Case Digest: Ambil vs Sandiganbayan; Apelado vs. People

G.R. No. 175457; July 6, 2011

RUPERTO A. AMBIL, JR vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 175482

ALEXANDRINO R. APELADO, SR vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Facts:

Eastern Samar Governor Ruperto Ambil and Provincial warden Alexandrino Apelado were found guilty before the Sandiganbayan for violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act after Governor Ambil, conspiring with Apelado, ordered the release of then criminally-charged and detained mayor Francisco Adalim and had the latter transferred from the provincial jail to the the governor’s residence.

Issues:

1.)Whether or not the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over a suit where one of the 2 accused has a Salary Grade classified to be cognizable before the lower courts.

2.)Whether or not the transfer of the detainee, who was a mayor, by the governor was a violation in contemplation of Sec3(e) of RA 3019 in relation to sec2(b) of the same act.

Held:

The Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the suit where one of the 2 accused held a position with a classification of Salary Grade 27. Only when none of the numerous accused occupies a position with a salary grade “27” or higher can exclusive jurisdiction befall in the lower courts. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Ambil as provincial governor and so as with Apelado for being a co-principal in the perpetration of the offense although he had a salary grade of 22.

The power of control and supervision granted to by the Local Government Code and Administrative Code of 1917 does not include nor permit the usurpation of power duly vested before the courts. Facts showed that transfer by Ambil of Adalim was attended by evident bias and badfaith. Section 3(e) still applies to the case at hand even if the act was not one relative to the “granting of licenses and concessions”. The provision was meant to include officers with such duty to the list already enumerated therein and not necessarily to provide exclusivity. Furthermore, the fact that Andalim, as the reciepient of the benefit, was a public officer, did not preclude application. The act employs the phrase “private party”, which is more comprehensive in scope to mean either a private person or a public officer acting in a private capacity to protect his personal interest.

Thus the verdict by the SAndiganbayan, finding the accused guilty of violating RA 3019 was proper.

Read More

Case Digest: Catacutan vs. People

G.R. No. 175991; August 31, 2011

JOSE R. CATACUTAN vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Facts:

Petitioner Jose Catacutan was held guilty before the Sandiganbayan for the violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for his refusal to implement the promotion and appointments of Georgito Posesano and Magdalena A. Divinagracia as Vocational Supervisors III despite the directive of CHED and the Civil Service commission. Catacutan questioned the judgment, contending that he was denied due process when he was not allowed to present the CA judgment, dismissing the adiminstrative case against him.

Issue:

Whether or not the judgment, finding petitioner guilty of violating RA 3019, was well founded despite the refusal of the trial court to admit the dismissal of the administrative case as evidence.

Held:

The stubborn defiance by petitioner in carrying out the memorandum issued by CHED was attended by ill motive and bad faith. Such factual finding by the Trial courts, which was affirmed by the sandiganbayan, was based on the evidence presented before it. The non-admittance of the dismissal of the administrative case did not violate petitioner’s right to due process where such dismissal was not relevant to the adjudication of the criminal case. After all, administrative proceedings require a different quantum of proof compared to criminal proceedings, the judgment in one is not dependent on the other.

Present in the case were the elements to find the petitioner guilty of violating Sec3(e) of RA 3019, to wit: 1.that the accused was a public officer performing an official function; 2) that he acted in bad faith; and 3) that injury was caused to another party because of such act.

Read More