SPL CASE DIGESTS (july302011) Page |1SPL DIGESTED CASES Saturday Classes 1st Semester 2011 under Judge Abbu standard of honesty in the public service and to promote morality in the public service. Public office is a public trust. To satisfy due process, however, official act must not outrun the bonds of reason and result in sheer oppression. It must be free from arbitrariness. It is not within the province of the courts to supervise legislation and keep it within the bonds of propriety and common sense. ARTURO MEJORADA VS.SANDIGANBAYAN FACTS: Mejorada was a right of way agent employed in the Office of the Highway District Engineer in Pasig, Metro Manila. His work was to negotiate with property owners affected by highway constructions/improvements for the purpose of compensating them for the damages that they may incur. Mejorada required the claimants de Leon et.al to sign blank copies of Sworn Statement on the Correct Assessment and Fair Market Value of Real Properties as well as an Agreement to demolish, remove and reconstruct improvements. Claimants did sign without bothering what those documents were about as they were more concerned with just compensation supposedly due them. In the signed documents, Mejorada made it appear that the value of the properties of the claimants were much higher than actual value claimed by the de leon et. Al. What was reflected in the Agreement was the value of improvements that was P2,000 lower than the value declared by the owner/claimants. Also, declarations of property were attached to the documents, which declarations were actually falsified as they were registered under different names other than the claimants. Claimants were later accompanied by Mejorada to receive the proceeds of their checks. But Mejorada took part of the proceeds. Claimants could not complain as they were afraid of Mejorada’s armed companions. Claimants de leon et.al later filed complaints against Mejorada (assisted by their counsel) with the Provincial Fiscal Office in Pasig. Consequently, 8 informations were filed against Mejorada.hanipaporo2013

RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)MORFE VS. MUTUC FACTS: Morfe was a public official who questioned AO 334 in connection with Section 7 of RA 3019, which provides that every public officer should submit a sworn statement of assets and liabilities (SAL) either within 30 days upon assumption of office and within the month of January every succeeding year to the Head of Office. It must be emphasized that RA 3019 was enacted as a police power of the State to promote morality in public service. According to Morfe, since such provision bares the financial condition of the public officer upon assumption of office, it is violative of due process as it is an oppressive exercise of police power and an unlawful invasion of the constitutional rights to privacy, unreasonable searches and seizures as well as self incrimination. The raison d’ etre of S7 RA 3019 to determine whether after assuming public position, the public officer has accumulated assets grossly disproportionate to his reported income. Exec. Sec. Mutuc – upheld the validity of AO 334 as well as RA 3019. When a government official accepts a public position, he voluntarily opens himself to public scrutiny including his personal affairs. Private life cannot be segregated from public office. CFI – held S7 of RA 3019/ periodical submission of SAL to be unconstitutional

as it is an invasion of liberty protected by due process clause. ISSUE: WON periodical submission of sworn SAL is an invasion of liberty protected by due process clause? RULING. NO. RA 3019 is valid and constitutional. The reason why the law was enacted was to curtail/minimize opportunities for official corruption and maintaining a

SPL CASE DIGESTS (july302011) Page |2imposition of penalty. It merely provides that the prisoner cannot serve more than 3x the most severe of the penalties of 40 years. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Mejorada’s case as he is deemed to have committed the prohibited act while being a public officer.

Mejorada’s contentions 1. He cannot be guilty of violating S3 of RA 3019 as he is not charged with the duty of granting licenses, permits as mentioned in the provision. 2. His act was not done while in the performance of his official functions 3. Claimants were not injured party 4. The most that can be charged against him is Robbery not liable under RA 3019 ISSUES: WON Mejorada’s act constitute the offense in S3 of RA 3019 (i.e. causing undue injury to any party…giving party unwarranted benefits... thru manifest partiality, evident bad faith / gross inexcusable negligence….) and have been clearly and convincingly proven by the prosecution? Other Issues (Crimpro related): WON offense proved during trial should prevail over offense charged in the info WON Sandiganbayan is the competent court with jurisdiction over the case

DELOSO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN FACTS: Deloso was elected governor of Zambales on January 18,1988. Regular term of a governor is 3 years although he shall serve until 12nn of June 30, 1992. He was however suspended from performing his duties as governor by the Sandiganbayan (S13 of RA301/ preventive suspension) by virtue of criminal charges filed against him (which were committed during his tenure as Mayor of Botolan, Zambales: (1) for awarding LTO fish corrals and (2) issuance of 5 tractors of the Municipality of Botolan, Zambales to certain individuals without agreement to pay rentals therefor). The suspension order did not have a definite period so that Deloso may be suspended for the rest of his term unless his case is terminated sooner. (N.B.The case of Garcia vs. Exec.Sec. was cited in this case. Garcia was an appointive public officer who was suspended by the President of the Republic of the Philippines and his suspension order was beyond the maximum period of 60 days (S35 of CSC). Later, Garcia was able to have in his favor an injunction against Preventive Suspension from the court). Deloso wanted to push through with the trial of the case, but the Sandiganbayan said it had to dispose of other cases with higher priority. ISSUE: WON Garcia’s case is applicable to an elective official facing criminal charges under RA 3019? RULING: YES. The decision in Garcia’s case, ie.. injunction against preventive suspension for an unreasonable period of time applies with greater force to elective officials and especially to Deloso, whose term is a relatively short one. The interest of the sovereign electorate and the province of Zambales cannot be subordinated to the heavy case load of the Sandiganbayan and of the Supreme Court. Should the purposes behind preventive suspension such as preventing the abuse of the prerogatives of the office, intimidation of witnesses, etc. become manifest, thehanipaporo2013

RULING: YES. Mejorada is guilty under RA3019 for violating S3 of the law. He is a public officer who took advantage of his position by making claimants sign

agreements which contained falsified declarations of the value of improvements and lots. There was manifest evident bad faith on his part when he inflated the values of the true claims and when he divested the claimants of a large share of the amounts due them. The claimants are not the only injured party but also the State because the latter was disadvantaged with Mejorada’s act of inflating said values of property. The law is not limited to those public officials who committed the prohibited act while discharging their duty of granting licenses, permits but also those who committed prohibited acts while being public officers. Offense charged in the info should prevail over offense proved during trial. Since this is the case, the appropriate penalty that should be imposed upon Mejorada is 56 years and 8 days and this did not violate the 3 Fold rule of the RPC. Art. 70 speaks of service of sentence, duration of penalty and penalty to be inflicted and not on the

SPL CASE DIGESTS (july302011) Page |3Sandiganbayan can still suspend Deloso but for specifically expressed reasons and not from an automatic application of S13 of RA3019. Preventive suspension should be limited to 90 days after which Deloso will assume office as governor of Zambales without prejudice to the continuation of the trial of pending cases against him. RULING: YES. Judge Albano erred in its decision of finding the informations invalid ab initio and in dismissing the cases. S13 of RA 3019 provides that suspension of public officer is mandatory but not automatic. Before a suspension order is issued, a hearing on the issue of the validity of the informations must first be had to determine the basis of the court to either suspend the accused and proceed with the trial on the merits of the case or withhold suspension of the accused and dismiss the case/ correct part of the proceeding which impairs its validity. The far-reaching consequence of a suspension of public official even before conviction is the reason why the accused can challenge the validity of an information and the validity of the criminal proceedings. But if the right of the accused does not divest the prosecution of its right to prove guilt of the accused in a trial on the merits, pre-suspension hearing should not substitute trial proper. Acharon and Bernabe did not claim they were denied of their right to due preliminary investigation. The questioned informations, in fact, sufficiently complied with the requirements for their validity. Once the validity of the informations has been determined, suspension of the accused public official becomes mandatory.

PEOPLE VS. ALBANO FACTS: Two criminal cases under RA 3019 were filed against Mayor Acharon. 1st case : Mayor Acharon of General Santos denied application for renewal of license and permit to operate cockpit to Emilio Evangelista and instead approved/ granted application of his uncle Luis Acharon (contrary to S3 of RA 3019) 2nd case : Mayor Acharon and Vice Mayor Bernabe were charged with violation of S1 (a,e,h, j) of RA 3019 when they allegedly fraudulently procured and purchased 1,635 sacks of rice in bulk using the names of 327 employees of City Government of Gen. San with the Rice and Corn Administration Office. They used their own money in purchasing said sacks of rice at a very low price and later disposed to the public (excluding the 327 employees) at the prevailing price. They directly or indirectly received pecuniary interest in such fraudulent procurement of rice. Prosecution filed an urgent motion for issuance of suspension order against the accused. Before pre-suspension hearings, accused were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. The case was redocketed then later a reinvestigation ensued. There were several postponements until the case was raffled to the sala of Judge Albano. The case was set for hearing. Later, Judge Albano found the 2 informations invalid ab initio and consequently dismissed the cases. Prosecution moved for reconsideration, but was denied. ISSUES: 1. WON Judge Albano erred in considering matters not alleged in the informations and finding acts of accused not violative of RA 3019. 2. WON Judge Albano erred in deciding case on merits without trial.

LUCIANO VS. ESTRELLA FACTS: Mayor Estrella et.al were charged with violations of S3(g) and S4 (b) of RA 3019. They entered into a contract with JEP Enterprises re: 59 units of traffic deflectors (price= P1,426.50/ unit). 34 of these deflectors were

delivered, installed and paid for by the Municipality of Makati Rizal at P48,000+, less 10% retention, which is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the municipality. The Gutierrezes of JEP Enterprises allegedly knowingly induced/ caused public officials Mayor Estrella et. Al to enter into such contract. CFI found the accused guilty for having violated S3(g) and S4 (b) of RA 3019/ Sham bidding and series of falsification of documents. Penalty imposed was 6 yrs + perpetual disqualification to hold public office. CA Estrella et. Al filed for a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered material evidence (NDE). Auditor Declaro was presented as their witness. Declarohanipaporo2013

SPL CASE DIGESTS (july302011) Page |4said that after the CFI’s decision, they discovered that there was an overdraft for the purchase of subject deflectors. In other words, there were no funds available to cover said purchase. At first, the Solicitor General did not object to such motion. Thus the CA grant the motion. However, Acting Mayor Luciano et. Al questioned the grant of the motion for new trial alleging that NDE could have been discovered even before CFI’s decision by exercise of due diligence. Also, Luciano et. al averred that NDE would not change the result of the trial when taken into consideration the evidence already on record. Solicitor Gen. sided with Luciano. Estrella objected and said that the Solicitor Gen. as representative of the Republic is already estopped to correct its error. ISSUE: WON the grant of a new trial for allegedly NDE was granted improvidently and in grave abuse of discretion? RULING: YES. The grant of new trial on the ground of NDE was granted improvidently and in grave abuse of discretion. Auditor’s testimony fell short of the requirements for holding of a new trial. For NDE to be validly invoked as a ground for petition for new trial, the following must concur: 1. New and material evidence has been discovered after the trial, which the defendant could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced during trial 2. Such evidence if introduced and admitted would change the judgment. The alleged overdraft could not have been deemed as an NDE as they could have known it all along and presented during the hearing of the case. Auditor’s affidavit actually admitted that the Municipality already knew of the lack of funds when he said that it used the trust fund of the municipality to partially pay the purchased deflectors. Introduction of the alleged NDE could not have influence the result of the case in view of the clear and convincing evidence already in record. The violation is malum prohibitum. It is the commission of the act as defined by law and not the character/effect thereof that determines WON provision has been violated.

hanipaporo2013