ESTRELLA V. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. 125160, JUNE 20, 2000
FACTS: Petitioner was appointed as municipal cashier in the Office of thee Municipal treasurer with a bond issued by the Commission on Audit Regional Office XII, he was audited of his cash and accounts for the period from March 18-24, 1986 only. For reasons unknown, the cash and account of the petitioner were not audited for the period of his appointment up to march 17. During audit examination petitioner submitted his daily collections and was supposed to turn over the collections to the municipal treasurer but failed to do so due to the absence of the treasurer. As recourse, petitioner should have deposited his collection with the depository bank but he neglected to do so. Petitioner made a cash advance, all in all petitioner received 249, 829.25 pesos. Petitioner was able to liquidate the amount of 29, 083. 57pesos only and admitted the accuracy of this amounts. State auditor serves a letter of demand, demanding the immediate production of the missing fund and a written explanation. Petitioner was charged with malversation of public funds in the information filed with the sandiganbayan.
ISSUE: Whether the sandiganbayan in finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of malversation.
HELD: Petitioner failed to produce the missing amount and neither was he able to explain his failure to produce that amount. Nothing in the record supports his allegation that the audit team had committed an error in the report of cash examination. Art. 217 of the Revised penal code holds liable for malversation a public officer who shall appropriate public funds or property for which he is accountable, or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds or property. Furthermore, the failure of a public to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal uses.
JosephreyBelciaLumabas
ARTICLE XI SECTION 4: SANDIGANBAYAN NUEZ V. SANDIGANBAYAN 111 SCRA 433 (1982)
FACTS: Nuez assails the validity of the PD 1486 creating the Sandiganbayan as amended by PD 1606. He was accused before the Sandiganbayan of estafa through falsification of public and commercial documents committed in connivance with his other co-accused, all public officials, in several cases. It is the claim of Nuez that PD1486, as amended, is violative of the due process, equal protection, and ex post facto clauses of the Constitution. He claims that the Sandiganbayan proceedings violates Nuezs right to equal protection, because appeal as a matter of right became minimized into a mere matter of discretion; appeal likewise was shrunk and limited only to questions of law, excluding a review of the facts and trial evidence; and there is only one chance to appeal conviction, by certiorari to the SC, instead of the traditional two chances; while all other estafa indictees are entitled to appeal as a matter of right covering both law and facts and to two appellate courts, i.e., first to the CA and thereafter to the SC.
ISSUE: Whether the creation of Sandiganbayan violates equal protection insofar as appeals would be concerned.
HELD: The SC ruled against Nuez. The 1973 Constitution had provided for the creation of a special court that shall have original jurisdiction over cases involving public officials charged with graft and corruption. The constitution specifically makes mention of the creation of a special court, the Sandiganbayan, precisely in response to a problem, the urgency of which cannot be denied, namely, dishonesty in the public service. It follows that those who may thereafter be tried by such court ought to have been aware as far back as January 17, 1973, when the present Constitution came into force, that a different procedure for the accused therein, whether a private citizen as petitioner is or a public official, is not necessarily offensive to the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
JosephreyBelciaLumabas
ARTICLE XI SECTION 13: POWERS; FUNCTIONS; DUTIES OMB V. MASING, 542 SCRA 245 (2007)
FACTS: Respondents Florita A. Masing, former Principal of the Davao City Integrated Special School, and JocelynA. Tayactac, an office clerk in the same school, were administratively charged before the Office of the Ombudsman for allegedly collecting unauthorized fees, failing to remit authorized fees, and to account for public funds. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over them. Respondents alleged that the DECS has jurisdiction over them which shall exercise the same through a committee to be constituted under Section 9 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4670, otherwise known as the The Magna Carta for Public School Teachers.
The motion was denied. Ombudsman rendered a joint decision finding respondents Masing and Tayactac guilty. Masing was dismissed from service while Tayactac was suspended for 6 months. On appeal, CA reversed. Meanwhile, Masing faced yet another administrative case before the Ombudsman for charges of oppression, serious misconduct, discourtesy in the conduct of official duties, and physical or mental incapacity or disability due to immoral or vicious habits. Ombudsman found Masing guilty as charged and ordered her suspension for six (6) months without pay. On appeal, CA also reversed.
Ombudsman, which was not impleaded as respondent in the cases, filed an Omnibus Motion to Intervene and for Reconsideration. CA denied the on the grounds that (1) intervention is not proper because it is sought by the quasi-judicial body whose judgment is on appeal, and (2) intervention, even if permissible, is belated under Section 2, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court. Hence, appeal before SC. The 2 cases were consolidated.
ISSUE: Whether Ombudsman may directly discipline public school teachers and employees?
HELD: YES. The authority of the Ombudsman to act on complaints filed against public officers and employees is explicit in Article XI, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution. Article XI, Section 13 of the same Constitution delineates the powers, functions and duties of the Ombudsman. The enumeration of these powers is non-exclusive.
JosephreyBelciaLumabas
ARTICLE XI SECTION 13: POWERS; FUNCTIONS; DUTIES LASTIMOSA V. VASQUEZ, 243 SCRA 497(1995)
FACTS: Jessica Villacarlos Dayon, public health nurse, filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a criminal complaint for frustrated rape and an administrative complaint for immoral acts, abuse of authority and grave misconduct against the Municipal Mayor of Santa Fe, Rogelio Ilustrisimo. The graft investigation officer assigned to the case found, after investigation, no prima facie evidence and accordingly recommended for the dismissal of the case. However, upon review of the matter, Ombudsman, Hon. Conrado Vasquez, disapproved the recommendation and instead directed that Mayor Illustrisimo be charged with attempted rape in the Regional Trial Court. The case was then referred by the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas, Arturo Mojica, to the Cebu Provincial Kintanar for the filing of appropriate information with the RTC of Danao City. The same was eventually assigned to herein petition, First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Lastimosa. On preliminary investigation, petitioner found that only acts of lasciviousness had been committed. With the approval of the Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar, an information for act of lasciviousness against Mayor Ilustrisimo with the MTC of Santa Fe. Deputy Ombudsman Mojica wrote two letters to the Provincial Prosecutor inquiring on any action taken on the referred case. And since no case for attempted rape had been filed, Deputy Ombudsman Mojica ordered the Provincial Prosecutor and petitioner Lastimosa to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt for refusing and failing to obey the lawful directives of the Office of the Ombudsman. For this purpose, hearings were duly conducted. As a result, Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar and petitioner Gloria Lastimosa were placed under preventive suspension for a period of six (6) months. ISSUE: Whether the Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the case against the mayor because the crime was not committed in relation to a public office and whether it has authority to place petitioner and Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar under preventive suspension. HELD: The court ruled that the Office of the Ombudsman has the power to investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act of omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. This power has been held to include the investigation and prosecution of any crime committed by a public official regardless of whether the acts or omissions complained of are related to, or connected with, or arise from the performance of his official duty. It is enough that the act or omission was committed by a public official. Hence, the crime of rape, when committed by a public official like a municipal mayor, is within the power of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute
JosephreyBelciaLumabas
ARTICLE XII SECTION 2: REGALIAN DOCTRINE STA. ROSA MINING V. LEIDO, 156 SCRA 1 (1987)
FACTS: PD No. 1214 was issued requiring holders of subsisting and valid patentable mining under Philippine bill of 1902 to file a mining lease of application within one year from the approval of the decree. The sta. Rosa mining company assailed the constitutionality of PD 1214 claiming that it amounts to deprivation of property without due process of law.
ISSUE: Whether the PD 1214 is unconstitutional.
HELD: NO. The constitutional mandate of PD 1214 is found in sec. 2, Art.XII of the 1987 constitution. It is a valid exercise of the sovereign power of the state, as owner over lands of the public domain of which petitioner's mining claims still form a part.
JosephreyBelciaLumabas
ARTICLE XII SECTION 3: LANDS OF PUBLIC DOMAIN DIR. OF LANDS V. IAC, 146 SCRA 509 (1986)
FACTS: The tambac island in Lingayen Gulf is situated in the municipality of bani, pangasinan, which consists of more or less 187,288 square meters. The initial application for registration was filed for pacific farms, Inc. Under the provisions of the land registration act (496). The director of lands opposed the application alleging that the pacific farms, Inc. Does not possess a fee simple title to the land nor did its predecessors possess the land for at 30 years immediately after filing the application. In an amended application, pacific farms, inc. filed a manifestation-motion to change the applicant from pacific farms, Inc. To j. Antonio Araneta. Despite the supposed amendment, there was no republication. So, the director of lands alleged that the land is within the unclassified public land and inalienable.
ISSUE: Whether or not the land known as "Tambac Island" can be subject to registration.
HELD: The amendment of the application from the name of pacific farms Inc. To the name of j. Antonio Araneta inc. was a mere attempt to evade disqualification. Our constitution prohibits private corporations or associations from holding alienable lands of the public domain except by lease. The court ruled to release the subject property from the unclassified category, which is beyond their competence and jurisdiction. They reiterate that the classification of public lands is an exclusive prerogative of the executive department of the government and not of the courts. In the absence of such classification, the land remains unclassified until released and rendered open to disposition.
JosephreyBelciaLumabas
ARTICLE XII SECTION 7: PRIVATE LANDS FRENZEL V. CATITO, GR NO. 143958, JULY 11, 2003
FACTS: Alfred fritz frenzel, an Australian citizen of German descent, was married to Teresita Santos; while Ederlina Catito, a Filipina, was married to Klaus Muller. Alfred and Ederlina met and later cohabited in a common-law relationship, during which Alfred acquired real properties; and since he was disqualified from owning lands in the Philippines, Ederlinas name appeared as the vendee in the deeds of sale. When their relationship turned sour, Alfred filed an action for the recovery of the real properties registered in the name of Ederlina, claiming that he was the real owner.
ISSUE: Whether or not Alfred is entitled to compensation for the properties?
HELD: No. The court refused to declare Alfred as the owner mainly because of the constitutional prohibition. The court added that being a party to an illegal contract, he could not come to court and ask to have his illegal objective carried out. Even if, as claimed by Alfred, the sales in question were entered into by him as the real vendee, the said transactions are in violation of the constitution; hence, are null and void ab initio. A contract that violates the constitution and the law, is null and void and vests no rights and creates no obligations. It produces no legal effect at all. Alfred, being a party to an illegal contract, cannot come into a court of law and ask to have his illegal objective carried out. One who loses his money or property by knowingly engaging in a contract or transaction which involves his own moral turpitude may not maintain an action for his losses. To him who moves in deliberation and premeditation, the law is unyielding. The law will not aid either party to an illegal contract or agreement; it leaves the parties where it finds them.
JosephreyBelciaLumabas
ARTICLE XII SECTION 10: FILIPINIZATION TANADA V. ANGARA, 272 SCRA 18 (1997)
FACTS: Petitioners senator Tanada et. Al. Questioned the constitutionality of the concurrence by the Philippine senate of the presidents ratification of the international agreement establishing the world trade organization. They argued that the WTO agreement violates the mandate of the 1987 constitution to develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos by giving preference to qualified Filipinos and to promote preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods. Further, they contended that the national treatment and parity provisions of the WTO agreement places nationals and products of member countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products in contravention the Filipino first policy of our constitution and render meaningless the phrase effectively controlled by Filipinos.
ISSUE: Whether the 1987 constitution prohibit our country from participating in worldwide trade liberalization and economic globalization and from integrating into a global economy that is liberalized, deregulated and privatized.
HELD: The court dismissed the petition. The 1987 constitution does not prohibit our country from participating in worldwide trade agreements. While indeed the constitution mandates a bias in favors of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprise, at the same time, it recognized the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity. The constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign investments, goods and service in the development of the Philippine economy. While the constitution does not encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and investments into the country, it does not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an exchange of good, services and products but frowns only on foreign competition that is unfair and unjust.
JosephreyBelciaLumabas
ARTICLE XII SECTION 11: PUBLIC UTILITIES ROYAL CARGO CORP. V. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD (CAB) 421 SCRA 21
FACTS: Royal Cargo Corporation is a stock corporation with a 70% owned by Filipino citizens and 30% owned by foreigners. The president is a foreigner married to a Filipina, while The Chairman of the board, Executive Vice-president and all the Vice-presidents are all Filipinos. CAB initially granted petitioner an indefinite authority to engage in international air freight forwarding. Petitioner filed a petition, requesting for fix duration of its authority. Permit was extended for a period of five years. Petitioner applied for a renewal, was granted provided that that the position of the president be transferred to a Filipino citizen within thirty days from notice thereof, otherwise the permit would be cancelled. A petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the decision resolution of CA was filed. the appellate court affirmed the resolution of the Civil Aeronautics Board directing the petitioner to transfer the top position of its corporation to a Filipino national.
ISSUE: Whether the resolution of CAB directing the petitioner to transfer the top position of its corporation to a Filipino national is valid?
HELD: YES. Under Section 11 last sentence state: The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to their corporate share in its capital, and all the executive and managing officers of such corporation or association must be citizens if the Philippines.
JosephreyBelciaLumabas
ARTICLE XII SECTION 18: NATIONALIZATION REPUBLIC V. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620 (1968)
FACTS: Public petitioner commenced a suit against private respondent praying for the right of the bureau of telecommunications to demand interconnection between the government telephone system and that of PLDT, so that the government telephone system could make use of the lines and facilities of the PLDT. Private respondent contends that it cannot be compelled to enter into a contract where no agreement is had between them.
ISSUE: Whether or not interconnection between PLDT and the government telephone system can be a valid object for expropriation.
HELD: Yes, in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain, the republic may require the telephone company to permit interconnection as the needs of the government service may require, subject to the payment of just compensation. The use of lines and services to allow inter-service connection between the both telephone systems, through expropriation can be a subject to an easement of right of way.