Case Digest: Bautista vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 136082, May 12, 2000
RA 3019 | Criminal Law
Facts:
(1) On November 20,1996, an anonymous, unverified, and unsigned letter-complaint allegedly prepared by the Contractors Association of Davao del Sur and the Good Government Employees of Davao del Sur was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao charging petitioner Franklin Bautista, incumbent mayor of the Municipality of Malita, Davao del Sur, for violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019.
(2) The letter-complaint alleged that the petitioner caused the hiring of one hundred and ninety-two (192) casual employees in the municipal government for political considerations and that the payment of their honoraria and salaries was charged to the peace and order fund despite meager savings of the municipality.
(3) On February 26, 1997, in his counter-affidavit, Bautista claimed that the complaint, which was unsigned, was fictitious and fabricated as shown by the affidavits of the President of the Contractor’s Association of Davao del Sur, Governor for Davao del Sur, and Vice Mayor of Malita, among others, therein attached, which disclaimed any knowledge of the institution of the complaint nor cause of its filing.
(4) Thereafter, an Information for violation of Sec. 3(e), of RA 3019, was filed against the petitioner before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information anchored on the ground that the acts charged therein did not constitute the
offense indicated in Sec. 3(e), of RA 3019, and that more than one (1) offense was charged in the Information.
(5) On March 13, 1998, the Sandiganbayan denied the Motion to Quash stating that all essential elements of the crime charged were sufficiently alleged in the Information which charged only one offense.
Issue:
WoN the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying his Motion to Quash despite the following:
(I) The failure of the Ombudsman to properly establish a cause of action; and
(II) That there were at least two (2) offenses charged—the giving of unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference to the casual employees in question, and causing undue injury to the Municipality of Malita.
(III) The exception in the term “private party” as used in Sec. 3, par. (e), of RA 3019, as amended.
Defense:
(I) Petitioner invokes Sec. 4, Rule II, of the Rules of Procedure of the Ombudsman which requires that for purposes of conducting a preliminary investigation, the complainant must submit his affidavit and those of his witnesses before the respondent can be required to submit his counter-affidavit and other supporting documents.
The Ombudsman should have first required the Contractor’s Association of Davao del Sur and the Good Government Employees of Davao del Sur to submit their respective affidavits before requiring him as the respondent to submit his counter-affidavit, especially since the letter-complaint was unsigned and unverified; hence, there was no valid cause of action against petitioner.
(II) Petitioner invokes Santiago v. Garchitorena where it was held that there were two (2) ways of violating Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019, namely, (a) by causing undue injury to any party, including the Government, and (b) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference, and as such, he argues that each constitutes two (2) distinct offenses that should be charged in separate information.
(III) Petitioner argues that the casuals alleged to have been appointed by him and thus recipients of unwarranted benefits could not qualify as private parties since they are in actuality public officers within the contemplation of Sec. 2(b) of RA 3019.
Held:
DISMISSED.
The Resolution of the Sandiganbayan denying petitioner Franklin Bautista’s Motion to Quash AFFIRMED.
(I) Petitioner Bautista had already filed his counter-affidavit before the Ombudsman and only questioned the latter’s failure to require the complainants to submit affidavits prior to the submission of his own counter-affidavit after the preliminary investigation had ended and an
Information already filed before the Sandiganbayan. The issue therefore of requiring the complainants to submit their affidavits before the respondent can be obliged to submit his counter-affidavit is moot and academic in light of Bautista’s submission of his counter-affidavit despite the absence of the complainants’ affidavits.
Hence, having submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and having allowed the proceedings to go on until the preliminary investigation was terminated and the Information filed at the Sandiganbayan, the petitioner is deemed to have waived whatever right he may otherwise have to assail the manner in which the preliminary investigation was conducted. Consequently, the petitioner is likewise estopped from questioning the validity of the Information filed before the Sandiganbayan.
(II) Indeed, Sec. 3(e), RA 3019, provides as one of its elements that the public officer should have acted by causing any undue injury to any party, including the government, or by giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. The use of the disjunctive term “or” connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Sec.3(e), or as aptly held in Santiago, as two (2) different modes of committing
the offense. This does not however indicate that each mode constitutes a distinct offense, but rather, that an accused may be charged under either mode or under both. In either case, the Information will not suffer any defect, as it is clear that the petitioner is charged with violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019, with either mode of commission obtaining or with both manners of violation concurring.
(III) The term “private party” or “private person” may be used to refer to persons
other than those holding public office. However, the petitioner is charged with causing the hiring of some one hundred ninety-two (192) casual employees, and the consequent awarding of their honoraria and salaries taken from the peace and order fund of the municipality. The reckoning period is before the casual employees’ incumbency when they were still private individuals, and hence, their current positions do not affect the sufficiency of the Information.
Notes:
REPUBLIC ACT No. 3019
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
Comments
Post a Comment