Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
(Case Digests)
OMBUDSMAN v. ANDUTAN
G.R. No. 164679, 27July 2011
FACTS: Pursuant to the Memorandum directing all non-career officials or those
occupying political positions to vacate their positions, Andutan resigned from the DOF
as the former Deputy Director of the One-Stop Shop Tax Credit and Duty Drawback
Center of the DOF. Subsequently, Andutan, et al. was criminally charged by the Fact
Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) of the Ombudsman with Estafa through
Falsification of Public Documents, and violations RA 3019. As government employees,
Andutan et al. were likewise administratively charged of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty,
Falsification of Official Documents and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service.
The Ombudsman found the respondents guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty. Having been
separated from the service, Andutan was imposed the penalty of forfeiture of all leaves,
retirement and other benefits and privileges, and perpetual disqualification from
reinstatement and re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government,
including government owned and controlled agencies or corporations.
The CA annulled and set aside the decision of the Ombudsman, ruling that the latter
should not have considered the administrative complaints because: first, Section 20 of
R.A. 6770 provides that the Ombudsman may not conduct the necessary investigation
of any administrative act or omission complained of if it believes that x x x [t]he
complaint was filed after one year from the occurrence of the act or omission
complained of; and second, the administrative case was filed after Andutans forced
resignation
ISSUES:
(1) Whether Section 20(5) of R.A. 6770 prohibit the Ombudsman from conducting an
administrative investigation a year after the act was committed.
Likewise, if the act committed by the public official is indeed inimical to the interests of
the State, other legal mechanisms are available to redress the same.
ALVAREZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 192591, June 29, 2011
FACTS: Petitioner Efren L. Alvarez was the Mayor of the Municipality of Muoz, Nueva
Ecija. In July 1995, the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of Muoz invited the President of the
Australian-Professional, Inc. (API) in connection with the municipal governments plan
to construct a four-storey shopping mall (Wag-wag Shopping Mall). Subsequently, it
approved the adoption of the project under the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT)
arrangement in the amount of P240 million.
An Invitation for proposals was published in Pinoy tabloid. The Pre-qualification, Bids
and Awards Committee (PBAC) recommended the approval of the proposal submitted
by the lone bidder, which is the API. Later, Mayor Alvarez entered into a Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) with API for the project whereby API undertook to finish the
construction within 730 calendar days.
On 10 August 2006, Mayor Alvarez was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation
of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The
information was based on the fact that he gave the Australian-Professional Incorporated
(API) unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference, by awarding to the latter the
contract for the construction of Wag-Wag Shopping Mall in the amount of Php
240,000,000.00 , notwithstanding the fact that API was and is not a duly-licensed
construction company as per records of the Philippine Construction Accreditation
Board (PCAB).
ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioner violated R.A. No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act
RULING: YES. The Court has clarified that the use of the disjunctive word or connotes
that either act of (a) causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government;
and (b) giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference,
qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended. The use of the
disjunctive or connotes that the two modes need not be present at the same time. In
other words, the presence of one would suffice for conviction. In other words, Sec. 3,
par. (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, par. (e), 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.
Criminal information of Grave Threats was filed against Paera. The prosecution argued
that Paera picked-up his bolo and charged towards Indalecio, shouting I will kill you!
Indalecio ran for safety, passing along the way his wife, Diosetea Darong who had
followed him to the water tank. Upon seeing Paera, Diosetea inquired what the matter
was. Instead of replying, petitioner shouted I dont spare anyone, even if you are a woman,
I will kill you! As Paera chased Indalecio, he passed Vicente, and, recognizing the latter,
repeatedly thrust his bolo towards him, shouting Even if you are old, I will crack open
your skull!
In his defense, Paera prays for the dismissal of the case for being innocent and having
acted in defense of the property of strangers and in lawful performance of duty justifying circumstances under Paragraphs 3 and 5, Article 11 of the Revised Penal
Code.
PP vs. CAPUNO
G.R No. 185715
FACTS: The prosecution charged the appellant Erlinda Capuno with violation of
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. It presented PO1 Jose Gordon Antonio and PO1
Fortunato Jiro III as witnesses during the Trial. The former narrated that on July 21,
2002, he was at the Rodriguez Police Station when a civilian informant arrived and
reported that a woman was openly selling dangerous drugs on Manggahan Street,
Barangay Burgos, Montalban Rizal. Upon receiving the information, police officers
planned an entrapment operation wherein they were able to arrest the Appellant
Capuno. On the other hand, PO1 Jiro testified that on July 21, 2002, he was at the Police
Station when a confidential asset called and informed the police that he saw one alias
Erlinda selling illegal drugs. The police then planned a buy-bust operation proceeded
to Manahan Street.