" $P%R.$ .%A$$#$. .1E M%$. "EPRE$$E" PR%D#NCE$ #N .1EC%;N.R>.
B.
.1E 1%N%RAB<E $AN"#8ANBA>AN ERRE" #N 4#N"#N8.1A. PE.#.#%NER P<AMERA$ D#%<A.E"
.1EPR%C;REMEN. R;<E$ %N P;B<#C B#""#N8. #. ?A$ .1E"EC$ A$ #MP<EMEN.#N8 A8ENC> .1A.
?A$ REN;#RE".% C%N";C. .1E B#""#N8, .1E 4A#<;RE %4 ?1#C1RE$;<.E" .% PR%C;REMEN. B>
NE8%.#A.E"C%N.RAC.. .1E PR%D#NCE %4 AN.#N;E ?A$ %N<> ABENE4#C#AR>.
16
C.
.1E 1%N%RAB<E $AN"#8ANBA>AN ERRE" #N 4#N"#N8.1A. PE.#.#%NER P<AMERA$ D#%<A.E" $EC.#%N
!!9 %4RA 31)2, ?1#C1 PR%1#B#.$ A"DANCE PA>MEN.. #N .1E4#R$. P<ACE, PE.#.#%NER "#" N%. PA>
C:<. .1ERE ?A$N% A"DANCE PA>MEN. $#NCE .1E %PEN#N8 %4 .1E<E..ER %4 CRE"#. ?#.1 .1E
<AN" BAN: %4 .1EP1#<#PP#NE$ #$ N%. .AN.AM%;N. .% AN" CANN%. BEEN;A.E" .% PA>MEN. #N
4AD%R %4 C:< #N D#E? %4 .1E$.R#C. #N$.R;C.#%N$ PRE$CR#BE" 4%R .1E RE<EA$E B>.1E BAN: %4
PA>MEN.. $#NCE .1E %44#CE %4 .1E%MB;"$MAN EP%NERA.E" "EC$ %44#C#A<$ ?1% ;$E".1E $AME
$C1EME #N .1E #N#.#A< #MP<EMEN.A.#%N %4.1E PR%8RAM, .1ERE #$ N% REA$%N ?1> .1E
$AME.REA.MEN. CANN%. BE ACC%R"E" .% PE.#.#%NER.
".
.1E 1%N%RAB<E $AN"#8ANBA>AN ERRE" #N 4#N"#N8BE>%N" REA$%NAB<E "%;B. .1A.
PE.#.#%NERP<AMERA$ AC.E" ?#.1 ED#"EN. BA" 4A#.1 AN"MAN#4E$. PAR.#A<#.>. PE.#.#%NER ?A$
%BD#%;$<> .1ED#C.#M %4 .1E C%<<;$#%N AM%N8 C:<, "EC$, AN" <AN"BAN: PER$%NNE<.
E.
.1E 1%N%RAB<E $AN"#8ANBA>AN ERRE" #N 4#N"#N8PE.#.#%NER P<AMERA$ 8;#<.> %4
8#D#N8;N?ARRAN.E" BENE4#.$, A"DAN.A8E %R PRE4ERENCE#N .1E "#$C1AR8E %4 1#$ 4;NC.#%N$
.% C:<. #. ?A$ N%. PE.#.#%NER B;. .1E <AN" BAN: %4 .1EP1#<#PP#NE$ PER$%NNE< ?1% PA#" .1E
M%NE> .% C:<#N D#%<A.#%N %4 .1E .ERM$ %4 .1E <E..ER %4 CRE"#...1E C%NC<;$#%N %4 .1E
1%N%RAB<E $AN"#8ANBA>AN.1A. PE.#.#%NER "#" N%. A..AC1 A C%P> %4 .1EP;RC1A$ER-$E<<ER
A8REEMEN. .% 1#$ APP<#CA.#%N4%R A <E..ER %4 CRE"#. 1A$ N% BA$#$. %N .1EC%N.RAR>, #. ?A$
$.#P;<A.E" B> .1E PAR.#E$ .1A..1E "E<#DER> RECE#P., ACCEP.ANCE AN" #N$PEC.#%NREP%R.$
AN" A <E..ER %4 A;.1%R#.> AREREN;#REMEN.$ 4%R .1E RE<EA$E %4 .1E 4;N".
!=
%ur Rulin&
.he petition -ust fail.
Petitioner, in the -ain, insists that the @uestionable transaction that &ave rise to the present controvers' is related to the
-other contract bet/een the "EC$ and C:< Enterprises involvin& the purchase of des0s and ar-chairs utili7in& the PA4,
/hich cul-inated in a case filed /ith the %ffice of the %-buds-an, entitledE ,4act 4indin& and #ntelli&ence Bureau v. Ricardo
.. 8loria, Antonio E.B. Nachura O Blan@uita ". Bautista ,doc0eted as %MB-2-()-23(=.
!6
$uch case pertains to the a/ard of
the contract for the purchase of des0s and ar-chairs in favor of C:< Enterprises so-eti-e in 1((3 throu&h ne&otiated
contract in the total a-ount of P91,)99,1)2.)2. .he -anner in /hich pa'-ent thereof /as effected, li0e/ise follo/ed the
sche-e of openin& a <etter of Credit /ith the <BP. 1o/ever, unli0e the present case, the %ffice of the %-buds-an in its 1=
April 1((9 Resolution, exonerated the "EC$ officials declarin& thatE *1+ fault cannot be ascribed on therein respondents in
vie/ of the failure of <BP to uphold the conditions set forth in the <etter of CreditG *+ the irre&ularit' in the pa'-ent for the
contract ascribes liabilit' to the officials of the <BP andG *!+ that, in vie/ of the need to deter-ine the identit' of those <BP
officials liable for the irre&ularit', the %-buds-an re@uired the conduct of further investi&ation b' its 4act 4indin& and
#ntelli&ence Bureau /hich at such ti-e is 'et to be co-plied /ith.
Bein& a -ere co-ponent of the said contract, the Province of Anti@ue as represented b' the petitioner should onl' be
considered as a -ere beneficiar', thereb', exoneratin& hi- of an' liabilit' for -erel' follo/in& the sche-e observed b' the
"EC$ in allo/in& a ne&otiated contract, instead of a public biddin&. .his is not to -ention the reco--endation of the %$P in
/ithdra/in& the #nfor-ation for insufficienc' of evidence.
#n other /ords, the petitioner /ants us to uphold the validit' of the contract he had entered into and the procedure underta0en
therefor, on the basis of the exoneration of the "EC$ %fficials in %MB-A"M-2-()-23(=.
At the outset, /e -ust sa' that %MB-A"M-2-()-23(= pertains to a separate transaction, the validit' of /hich has 'et to be
full' deter-ined. #t has no bearin& in this case /here it /as proved, /ithout an' doubt, that the Province of Anti@ue /as
preAudiced b' the non-deliver' of the -ost needed school des0s and ar-chairs.
13
Notabl', the stand of the %$P for the dis-issal of this case /as alread' overturned b' the %ffice of the %-buds-an. .he
$andi&anba'an in its 13 "ece-ber 22 Resolution,
!3
follo/ed suit den'in& the Motion for 5udicial "eter-ination of Probable
Cause /ith Pra'er to .hro/ %ut #nfor-ation, on the &round that all the ele-ents of the offense char&ed are sufficientl' alle&ed
and that there exists probable cause. Eventuall', the issues as presented /ere then full' liti&ated and the facts and evidence
/ere exhaustivel' exa-ined leadin& to petitionerBs conviction.
At an' rate, /hether the @uestioned transaction entered into b' the petitioner /ith the C:< EnterprisesT"ela Cru7 /as part of a
-other contract referred to as "EC$ ProAect, such that, the pa'-ent -ade /as not his fault, but rather an error of the <BP,
are -atters of fact and does not involve a @uestion of la/. As defined, a @uestion of fact also 0no/n as a point of fact, is ,a
@uestion /hich -ust be ans/ered b' reference to facts and evidence, and inferences arisin& fro- those facts. $uch a
@uestion is distinct fro- a @uestion of la/, /hich -ust be ans/ered b' appl'in& relevant le&al principles. .he ans/er to a
@uestion of fact is usuall' dependent on a particular circu-stances or factual situations.,
!)
?e cannot, as a rule, re-evaluate the facts.
$ection 1, Rule =6 of the Rules of Court states that petitions for revie/ on certiorari ,shall raise onl' @uestions of la/ /hich
-ust be distinctl' set forth., #n Pa&sibi&an v. People,
!9
the Court held thatE
A petition for revie/ under Rule =6 of the Rules of Court should cover onl' @uestions of la/. Nuestions of fact are not
revie/able. A @uestion of la/ exists /hen the doubt centers on /hat the la/ is on a certain set of facts. A @uestion of fact
exists /hen the doubt centers on the truth or falsit' of the alle&ed facts.
#n another case, the Court also held thatE
.here is a @uestion of la/ if the issue raised is capable of bein& resolved /ithout need of revie/in& the probative value of the
evidence. .he issue to be resolved -ust be li-ited to deter-inin& /hat the la/ is on a certain set of facts. %nce the issue
invites a revie/ of the evidence, the @uestion posed is one of fact.
!(
Neither can /e &o into a re-evaluation as an exception to the rule.
.he Court reiterates the /ell-settled rule that, absent an' clear sho/in& of abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness co--itted
b' the lo/er court, its findin&s of facts, especiall' /hen affir-ed b' the Court of Appeals, are bindin& and conclusive upon this
Court.
=2
As held in the case of
Navallo v. $andi&anba'an,
=1
the Court ruled that ,xxx 4indin&s of fact -ade b' a trial court are accorded the hi&hest de&ree of
respect b' an appellate tribunal and, absent a clear disre&ard of the evidence before it that can other/ise affect the results of
the case, those findin&s should not be i&nored xxx.,*#talics supplied+
#ndeed, even if the fore&oin& rules /ere, to be relaxed in the interest of substantial Austice, this Court, nevertheless finds no
reason to disa&ree /ith the co-parative anal'sis of the $andi&anba'an bet/een the 1((3"EC$ contract and the contract
subAect -atter of this case, /hich resulted in the conclusion that the t/o contracts are different, separate and distinct fro- one
another. %ther/ise, there /ould have been no need for a separate chec0 issued to the petitioner and for the openin& of a
letter of credit in favor of C:< Enterprise, in the sa-e /a', that it beco-es unnecessar' to draft another Purchaser-$eller
A&ree-ent S the sa-e bein& alread' covered b' the prior contract /here C:< EnterprisesT"ela Cru7 /as full' paid in the
a-ount ofP91,)99,1)2.)2 under Chec0 No. =))39 dated = "ece-ber 1((3.
=
#n all, the petitioner failed to de-onstrate that the $andi&anba'an co--itted reversible errors in findin& hi- &uilt' of the
offense char&ed.
$ection !*e+ of Republic Act !21(, providesE
$ection !. Corrupt practices of public officers. - #n addition to acts or o-issions of public officers alread' penali7ed b' existin&
x x x x
1)
advanta&e or preference in the dischar&e of his official ad-inistrative or Audicial functions throu&h -anifest partialit', evident
bad faith or &ross in excusable ne&li&ence. .his provision shall appl' to officers and e-plo'ees of offices or &overn-ent
4or the aforecited provision to lie a&ainst the petitioner, the follo/in& ele-ents -ust concurE
1+ .he accused -ust be a public officer dischar&in& ad-inistrative, Audicial or official functionsG
+ 1e -ust have acted /ith -anifest partialit', evident bad faith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&enceG and
!+ .hat his action caused undue inAur' to an' part', includin& the &overn-ent, or &ivin& an' private part' un/arranted
benefits, advanta&e or preference in the dischar&e of his functions.
=!
?e focus on the next ele-ents, there bein& no dispute that the first ele-ent of the offense is present.
.he second ele-ent provides the different -odes b' /hich the cri-e -a' be co--itted, that is, throu&h ,-anifest partialit',,
,evident bad faith, ,or ,&ross inexcusable ne&li&ence.,
==
#n ;riarte v. People,
=6
this Court explained that $ection !*e+ of RA
!21( -a' be co--itted either b' dolo, as /hen the accused acted /ith evident bad faith or -anifest partialit', or b' culpa, as
/hen the accused co--itted &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence. .here is ,-anifest partialit', /hen there is clear, notorious, or
plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another.
=3
,Evident bad faith, connotes not onl' bad
Aud&-ent but also palpabl' and patentl' fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do -oral obli@uit' or conscious /ron&doin& for
so-e perverse -otive or ill /ill.
=)
,Evident bad faith ,conte-plates a state of -ind affir-ativel' operatin& /ith furtive desi&n or
/ith so-e -otive of self-interest or ill /ill or for ulterior purposes.
=9
,8ross in excusable ne&li&ence, refers to ne&li&ence
characteri7ed b' the /ant of even the sli&htest care, actin& or o-ittin& to act in a situation /here there is a dut' to act, not
inadvertentl' but /illfull' and intentionall', /ith conscious indifference to conse@uences insofar as other persons -a' be
affected.
=(
As correctl' observed b' the $andi&anba'an, certain established rules, re&ulations and policies of the Co--ission on Audit
and those -andated under the <ocal 8overn-ent Code of 1((1 *R.A. No. )132+ /ere 0no/in&l' sidestepped and i&nored b'
the petitioner /hich enabled C:< EnterprisesT"ela Cru7 to successfull' &et full pa'-ent for the school des0s and ar-chairs,
despite non-deliver' S an act or o-ission evidencin& bad faith and -anifest partialit'.
#t -ust be borne to -ind that an' procure-ent or ,ac@uisition of supplies or propert' b' local &overn-ent units shall be
throu&h co-petitive public biddin&,
62
.his /as reiterated in the <ocal 8overn-ent Code of 1((1 on procure-ent of supplies
/hich providesE
$ec. !63. 8eneral Rule in Procure-ent or "isposal. S Except as other/ise provided herein, ac@uisition of supplies b' local
&overn-ent units shall be throu&h co-petitive public biddin&. x x x
.he petitioner ad-itted in his testi-on'
61
that he is a/are of such re@uire-ent, ho/ever, he proceeded Aust the sa-e due to
the alle&ed advice of the unna-ed "EC$ representative that there /as alread' a ne&otiated contract S a representation or
-isrepresentation he /illfull' believed in, /ithout an' verification. As a 8overnor, he -ust 0no/ that ne&otiated contract can
onl' be resorted to in case of failure of a public biddin&. As it is, there is no public biddin& to spea0 of that has been conducted.
#ntentionall' or not, it is his dut' to act in a circu-spect -anner to protect &overn-ent funds. .o do other/ise is &ross
inexcusable ne&li&ence, at the ver' least, especiall' so, that petitioner acted on his o/n initiative and /ithout authori7ation
fro- the Provincial $chool Board. .his can be proved b' his failure to present even a sin&le /itness fro- the -e-bers of the
Board /ho- he consulted as he clai-ed.
.he sa-e thin& can be said about the act of petitioner in si&nin& the sales invoice and the ban0 draft 0no/in& that such
docu-ents /ould cause the /ithdra/al b' C:< EnterprisesT"ela Cru7 of the correspondin& a-ount covered b' the
#rrevocable "o-estic <etter of Credit. A <etter of Credit in itself, is not a prohibited for- of pa'-ent. #t is si-pl' a pro-ise to
pa'. Ban0s issue <etters of Credit as a /a' to ensure sellers that the' /ill &et paid as lon& as the' do /hat the'Kve a&reed to
do.
6
.he proble- arises /hen the -one' or fund covered b' the <etter of Credit is /ithdra/n irre&ularl', such as in this case
at bench. #t -ust be noted that an' /ithdra/al /ith the <BP -ust be acco-panied b' the appropriate docu-ent evidencin&
deliveries. #n si&nin& the draft and sales invoice, petitioner -ade it possible for C:< EnterprisesT"ela Cru7 to /ithdra/ the
entire P6,333,322.22 /ithout an' deliver' of the ite-s.
19
As the records /ould bear, the C:< Enterprises #nvoice dated 13 April 1((), contains the si&nature of the accused as
custo-er. Above the custo-erKs si&nature is the phraseE ,Received and accepted the above ite-s in &ood condition. , .he
si&nificance of the custo-erKs si&nature on the invoice is that it initiates the process of releasin& the pa'-ent to the seller. .his
is all that the <BP needs in order to release the -one' allotted for the purchase. ;nfortunatel', despite receipt of pa'-ent, it
/as al-ost a 'ear after /hen deliver' of the ite-s /as -ade on a piece -eal basis- so-e of /hich /ere even defective.
.his Court, therefore, is not persuaded that petitioner deserves to be exonerated. %n the contrar', evidence of undue inAur'
caused to the Province of Anti@ue and &ivin& of un/arranted benefit, advanta&e or preference to C:< EnterprisesT"ela Cru7
co--itted throu&h &ross in excusable ne&li&ence /as be'ond reasonable doubt, proven.
?1ERE4%RE, pre-ises considered, the petition is "EN#E". .he "ecision dated "ece-ber 229 of the $andi&anba'an in
Cri-inal Case No. 31) is A44#RME".
$% %R"ERE".
1OSE PORTUGA0 PERE>
Associate 5ustice
?E C%NC;RE
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate 5ustice
Chairperson
ARTURO 5. :RION
Associate 5ustice
Associate 5ustice
ESTE0A M. PER0AS&:ERNA:E
Associate 5ustice
A . . E $ . A . # % N
of the opinion of the CourtKs "ivision.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate 5ustice
$econd "ivision Chairperson
C E R . # 4 # C A . # % N
Pursuant to $ection 1!, Article D### of the Constitution, and the "ivision ChairpersonKs Attestation, it is hereb' certified that the
conclusions in the above "ecision /ere reached in consultation before the case /as assi&ned to the /riter of the opinion of
the CourtKs "ivision.
Chief 5ustice

$upre-e Court
Manila

THIR5 5I3ISION

1(
PEOP0E O4 THE PHI0IPPINES,
Petitioner,
4 versus 4
ARISTEO E. ATIEN>A, RO5RIGO 5.
MANONGSONG, CRISPIN M. EGAR?UE, ", THE
HON. SAN5IGAN:A/AN )THIR5 5I3ISION*,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 171F71
Pre7etE
PERA<.A, %., Acting Chair#erson,
X
BER$AM#N,
XX
ABA",
D#<<ARAMA, 5R.,
XXX
and
PER<A$-BERNABE, %%.
Pro+%#."te,E
5une 19, 21
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

5 E C I S I O N

PERA0TA, J.:

.his is a petition for revie/ on certiorari assailin& the Resolution
H1I
dated 4ebruar' 9, 223 of the $andi&anba'an
*.hird "ivision+ &rantin& the "e-urrer to Evidence filed b' respondents Aristeo E. Atien7a and Rodri&o ". Manon&son&,
/hich effectivel' dis-issed Cri-inal Case No. 33)9 for violation of $ection ! *e+ of Republic Act No. !21(.

.he factual and procedural antecedents are as follo/sE
#n an #nfor-ation
HI
filed on 5une 1(, 221, respondents Aristeo E. Atien7a *Ma'or Atien7a+, then Municipal Ma'or of
Puerto 8alera, %riental Mindoro, En&r. Rodri&o ". Manon&son& *En&r. Manon&son&+, then Municipal En&ineer of Puerto
8alera and Crispin M. E&ar@ue *E&ar@ue+, a police officer stationed in Puerto 8alera, /ere char&ed before the
$andi&anba'an violation of $ection ! *e+ of Republic Act No. !21( *RA !21(+, or the Anti45ra!t and Corru#t (ractices
Act in Cri-inal Case No. 33)9. .he #nfor-ation alle&edE

.hat on or about 2= 5ul' 222, or so-eti-e prior or subse@uent thereto, in the Municipalit' of
Puerto 8alera, Province of %riental Mindoro, Philippines, and /ithin the Aurisdiction of this 1onorable Court,
the above-na-ed accused, AR#$.E% E. A.#ENMA, Municipal Ma'or of Puerto 8alera, %riental Mindoro,
conspirin& and confederatin& /ith co-accused R%"R#8% MAN%N8$%N8, Municipal En&ineer, and
CR#$P#N E8ARN;E, PNP %fficer, /hile in the perfor-ance of their official functions, co--ittin& the offense
in relation to their offices, and ta0in& advanta&e of their official positions, actin& /ith -anifest partialit',
evident bad faith, did then and there /ilfull', unla/full' and cri-inall' destro', de-olish, and dis-antle the
riprapTfence of the ne/ 1%N";RA BEAC1 RE$%R. o/ned b' co-plainant E"M;N"% A. ED%RA located
at 1ondura, Puerto 8alera, %riental Mindoro, causin& undue inAur' to co-plainant in the a-ount
of P9,222.22

C%N.RAR> .% <A?.
H!I

"ul' arrai&ned, respondents entered their respective pleas of not guilty to the cri-e char&ed a&ainst the-.
H=I
After
pre-trial,
H6I
trial on the -erits ensued.

.o establish its case, the prosecution presented the testi-onies of Mercedita Atien7a *Mercedita+, Alexander
$in&son *Alexander+, Ed-undo Evora *Ed-undo+, and Actin& Baran&a' Chair-an Concepcion Escanillas *Escanillas+.

Mercedita testified that she /as the careta0er of 1ondura Beach Resort, a resort o/ned b' Ed-undo in Puerto
8alera, %riental Mindoro. $he narrated that on 5ul' !, 222, Ed-undo caused the construction of a fence -ade of coco
lu-ber and 8.#. sheets /orth P6,222.22 on his resort. %n 5ul' =, 222, she found out that the fence that /as Aust recentl'
1!2
built /as destro'ed. ;pon the instruction of Ed-undo, she reported the incident to the baran&a' authorities. %n 5ul' 6,
222, Ed-undo a&ain caused the construction of a second fence on the sa-e propert' /orth P!,222.22. 1o/ever, on the
da' follo/in&, the fence /as a&ain destro'ed. Mercedita stated that she /as infor-ed b' so-e people /ho /ere there that
a police-an and En&r. Manon&son& /ere the ones /ho destro'ed the fence.
H3I

Mercedita further testified that Ed-undo instructed her to report the -atter to the police. ?hen she in@uired at the
police station, E&ar@ue ad-itted that he destro'ed the fence upon the order of Ma'or Atien7a. ?hen she as0ed Ma'or
Atien7a about the incident, the latter infor-ed her that the fence /as not &ood for Puerto 8alera since the place /as a
tourist destination and that the land /as intended for the fisher-en association. Mercedita added that En&r. Manon&son&
ad-itted that he destro'ed the fence upon the order of the -a'or for lac0 of -unicipal per-it and that the land /as intended
for the fisher-en. Mercedita also stated that she reported to actin& Baran&a' Chair-an Escanillas that it /as En&r.
Manon&son& and E&ar@ue /ho destro'ed the fence upon the order of the -a'or.
H)I

Alexander testified that he and a certain Re'naldo 8u-ba constructed the fence t/ice on the subAect propert'. %n
the -ornin& of 5ul' 3, 222, he sa/ the fence bein& destro'ed b' En&r. Manon&son& and E&ar@ue. 1e said that he
infor-ed Mercedita about the incident and he acco-panied the latter to the police station and the offices of Ma'or Atien7a
and En&r. Manon&son&. .he' eventuall' reported the incident to actin& Baran&a' Chair-an Escanillas.
H9I

Private co-plainant Ed-undo corroborated the testi-on' of Mercedita and further stated that due to the incident,
he re@uested the baran&a' chair-an for a -eetin&. %n 5ul' =, 222, actin& Baran&a' Chair-an Escanillas, the baran&a'
secretar', En&r. Manon&son&, Mercedita, Alexander, and a certain A&uado attended the -eetin& at the baran&a'
hall. Ed-undo stated that /hen En&r. Manon&son& /as as0ed /h' Ed-undo /as not notified of the destruction of the
fence, En&r. Manon&son& replied, QSino ka #ara #adalhan ng AbisoJL Ed-undo said that the' eventuall' failed to settle the
case a-icabl'.
H(I

Actin& Baran&a' Chair-an Escanillas testified that Mercedita and Alexander /ent to her on 5ul' =, 222 and 5ul'
3, 222 to report that the fence constructed on the propert' of Ed-undo /as destro'ed b' En&r. Manon&son& and E&ar@ue
upon the order of Ma'or Atien7a. $he added that upon the re@uest of Mercedita, she /rote En&r. Manon&son& for a
-eetin& /ith Ed-undo, but the parties failed to settle the dispute on the scheduled -eetin&.

All the exhibits offered b' the prosecution /ere -ar0ed in evidence and /ere ad-itted on $epte-ber 1, 226,
/hich consisted of, a-on& others, -achine copies of transfer certificates of title, affidavits, and baran&a' blotters.
H12I

Mean/hile, on $epte-ber , 22=, petitioner filed a Motion to $uspend Accused (endente -ite,
H11I
/hich /as
opposed b' Ma'or Atien7a and En&r. Manon&son&. %n Au&ust =, 226, the $andi&anba'an &ranted the -otion. Ma'or
Atien7a then filed a Motion for Reconsideration,
H1I
/hich petitioner opposed.

.hereafter, on %ctober 11, 226, Ma'or Atien7a and En&r. Manon&son& filed a Motion for <eave of Court to 4ile
Motion to Ac@uit b' ?a' of "e-urrer to Evidence,
H1!I
/hich petitioner opposed. %n "ece-ber 3, 226, the court a
7uo issued a Resolution
H1=I
/hich &ranted the -otion. #n the sa-e resolution, the court a 7uo also held in abe'ance the
resolution of Ma'or Atien7aBs -otion for reconsideration of the resolution &rantin& his suspension fro- office.

%n 5anuar' (, 223, Ma'or Atien7a and En&r. Manon&son& filed a "e-urrer to Evidence *Motion to Ac@uit+,
H16I
/hich /as anchored on the credibilit' of the /itnesses for the prosecution. Respondents -aintain that the evidence
presented /ere not sufficient to hold the- &uilt' of the offense char&ed. %n 5anuar' 1(, 223, petitioner filed its
Co--entT%pposition.
H13I

%n 5anuar' !, 223, albeit belatedl', E&ar@ue filed a Manifestation
H1)I
that he /as adoptin& the "e-urrer to
Evidence filed b' his co-accused.

%n 4ebruar' 9, 223, the $andi&anba'an *.hird "ivision+ issued the assailed Resolution /hich, a-on& other
thin&s, &ranted the "e-urrer to Evidence and dis-issed the case. .he decretal potion of /hich readsE

?1ERE4%RE, for lac0 of sufficient evidence to prove the &uilt of all the accused be'ond
reasonable doubt, the "e-urrer to Evidence is hereb' 8RAN.E". .his case is hereb' ordered
"#$M#$$E".

.he bail bonds posted b' all accused is hereb' ordered CANCE<<E" and RE.;RNE" to the-,
subAect to the usual accountin& rules and re&ulations.

1!1
.he 1old "eparture %rder issued b' this Court a&ainst all of the accused in this case are hereb'
<#4.E" and $E. A$#"E. <et the Co--issioner of the Bureau of #--i&ration and "eportation be notified
accordin&l'.

Conse@uentl', the Motion for Reconsideration, dated Au&ust !1, 226, filed b' accused Atien7a
re&ardin& his suspension fro- office #endent lite, is hereb' rendered -oot and acade-ic.

$% %R"ERE".
H19I

#n &rantin& the "e-urrer to Evidence, the $andi&anba'an ratiocinated that not all the ele-ents of the cri-e
char&ed /ere established b' the prosecution, particularl' the ele-ent of -anifest partialit' on the part of respondents. .he
$andi&anba'an held that the evidence adduced did not sho/ that the respondents favored other persons /ho /ere si-ilarl'
situated /ith the private co-plainant.

1ence, the petition assi&nin& the follo/in& errorsE

#.
?1E.1ER %R N%. .1E C%;R. A 2CO 8RADE<> ERRE" #N "EN>#N8 .1E PE%P<E ";E
PR%CE$$ ?1EN #. RE$%<DE" #$$;E$ N%. RA#$E" B> RE$P%N"EN.$ #N .1E#R "EM;RRER .%
ED#"ENCE, ?#.1%;. A44%R"#N8 .1E PR%$EC;.#%N AN %PP%R.;N#.> .% BE 1EAR"
.1ERE%N.

##.
?1E.1ER %R N%. .1E C%;R. A 2CO 8RADE<> ERRE" #N "EC#"#N8 A N;E$.#%N %4
$;B$.ANCE N%. #N ACC%R" ?#.1 <A? %R EP#$.#N8 5;R#$PR;"ENCE ?1EN #. C%N$#"ERE"
MA..ER$ %4 "E4EN$E.
H1(I

Petitioner contends that the prosecution /as not afforded due process /hen the $andi&anba'an &ranted the
"e-urrer to Evidence based on the &round that the prosecution failed to establish bad faith on the part of the
respondents. Petitioner ar&ues that the $andi&anba'an should have resolved the "e-urrer to Evidence based on the
ar&u-ent of the respondent @uestionin& the credibilit' of petitionerBs /itnesses and the ad-issibilit' of their testi-onies in
evidence, not upon an issue /hich petitioner /as not &iven an opportunit' to be heard, thus, effectivel' den'in& the
prosecution due process of la/.

Petitioner -aintains that contrar' to the conclusion of the court a 7uo there /as evident bad faith on the part of the
respondents. Petitioner insists that the act itself of de-olishin& a fence erected upon private propert' /ithout &ivin& notice
of the intended de-olition, and /ithout &ivin& the o/ner of the sa-e the opportunit' to be heard or to rectif' -atters, is
evident bad faith.

Petitioner also contends that the ele-ent of -anifest partialit' /as sufficientl' established /hen the fence /as
destro'ed on the rationale that the' do not have a per-it to erect the fenceG the place /as intended for the benefit of
fisher-enG and it /as a tourist spot. Moreover, the de-olition /as alle&edl' done in the &uise of official business /hen the
fence /as de-olished on the basis of the above-stated purpose.

4inall', petitioner ar&ues that the constitutional proscription on double Aeopard' does not appl' in the present case.

%n their part, respondents ar&ue that the $andi&anba'an /as correct in &rantin& the "e-urrer to Evidence and
dis-issin& the case. Respondents alle&e that the prosecution /as not denied due process of la/. Respondents -aintain
that the prosecution /as &iven ever' opportunit' to be heard. #n fact, the assailed resolution /as issued after the
prosecution has rested its case. Moreover, respondents insist their ri&ht a&ainst double Aeopard' -ust be upheld.

.he petition is bereft of -erit.

Respondents are char&ed /ith violation of $ection ! *e+ of RA !21(, /hich providesE

$EC. !. Corru#t #ractices o! #ublic o!!icers. F #n addition to acts or o-issions of public officers
alread' penali7ed b' existin& la/, the follo/in& shall constitute corrupt practices of an' public officer and are
hereb' declared to be unla/fulE

x x x x
1!

*e+ Causin& an' undue inAur' to an' part', includin& the 8overn-ent, or &ivin&
an' private part' an' un/arranted benefits, advanta&e or preference in the dischar&e of
his official, ad-inistrative or Audicial functions throu&h -anifest partialit', evident bad faith
or &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence. .his provision shall appl' to officers and e-plo'ees of
offices or &overn-ent corporations char&ed /ith the &rant of licenses or per-its or other
concessions.

.his cri-e has the follo/in& essential ele-entsE

1. .he accused -ust be a public officer dischar&in& ad-inistrative, Audicial or official functionsG

. 1e -ust have acted /ith -anifest partialit', evident bad faith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&enceG
and

!. 1is action caused an' undue inAur' to an' part', includin& the &overn-ent, or &ave
an' private part' un/arranted benefits, advanta&e or preference in the dischar&e of his functions.
H2I

#n the case at bar, the $andi&anba'an &ranted the "e-urrer to Evidence on the &round that the prosecution failed
to establish the second ele-ent of violation of $ection ! *e+ of RA !21(.

.he second ele-ent provides the different -odes b' /hich the cri-e -a' be co--itted, that is, throu&h Q-anifest
partialit',R Qevident bad faith,R or Q&ross inexcusable ne&li&ence.R
H1I
#n Criarte v. (eo#le,
HI
this Court explained that $ection
! *e+ of RA !21( -a' be co--itted either b' dolo, as /hen the accused acted /ith evident bad faith or -anifest partialit', or
b' cul#a, as /hen the accused co--itted &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence. .here is Q-anifest partialit'R /hen there is a clear,
notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another. QEvident bad faithR connotes not
onl' bad Aud&-ent but also palpabl' and patentl' fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do -oral obli@uit' or conscious
/ron&doin& for so-e perverse -otive or ill /ill. QEvident bad faithR conte-plates a state of -ind affir-ativel' operatin& /ith
furtive desi&n or /ith so-e -otive of self-interest or ill /ill or for ulterior purposes. Q8ross inexcusable ne&li&enceR refers to
ne&li&ence characteri7ed b' the /ant of even the sli&htest care, actin& or o-ittin& to act in a situation /here there is a dut'
to act, not inadvertentl' but /ilfull' and intentionall', /ith conscious indifference to conse@uences insofar as other persons
-a' be affected.
H!I

As aptl' concluded b' the $andi&anba'an in the assailed resolution, the second ele-ent of the cri-e as char&ed
/as not sufficientl' established b' the prosecution, to /itE

I.
.he presence of the $9r7t e#e+et of this offense /as not disputed. .he prosecution
established that accused--ovants /ere public officers, bein& then the Ma'or, Municipal En&ineer, and
-e-ber of the PNP, at the ti-e alle&ed in the infor-ation.

II.
Anent the 7eco, e#e+et, did the act of destro'in& the subAect fences on 5ul' =, 222 and
on 5ul' 3, 222 alle&edl' b' accused Manon&son& and E&ar@ue, /ithout &ivin& an' notice to the private
co-plainant, a-ount to mani!est #artiality andTor evident bad !aith as indicated in the infor-ationU
Manifest partialit' and evident bad faith are -odes that are separate and distinct fro- each
other so that the existence of an' of these t/o -odes /ould be sufficient to satisf' the second ele-ent. x x
x

x x x x

.ani!est #artiality /as not present in this case. .he evidence adduced did not sho/ that
accused--ovants favored other persons /ho /ere si-ilarl' situated /ith the private co-plainant.

E'e/itness Alexander $in&son cate&oricall' pointed accused Manon&son& and E&ar@ue as
the persons /ho destro'edTre-oved the second fence. Private co-plainant la-ented that he /as not even
&iven notice of their intent to destro' the fence. 1o/ever, the sa-e could not be considered evident bad
faith as the prosecution evidence failed to sho/ that the destruction /as for a dishonest purpose, ill /ill or
self interest. #n fact, the follo/in& testi-onial evidence presented b' the prosecution itself sho/ed thatE

1!!
1. Mercedita Atien7a revealed that /hen she confronted Manon&son& /h' he
destro'ed the subAect fences, the latter replied that (You don)t have permit and the
land is for the fishermen*G

. Alexander $in&son corroborated that Manon&son& told the- that (they destroyed
the fence because it is a tourist spot and it is also a port for the fishermen*G
and

!. Mercedita Atien7a also testified that /hen she as0ed accused Atien7a about the
incident, the latter told her (+asama and pinaba,od mo. lam mo namang
tourist spot ang Puerto -alera at para sa fishermen)s association yan.P

III.
Considerin& that the second ele-ent /as not present, the Court dee-ed it proper not to
discuss the t!9r, e#e+et.
H=I

Moreover, contrar' to petitionerBs contention, the prosecution /as not denied due process. #t is to be noted that the
prosecution participated in all the proceedin&s before the court a7uo and has filed nu-erous pleadin&s and oppositions to
the -otions filed b' respondent. #n fact, the prosecution has alread' rested its case and sub-itted its evidence /hen the
de-urrer /as filed. ?here the opportunit' to be heard, either throu&h verbal ar&u-ents or pleadin&s, is accorded, and the
part' can present its side or defend its interests in due course, there is no denial of procedural due process.
H6I
?hat is
repu&nant to due process is the denial of the opportunit' to be heard,
H3I
/hich is not present here.

Clearl', double Aeopard' has set in. .he ele-ents of double Aeopard' are *1+ the co-plaint or infor-ation /as
sufficient in for- and substance to sustain a convictionG *+ the court had AurisdictionG *!+ the accused had been arrai&ned
and had pleadedG and *=+ the accused /as convicted or ac@uitted, or the case /as dis-issed /ithout his express consent.
H)I

.he above ele-ents are all attendant in the present caseE *1+ the #nfor-ation filed before the $andi&anba'an in
Cri-inal Case No. 33)9 a&ainst respondents /ere sufficient in for- and substance to sustain a convictionG *+ the
$andi&anba'an had Aurisdiction over Cri-inal Case No. 33)9G *!+ respondents /ere arrai&ned and entered their respective
pleas of not &uilt'G and *=+ the $andi&anba'an dis-issed Cri-inal Case No. 33)9 on a "e-urrer to Evidence on the
&round that not all the ele-ents of the offense as char&e exist in the case at bar, /hich a-ounts to an ac@uittal fro- /hich
no appeal can be had.

#n (eo#le v. Sandiganbayan,
H9I
this Court elucidated the &eneral rule that the &rant of a de-urrer to evidence
operates as an ac@uittal and is, thus, final and unappealable, to /itE

.he de-urrer to evidence in cri-inal cases, such as the one at bar, is ,!iled a!ter the #rosecution
had rested its case,, and /hen the sa-e is &ranted, it calls ,for an appreciation of the evidence adduced b'
the prosecution and its sufficienc' to /arrant conviction be'ond reasonable doubt, resultin& in a dismissal o!
the case on the merits, tantamount to an ac7uittal o! the accused.,

$uch dis-issal of a cri-inal case b' the
&rant of de-urrer to evidence -a' not be appealed, for to do so /ould be to place the accused in double
Aeopard'. .he verdict bein& one of ac@uittal, the case ends there.
H(I

Deril', in cri-inal cases, the &rant of de-urrer
H!2I
is tanta-ount to an ac@uittal and the dis-issal order -a' not be
appealed because this /ould place the accused in double Aeopard'. Althou&h the dis-issal order is not subAect to appeal, it
is still revie/able but onl' throu&h certiorari under Rule 36 of the Rules of Court. 4or the /rit to issue, the trial court -ust be
sho/n to have acted /ith &rave abuse of discretion a-ountin& to lac0 or excess of Aurisdiction such as /here the
prosecution /as denied the opportunit' to present its case or /here the trial /as a sha-, thus, renderin& the assailed
Aud&-ent void. .he burden is on the petitioner to clearl' de-onstrate that the trial court blatantl' abused its authorit' to a
point so &rave as to deprive it of its ver' po/er to dispense Austice.
H!1I
#n the present case, no such circu-stances exist to
/arrant a departure fro- the &eneral rule and reverse the findin&s of the $andi&anba'an.

WHERE4ORE, pre-ises considered, the petition is 5ENIE5. .he Resolution dated 4ebruar' 9, 223 of the
$andi&anba'an, in Cri-inal Case No. 33)9, is A44IRME5.

SO OR5ERE5.

1!=

5IOS5A5O M. PERA0TA
Associate 5ustice

WE CONCURB

0UCAS P. :ERSAMIN
Associate 5ustice

RO:ERTO A. A:A5 MARTIN S. 3I00ARAMA, 1R.

ESTE0A M. PER0AS&:ERNA:E
Associate 5ustice

ATTESTATION

# attest that the conclusions in the above "ecision had been reached in consultation before the case /as assi&ned
to the /riter of the opinion of the CourtBs "ivision.

5IOS5A5O M. PERA0TA
Associate 5ustice
Actin& Chairperson, .hird "ivision

CERTI4ICATION

# certif' that the conclusions in the above "ecision had been reached in consultation before the case /as assi&ned
to the /riter of the opinion of the CourtBs "ivision.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
$enior Associate 5ustice
*Per $ection 1, R.A. (3,
.he 5udiciar' Act of 1(=9, as a-ende
SUPREME COURT
Manila
4#R$. "#D#$#%N
G.R. No7. 1F8@51 G 1F@000 No=e+ber 27, 201I
1!6
5R. ROGER R. POSA5AS ", 5R. RO0AN5O P. 5A/CO, Petitioners,
vs.
SAN5IGAN:A/AN ", PEOP0E O4 THE PHI0IPPINES, Respondents.
R E $ % < ; . # % N
A:A5, J.:
.his resolves the separate Motions for Reconsideration of petitioners, "r. Ro&er R. Posadas and "r. Rolando P. "a'co of the
CourtKs "ecision dated 5ul' 1), 21!.
.he 4acts and the Case
.o recall the facts culled fro- the decision of the $andi&anba'an, "r. Posadas /as Chancellor of the ;niversit' of the
Philippines *;P+ "ili-an /hen on $epte-ber 1(, 1((= he for-ed a .as0 4orce on $cience and .echnolo&' Assess-ent
Mana&e-ent and Polic'. .he .as0 4orce /as to prepare the needed curricula for -asteral and doctoral pro&ra-s in
,technolo&' -ana&e-ent, innovation studies, science and technolo&' and related areas., %n 5une 3, 1((6, actin& on the .as0
4orceKs proposal, ;P established the ; .echnolo&' Mana&e-ent Center *;P .MC+ the -e-bers of /hich no-inated "r.
Posadas for the post of Center "irector. 1e declined the no-ination, ho/ever, resultin& in the desi&nation of Professor 5ose
B. .abbada as actin& ;P .MC "irector.
$hortl' after, "r. Posadas /or0ed for the fundin& of the ten ne/ &raduate courses of ;P .MC. ?ith the help of the Philippine
#nstitute of "evelop-ent $tudiesTPolic', .rainin& and .echnical Assistance 4acilit' and the National Econo-ic "evelop-ent
Authorit', there ca-e into bein& the #nstitutionali7ation of Mana&e-ent and .echnolo&' in the ;niversit' of the Philippines in
"ili-an *the .MC ProAect+, funded at "r. PosadasB initiative b' the Canadian #nternational "evelop-ent A&enc'.
Meanti-e, on %ctober 6, 1((6 Malacanan& &ranted "r. Posadas and fifteen other ;P "ili-an officials authorit' to attend the
foundation da' of the state universit' in 4uAian, China, fro- %ctober !2 to Nove-ber 3, 1((6. Before he left, "r. Posadas
for-all' desi&nated "r. "a'co, then ;P "ili-an Dice-Chancellor for Ad-inistration, as %fficer-in-Char&e *%#C+ in his absence.
%n Nove-ber ), 1((6, his last da' as %#C Chancellor, "r "a'co appointed "r. Posadas as ,ProAect "irector of the .MC
ProAect fro- $epte-ber 19, 1((6 to $epte-ber 1), 1((3., #n an undated letter, "r. "a'co also appointed "r. Posadas
consultant to the proAect. .he appoint-ents /ere to retroact to $epte-ber 19, 1((6 /hen the proAect be&an.
About a 'ear later or on Au&ust , 1((3 the Co--ission on Audit *C%A+ Resident Auditor issued a Notice of $uspension of
pa'-ents -ade to ;P .MC personnel, includin& the second pa'-ent to "r. Posadas ofP!3,222.22 for his services as .MC
ProAectBs <ocal Consultant. %n Au&ust ! the Resident Auditor further suspended pa'-ent of P!2,222.22 honorariu- per
-onth to "r. Posadas as ProAect "irector fro- $epte-ber 19 to %ctober 1), 1((6.
%n $epte-ber 13, 1((3, ho/ever, the ;P "ili-an <e&al %ffice issued a Me-orandu- to the C%A Resident Auditor, pointin&
out that the a-ounts paid the .MC ProAect personnel ,/ere le&al, bein& in the nature of consultanc' fees., .he le&al office
also ,confir-ed the authorit' of "r. "a'co, /hile he /as %#C Chancellor, to appoint "r. Posadas as proAect director and
consultant of the .MC ProAect., 4indin& this explanation ,acceptable,, the C%A Resident Auditor lifted his previous notices of
suspension.
Not/ithstandin& the liftin& of the suspension, ;P President 5avier constituted an Ad-inistrative "isciplinar' .ribunal to hear
and decide the ad-inistrative co-plaint that he hi-self filed a&ainst "r. Posadas and "r. "a'co for &rave -isconduct and
abuse of authorit'. %n Au&ust 19, 1((9 the .ribunal reco--ended the dis-issal of the t/o fro- the service. .he ;P Board of
Re&ents -odified the penalt', ho/ever, to ,forced resi&nation, /ith ri&ht to reappl' after one 'ear provided the' publicl'
apolo&i7e. $till, the ;P 8eneral-Counsel filed /ith the $andi&anba'an the present cri-inal cases.
%n 5une 9, 226 the $andi&anba'an found both "r. Posadas and "r. "a'co &uilt' of violation of $ection !*e+ of Republic Act
!21( and i-posed on the- an indeter-inate penalt' of i-prison-ent for ( 'ears and one da' as -ini-u- and 1 'ears as
-axi-u-, /ith the accessor' penalt' of perpetual dis@ualification fro- public office. .he court also found the- &uilt' of
violation of $ection )*b+ of Republic Act 3)1! and i-posed on the- the penalt' of i-prison-ent for 6 'ears /ith the sa-e
dis@ualification. .he' /ere further ordered to inde-nif' the &overn-ent in the su- of P!!3,222.22.
1
#n its decision of 5ul' 1), 21!, the Court affir-ed the decisions of the $andi&anba'an in the t/o cases.
1!3
"iscussion
1. .he appoint-ents /ere in &ood faith
.he bad faith that $ection !*e+ of Republic !21( re@uires, said this Court, does not si-pl' connote bad Aud&-ent or
ne&li&ence. #t i-putes a dishonest purpose, so-e -oral obli@uit', and a conscious doin& of a /ron&. #ndeed, it parta0es of the
nature of fraud.
1ere, ad-ittedl', "r. "a'co appears to have ta0en advanta&e of his brief desi&nation as %#C Chancellor to appoint the absent
Chancellor, "r. Posadas, as "irector and consultant of the .MC ProAect. But it cannot be said that "r. "a'co -ade those
appoint-ents and "r. Posadas accepted the-, fraudulentl', 0no/in& full' /ell that "r. "a'co did not have that authorit' as
%#C Chancellor.
All indications are that the' acted in &ood faith. .he' /ere scientists, not la/'ers, hence unfa-iliar /ith Civil $ervice rules and
re&ulations. .he /orld of the acade-e is usuall' preoccupied /ith studies, researches, and lectures. .hus, those
appoint-ents appear to have been ta0en for &ranted at ;P. #t did not invite an' i--ediate protest fro- those /ho could have
had an interest in the positions. #t /as onl' after about a 'ear that the C%A Resident Auditor issued a notice of suspension
coverin& pa'-ents out of the ProAect to all ;P personnel involved, includin& "r. Posadas.
$till, in response to this notice, the ;P "ili-an <e&al %ffice itself rendered a le&al opinion that ,confir-ed the authorit' of "r.
"a'co, /hile he /as %#C Chancellor, to appoint "r. Posadas as proAect director and consultant of the .MC ProAect., Not onl'
this, the C%A Resident Auditor, /ho at first thou&ht that the %#C Chancellor had no po/er to -a0e the desi&nations, later
accepted the <e&al %fficeBs opinion and /ithdre/ the Notices of $uspension of pa'-ent that he issued. All these indicate a
need for the Court to reexa-ine its position that "r. "a'co and "r. Posadas acted in bad faith in the -atter of those
appoint-ents.
. "r. "a'co chose the -ost @ualified for the proAect
.he next @uestion is /hether "r. "a'co, believin& in &ood faith that he had the authorit' to -a0e the @uestioned desi&nations,
acted /ith ,-anifest partialit', in choosin& "r. Posadas a-on& all possible candidates as .MC "irector and Consultant. .he
ans/er is no.
.here is ,-anifest partialit', /hen there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person
rather than another.
!
1ere, the prosecution presented no evidence /hatsoever that others, -ore @ualified than "r. Posadas,
deserve the t/o related appoint-ents. .he fact is that he /as the best @ualified for the /or0E
4irst, "r. Posadas ori&inated the idea for the proAect and so he had ever' reason to /ant it to succeed.
$econd, he /or0ed hard to convince the relevant &overn-ent offices to arran&e fundin& for the proAect, proof that he /as
fa-iliar /ith the financial side of it as /ell.
.hird, the -e-bers of the .as0 4orce on $cience and .echnolo&' Assess-ent, Mana&e-ent and Polic'Fhis o/n peersF
no-inated "r. Posadas as "irector of the ;P .echnolo&' Mana&e-ent Center.
4ourth. .he /or0 fell /ithin his area of expertiseFtechnical -ana&e-entFensurin& professionalis- in the execution of the
proAect.
#n the /orld of the acade-e, that proAect /as the e@uivalent of "r. PosadasB thesis. .hus, since he /as a natural choice to
head the sa-e, it beats the -ind that such choice could be re&arded as one pro-pted b' ,-anifest partialit'.,
!. .he -isstep /as essentiall' of the ad-inistrative 0ind
.he /orst that could be said of "r. "a'co and "r. Posadas is the' sho/ed no sensitivit' to the fact that, althou&h "r. "a'co
-a' have honestl' believed that he had the authorit' to -a0e those appoint-ents, he /as actuall' appointin& his o/n
superior, the person /ho -ade hi- %#C Chancellor, ho/ever @ualified he -i&ht be, to those enviable positions. But this
should have been treated as a -ere ad-inistrative offense forE
1!)
4irst. No evidence /as adduced to sho/ that ;P acade-ic officials /ere prohibited fro- receivin& co-pensation for /or0 the'
render outside the scope of their nor-al duties as ad-inistrators or facult' professors.
$econd. C%A disallo/ances of benefits &iven to &overn-ent personnel for extra services rendered are nor-al occurrences in
&overn-ent offices. .he' can hardl' be re&arded as cause for the filin& of cri-inal char&es of corruption a&ainst the
authorities that &ranted the- and those /ho &ot paid.
$ection = of the C%A Revised Rules of Procedure -erel' provides for an order to return /hat /as i-properl' paid. And, onl' if
the responsible parties refuse to do so, -a' the auditor then *a+ reco--end to C%A that the' be cited for conte-ptG *b+ refer
the -atter to the $olicitor 8eneral for the filin& of the appropriate civil actionG and *c+ refer it to the %-buds-an for the
appropriate ad-inistrative or cri-inal action.
=
1ere, "r. "a'co and "r. Posadas /ere not &iven the chance, before the' /ere
ad-inistrativel' char&ed, to restore /hat a-ounts /ere paid since the Resident "irector /ithdre/ his notice of disallo/ance
after considerin& the vie/ of the ;P "ili-an <e&al %ffice.
#f the Court does not &rant petitionersB -otions for reconsideration, the co--on disallo/ances of benefits paid to &overn-ent
personnel /ill heretofore be considered e@uivalent to cri-inal &ivin& of ,un/arranted advanta&e to a private part',, an ele-ent
of &raft and corruption. .his is too s/eepin&, unfair, and un/ise, -a0in& the denial of -ost benefits that &overn-ent
e-plo'ees deserve the safer and better option.
.hird. #n other &overn-ent offices, the case a&ainst "r. "a'co and "r. Posadas /ould have been treated as purel' of an
ad-inistrative character. .he proble- in their case, ho/ever, is that other factors have -uddled it. .he evidence sho/s that
prior to the incident "r. Posadas caused the ad-inistrative investi&ation of ;P <ibrar' Ad-inistrative %fficer %felia del Mundo
for &rave abuse of authorit', ne&lect of dut', and other /ron&-doin&s. .his pro-pted Professor .abbada, the Actin& ;P .MC
"irector, to resi&n his post in protest. #n turn, Ms. "el Mundo insti&ated the ;P President to &o after "r. Posadas and "r.
"a'co. Apparentl', the %ffice of the %-buds-an pla'ed into the intense -utual hatred and rivalr' that enlar&ed /hat /as a
si-ple ad-inistrative -isstep.
4ourth. .he fault of "r. "a'co and "r. Posadas, /ho spent the best parts of their lives servin& ;P, does not /arrant their
&oin& to Aail for nine to t/elve 'ears for /hat the' did. .he' did not act /ith -anifest partialit' or evident bad faith. #ndeed, the
;P Board of Re&ents, the hi&hest &overnin& bod' of that institution and the -ost sensitive to an' attac0 upon its revered
portals, did not believe that "r. "a'co and "r. Posadas co--itted outri&ht corruption. #ndeed, it did not dis-iss the- fro- the
serviceG it -erel' ordered their forced resi&nation and the accessor' penalties that /ent /ith it.
.he Board did not also believe that the t/o deserved to be per-anentl' expelled fro- ;P.$K9#hi$ #t -eted out to the- /hat
in effect a-ounts to -ere suspension for one 'ear since the Board practicall' invited the- to co-e bac0 and teach a&ain after
one 'ear provided the' render a public apolo&' for their actions. .he Board of Re&ents did not re&ard their offense so -orall'
detestable as to totall' ta0e a/a' fro- the- the privile&e of teachin& the 'oun&.
=. .he prosecution did not prove un/arranted benefit or undue inAur'
$ection !*e+ of Republic Act !21( re@uires the prosecution to prove that the appoint-ents of "r. Posadas caused ,undue
inAur', to the &overn-ent or &ave hi- ,un/arranted benefits.,
.his Court has al/a's interpreted ,undue inAur', as ,actual da-a&e., ?hat is -ore, such ,actual da-a&e, -ust not onl' be
capable of proofG it -ust be actuall' proved /ith a reasonable de&ree of certaint'. A findin& of ,undue inAur', cannot be based
on fli-s' and non-substantial evidence or upon speculation, conAecture, or &uess/or0.
6
.he Court held in <lorente v.
$andi&anba'an
3
that the ele-ent of undue inAur' cannot be presu-ed even after the supposed /ron& has been established. #t
-ust be proved as one of the ele-ents of the cri-e.
1ere, the -aAorit' assu-ed that the pa'-ent to "r. Posadas of P!2 222.22 -onthl' as .MC ProAect "irector caused actual
inAur' to the 8overn-ent. .he record sho/s, ho/ever, that the P=) 622.22 pa'-ent to hi- that the C%A Resident Auditor
disallo/ed /as deducted fro- his ter-inal leave benefits.
)
.he prosecution also failed to prove that "r. "a'co &ave "r. Posadas ,un/arranted advanta&e, as a result of the
appoint-ents in @uestion. .he honoraria he received cannot be considered ,un/arranted, since there is no evidence that he
did not dischar&e the additional responsibilities that such appoint-ents entailed.
1!9
?1ERE4%RE, the Court resolves to 8RAN. the -otions for reconsideration of the petitioners and to vacate their conviction
on the &round of failure of the $tate to prove their &uilt be'ond reasonable doubt.
$% %R"ERE".
RO:ERTO A. A:A5X
Associate 5ustice
?E C%NC;RE
0UCAS P. :ERSAMIN
Associate 5ustice
Actin& Chairperson
Associate 5ustice
1OSE CATRA0 MEN5O>AXX
Associate 5ustice
:IEN3ENI5O 0. RE/ES
Associate 5ustice
A . . E $ . A . # % N
# attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case /as assi&ned to the
/riter of the opinion of the CourtBs "ivision.
0UCAS P. :ERSAMIN
Associate 5ustice
Actin& Chairperson, 4irst "ivision
C E R . # 4 # C A . # % N
Pursuant to $ection 1!, Article D### of the Constitution and the "ivision Actin& ChairpersonBs Attestation, # certif' that the
conclusions n the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case /as assi&ned to the /riter of the
opinion of the CourtBs "ivision.
MARIA 0OUR5ES P A SERENO
Chief 5ustice
SUPREME COURT
Manila
4#R$. "#D#$#%N
G.R. No. 187I60 A%.%7t 16, 201I
ANTONIO :. SANCHE>, Petitioner,
vs.
" E C # $ # % N
SERENO, $J.:
1!(
Before this Court is a certiorari Petition
1
filed b' Cit' En&ineer Antonio B. $anche7 assailin& the $andi&anba'an
"ecision
dated = $epte-ber 229 and Resolution

!
dated 23 March 22( in Cri-. Case No. 6()1. .he $andi&anba'an
found $anche7 &uilt' of violatin& $ection ! *e+ of the 8raft and Corrupt Practices Act.
=
Eu&enio 4. 8abu'a 5r. *8abu'a+, the Baran&a' Captain of Co&on, Pardo, Cebu Cit', filed a re@uest /ith the %ffice of the Cit'
En&ineer for the i-prove-ent of an existin& canal traversin& .a&unol and .abu0anal in Co&on. .he Maintenance and
"raina&e $ection of the %ffice of the Cit' En&ineer surve'ed the existin& canal, found it dirt' and clo&&ed, and reco--ended
its i-prove-ent. En&ineerin& Assistant .hessani C. Rubi prepared a ,Pro&ra- of ?or0, and an KKEsti-ate of Construction,
Plans and $pecifications,, /hich /ere then chec0ed b' En&ineer 8erardo C. del Rosario *"el Rosario+.
6
Petitioner approved and sub-itted these docu-ents to the Cebu Cit' Council. #n the course of their preparation, ho/ever, he
never ordered Rubi, "el Rosario, or an' of his subordinates to verif' the o/nership of the land throu&h /hich the canal /ould
pass because, accordin& to hi-, it appeared to be public land.
3
.he Council passed Resolution No. 126! authori7in& Cit'
Ma'or Alvin B. 8arcia *8arcia+ to enter into a contract for and on behalf of the cit' for the construction of a ,C1B-lined, canal
and the installation of a box culvert at 1i&h/a' .a&unol in Baran&a' Co&on.
Pursuant to Resolution No. !662, P=(3,26= /as appropriated for the proAect.
)
8arcia then entered into a contract /ith Alvare7 Construction for the buildin& of the canal. .he Construction "ivision of the
%ffice of the Cit' En&ineer, to&ether /ith Alvare7 Construction, i-ple-ented the proAect and co-pleted it on ( Ma' 1((9.
9
$o-eti-e in 5anuar' 1((9, <ucia Nadela *private co-plainant+ discovered that a canal /as bein& constructed on her propert'
/ithout her consent and approval.
(
$he also found that the nipa trees on her land, fro- /hich she had been harvestin& and
sellin& nipa leaves, had been cut. "espite the assurances of 8abu'a that the canal /ould be re-oved in due ti-e, the %ffice
of the Cit' En&ineer never initiated efforts to do so. Nadela filed a Co-plaint before the %ffice of the %-buds-an for violation
of Republic Act !21( a&ainst 8abu'a, 8arcia and herein petitioner.
.he %ffice of the %-buds-an *%MB+ found probable cause a&ainst petitioner $anche7 onl'. #t relieved 8abu'a of
responsibilit', supposedl' because the construction of the canal /as entirel' the underta0in& of the Cit' 8overn-ent of
Cebu.
12
As for 8arcia, he purportedl' relied on the representations of petitioner, /ho had the dut' of verif'in& the status of the
land.
11
.he %MB thus filed an #nfor-ation
1
a&ainst petitioner /ith the $andi&anba'an, vi7.E
.hat on or about the -onth of 5anuar' 1((9, andTor so-eti-e subse@uent thereto, at Cebu Cit', Philippines, and /ithin the
Aurisdiction of this 1onorable Court, above-na-ed accused, AN.%N#% B. $ANC1EM, a public officer, bein& the 1ead, Cit'
En&ineerin& %ffice of Cebu Cit', in the perfor-ance of his official functions, /ith deliberate intent and -anifest partialit',
evident bad faith and &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence, did then and there /illfull', unla/full', and cri-inall' cause the
construction of a di0eTcanal /hich traversed the lot o/ned b' <ucia Nadela situated at Co&on, Pardo, Cebu Cit' and covered
/ith .C. No. 6!===, /ithout the consent of the o/ner thereof, thereb' ta0in& the said propert' of <ucia Nadela /ithout due
process, deprivin& <ucia Nadela of the use of her propert', thereb' &ivin& un/arranted benefits to the Cit' of Cebu, to the
undue da-a&e, inAur' and preAudice of <ucia Nadela.
C%N.RAR> .% <A?.
1!
.he $andi&anba'an held that petitioner, bein& a public officer b' virtue of his position as the Cit' En&ineer of Cebu, acted /ith
&ross inexcusable ne&li&ence in approvin& the construction of the canal /ithout first ascertainin& the o/nership of the propert'
/here the canal /ould be constructed or verif'in& /hether the propert' had been expropriated.
1=
.his alle&ed ne&li&ence
supposedl' deprived private co-plainant of the control and use of the -iddle portion of her land, resultin& in a loss of P2,222
ever' four or five -onths, /hich represents inco-e fro- harvestin& and sellin& nipa leaves. Private co-plainant also clai-ed
that she suffered inAur', because infor-al land settlers used the canal as their toilet, thereb' dirt'in& and da-a&in& the
land.
16
.he $andi&anba'an found petitioner &uilt' of violatin& $ection !*e+ of R.A. !21(, and sentenced hi- to i-prison-ent for
3 'ears and 1 -onth -ini-u-, to 9 'ears as -axi-u-, /ith perpetual dis@ualification fro- public office.
13
Petitioner co-es before this Court assailin& the $andi&anba'anBs factual findin& of &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence on his part
and undue inAur' to private co-plainant. 1e avers that it /as the dut' of the Maintenance and "raina&e $ection of the
#nspection %ffice, not his, to deter-ine /hether or not the land /as privatel' o/ned. Also, he purportedl' had no hand in the
approval of plans for the land or in the i-ple-entation or execution of the proAect.
1)
Petitioner also cites Arias v.
$andi&anba'an
19
in ar&uin& that he cannot be held liable for the ne&li&ent acts of his subordinates, unless there is a findin& of
conspirac' bet/een the-. <astl', he ar&ues that there existed a preAudicial @uestion before the Re&ional .rial Court *R.C+ in
Civil Case No. CEB-1)=9, /hich delved into the validit' of the ac@uisition of NadelaBs lot. Accordin& to petitioner, the instant
1=2
case /as filed on the pre-ise that the construction of the canal /as unla/ful, /hile the identical @uestion in Civil Case No.
CEB-1)=9 /as /hether or not the Cit' le&all' ac@uired the propert' of private co-plainant /hen it constructed a canal
thereon.
1(
#n a Resolution
2
dated 9 5une 22(, this Court re@uired respondent to co--ent.
#n its Co--ent,
1
respondent avers that one of the functions and duties of petitioner is to coordinate the construction of
en&ineerin& and public /or0s proAects of the local &overn-ent unit. Before i-ple-entin& the proAect, ho/ever, he did not verif'
/ith the Re&ister of "eeds /hether the lot on /hich the canal /ould be built alread' had a title.
Respondent also
e-phasi7es the undisputed factsE first, private co-plainant /as the re&istered o/ner of <ot. !62 covered b' .ransfer
Certificate of .itle No. 6!===G and second, the canal ate up 1=6 s@uare -eters of the -iddle portion of the lot. Because of the
presence of the canal, infor-al settlers established their residence near it and used it as their /aste disposal site, resultin& in
the lotBs depreciation. .o -a0e -atters /orse, private co-plainant /as never co-pensated for the ta0in& of her propert' in
order to &ive /a' to the construction of the canal.
!
As to the ar&u-ent of petitioner that there existed a preAudicial @uestion in
Civil Case No. CEB-1)=9, this issue /as alread' decided b' the R.C in a Resolution dated 3 $epte-ber 22), /hich he
did not @uestion throu&h a -otion for reconsideration and a subse@uent Rule 36 petition. 1ence, he cannot no/ co-e before
this Court as0in& it to rule on an issue that has alread' been settled.
=
.he sole issue before us is /hether petitioner is &uilt' be'ond reasonable doubt of violatin& $ection ! *e+ of R.A. !21(.
?e have carefull' revie/ed the records of this case and found nothin& therein to /arrant a reversal of the assailed "ecision of
the $andi&anba'an. ?e den' the Petition and affir- petitionerBs conviction.
.he factual findin&s of the $andi&anba'an are conclusive upon this Court, except under an' of the follo/in& circu-stancesE
*1+ .he conclusion is a findin& &rounded entirel' on speculation, sur-ise and conAecturesG
*+ .he inference -ade is -anifestl' an error or founded on a -ista0eG
*!+ .here is &rave abuse of discretionG
*=+ .he Aud&-ent is based on -isapprehension of factsG and
*6+ .he findin&s of fact are pre-ised on /ant of evidence and are contradicted b' evidence on record.
6
None of the fore&oin& circu-stances is present. .he findin&s of fact and conclusion of the $andi&anba'an that petitioner is
&uilt' of violatin& $ection !*e+, R.A. !21( are sufficientl' supported b' the records.
$ection !*e+ of R.A. !21( providesE
#n addition to acts or o-issions of public officers alread' penali7ed b' existin& la/, the follo/in& shall constitute corrupt
practices of an' public officer and are hereb' declared to be unla/fulE
x x x x
bad faith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence. x x x.
.he ele-ents of this cri-e are as follo/sE
. 1e -ust have acted /ith -anifest partialit', evident bad faith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&enceG and
1=1
!. 1is action caused an' undue inAur' to an' part', includin& the &overn-ent, or &ave an' private part' un/arranted
3
*E-phasis supplied+
;riarte v. People
)
further elaborates thusE
$ection !*e+ of R.A. !21( -a' be co--itted either b' dolo, as /hen the accused acted /ith evident bad faith or -anifest
partialit', or b' culpa as /hen the accused co--itted &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence. .here is ,-anifest partialit', /hen there
is a clear, notorious or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another. ,Evident bad faith,
connotes not onl' bad Aud&-ent but also palpabl' and patentl' fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do -oral obli@uit' or
conscious /ron&doin& for so-e perverse -otive or ill /ill. #t conte-plates a state of -ind affir-ativel' operatin& /ith furtive
desi&n or /ith so-e -otive or self-interest or ill /ill or for ulterior purposes. ,8ross inexcusable ne&li&ence, refers to
ne&li&ence characteri7ed b' the /ant of even the sli&htest care, actin& or o-ittin& to act in a situation /here there is a dut' to
act, not inadvertentl' but /illfull' and intentionall', /ith conscious indifference to conse@uences insofar as other persons -a'
be affected. *E-phasis supplied+
.he $andi&anba'an correctl' found the concurrence of the three ele-ents.
4irst, petitioner, bein& the cit' en&ineer of Cebu, is undisputedl' a public officer.
$econd, the failure of petitioner to validate the o/nership of the land on /hich the canal /as to be built because of his
unfounded belief that it /as public land constitutes &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence.
#n his o/n testi-on', petitioner i-pliedl' ad-itted that it fell s@uarel' under his duties to chec0 the o/nership of the land /ith
the Re&ister of "eeds. >et he concluded that it /as public land based solel' on his evaluation of its appearance, i.e. that it
loo0ed s/a-p'E
NE xxx "o 'ou recall 'our state-ent that the basis in sa'in& that the propert' of the private co-plainant /as a public do-ain
/as because it appears s/a-p' and a catch basin *sic+, a- # correctU
AE >es, sir.
NE $o on the basis of the appearance of the lot of the co-plainant, 'ou presu-ed that the lot is a public do-ain, a- # correctU
x x x x
AE >es, sir.
NE $o that is /h' 'ou did not 0no/ that the lot /as o/ned b' the private co-plainant in this caseU
AE >es, sir.
NE Because 'ou did not -a0e a verification fro- the Re&ister of "eeds.
AE >es, sir.
x x x x
NE xxx, >ou did not order 'our surve' tea- to verif' fro- the Re&ional .rial Court if the Cit' 8overn-ent of Cebu filed an
expropriation proceedin& a&ainst this lot of the private co-plainantU
AE No, because the lot /as planted /ith nipa and pasture land.$K9#hi$ Because of the appearance that it is a public do-ain
and the lot /as planted /ith nipa pal-. #t /as a -an&rove area.
NE $o 'ou based 'our presu-ption on the appearance of the lot, is that /hat 'ou -eanU
1=
x x x x
AE xxx >es, sir. *E-phasis supplied.+
9
PetitionerBs functions and duties as Cit' En&ineer, are stated in
$ection =))*b+ of R.A. )132, to /itE
.he en&ineer shall ta0e char&e of the en&ineerin& office and shallE
x x x x
*+ Advise the &overnor or -a'or, as the case -a' be on infrastructure, public /or0s, and other en&ineerin& -attersG
*!+ Ad-inister, coordinate, supervise, and control the construction, -aintenance, i-prove-ent, and repair of roads,
brid&es, and other en&ineerin& and public /or0s proAects of the local &overn-ent unit concernedG
*=+ Provide en&ineerin& services to the local &overn-ent unit concerned, includin& investi&ation and surve',
en&ineerin& desi&ns, feasibilit' studies, and proAect -ana&e-entG *E-phases supplied+
Petitioner cannot hide behind the Arias doctrine, because it is not on all fours /ith his case. #n Arias, six people co-prisin&
heads of offices and their subordinates /ere char&ed /ith violation of $ection ! *e+ of R.A. !21(. .he accused therein
alle&edl' conspired /ith one another in causin&, allo/in&, andTor approvin& the ille&al and irre&ular disburse-ent and
expenditure of public funds. #n ac@uittin& the t/o heads of offices, the Court ruled that the' could not be held liable for the acts
of their dishonest or ne&li&ent subordinates because the' failed to personall' exa-ine each detail of a transaction before
affixin& their si&natures in &ood faith.
#n the present case, petitioner is solel' char&ed /ith violatin& $ection
!*e+ of R.A. !21(. 1e is bein& held liable for &ross and inexcusable ne&li&ence in perfor-in& the duties pri-aril' vested in hi-
b' la/, resultin& in undue inAur' to private co-plainant. .he &ood faith of heads of offices in si&nin& a docu-ent /ill onl' be
appreciated if the', /ith trust and confidence, have relied on their subordinates in /ho- the dut' is pri-aril' lod&ed.
(
Moreover, the undue inAur' to private co-plainant /as established.
.he cuttin& do/n of her pal- trees and the construction of the canal /ere all done /ithout her approval and consent. As a
result, she lost inco-e fro- the sale of the pal- leaves. $he also lost control and use of a part of her land. .he da-a&e to
private co-plainant did not end /ith the canalBs construction. #nfor-al settlers dirtied her private propert' b' usin& the canal
constructed thereon as their lavator', /ashroo-, and /aste disposal site.
<astl', petitioner cannot raise the issue of the existence of a preAudicial @uestion because, as correctl' ar&ued b' respondent,
the R.C in Civil Case No. CEB-1)=9 has alread' ruled that there is none. Petitioner failed to avail hi-self of the re-edies
available to hi- b' la/ in order to @uestion this R.C rulin&. As a result, the Resolution, insofar as he is concerned, is alread'
final and bindin& on hi-. Nevertheless, the @uestion of valid expropriation is irrelevant to this case, in /hich petitioner is bein&
held liable for &ross and inexcusable ne&li&ence in co-pl'in& /ith his duties as Cit' En&ineer, to the detri-ent of private
co-plainant.
?1ERE4%RE, in vie/ of the fore&oin&, the Petition is "EN#E". .he $andi&anba'an "ecision dated = $epte-ber 229 and
Resolution dated 23 March 22( in Case No. 6()1 are hereb' A44#RME".
$% %R"ERE".
Chief 5ustice, Chairperson
?E C%NC;RE
1=!
ARTURO 5. :RION
X
Associate 5ustice
0UCAS P. :ERSAMIN
Associate 5ustice
Associate 5ustice
:IEN3ENI5O 0. RE/ES
Associate 5ustice
C E R . # 4 # C A . # % N
Pursuant to $ection 1!, Article D### of the Constitution, # certif' that the conclusions in the above "ecision had been reached in
consultation before the case /as assi&ned to the /riter of the opinion of the CourtBs "ivision.
Chief 5ustice
SUPREME COURT
Manila
.1#R" "#D#$#%N
G.R. No. 1@50I2 4ebr%"r8 20, 201I
ISA:E0O A. :RA>A, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORA:0E SAN5IGAN:A / AN )17t 59=979o*, Respondents.
" E C # $ # % N
MEN5O>A, J.:
.his is a petition for certiorari filed b' petitioner #sabelo Bra7a )Braza, see0in& to reverse and set aside the %ctober 1, 22(
Resolution
1
of the $andi&anba'an in Cri-inal Case No. $B-29-CRM-2)6, entitled (eo#le v. Robert 8. -ala, et al., as /ell as
its %ctober , 212 Resolution,
den'in& his -otion for reconsideration.

.he Philippines /as assi&ned the hostin& ri&hts for the 1th Association of $outheast Asian Nations )ASEA3,<eaders $u--it
scheduled in "ece-ber 223. #n preparation for this international diplo-atic event /ith the province of Cebu as the
desi&nated venue, the "epart-ent of Public ?or0s and 1i&h/a's )0(MH, identified proAects relative to the i-prove-ent and
rehabilitation of roads and installation of traffic safet' devices and li&htin& facilities. .he then Actin& $ecretar' of the "P?1,
1er-o&enes E. Ebdane, approved the resort to alternative -odes of procure-ent for the i-ple-entation of these proAects due
to the proxi-it' of the A$EAN $u--it.
%ne of the A$EAN $u--it-related proAects to be underta0en /as the installation of street li&htin& s'ste-s alon& the
peri-eters of the Cebu #nternational Convention Center in Mandaue Cit' and the cere-onial routes of the $u--it to up&rade
the appearance of the convention areas and to i-prove ni&ht-ti-e visibilit' for securit' purposes. 4our *=+ out of eleven *11+
street li&htin& proAects /ere a/arded to 4ABM#: Construction and E@uip-ent $uppl' Co-pan', #nc. */AB.'8+ and these
/ere covered b' Contract #.". Nos. 231221, 231222=(, 23122262, and 2312226. Contract #.". No. 23122262, the subAect
transaction of this case, involved the suppl' and installation of street li&htin& facilities alon& the stretch of Mandaue-Mactan
Brid&e 1 to Punta En&aCo $ection in <apu-<apu Cit', /ith an esti-ated proAect cost of P9!,(62,222.22.
?ith the exception of the street li&htin& proAect covered b' Contract #.". No. 231221, the three other proAects /ere bidded out
onl' on Nove-ber 9, 223 or less than t/o *+ /ee0s before the scheduled start of the $u--it. .hereafter, the "P?1 and
4ABM#: executed a Me-orandu- of A&ree-ent ).OA, /hereb' 4ABM#: obli&ed itself to i-ple-ent the proAects at its o/n
expense and the "P?1 to &uarantee the pa'-ent of the /or0 acco-plished. 4ABM#: /as able to co-plete the proAects
/ithin the deadline of ten *12+ da's utili7in& its o/n resources and credit facilities. .he schedule of the international event,
1==
ho/ever, /as -oved b' the national or&ani7ers to 5anuar' (-16, 22) due to t'phoon $enian& /hich struc0 Cebu for several
da's.
After the su--it, a letter-co-plaint /as filed before the Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention
%ffice)(AC(O,, %-buds-an SDisa'as, alle&in& that the A$EAN $u--it street li&htin& proAects /ere overpriced. A panel
co-posin& of three investi&ators conducted a fact-findin& investi&ation to deter-ine the veracit' of the accusation. Bra7a,
bein& the president of 4ABM#:, /as i-pleaded as one of the respondents. %n March 13, 22), the %-buds-an directed the
"epart-ent of Bud&et and Mana&e-ent )0B., and the "P?1 to cease and desist fro- releasin& or disbursin& funds for the
proAects in @uestion.
!
%n March !, 22), the fact-findin& bod' issued its Evaluation Report
=
reco--endin& the filin& of char&es for violation of
$ection !*e+ of Republic Act )R.A., No. !21(, other/ise 0no/n as the Anti-8raft and Corrupt Practice Act, a&ainst the "P?1
officials and e-plo'ees in Re&ion D## and the cities of Mandaue and <apu-lapu, and private contractors 4ABM#: and 8AMP#:
Construction and "evelop-ent, #nc. *5A.('8+. .his report /as filed before the %ffice of the %-buds-an-Disa'as
*O.B"isayas+ for the conduct of a preli-inar' investi&ation and /as doc0eted therein as %MB-D-C-2)-1=-C,
entitled (AC(O4O.B4"isayas v. -ala, et. al.
After the preli-inar' investi&ation, the %MB-Disa'as issued its Resolution,
6
dated 5anuar' =, 229, findin& probable cause to
indict the concerned respondents for violation of $ection !*&+ of R.A. No. !21(. #t /as found that the la-pposts and other
li&htin& facilities installed /ere indeed hi&hl' overpriced after a co-parison of the costs of the -aterials indicated in the
Pro&ra- of ?or0s and Esti-ates )(OME, /ith those in the Bureau of Custo-s )BOC, docu-entsG and that the contracts
entered into bet/een the &overn-ent officials and the private contractors /ere -anifestl' and &rossl' disadvanta&eous to the
&overn-ent.
$ubse@uentl', the %MB-Disa'as filed several infor-ations before the $andi&anba'an for violation of $ec. !*&+ of R.A. !21(
a&ainst the officials of "P?1 Re&ion D##, the officials of the cities of Mandaue and <apu-lapu and private contractors, 4ABM#:
President Bra7a and 8AMP#: Board Chair-an 8erardo $. $urla )Surla,. .he #nfor-ation doc0eted as $B-29- CRM-
2)6
3
)!irst in!ormation, /hich involved the street li&htin& proAect covered b' Contract #.". No. 23122262 /ith 4ABM#:, /as
raffled to the 4irst "ivision of the $andi&anba'an. #t /as alle&ed therein that Bra7a acted in conspirac' /ith the public officials
and e-plo'ees in the co--ission of the cri-e char&ed.
%n 5une 3, 229, Bra7a /as arrai&ned as a precondition to his authori7ation to travel abroad. 1e entered a plea of ,not &uilt'.,
%n Au&ust 1=, 229, the -otions for reinvesti&ation filed b' Arturo Rada7a )Radaza,, the Ma'or of <apu-lapu Cit', and the
"P?1 officials /ere denied b' the $andi&anba'an for lac0 of -erit. Conse@uentl', the' -oved for the reconsideration of said
resolution.
)
%n Au&ust ), 229, Bra7a filed a -otion for reinvesti&ation
9
anchored on the follo/in& &roundsE *1+ the i-port
docu-ents relied upon b' the %MB-Disa'as /ere spurious and falsifiedG *+ constituted ne/ evidence, if considered, /ould
overturn the findin& of probable causeG and *!+ the findin& of overpricin& /as bereft of factual and le&al basis as the sa-e /as
not substantiated b' an' independent canvass of prevailin& -ar0et prices of the subAect la-pposts. 1e pra'ed for the
suspension of the proceedin&s of the case pendin& such reinvesti&ation. .he $andi&anba'an treated Bra7aKs -otion as his
-otion for reconsideration of its Au&ust 1=, 229 Resolution.
%n Nove-ber 1!, 229, Bra7a filed a -anifestation
(
to -a0e of record that he /as -aintainin& his previous plea of ,not &uilt',
/ithout an' condition.
"urin& the proceedin&s held on Nove-ber !, 229, the $andi&anba'an reconsidered its Au&ust 1=, 229 resolution and
directed a reinvesti&ation of the case.
12
Accordin& to the anti-&raft court, the alle&ations to the effect that no independent
canvass /as conducted and that the char&e of overpricin& /as based on falsified docu-ents /ere serious reasons enou&h to
-erit a reinvesti&ation of the case. .he $andi&anba'an said that it could be reasonabl' inferred fro- the 5ul' !2, 229 %rder
of the %-buds-an in %MB-D-C-2)-21=-C that the latter /ould not obAect to the conduct of a reinvesti&ation of all the cases
a&ainst the accused.
Bra7a filed his Manifestation,
11
dated 4ebruar' , 22(, infor-in& the $andi&anba'an of his intention to abandon his previous
-otion for reinvesti&ation. 1e opined that the prosecution /ould -erel' use the reinvesti&ation proceedin&s as a -eans to
en&a&e in a second unbridled fishin& expedition to cure the lac0 of probable cause.
%n March !, 22(, Bra7a filed a -otion
1
in support of the abandon-ent of reinvesti&ation /ith a plea to vacate #nfor-ation,
insistin& that the further reinvesti&ation of the case /ould onl' afford the prosecution a second round of preli-inar'
1=6
investi&ation /hich /ould be vexatious, oppressive and violative of his constitutional ri&ht to a speed' disposition of his case,
/arrantin& its dis-issal /ith preAudice.
After concludin& its reinvesti&ation of the case, the %MB-Disa'as issued its Resolution,
1!
dated Ma' =, 22(,)Su##lemental
Resolution, /hich upheld the findin& of probable cause but -odified the char&e fro- violation of $ec. !*&+ of R.A. No.
!21(
1=
to violation of $ec. !*e+
16
of the sa-e la/. Accordin&l', the prosecution filed its Manifestation and Motion to Ad-it
A-ended #nfor-ation
13
on Ma' 9, 22(.
%n 5ul' 1, 22(, Bra7a filed his Co--ent *to the -otion to ad-it a-ended infor-ation+ /ith Plea for "ischar&e andTor
"is-issal of the Case.
1)
1e clai-ed that the first infor-ation had been rendered ineffective or had been dee-ed vacated b'
the issuance of the $upple-ental Resolution and, hence, his dischar&e fro- the first infor-ation /as in order. B' /a' of an
alternative pra'er, Bra7a sou&ht the dis-issal of the case /ith preAudice clai-in& that his ri&ht to a speed' disposition of the
case had been violated and that the $upple-ental Resolution failed to cure the fatal infir-ities of the 5anuar' =, 229
Resolution since proof to support the alle&ation of overpricin& re-ained /antin&. Bra7a averred that he could not be arrai&ned
under the second infor-ation /ithout violatin& the constitutional proscription a&ainst double Aeopard'.
%n %ctober 1, 22(, the $andi&anba'an issued the first assailed resolution ad-ittin& the A-ended #nfor-ation,
19
dated Ma'
=, 22(, )second 'n!ormation, and den'in& Bra7aKs plea for dis-issal of the cri-inal case. .he $andi&anba'an ruled that
Bra7a /ould not be placed in double Aeopard' should he be arrai&ned ane/ under the second infor-ation because his
previous arrai&n-ent /as conditional. #t continued that even if he /as re&ularl' arrai&ned, double Aeopard' /ould still not set
in because the second infor-ation char&ed an offense different fro-, and /hich did not include or /as necessaril' included in,
the ori&inal offense char&ed. <astl', it found that the dela' in the reinvesti&ation proceedin&s could not be characteri7ed as
vexatious, capricious or oppressive and that it could not be attributed to the prosecution. .he dispositive portion of the said
resolution readsE
WHERE4ORE, pre-ises considered, the .otion to Admit Attached Amended 'n!ormation filed b' the prosecution is
hereb' GRANTE5. .he A-ended #nfor-ation char&in& all the accused therein /ith violation of $ec. ! *e+ of R.A. !21(, bein&
the proper offense, is hereb' A5MITTE5.
Conse@uentl', accused Bra7aKs Alternative Relie! !or 0ismissal of the Case is hereb' 5ENIE5.
<et the arrai&n-ent of all the accused in the A-ended #nfor-ation be set on Nove-ber 19, 22(, at 9E!2 in the -ornin&.
SO OR5ERE5.
1(
%n Nove-ber 3, 22(, Bra7a -oved for reconsideration /ith alternative -otion to @uash the infor-ation
2
reiteratin& his
ar&u-ents that his ri&ht a&ainst double Aeopard' and his ri&ht to a speed' disposition of the case /ere violated /arrantin& the
dis-issal of the cri-inal case /ith preAudice. #n the alternative, Bra7a -oved for the @uashal of the second infor-ation
vi&orousl' assertin& that the sa-e /as fatall' defective for failure to alle&e an' actual, specified and @uantifiable inAur'
sustained b' the &overn-ent as re@uired b' la/ for indict-ent under $ec. !*e+ of R.A. !21(, and that the char&e of overpricin&
/as unfounded.
%n %ctober , 212, the $andi&anba'an issued the second assailed resolution statin&, a-on& others, the denial of Bra7aKs
Motion to Nuash the infor-ation. .he anti-&raft court ruled that the A-ended #nfor-ation /as sufficient in substance as to
infor- the accused of the nature and causes of accusations a&ainst the-. 4urther, it held that the specifics sou&ht to be
alle&ed in the A-ended #nfor-ation /ere evidentiar' in nature /hich could be properl' presented durin& the trial on the -erits.
.he $andi&anba'an also stated that it /as possible to establish the fact of overpricin& if it /ould be proven that the contract
price /as excessive co-pared to the price for /hich 4ABM#: purchased the street li&htin& facilities fro- its supplier. Bra7a
/as effectivel' dischar&ed fro- the first #nfor-ation upon the filin& of the second #nfor-ation but said dischar&e /as /ithout
preAudice to, and /ould not preclude, his prosecution for violation of $ec. !*e+ of R.A. No. !21(. #t added that his ri&ht to
speed' disposition of the case /as not violated inas-uch as the len&th of ti-e spent for the proceedin&s /as in co-pliance
/ith the procedural re@uire-ents of due process. .he $andi&anba'an, ho/ever, dee-ed it proper that a ne/ preli-inar'
investi&ation be conducted under the ne/ char&e. Accordin&l', the $andi&anba'an disposedE
WHERE4ORE, in the li&ht of all the fore&oin&, the separate o-nibus -otions of accused--ovant Rada7a and accused-
-ovants Bernido, Man&&is and %Aeda, insofar as the sou&ht preli-inar' investi&ation is concerned isGRANTE5.
1=3
Accordin&l', this case is hereb' re-anded to the %ffice of the %-buds-anT$pecial Prosecutor for preli-inar' investi&ation of
violation of $ection !*e+ of RA !21(. .he said officeTs are hereb' ordered to co-plete the said preli-inar' investi&ation and to
sub-it to the Court the result of the said investi&ation /ithin sixt' *32+ da's fro- notice.
1o/ever, the Motion for Bill of Particulars of accused-ovants <ala, "indin Alvi7o, 4ernande7, Ba&olor, 8alan& and "iano, the
Motion for Nuashal of #nfor-ation of accused--ovants Bernido, Man&&is and %Aeda, and accused--ovant Bra7aKs Motion to
Nuash, are hereb' "EN#E" for lac0 of -erit.
$% %R"ERE".
1
ISSUES
;ndaunted, Bra7a filed this petition for certiorari ascribin& &rave abuse of discretion on the $andi&anba'an for issuin& the
Resolutions, dated %ctober 1, 22( and %ctober , 212, respectivel'. Bra7a raised the follo/in& issuesE
A* T!e S",9."b"8" co++9tte, .r"=e "b%7e o$ ,97cret9o 9 7%7t"99. t!e '9t!,r"'"# o$ t!e I$or+"t9o
9 =9o#"t9o o$ t!e co7t9t%t9o"# .%"r"tee "."97t ,o%b#e Deo-"r,8, t!e -et9t9oer !"=9. etere, " ="#9, -#e"
", =9.oro%7#8 obDecte, to "8 $%rt!er co,%ct o$ re9=e7t9."t9o ", "+e,+et o$ I$or+"t9o.
:* T!e S",9."b"8" "cte, '9t! .r"=e "b%7e o$ ,97cret9o 9 "##o'9. t!e '9t!,r"'"# ", "+e,+et o$ t!e
I$or+"t9o '9t!o%t -reD%,9ce, t!e -rocee,9.7 be9. $r"%.!t '9t! $#9-&$#o--9., -ro#o.e, ", =e<"t9o%7
,eter+9"t9o o$ -rob"b#e c"%7e, t!ereb8 =9o#"t9. -et9t9oerA7 co7t9t%t9o"# r9.!t to 7-ee,8 ,97-o79t9o o$
!97 c"7e, '"rr"t9. !97 ,97c!"r.e '9t! -reD%,9ce re."r,#e77 o$ t!e "t%re o$ !97 -re=9o%7 "rr"9.+et.
C* T!e S",9."b"8" "cte, '9t! .r"=e "b%7e o$ ,97cret9o 9 ,e89. t!e +ot9o to M%"7! A+e,e,
I$or+"t9o, t!ere be9. o "##e."t9o o$ "ct%"#, 7-ec9$9e,, or M%"t9$9"b#e 9D%r8 7%7t"9e, b8 t!e .o=er+et
"7 reM%9re, b8 #"' )9 c"7e7 9=o#=9. Sec. I )e* o$ RA I01@* '9t! t!e Re9=e7t9."t9o Re-ort 9t7e#$ ",+9tt9.
o recor, t!"t t!e .o=er+et !"7 ot -"9, " 79.#e cet"=o $or t!e $%##8&9+-#e+ete, -roDect.
5* T!e S",9."b"8" "cte, '9t! .r"=e "b%7e o$ ,97cret9o 9 7%7t"99. t!e e' 9,9ct+et %,er Sec. I)e*
o$ R.A. I01@ '9t!o%t t!re7!9. o%t t!e $"t"# 9$9r+9t9e7 t!"t !o%,e, t!e -re=9o%7 $9,9. o$ o=er-r9c9. Q t!e
erroeo%7 re#9"ce o 7-%r9o%7 9+-ort ,oc%+et7 ", #"c( o$ -r9ce c"="77 to e7t"b#97! -re="9#9. +"r(et
-r9ce Q t!ereb8 re,er9. t!e e' Re7o#%t9o $"t"##8 ,e$ect9=e.
Essentiall', Bra7a posits that double Aeopard' has alread' set in on the basis of his ,not &uilt', plea in the first #nfor-ation and,
thus, he can no lon&er be prosecuted under the second #nfor-ation. 1e clai-s that his arrai&n-ent /as unconditional
because the conditions in the plea /ere ineffective for not bein& un-ista0able and cate&orical. 1e theori7es that the /aiver of
his constitutional &uarantee a&ainst double Aeopard' /as not absolute as the sa-e /as @ualified b' the phrase ,as a result of
the pendin& incidents., 1e ar&ues that even &rantin& that his arrai&n-ent /as indeed conditional, the sa-e had beco-e
si-ple and re&ular /hen he validated and confir-ed his plea of ,not &uilt', b' -eans of a /ritten -anifestation /hich
re-oved an' further condition attached to his previous plea.
Bra7a sub-its that the prolon&ed, vexatious and flip-floppin& deter-ination of probable cause violated his ri&ht to a speed'
disposition of the case /hich /ould Austif' the dis-issal of the case /ith preAudice. 4urther, he assails the sufficienc' of the
alle&ation of facts in the second #nfor-ation for failure to assert an' actual and @uantifiable inAur' suffered b' the &overn-ent
in relation to the subAect transaction. 1e points out that the ad-ission in the Reinvesti&ation Report to the effect that the
&overn-ent had not paid a sin&le centavo to 4ABM#: for the full' i-ple-ented proAect, had rendered as invalid, baseless and
frivolous an' indict-ent or prosecution for violation of $ec. !*e+ of R.A. !21(. Bra7a insists that the $upple-ental Resolution
of the %MB-Disa'as /as fatall' defective considerin& that the %-buds-an did not conduct an independent price canvass of
the prevailin& -ar0et price of the subAect la-pposts and -erel' relied on the spurious and false B%C docu-ents to support its
conclusion of overpricin&.
B' /a' of co--ent,
!
the %ffice of the $pecial Prosecutor )OS(, retorts that the /ithdra/al of the first infor-ation and the
subse@uent filin& of the second infor-ation did not place Bra7a in double Aeopard' or violate his ri&ht to speed' disposition of
the case. .he %$P reasons that Bra7a /aived his ri&ht to invo0e double Aeopard' /hen he a&reed to be conditionall'
arrai&ned. #t further ar&ues that even &rantin& that the arrai&n-ent /as unconditional, still double Aeopard' /ould not lie
because the char&e of violation of $ection !*e+ of R.A. !21( in the second infor-ation is a different offense /ith different
ele-ents fro- that of the char&e of violation of $ec. !*&+ in the first #nfor-ation. .he %$P posits that his ri&ht to a speed'
1=)
disposition of the case /as not violated as the dela' in the proceedin&s cannot be considered as oppressive, vexatious or
capricious. Accordin& to the %$P, such dela' /as precipitated b' the -an' pleadin&s filed b' the accused, includin& Bra7a,
and /as in fact incurred to &ive all the accused the opportunities to dispute the accusation a&ainst the- in the interest of
fairness and due process.
.he %$P also sub-its that proof of the actual inAur' suffered b' the &overn-ent and that of overpricin&, are superfluous and
i--aterial for the deter-ination of probable cause because the alle&ed -ode for co--ittin& the offense char&ed in the
second #nfor-ation /as b' &ivin& an' private part' un/arranted benefit, advanta&e or preference. .he second #nfor-ation
sufficientl' alle&es all the ele-ents of the offense for /hich the accused /ere indicted.
T!e Co%rtL7 R%#9.
$i-pl' put, the pivotal issue in this case is /hether the $andi&anba'an acted /ith &rave abuse of discretion in den'in&
Bra7aKs plea for the dis-issal of Case No. $B-29-CRM-2)6 and his subse@uent -otion to @uash the second #nfor-ation,
particularl' on the &rounds of double Aeopard', violation of his ri&ht to a speed' disposition of the case, and failure of the
#nfor-ation to state ever' sin&le fact to constitute all the ele-ents of the offense char&ed.
.he petition is devoid of -erit.
#t is Bra7aBs stance that his constitutional ri&ht under the double Aeopard' clause bars further proceedin&s in Case No. $B-29-
CRM-2)6. 1e asserts that his arrai&n-ent under the first infor-ation /as si-ple and unconditional and, thus, an arrai&n-ent
under the second infor-ation /ould put hi- in double Aeopard'.
.he Court is not persuaded. 1is ar&u-ent cannot stand scrutin'.
.he 5une 3, 229 %rder
=
of the $andi&anba'an readsE
.his -ornin&, accused #sabelo A. Bra7a /as su--oned to arrai&n-ent "7 " -reco,9t9o in authori7in& his travel. .he
arrai&n-ent of the accused /as co,9t9o"# in the sense that 9$ t!e -re7et I$or+"t9o '9## be "+e,e, "7 " re7%#t o$ t!e
-e,9. 9c9,et7 !ere9, !e c"ot 9=o(e !97 r9.!t "."97t ,o%b#e Deo-"r,8 ", !e 7!"## 7%b+9t !9+7e#$ to
"rr"9.+et "e' %,er 7%c! A+e,e, I$or+"t9o. %n the other hand, his conditional arrai&n-ent shall not preAudice his
ri&ht to @uestion such A-ended #nfor-ation, if one shall be filed. .hese conditions /ere thorou&hl' explained to the accused
and his counsel. After consultation /ith his counsel, the accused /illin&l' sub-itted hi-self to such conditional arrai&n-ent.
.hereafter, the accused, '9t! t!e "7797t"ce o$ co%7e#, /as arrai&ned b' readin& the #nfor-ation to hi- in En&lish, a
lan&ua&e understood b' hi-. .hereafter, he pleaded Not 8uilt' to the char&e a&ainst hi-. HE-phases suppliedI
?hile it is true that the practice of the $andi&anba'an of conductin& ,provisional, or ,conditional, arrai&n-ent of the accused
is not specificall' sanctioned b' the Revised #nternal Rules of the Procedure of the $andi&anba'an or b' the re&ular Rules of
Procedure, this Court had tan&entiall' reco&ni7ed such practice in (eo#le v. Es#inosa,
6
provided that the alle&ed conditions
attached to the arrai&n-ent should be ,un-ista0able, express, infor-ed and enli&htened., .he Court further re@uired that the
conditions -ust be expressl' stated in the order disposin& of arrai&n-ent, other/ise, it should be dee-ed si-ple and
unconditional.
3
A careful perusal of the record in the case at bench /ould reveal that the arrai&n-ent of Bra7a under the first infor-ation /as
conditional in nature as it /as a -ere acco--odation in his favor to enable hi- to travel abroad /ithout the $andi&anba'an
losin& its abilit' to conduct trial in absentia in case he /ould abscond. .he $andi&anba'anKs 5une 3, 229 %rder clearl' and
une@uivocall' states that the conditions for Bra7aKs arrai&n-ent as /ell as his travel abroad, that is, that if the #nfor-ation
/ould be a-ended, he shall /aive his constitutional ri&ht to be protected a&ainst double Aeopard' and shall allo/ hi-self to be
arrai&ned on the a-ended infor-ation /ithout losin& his ri&ht to @uestion the sa-e. #t appeared that these conditions /ere
dul' explained to Bra7a and his la/'er b' the anti-&raft court. 1e /as afforded ti-e to confer and consult his la/'er.
.hereafter, he voluntaril' sub-itted hi-self to such conditional arrai&n-ent and entered a plea of ,not &uilt', to the offense of
violation of $ec. !*&+ of R.A. No. !21(.
Deril', the relin@uish-ent of his ri&ht to invo0e double Aeopard' had been convincin&l' laid out. $uch /aiver /as clear,
cate&orical and intelli&ent. #t -a' not be a-iss to state that on the da' of said arrai&n-ent, one of the incidents pendin& for the
consideration of the $andi&anba'an /as an o-nibus -otion for deter-ination of probable cause and for @uashal of
infor-ation or for reinvesti&ation filed b' accused Rada7a. Accordin&l', there /as a real possibilit' that the first infor-ation
1=9
/ould be a-ended if said -otion /as &ranted. Althou&h the o-nibus -otion /as initiall' denied, it /as subse@uentl' &ranted
upon -otion for reconsideration, and a reinvesti&ation /as ordered to be conducted in the cri-inal case.
1avin& &iven his confor-it' and accepted the conditional arrai&n-ent and its le&al conse@uences, Bra7a is no/ estopped
fro- assailin& its conditional nature Aust to convenientl' avoid bein& arrai&ned and prosecuted of the ne/ char&e under the
second infor-ation. Besides, in consonance /ith the rulin& in Cabo v. Sandiganbayan,
)
this Court cannot no/ allo/ Bra7a to
rene&e and turn his bac0 on the above conditions on the -ere pretext that he affir-ed his conditional arrai&n-ent throu&h a
pleadin& deno-inated as Manifestation filed before the $andi&anba'an on Nove-ber 1!, 229. After all, there is no sho/in&
that the anti-&raft court had acted on, -uch less noted, his /ritten -anifestation.
Assu-in&, in gratia argumenti, that there /as a valid and unconditional plea, Bra7a cannot plausibl' rel' on the principle of
double Aeopard' to avoid arrai&n-ent under the second infor-ation because the offense char&ed therein is different and not
included in the offense char&ed under the first infor-ation. .he ri&ht a&ainst double Aeopard' is enshrined in $ection 1 of
Article ### of the Constitution, /hich readsE
No person shall be t/ice put in Aeopard' of punish-ent for the sa-e offense. #f an act is punished b' a la/ and an ordinance
conviction or ac@uittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the sa-e act.
.his constitutionall' -andated ri&ht is procedurall' buttressed b' $ection 1) of Rule 11)
9
of the Revised Rules of Cri-inal
Procedure. .o substantiate a clai- for double Aeopard', the accused has the burden of de-onstratin& the follo/in& re@uisitesE
*1+ a first Aeopard' -ust have attached prior to the secondG *+ the first Aeopard' -ust have been validl' ter-inatedG and *!+ the
second Aeopard' -ust be for the sa-e offense as in the first.
(
As to the first re@uisite, the first Aeopard' attaches onl' *a+ after
a valid indict-entG *b+ before a co-petent courtG *c+ after arrai&n-ent, *d+ /hen a valid plea has been enteredG and *e+ /hen
the accused /as ac@uitted or convicted, or the case /as dis-issed or other/ise ter-inated /ithout his express consent.
!2
.he
test for the third ele-ent is /hether one offense is identical /ith the other or is an atte-pt to co--it it or a frustration thereofG
or /hether the second offense includes or is necessaril' included in the offense char&ed in the first infor-ation.
Bra7a, ho/ever, contends that double Aeopard' /ould still attach even if the first infor-ation char&ed an offense different fro-
that char&ed in the second infor-ation since both char&es arose fro- the sa-e transaction or set of facts. Rel'in& on the
anti@uated rulin& of (eo#le v. 0el Carmen,
!1
Bra7a clai-s that an accused should be shielded a&ainst bein& prosecuted for
several offenses -ade out fro- a sin&le act.
#t appears that Bra7a has obviousl' lost si&ht, if he is not alto&ether a/are, of the rulin& in Suero v. (eo#le
!
/here it /as held
that the sa-e cri-inal act -a' &ive rise to t/o or -ore separate and distinct offensesG and that no double Aeopard' attaches
as lon& as there is variance bet/een the ele-ents of the t/o offenses char&ed. .he doctrine of double Aeopard' is a revered
constitutional safe&uard a&ainst exposin& the accused fro- the ris0 of bein& prosecuted t/ice for the sa-e offense, and not a
different one.
.here is si-pl' no double Aeopard' /hen the subse@uent infor-ation char&es another and different offense, althou&h arisin&
fro- the sa-e act or set of acts.
!!
Prosecution for the sa-e act is not prohibited. ?hat is forbidden is the prosecution for the
sa-e offense.
#n the case at bench, there is no dispute that the t/o char&es ste--ed fro- the sa-e transaction. A co-parison of the
ele-ents of violation of $ec. !*&+ of R.A. No. !21( and those of violation of $ec. !*e+ of the sa-e la/, ho/ever, /ill disclose
that there is neither identit' nor exclusive inclusion bet/een the t/o offenses. 4or conviction of violation of $ec. !*&+, the
prosecution -ust establish the follo/in& ele-entsE
1. .he offender is a public officerG
. 1e entered into a contract or transaction in behalf of the &overn-entG and
!. .he contract or transaction is -anifestl' and &rossl' disadvanta&eous to the &overn-ent.
!=
%n the other hand, an accused -a' be held cri-inall' liable of violation of $ection !*e+ of R.A. No. !21(, provided that the
follo/in& ele-ents are presentE
1=(
. .he accused -ust have acted /ith -anifest partialit', evident bad faith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&enceG and
!. 1is action caused undue inAur' to an' part', includin& the &overn-ent or &ave an' private part' un/arranted
!6
Althou&h violation of $ec. !*&+ of R.A. No. !21( and violation of $ec. !*e+ of the sa-e la/ share a co--on ele-ent, the
accused bein& a public officer, the latter is not inclusive of the for-er. .he essential ele-ents of each are not included a-on&
or do not for- part of those enu-erated in the other. 4or double Aeopard' to exist, the ele-ents of one offense should ideall'
enco-pass or include those of the other. ?hat the rule on double Aeopard' prohibits refers to identit' of ele-ents in the t/o
offenses.
!3
Next, Bra7a contends that the lon& dela' that characteri7ed the proceedin&s for the deter-ination of probable cause has
resulted in the trans&ression of his constitutional ri&ht to a speed' disposition of the case. Accordin& to hi-, the proceedin&s
have un@uestionabl' been -arred /ith vexatious, capricious and oppressive dela' -eritin& the dis-issal of Case No. $B-29-
CRM-2)6. Bra7a clai-s that it too0 the %MB -ore than t/o *+ 'ears to char&e hi- and his co-accused /ith violation of
$ection !*e+ in the second infor-ation.
.he petitionerKs contention is untenable.
$ection 13, Article ### of the Constitution declares in no uncertain ter-s that ,HAIll persons shall have the ri&ht to a speed'
disposition of their cases before all Audicial, @uasi-Audicial, or ad-inistrative bodies., .he ri&ht to a speed' disposition of a case
is dee-ed violated onl' /hen the proceedin&s are attended b' vexatious, capricious, and oppressive dela's, or /hen
unAustified postpone-ents of the trial are as0ed for and secured, or /hen /ithout cause or Austifiable -otive, a lon& period of
ti-e is allo/ed to elapse /ithout the part' havin& his case tried.
!)
.he constitutional &uarantee to a speed' disposition of
cases is a relative or flexible concept.
!9
#t is consistent /ith dela's and depends upon the circu-stances. ?hat the Constitution
prohibits are unreasonable, arbitrar' and oppressive dela's /hich render ri&hts nu&ator'.
!(
#n 0ela (e6a v. Sandiganbayan,
=2
the Court laid do/n certain &uidelines to deter-ine /hether the ri&ht to a speed' disposition
has been violated, as follo/sE
.he concept of speed' disposition is relative or flexible. A -ere -athe-atical rec0onin& of the ti-e involved is not sufficient.
Particular re&ard -ust be ta0en of the facts and circu-stances peculiar to each case. 1ence, the doctrinal rule is that in the
deter-ination of /hether that ri&ht has been violated, the factors that -a' be considered and balanced are as follo/sE *1+ the
len&th of the dela'G *+ the reasons for the dela'G *!+ the assertion or failure to assert such ri&ht b' the accusedG and *=+ the
preAudice caused b' the dela'.
;sin& the fore&oin& 'ardstic0, the Court finds that Bra7aBs ri&ht to speed' disposition of the case has not been infrin&ed.
Record sho/s that the co-plaint a&ainst Bra7a and t/ent'-three *!+ other respondents /as filed in 5anuar' 22) before the
PACP%-Disa'as. After the extensive in@uiries and data-&atherin&, the PACP%-Disa'as ca-e out /ith an evaluation report on
March !, 22) concludin& that the installed la-pposts and li&htin& facilities /ere hi&hl' overpriced.
=1
PACP%-Disa'as
reco--ended that the respondents be char&ed /ith violation of $ection !*e+ of R.A. No. !21(. .hereafter, the investi&ator'
process /as set in -otion before the %MB-Disa'as /here the respondents filed their respective counter-affidavits and
sub-itted volu-inous docu-entar' evidence to refute the alle&ations a&ainst the-. %/in& to the fact that the controvers'
involved several transactions and var'in& -odes of participation b' the = respondents and that their respective
responsibilities had to be established, the %MB-Disa'as resolved the co-plaint onl' on 5anuar' =, 229 /ith the
reco--endation that the respondents be indicted for violation of $ection !*&+ of R.A. !21(. .he Court notes that Bra7a never
decried the ti-e spent for the preli-inar' investi&ation. .here /as no sho/in& either that there /ere unreasonable dela's in
the proceedin&s or that the case /as 0ept in idle slu-ber.
After the filin& of the infor-ation, the succeedin& events appeared to be part of a valid and re&ular course of the Audicial
proceedin&s not attended b' capricious, oppressive and vexatious dela's. %n Nove-ber !, 229, $andi&anba'an ordered the
reinvesti&ation of the case upon -otion of accused Rada7a, petitioner Bra7a and other accused "P?1 officials. #n the course
of the reinvesti&ation, the %MB-Disa'as furnished the respondents /ith the additional docu-entsTpapers it secured, especiall'
the Co--ission on Audit Report, for their verification, co--ent and sub-ission of countervailin& evidence.
=
.hereafter, the
%MB-Disa'as issued its $upple-ental Resolution, dated Ma' =, 22(, findin& probable cause a&ainst the accused for violation
of $ection !*e+ of R.A. !21(.
162
#ndeed, the dela' can hardl' be considered as ,vexatious, capricious and oppressive., .he co-plexit' of the factual and le&al
issues, the nu-ber of persons char&ed, the various pleadin&s filed, and the volu-e of docu-ents sub-itted, prevent this
Court fro- 'ieldin& to the petitionerBs clai- of violation of his ri&ht to a speed' disposition of his case. Rather, it appears that
Bra7a and the other accused /ere -erel' afforded sufficient opportunities to ventilate their respective defenses in the interest
of Austice, due process and fair investi&ation. .he re-investi&ation -a' have inadvertentl' contributed to the further dela' of the
proceedin&s but this process cannot be dispensed /ith because it /as done for the protection of the ri&hts of the accused.
Albeit the conduct of investi&ation -a' hold bac0 the pro&ress of the case, the sa-e /as essential so that the ri&hts of the
accused /ill not be co-pro-ised or sacrificed at the altar of expedienc'.
=!
.he bare alle&ation that it too0 the %MB -ore than
t/o *+ 'ears to ter-inate the investi&ation and file the necessar' infor-ation /ould not suffice.
==
As earlier stated, -ere
-athe-atical rec0onin& of the ti-e spent for the investi&ation is not a sufficient basis to conclude that there /as arbitrar' and
inordinate dela'.
.he dela' in the deter-ination of probable cause in this case should not be cause for an unfettered abdication b' the anti-&raft
court of its dut' to tr' and deter-ine the controvers' in Case No. $B-29-CRM-2)6. .he protection under the ri&ht to a speed'
disposition of cases should not operate to deprive the &overn-ent of its inherent prero&ative in prosecutin& cri-inal cases.
4inall', Bra7a challen&es the sufficienc' of the alle&ations in the second infor-ation because there is no indication of an'
actual and @uantifiable inAur' suffered b' the &overn-ent. 1e then ar&ues that the facts under the second infor-ation are
inade@uate to support a valid indict-ent for violation of $ection !*e+ of R.A. No. !21(.
.he petitionerKs si-ple s'llo&is- -ust fail.
$ection ! *e+ of R.A. No. !21( statesE
$ec. !. Corrupt practices of public officers S #n addition to acts or o-ission of public officers alread' penali7ed b' existin& la/,
the follo/in& shall constitute corrupt practices of an' public officer and are hereb' declared to be unla/fulE
advanta&e or preference in the dischar&e of his official ad-inistrative or Audicial functions throu&h -anifest partialit', evident
#n a catena of cases, this Court has held that there are t/o *+ /a's b' /hich a public official violates $ection !*e+ of R.A. No.
!21( in the perfor-ance of his functions, na-el'E *1+ b' causin& undue inAur' to an' part', includin& the 8overn-entG or *+ b'
&ivin& an' private part' an' un/arranted benefit, advanta&e or preference.
=6
.he accused -a' be char&ed under either -ode
or under both.$K9#hi$ .he disAunctive ter- ,or, connotes that either act @ualifies as a violation of $ection !*e+ of R.A. No.
!21(.
=3
#n other /ords, the presence of one /ould suffice for conviction.
#t -ust be e-phasi7ed that Bra7a /as indicted for violation of $ection !*e+ of R.A. No. !21( under the second -ode. ,.o be
found &uilt' under the second -ode, it suffices that the accused has &iven unAustified favor or benefit to another, in the
exercise of his official, ad-inistrative and Audicial functions.,
=)
.he ele-ent of da-a&e is not re@uired for violation of $ection
!*e+ under the second -ode.
=9
#n the case at bench, the second infor-ation alle&ed, in substance, that accused public officers and e-plo'ees, dischar&in&
official or ad-inistrative function, to&ether /ith Bra7a, confederated and conspired to &ive 4 ABM#: un/arranted benefit or
preference b' a/ardin& to it Contract #.". No. 23122262 throu&h -anifest partialit' or evident bad faith, /ithout the conduct of
a public biddin& and co-pliance /ith the re@uire-ent for @ualification contrar' to the provisions of R.A. No. (19= or the
8overn-ent Procure-ent Refor- Act. $ettled is the rule that private persons, /hen actin& in conspirac' /ith public officers,
-a' be indicted and, if found &uilt', held liable for the pertinent offenses under $ection ! of R.A. No. ! 21(.
=(
Considerin& that
all the ele-ents of the offense of violation of $ec. !*e+ /ere alle&ed in the second infor-ation, the Court finds the sa-e to be
sufficient in for- and substance to sustain a conviction.
At an' rate, the presence or absence of the ele-ents of the cri-e is evidentiar' in nature and is a -atter of defense that -a'
be passed upon after a full-blo/n trial on the -erits.
62
#t is not proper, therefore, to resolve the issue ri&ht at the outset /ithout
the benefit of a full-blo/n trial. .his issue re@uires a fuller ventilation and exa-ination.
All told, this Court finds that the $andi&anba'an did not co--it &rave abuse of discretion a-ountin& to lac0 or excess of
Aurisdiction, -uch less did it &ravel' err, in den'in& Bra7aKs -otion to @uash the infor-ationTdis-iss Case No. $B-29-CRM-
161
2)6. .his rulin&, ho/ever, is /ithout preAudice to the actual -erits of this cri-inal case as -a' be sho/n durin& the trial
before the court a 7uo.
WHERE4ORE, the petition for certiorari is 5ENIE5. .he $andi&anba'an is hereb' 5IRECTE5 to dispose of Case No. $B-29-
CRM- 2)6 /ith reasonable dispatch.
$% %R"ERE".
1OSE CATRA0 MEN5O>A
Associate 5ustice
?E C%NC;RE
Associate 5ustice
Chairperson
X
Associate 5ustice
RO:ERTO A. A:A5
Associate 5ustice
MAR3IC MARIO 3ICTOR 4. 0EONEN
Associate 5ustice
A . . E $ . A . # % N
of the pinion of the CourtKs "ivision.
Associate 5ustice
C E R . # 4 # C A . # % N
Pursuant to $ection l!, Article D### of the Constitution and the "ivision ChairpersonKs Attestation, # certif' that the conclusions
in the above "ecision had been reached in consultation before the case /as assi&ned to the /riter of the opinion of the
CourtKs "ivision.
Chief 5ustice
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. @6@55 A%.%7t 18, 1@@I
1UAN CONRA5O, petitioner,
vs.
THE SAN5IGAN:A/AN AN5 THE PEOP0E O4 THE PHI0IPPINES, respondents.
16
%ose A. Rico !or #etitioner.
>he Solicitor 5eneral !or #ublic res#ondents.

3ITUG, J.:
.he $andi&anba'an convicted the petitioner, 5uan Coronado, for violation of $ection ! *f+ of Republic Act No. !21(, other/ise
0no/n as the Anti-8raft and Corrupt Practices Act, fro- /hich the decision
1
this petition for revie/ on certiorari /as filed.
1erein petitioner, then a ne/l' hired Process $erver in the office of the Cler0 of Court of the Re&ional .rial Court *,R.C,+ of
Antipolo, Ri7al, /as char&ed, alon& /ith Cesar Dilla-or and %scar Cain&, in an infor-ation, dated 3 Nove-ber 1(96, and
doc0eted as Cri-inal Case No. 112!6 *p. ), Rollo+. .he arrai&n-ent /as postponed for several ti-es because of a pendin&
reinvesti&ation then bein& conducted b' the .anodba'an. After the reinvesti&ation, an ,%-nibus Motion to Ad-it A-ended
#nfor-ation and to "is-iss the case A&ainst Accused Cesar Dilla-or and %scar Cain&,, dated 2( 4ebruar' 1(9), /as filed b'
the .anodba'an *'bid.+.
%n ! $epte-ber 1(9), the respondent court &ranted the o-nibus -otion above-referred to the thereb' ad-itted the
A-ended #nfor-ation a&ainst the petitioner, thus F
.hat durin& the period fro- Au&ust !1, 1(9= to 4ebruar' 1, 1(96 in the Municipalit' of Antipolo, Province of
Ri7al, Philippines and /ithin the Aurisdiction of this 1onorable Court, accused 5;AN C%NRA"%, 5R., a
public officer bein& the Process $erver of all the Re&ional .rial Court of Antipolo, Ri7al, did then and there
/ilfull' and unla/full' ne&lect and refuse to serve /ithin reasonable ti-e, a cop' of the %rder dated 5ul' 11,
1(9=, issued b' Executive 5ud&e Antonio D. Benedicto in Civil Case
No. (2-A entitled ,Pina&0a-ali&an #ndo-A&ro- "evelop-ent Corporation, et al. v. Mariano <i-, et al.,,
den'in& plaintiffsK Motion for Reconsideration of the %rder of 5anuar' !, 1(9= dis-issin& their co-plaint for
Cancellation of .itle, upon plaintiffsK counsel, Att'. Patrocinio Palano&, /ithout sufficient Austification, despite
due de-and and re@uest -ade b' defendant Mariano <i-, the cop' of said %rder of 5ul' 11, 1(9= bein&
served on plaintiffsK counsel onl' on 4ebruar' , 1(96, for the purpose of &ivin& undue advanta&e in favor
of the plaintiffs and discri-ination a&ainst defendants in said case b' dela'in& the finalit' of the order of
dis-issal and allo/in& the plaintiffs to prolon& their sta' on the land in liti&ation.
C%N.RAR> .% <A?. *p. 9, rollo+
Paraphrasin& the $andi&anba'an, the chronolo&ical recitation of events, based in part on the stipulation of facts and the rest
on the evidence adduced durin& the trial, -a' be stated, as follo/sE
/irst F .he Re&ional .rial Court of Ri7al *Br. )1+ issued an %rder, dated 11 5ul' 1(9=, den'in& plaintiffsK -otion for
reconsideration of the order of ! 5anuar' 1(9=, that dis-issed the co-plaint in Civil Case No. (2-A, entitled
,Pina&0a-ali&an #ndo-A&ro-"evelop-ent Corporation, et al. v. Mariano <i- et al.,G
Second F %n !1 Au&ust 1(9=, the co-plainin& /itness Mariano <i-, one of the defendants in the above civil case, learned
the rendition of the %rder and the fact that it had not 'et then been served upon the plaintiffs. <i- left ,a&itated about the loss
of eleven da's before the decisionKs period of finalit' had co--enced to run,, and he, therefore, -ade representations /ith
the Executive 5ud&e, the 1on. Antonio Benedicto, to have the %rder served on Att'. Patrocinio Palano&, the counsel for the
plaintiffsG
>hird F .he accused, a process server, /as directed to effect the service. 1is first atte-pt /as unsuccessful because he
could not locate the address of Att'. Palano&. .he accused a&ain tried on $epte-ber 2, 1(9=, and althou&h this ti-e he
found the address, Att'. Palano& and his entire fa-il' had apparentl' &one out for the /ee0end. .he accused found onl' a
/o-an, not a -e-ber of the fa-il' of Att'. Palano&, /ho had onl' been as0ed to /atch over the house. Accused Coronado
did not thus leave the %rderG
/ourth F %n 4ebruar' 1(96, <i- /ent bac0 to the courthouse /here he /as infor-ed that the case had -ean/hile been
sent to the archives to&ether /ith ( other cases *Exhibit ,E,^ *'bid.+
16!
/i!th F %n 6 4ebruar' 1(96, <i- returned to the courthouse and, exa-inin& the records, he observed additional
unnu-bered pa&es that include, a-on& other thin&s, a+ a return, dated = $epte-ber 1(9= *Exhibit ,4,+, si&ned b' accused
Coronado statin& the plaintiffKs counsel, Att'. Palano&, could not be contactedG b+ an entr' at the foot of the %rder of 11 5ul'
1(9= *Exhibit ,A-,+ to the effect that Att'. Palano& had received the %rder on 6 4ebruar' 1(96G and *c+ a return, dated 6
4ebruar' 1(96 *Exhibit ,B,+ that the %rder had indeed been served on plaintiffs *pp. !6-!3, Rollo+.
%n the basis of the fore&oin&, particularl' the 6--onth dela' in the service of the court order, the $andi&anba'an convicted
herein petitioner of havin& violated $ection ! *f+ of Republic Act No. !21( and i-posed upon hi- the indeter-inate penalt' of
i-prison-ent for six *3+ 'ears and one *1+ -onth to nine *(+ 'ears and one *1+ da'.
1ence, this petition.
.he pivotal issue in this case is /hether or not the failure of the petitioner to successfull' serve the 11 5ul' 1(9= %rder, &iven
the above settin&s, /arrants his conviction under $ection !*f+ of the Anti-8raft and Corrupt Practices Act.
.he pertinent provision of the la/ *Republic Act No. !21(+ alle&ed to have been violated providesE
$ec. !. Corrupt Practices of Public %fficersE .he follo/in& shall constitute corrupt practices of an' public
officer and are hereb' declared unla/fulE
xxx xxx xxx
*f+ Ne&lectin& or refusin&, after due de-and or /ithout sufficient Austification, to act /ithin
a reasonable ti-e on an' -atter pendin& before hi- for the purpose of obtainin&, directl'
or indirectl' fro- an' person interested in the -atter so-e pecuniar' or -aterial benefit or
advanta&e in favor of or discri-inatin& a&ainst another interested part'.
Ad-ittedl', the ele-ents of the offense are thatE
a+ .he offender is a public officerG
b+ .he said officer has ne&lected or has refused to act /ithout sufficient Austification after due de-and or re@uest has been
-ade on hi-G
c+ Reasonable ti-e has elapsed fro- such de-and or re@uest /ithout the public officer havin& acted on the -atter pendin&
before hi-G and
d+ $uch failure to so act is ,for the purpose of obtainin&, directl' or indirectl', fro- an' person interested in the -atter so-e
pecuniar' or -aterial benefit or advanta&e in favor of an interested part', or discri-inatin& a&ainst another.
.he attendance of the first three ele-ents in this case can hardl' be disputed. .he controvers', ho/ever, lies on the fourth
ele-ent.
?e a&ree /ith $andi&anba'an that, indeed, there /as failure on the part of the petitioner, a public officer, to observe due
dili&ence in his assi&ned tas0G let us call it one of ne&lect, a broad ter- /hich is defined as a failure to do /hat can be done
and /hat is re@uired to be done *?estKs le&al .hesaurusT"ictionar', 1(93+. #n its &eneric sense, it /ould not -atter /hether
such refusal is intended or unintended. But here is not the real issue. .o /arrant conviction for a violation of $ection ! *f+ of the
Anti-8raft and Corrupt Practices Act, the la/ itself additionall' re@uires that the accusedKs dereliction, besides bein& /ithout
Austification, must be !or the #ur#ose o! *a+ obtainin&, directl' or indirectl', fro- an' person interested in the -atter so-e
pecuniar' or -aterial benefit or advanta&e in favor of an interested part' or *b+ discri-inatin& a&ainst another interested part'.
.he severit' of the penalt' i-posed b' the la/ leaves no doubt that the le&islative intent is to consider this ele-ent to be
indispensable.
.he record is bereft of evidence, albeit alle&ed, to indicate that the petitionerKs failure to act /as -otivated b' an' &ain or
benefit for hi-self or 0no/in&l' for the purpose of favorin& an interested part' or discri-inatin& a&ainst another. #t is not
enou&h that an advanta&e in favor of one part', as a&ainst another, /ould result fro- one ne&lect or refusal. 1ad it been so,
16=
the la/ /ould have perhaps instead said, ,or as a conse7uence of such ne&lect or refusal undue advanta&e is derived b' an
interested part' or another is undul' discri-inated a&ainst.,
<et it a&ain be saidE #t has al/a's been the avo/ed polic' of the la/ that before an accused is convicted of a cri-e, his &uilt
-ust be proved be'ond reasonable doubt, and the burden of that proof rests upon the prosecution. .he strin&enc' /ith /hich
/e have scrupulousl' observed this rule needs no further explanationG suffice it to sa' that it behooves us to do no less
/henever at sta0e is the life or libert' of a person. And so it is, not onl' in the appreciation of the evidence but li0e/ise in the
application and interpretation of the la/.
#t is not that ?e are condonin& the -isconduct of the petitioner, nor that /e are un-indful of the preAudice that -a' have been
sustained b' the private respondent, but the le&al re-edies lie else/here, not in the instant action.
?1ERE4%RE, the Aud&-ent appealed fro- a REDER$E" and the petitioner, 5uan Coronado, is hereb' ac@uitted of the
char&e on reasonable doubt.
$% %R"ERE".
3arvasa C.%., Cruz, /eliciano, (adilla, Bidin, 5ri6o4A7uino, Regalado, 0avide, %r., Romero, 3ocon, Bellosillo, .elo, 2uiason
and (uno, %%., concur.

Panel Law 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Panel Law 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Republic of the Philippines

petitioner $outhern 1e-isphere En&a&e-ent Net/or0, #nc., a non-

a&ainst officers or directors of the $tandard Chartered Ban0 *$CB+, Philippine

1e also clai-ed that the institution

of the Sandiganbayan in Cri-inal Case No. =)=1,

findin& petitioners &uilt' be'ond reasonable doubt of violation of

den'in& petitionerBs -otion for reconsideration.

dated 1= Ma' 229 of the Court of Appeals in CA-8.R.

dated = $epte-ber 229 and Resolution

den'in& his -otion for reconsideration.

You might also like