7/24/2019 G.R. No. 184496

1/5

Today is Monday, November 02, 2015 Today is Monday, Nove2015

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. NO. 184496 December 2, 2013

HADJI HASHIM ABDUL,Petitioner,vs.HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

"Where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, and adjudication ther

would be of no practical use or value as courts do not sit to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectuachallenging."1

Challenged in the instant Petition for Certiorari2with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) is the May 2008 Resolution3 of respondent Sandiganbayan (respondent) in Criminal Case No. 27744. Said Resolutsuspended for a period of 90 days petitioner), Tan-Alem Abdul (Abdul) and Candidato S. Domado (Domado) frtheir respective official positions as Municipal Mayor, Human Resource Management Officer, and Budget Officethe Municipality of Mulondo, Lanao del Sur. Likewise questioned is respondents Resolution4of September 2, 20denying petitioner s Motion for Reconsideration.

The UndisputedFacts

Petitioner was first elected as municipal mayor of Mulondo, Lanao del Sur in the May 1998 election and re-elec

for a second term in the May 2001 election. It was while serving his second term as municipal mayor when Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao filed an Information on September 5, 2002 charging petitioner, along with Aband Domado, with falsification of public documents, defined and penalized under Article 171(2) of the Revised PeCode (RPC).5

The Information6states:

That sometime on 22 April 1999, or prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Mulondo, Lanao del Sur, awithin the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused HADJI HASHIM ABDUL, being then the Municipal Maof the Municipality of Mulondo, Lanao del Sur, a high ranking official, TAN-ALEM ABDUL, being then the HumResource Management Officer, and CANDIDATO S. DOMADO, being then the Budget Officer, all public officetaking advantage of their official positions and committing the offense in relation to their office, did then and thwillfully, unlawfully and feloniously, conspiring with one another, make it appear that Engr. Zubair F. Murad

Municipal Engineer prepared and signed the Local Budget Preparation Form Nos. 152, 153 and 154 known as Program Appropriation and Obligation by Object, Personnel Schedule and Functional Statement and GeneObjective, respectively, when in truth and in fact, as the accused well knew that said Zubair F. Murad was nevemployed as Municipal Engineer of the said Municipality, to the damage and prejudice of public intereCONTRARY TO LAW.7

During the arraignment, petitioner and his co-accused pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Before commencement of the trial, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) moved for the suspension pendente litethe petitioner and his co-accused as mandated under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019) or the AGraft and Corrupt Practices Act,8which provides:

Section 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. Any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecut

under a valid information under this Act or under Title Seven, Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offeinvolving fraud upon government or public funds or property whether as a simple or as complex offense and

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt1

7/24/2019 G.R. No. 184496

2/5

whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. x x x

The OSP averred that suspension under the above-quoted section is mandatory. In his Comment,9 petitioasserted that he cannot be suspended pendente lite because the crime for which he was charged is not amothose enumerated under Section 13 of RA 3019. He was not charged under RA 3019 or Title Seven, Book II of RPC. Neither does fraud upon government or public funds or property cover falsification of public document fraud per se, an ingredient of the offense of falsification of public document. Finding the charge as squarely falwithin the ambit of Section 13, RA 3019, respondent granted in its Resolution10of October 9, 2003 the OSPs moand accordingly ordered the suspension pendente lite of the petitioner and his co-accused from their respecpositions and from any other public office which they may now or hereafter be holding for a period of 90 days frnotice. Petitioner moved for reconsideration,11but the same was denied in a Resolution12dated February 11, 20Thus, on March 2, 2004 he filed with this Court a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for TRO13 alleging that

suspension order was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. In a Resolution14daMarch 10, 2004, the Court dismissed the Petition, which dismissal attained finality on July 12, 2004. 15 Tsuspension order, however, was no longer implemented because it was superseded by the expiration of petitionesecond term as municipal mayor and his unsuccessful bid for re-election during the May 2004 election. During May 2007 election, petitioner emerged as the winner in the mayoralty race and again sat as Mayor of MulonLanao del Sur. On February 21, 2008, the OSP once again moved for his and his co-accuseds suspenspendente lite to implement respondents final and executory suspension order of October 9, 2003. 16 In Comment and Opposition, 17 petitioner called attention to respondents pronouncement in its Resolution18 daDecember 20, 2004 that his defeat in the May 2004 election has effectively rendered his suspension moot aacademic. Nonetheless, respondent, through its Resolution of May 14, 2008, 19ordered anew the suspensionpetitioner from his present position for a period of 90 days. Petitioner moved for reconsideration,20but the same wdenied in a Resolution21 dated September 2, 2008. Undeterred, petitioner filed on October 2, 2008 the presPetition for Certiorari with prayer for TRO submitting again the sole issue of whether the Sandiganbayan acted wgrave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in suspending him pendente lite from position as mayor of Mulondo, Lanao del Sur. On December 3, 2008, the Court issued a TRO enjoining implementation of the suspension Order.22Subsequently, on November 24, 2009 while the present Petition wpending before the Court, respondent Sandiganbayan promulgated its Decision23acquitting petitioner and his accused of the offense charged.

Our Ruling

We dismiss the Petition for being moot and academic. For a court to exercise its power of adjudication, there mbe an actual case or controversy. Thus, in Mattel, Inc. v. Francisco24we have ruled that "[w]here the issue hbecome moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, and an adjudication thereof would be of no practuse or value as courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest howev

intellectually challenging." In the present case, the acquittal of herein petitioner operates as a supervening evthat mooted the present Petition. Any resolution on the validity or invalidity of the issuance of the ordersuspension could no longer affect his rights as a ranking public officer, for legally speaking he did not commit offense charged. Notwithstanding the mootness of the present Petition, petitioner nevertheless implores us to maa clear and categorical resolution on whether the offense of falsification of public documents under Article 171 of RPC is included in the term "fraud" as contemplated under Section 13 of RA 3019. As earlier quoted, to warrant suspension of a public officer under the said Section 13, he must be charged with an offense (1) under RA 3019(2) under Title Seven, Book II of the RPC, or (3) involving fraud upon government or public funds or propeAdmittedly, petitioner in this case was not charged under RA 3019. Neither was he charged under Title SevenBook II of the RPC as the crime of falsification of public documents under Article 171 of the RPC is covered by TFour, 26Book II thereof. The relevant question now is whether falsification of public documents is consideredfraud upon government or public funds or property. This issue is not of first impression. Close but not exactly simwith the factual backdrop of this case is Bustillo v. Sandiganbayan.27Petitioner therein was charged with falsify

municipal vouchers which, as used in government, are official documents.28He asserted the said offense does involve "fraud or property;" hence, his suspension finds no basis in Section 13 of RA 3019. In construing the te"fraud" as used in Section 13 of RA 3019, the Court held in said case that the same is understood in its genesense, that is, referring to "an instance or an act of trickery or deceit especially when involving misrepresentation.

And since vouchers are official documents signifying a cash outflow from government coffers, falsification therinvariably involves fraud upon public funds.30Again, in Bartolo v. Sandiganbayan, Second Division, 31 the Cociting Bustillo underscored the fact that "the term fraud as used in Section 13 of [RA] 3019 is understood in generic sense."32

In upholding the suspension of therein petitioner, the Court held that "the allegation of falsification of the three pudocuments by making it appear that the flood control project was 100% complete [when in fact it was nconstitutes fraud upon public funds."33

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt9

7/24/2019 G.R. No. 184496

3/5

In the same vein, the act imputed against petitioner constitutes fraud upon government or public funds. This waptly explained by respondent in its Resolution34dated October 9, 2003, viz:

x x x The existence of fraud in the commission of the offense charged can be easily associated from the natie of acts of herein accused when they made it appear and signed Local udget Preparation Forms No. 152, 153 and 1when in truth and in fact, said Engr. Murad was not even an employee of the Municipality of Mulondo, Lanao del SAs a consequence of this act, several projects, their costs and extent, were authorized without the carassessment of [the] legitimate municipalengineer. This alone is sufficient to justify the Courts conclusion thindeed, the alleged act of accused constitutes fraud upon the government.35

In fine , we reiterate that he issue on the validity or invalidity of petitioners suspension had mooted considering acquittal by the Sandiganbayan in its November 24, 2009 Decision. As such, there is no justiciable controversy

this Court to adjucate.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED for being moot and academic.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLOAssociate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIOAssociate JusticeChairperson

ARTURO D. BRIONAssociate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZAssociate Justice

ESTELLA M. PERLAS-BERNABEAssociate Justice

A T T E S T A T I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assign

to the writer of the opinion of the Courts DIVISION

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

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

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultaion before the case was assigned to the writethe opinion of the Courts Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENOChief Justice

Footnotes

1Mattel, Inc. v. Francisco , 582 Phil. 492, 501 (2008)

2Rollo, pp.2-23

3Sandiganbayan rollo, Vol. 3, pp. 317-321; penned by Associate Justice Ma. Cristina G. Coretz-Estrada aconcurred in by Associate Justices Roland B. Jurado and Rodolfo A. Ponferrada.

4 Id., Vol. 4 pp. 46-52; penned by Associate Justice Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada and consurred inAssociate Justices Roland B. Jurado and Napoleon E. Inoturan.

5Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee; or notary or ecclesiastical minister. - The penalty

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#fnt34

7/24/2019 G.R. No. 184496

4/5

prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee,notary who, taking advantage of his official function, shall falsify a document by committing any of following acts: x x x x 2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding whthey did not in fact so participate;

6Sandiganbayan rollo, Vol. 3, p. 1.

7Id.

8See Motion To Suspend Accused Pendente Lite, id., Vol. 1, pp. 322-329

9Id. at 337-341.

10Id., Vol. 2, pp. 17-23; penned by Presiding Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario and concurred in by AssocJustices Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada and Diosdado M. Peralta (now a Member of this Court).

11Id. at 32-39.

12Id. at 112-117.

13Id. at 130-148.

14Id. at 284.

15See Entry of Judgment, id. at 341.

16See Manifestation and Motion To Suspend Accused Pendente Lite, id., Vol. 3, pp. 256-262.

17Id. at 272-274.

18Id., Vol. 2, pp. 349-351.

19Id., Vol. 3, pp. 317-321

20 See Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution Promulgated on May 14, 2008, id. at 382-386, aSupplement to Motion for Reconsideration dated May 30, 2008, id. at 395-398.

21Id., Vol. 4, pp. 46-52.

22Rollo, pp. 57-59.

23Sandiganbayan rollo, Vol. 4, pp. 410-440; penned by Presiding Justice Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada aconcurred in the Associate Justices Roland B. Jurado and Napoleon E. Inoturan.

24Supra note 1.

25Crimes Committed by Public Officers.

26Crimes Against Public Interest.

27521 Phil. 43 (2006).

28

Id. at 51.29Id.

30Id. at 51-52.

31G.R. No. 172123, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 387.

32Id. at 393.

33Id.

34Sandiganbayan rollo, Vol. 2, pp. 17-23.

35Id. at 20.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_184486_2013.html#rnt6

7/24/2019 G.R. No. 184496

5/5

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

hecked Article