Republic of the Philippines
Posadas submitted to the National
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000 July 17, 2013
DR. ROGER R. POSADAS and DR. ROLANDO P.
DAYCO, Petitioners,
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Petitioners assail their conviction for Violation of Section
3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act) and Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713
(The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees) under Decision1 dated June 28,
2005 of the Sandiganbayan in Crim. Case Nos. 25465-66.
The Facts
Petitioner Dr. Roger R. Posadas (Dr. Posadas), a Ph.D. in
Relativity Physics graduate from the University of
Pittsburgh, is a longtime professor and former Dean of
the College of Science at the University of the Philippines-
Diliman Campus (UP Diliman). He was appointed by the
Board of Regents (BOR) of the University of the
Philippines System as UP Diliman Chancellor for a three-
year term starting November 1, 1993 and ending October
31, 1996.
During his term as Chancellor, Dr. Posadasisone of the
leading figures in the emerging inter-disciplinary field of
technology management in the Philippines. Upon the
recommendation of the UP Diliman Task Force on Science
and Technology Assessment, Management and Planning
composed of deans and professors from the various
colleges in UP Diliman, the BOR on February 23, 1995
approved the establishment of the Technology
Management Center (TMC) under the direct supervision
of the Office of the Chancellor, UP Diliman. When the
TMC became operational in June 1995, the Task Force on
Science and Technology Assessment, Management and
Planning wrote then UP President Dr. Emil Q. Javier,
nominating Dr. Posadas for the position of TMC Director.
For undisclosed reason, Dr. Posadas declined the
nomination and instead he (Dr. Posadas) designated Prof.
Jose Tabbada of the College of Public Administration as
Acting Director of TMC.
On July 26, 1995, Dr.
Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) an
Application for Funding of his proposed project entitled
"Institutionalization of Technology Management at the
University of the Philippines in Diliman" (TMC Project).
The TMC Project, to be funded by a grant from the
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA),
aimed to design and develop ten new graduate courses in
technology management for the diploma, master’s and
doctoral programs to be offered by TMC.2
On September 18, 1995, a Memorandum of
Agreement3 (MOA) was executed between Dr. Posadas,
on behalf of UP-Diliman, and the Philippine Institute for
Development Studies (PIDS) as the Local Executing
Agency of the Policy, Training and Technical Assistance
Facility (PTTAF) of CIDA. Under the MOA, CIDA shall
provide the funding for the total project cost
(₱5,442,400.00), with the NEDA as the designated PTTAF
Project Implementor for the Government of the
Philippines, while UP Diliman shall direct, manage and
implement all activities under the approved project with
counterpart funding in the amount of ₱4,228,524.00.
In a letter dated July 30, 1995, the President of Hua Qiao
University in Fujian Province, China invited Dr. Posadas
and a delegation from UP Dilimanto visit on October 30
to November 6, 1995. On October 5, 1995, then Senior
Deputy Executive Secretary Leonardo A. Quisumbing
(retired Member of this Court) issued the Authority to
Travel for the UP Diliman delegation headed by Dr.
Posadas. Among those who joined the delegation were
Dr. Amaryllis Torres and Dr. Rosario Yu, UP Diliman’s
Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Vice-
Chancellor for Student Affairs, respectively.4 Under
Administrative Order (AO) No. 95-170 dated October 24,
1995, Dr. Posadas designated petitioner Dr. Rolando P.
Dayco (Dr. Dayco), Vice-Chancellor for Administrative
Affairs, as Officer-In-Charge (OIC) of UPDiliman
effective October 30, 1995 until November 6, 1995. This
was followed by AO No. 95-170-A dated October 27, 1995,
which amended the previous order by extendingthe OIC
designation of Dr. Dayco to November 7, 1995. 5
On November 7, 1995, Dr. Dayco appointed Dr. Posadas
as Project Director of UP TMC effective September 18,
1995 up to September 17, 1996.In another undated
"Contract for Consultancy Services" signed by Dr. Dayco,
Dr. Posadas was hired as Consultant for the TMC Project
for the same period.6 As evidenced by disbursement
vouchers and admitted by Dr. Posadas, the latter received
his "honoraria"(₱30,000.00 per month) and consultancy
fees (totaling ₱100,000.00) as Project Director and
Consultant of the TMC Project until May 1996 when the
Commission on Audit (COA) raised questions on the
legality of the said fees.7
In August 1996, payment of the subject "honoraria" and
fees was suspended by COA Resident Auditor Romeo J.
Pulido who noted the following deficiencies:
1. Honoraria were in excess of the rates provided
for under the National Compensation Circular
No. 73, dated March 1, 1996, x x x.
2. Legal basis for designating the incumbent
Chancellor as Project Director by the Officer-In-
Charge (OIC), considering that the latter can
assume the post only in the absence of the former.
An OIC cannot validly designate since the
authority to designate/appoint is among the
functions of the Chancellor which cannot be
delegated as provided in the University Charter.
Moreover, the authority to appoint can never be
delegated since it involves discretion.
3. On the assumption that the designation of the
Chancellor as Project Director and Consultant is
valid, collecting the remuneration for both
positions amount to double compensation which
is contrary to existing auditing rules and
regulations.8
In a Memorandum9 dated September 16, 1996, UP’s Chief
Legal Officer Marichu C. Lambino addressed the
foregoing concerns of COA Auditor Pulido.Atty.
Lambino stated that (a) the compensation received by Dr.
Posadas are in the nature of consultancy fees and hence
expressly exempted by Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) National Compensation Circular
(NCC) No. 75 dated March 11, 1995; (b) the TMC Project,
being a training program, is likewise exempted from the
coverage of NEDA Guidelines on the Procurement of
Consulting Services for Government Projects; and (c)
under Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum
Circular (MC) No. 43, series of 1993 "Streamlining and
Deregulating Human Resource Development Functions"
UP is authorized, without prior approval from the CSC,
to determine the rates of honorarium for government
personnel participating as resource persons, coordinator,
and facilitator, in training programs. On the issue of
double compensation, Atty. Lambino pointed out that Dr.
Posadas was appointed Project Director because of
managerial expertise, and his skills in supervising
personnel who are involved in an academic undertaking,
and as Consultant because of his expertise in technology
management. Finding these explanations/justifications
acceptable, Auditor Pulido lifted the notices of
suspension in September 1997.
However, even before the issuance of the suspension
notices, then UP President Dr. Emil Q. Javier, ordered an
investigation on the basis of an administrative complaint
filed by Mrs. Ofelia L. Del Mundo, a staff of the University
Library who was detailed at the TMC as its
Administrative Officer. On July 24, 1996, President Javier
created a Fact-Finding Committee to gather, review and
evaluate pertinent documents regarding certain
transactions of the TMC.10After the conduct of a
preliminary investigation and finding a prima facie case
against the petitioners, President Javier issued the formal
charges11 for Grave Misconduct and Abuse of Authority.
Pursuant to the University’s "Rules and Regulations on
the Discipline of Faculty Members and Employees
approved at the 704th Meeting of the Board of Regents on
January 11, 1963,"12 an Administrative Disciplinary
Tribunal (ADT) was constituted, chaired by Atty. Arturo
E. Balbastro, a faculty member of the UP College of Law.
On August 21, 1998, the ADT submitted its Report13 (ADT
Case 96-001) to President Javier. The ADT found
petitioners guilty of serious or grave misconduct and
recommended the penalty of dismissal in accordance
with CSC Memorandum Circular No. 30, series of 1989,
as well as Article 250 of the University Code. The Report
likewise stated that the acts of petitioners for which they
were held administratively liable may warrant
prosecution under Section 3(h) and (i) of R.A. No. 3019.
Under the Order14 dated August 25, 1998 signed by
President Javier, petitioners were dismissed from the
service.
On September 3, 1998, Atty. Carmelita Yadao-Guno in her
capacity as General Counsel of UP formally endorsed the
findings and recommendations of the ADT to the
Ombudsman.15 The case was docketed as OMB-0-98-
1843.
Meanwhile, the BOR at its 1126th meeting on November
26, 1998, resolved petitioners’ appeal in ADT Case 96-001,
as follows:
1. The Board affirmed the ADT decision finding
the respondents guilty of grave misconduct and
imposed on them the penalty of forced
resignation with the accessory penalties defined
in the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of
Executive Order 292 and other Pertinent Civil
Service Laws – i.e., cancellation of eligibility,
forfeiture of all leave credits and retirement
benefits, and disqualification from government
service for one year.
2. If after one year they should reapply to the
University, they must render an apology to the
University and their reappointments will be
subject to Board approval.
3. The respondents are permanently disqualified
from holding any administrative position in the
University.
 4. The decision takes effect immediately.16
Satisfied with the BOR’s action, petitioners caused the
withdrawal of their appeal before the CSC.17
On June 9, 1999, the Evaluation and Preliminary
Investigation Bureau of the Office of Ombudsman
recommended the dismissal of the charges against
petitioners for insufficiency of evidence. However, said
recommendation was disapproved by then Ombudsman
Aniano A. Desierto who ordered that petitioners be
indicted for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and
Section 7(b) in relation to Section 11 of R.A. No. 6713. 18
The corresponding Informations19 were thus filed against
the petitioners before the Sandiganbayan (Criminal Case
Nos. 25465-66), as follow:
Criminal Case No. 25465
That on or about 7 November 1995, or sometime prior or
subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, both high-ranking public officers,
ROGER DELA ROSA POSADAS, being then the
Chancellor and a faculty member of the University of the
Philippines-Diliman Campus, and ROLANDO
PASCUAL DAYCO, being then the Vice-Chancellor of
the said university and Officer-In-Charge of the Office of
the Chancellor, committing the crime herein charged in
relation to, while in the performance and taking
advantage of their official and administrative functions,
and conspiring and confederating with and mutually
helping each other, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and criminally give unwarranted benefits,
privilege or advantage to accused POSADAS, when
accused DAYCO appointed or designated accused
POSADAS as a Project Director of the lone project,
Institutionalization of the Management of Technology at
U.P. Diliman, of the Technology Management Center
(TMC) of the Office of the Chancellor, U.P. Diliman,
which enabled or caused the disbursement and payment
of monthly salary of ₱30,000.00 of accused POSADAS,
duly received by the latter, for the period 18 September
1995 to 17 September 1996, with accused POSADAS also
receiving his salaries as Chancellor and faculty member
of U.P. Diliman during this period, and both accused
knowing fully well that the appointment of accused
POSADAS was beyond the power or authority of accused
DAYCO as an OIC and likewise violative of the law, rules
and regulations against multiple positions, double
compensation and retroactivity of appointment, thereby
causing undue injury to the Government in the amount of
PESOS: THREE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND
(₱360,000.00), to the damage and prejudice of the
Government.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 25466
That on or about 7 November 1995, or sometime prior or
subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, both high-ranking public officers,
ROGER DELA ROSA POSADAS, being then the
Chancellor and a faculty member of the University of the
Philippines-Diliman Campus, and ROLANDO
PASCUAL DAYCO, being then the ViceChancellor of the
said university and Officer-In-Charge of the Office of the
Chancellor, committing the crime herein charged in
relation to, while in the performance and taking
advantage of their official and administrative functions,
and conspiring and confederating with and mutually
helping each other, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and criminally engage in the unauthorized
private practice of accused POSADAS’s profession as a
technology manager, when accused DAYCO appointed
or designated accused POSADAS as a consultant to the
project, Institutionalization of the Management of
Technology at U.P. Diliman, of the Technology
Management Center (TMC) of the Office of the
Chancellor, U.P. Diliman, which enabled or caused the
disbursement and payment of consultancy fees in the
amount of ₱100,000.00 to accused POSADAS, duly
received by the latter, with respondent POSADAS also
receiving his salaries as Chancellor and faculty member
of U.P. Diliman, and both accused knowing fully well that
the appointment to and acceptance of the position of
consultant by respondent POSADAS was without
authority from the latter’s superior(s) or the U.P. Board of
Regents, to the damage and prejudice of the Government
service.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Dr. Dayco and Dr. Posadas were duly arraigned on June
15, 2000 and May 28, 2001, respectively, both pleading not
guilty to the charges against them.20
Ruling of the Sandiganbayan
After due proceedings, the Sandiganbayan rendered its
Decision21 dated June 28, 2005, the decretal portion of
which reads:
ACCORDINGLY, this Court finds both accused Roger R.
Posadas and Rolando P. Dayco GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and
Section 7(b) of RA 6713 and are sentenced to suffer the
following penalties:
For violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019: accused Posadas
and Dayco are sentenced to suffer in prison the
indeterminate penalty of nine (9) years and one day as
minimum and twelve (12) years as maximum, with the
accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from
public office. Both accused are directed to jointly and
severally indemnify the Government of the Republic of
the Philippines the amount of THREE HUNDRED
THIRTY SIX THOUSAND PESOS (₱336,000.00).
For violation of Section 7(b) of RA 6713: accused Posadas
and Dayco are sentenced to suffer in prison the maximum
penalty of five (5) years and disqualification to hold
public office.
SO ORDERED.22
The Sandiganbayan held that the evidence supports a
finding of evident bad faith on the part of petitioners who,
knowing very well the limitations of Dr. Dayco’s power
as OIC, effected the appointment of Dr. Posadas as TMC
Project Director and Consultant. These limitations are
based on the nature of the power to appoint which is
merely delegated to the Chancellor by the BOR, Section
204 of the Government Accounting and Auditing
Manual, and CSC MC No. 38, s. 1993 on non-retroactivity
of appointments.
The Sandiganbayan concluded that petitioners’ acts
caused undue injury to the Government with the receipt
by Dr. Posadas of salaries and consultancy fees.
Petitioners’ contention that the Government did not
suffer loss or damage since the funding for the TMC
Project came from CIDA was rejected by the
Sandiganbayan which stated that from the moment UP
received the CIDA funds intended for the TMC Project,
said funds became "impressed with public attributes or
character," as in fact it was subjected to the control of UP
and audited by the COA.
The Sandiganbayan likewise found no merit in
petitioners’ claim that they were just victims of
"university politics"as they were staunch critics of
President Javier. Petitioners adduced documentary and
testimonial evidence to show that Ms. Del Mundo’s filing
of a complaint against petitioners was triggered by the
fact that it was Dr. Posadas who ordered an
administrative investigation against her and recalled her
to the University Library, which incident led to the
resignation of Prof. Tabbada from TMC. However, the
Sandiganbayan stressed that regardless of the reason for
the filing of the cases against petitioners at the university
level, these cases would not have come into being if no
law has been violated in the first place.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was
denied due course for the reason that it has not been set
for hearing as required by the rules, hence the motion
ispro forma.
In this petition for certiorari, petitioners allege grave
abuse of discretion and blatant violation of their
constitutionally guaranteed right to due process.
The Issues
The Court is asked to resolve whether the Sandiganbayan
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
or in excess of jurisdiction: (1) in denying petitioners’
motion for reconsideration on the ground that it was not
set for hearing; and (2) in convicting petitioners of
Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Section 7(b)
of R.A. No. 6713 on the basis of facts not supported by
evidence and on inapplicable rules and principles.
Petitioners’ Arguments
Petitioners argue that the July 19, 2005 Resolution
denying their motion for reconsideration is not only
baseless, but capricious, arbitrary and most unjust
because the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan
does not require that the motion for reconsideration be set
for hearing. They cite the case of Alvarez v.
Sandiganbayan23 where this Court ruled that motions for
reconsideration of decisions or final orders of the
Sandiganbayan are not governed by Rule 15 of the Rules
of Court, as these may be filed within 15 days from
promulgation or notice of the judgment or final order
"upon the grounds, in the form and subject to the
requirements, for motions for new trial in criminal cases
under Rule 121 of the Rules of Court."
On the charges of graft, petitioners assert that they did not
act with bad faith, manifest partiality or gross inexcusable
negligence. They reiterate that Dr. Dayco’s designation as
OIC Chancellor was adjusted for one day merely to
accommodate the change in the official travel schedule of
Dr. Posadas to China. The appointment of Dr. Posadas as
TMC Project Director and Consultant was a valid
appointment and was made retroactive for no other
reason than to synchronize the activities relative to the
TMC Project with the project schedule as approved by the
funding agency. The power of appointment was within
the power of the Chancellor to delegate to the OIC
Chancellor, it not being expressly prohibited by the
University rules. Such practice, in fact, is not an unusual
occurrence in UP.
Petitioners also contend that no injury was caused to the
government because the TMC Project budget came from
foreign funds, hence not an expense incurred by the
Government and neither did UP incur any expense in
relation to the said project, its counterpart funding was
not in the form of money. Consequently, there can be no
conviction under the law in the absence of real or actual
damage suffered.
On the "honoraria" and fees received by Dr. Posadas as
Project Director and Consultant, petitioners insist they
cannot be held liable for double compensation because
these were given for separate services rendered by Dr.
Posadas. As opined by the UP Chief Legal Officer, the
compensation were in the nature of consultancy fees
being received by UP personnel in their capacity as
private persons for services to a project outside of their
official time, hence it is not covered by the DBM NCC No.
75. Moreover, petitioners stress that Dr. Posadas did not
receive any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference
in his appointment as TMC Project Director and
Consultant. Dr. Posadas possesses the superior
qualifications and expertise in the field of technology
management necessary to ensure that the project was a
success. In fact, his colleagues were expecting him to head
the TMC Project and did not oppose his appointment.
As to the charge of unauthorized outside employment,
petitioners point out that the University rules do not
require clearance from the UP President to engage in
consultancy work and the same rules do not prohibit him
from performing consultancy work for a project such as
TMC.
Therefore, Dr. Posadas’ appointment as TMC Project
Director and Consultant were not prohibited outside
employment.
Petitioners reiterate their "university politics" defense,
claiming that President Javier at the time chose to
champion Del Mundo’s complaint motivated by
vengeance and spite against two of his staunch critics.
Thus, despite knowledge of the opinion of the UP Chief
Legal Officer clearing petitioners of any wrongdoing,
President Javier underhandedly caused the filing of
administrative charges in the ADT.
Petitioners further submit that the complainant before the
Ombudsman, Atty. Carmelita Yadao, was incompetent as
she had no personal knowledge of the contents thereof,
which were merely narrated or reported to her in her
capacity as General Counsel of UP at that time. The letter-
complaint should not have been given due course as it
was based on pure hearsay and its main proponent
suffered from conflicting interests because she had earlier
endorsed the MOA which included the compensation
package for TMC Project Director and Consultant.
Finally, petitioners deny having acted in conspiracy as
there was no evidence to prove it. The only assumed fact
considered by the Sandiganbayan is based on its
erroneous hypothesis – the alleged act of "extending" the
period of OIC Chancellor for one day to accommodate Dr.
Posadas. Dr. Dayco did not even gain anything from his
designation of Dr. Posadas. Thus, in the absence of clear
and convincing proof, petitioners cannot be held liable as
conspirators.
Our Ruling
The petition has no merit.
Notice of Hearing in Motions
For Reconsideration Is Mandatory
Contrary to petitioners’ stance, the 2002 Revised Internal
Rules of the Sandiganbayan requires a motion for
reconsideration to be set for hearing, as it provides under
Rule VII:
SECTION 1. Motion Day. - Except for motions which may
be acted upon ex parte, all motions shall be scheduled for
hearings on a Friday, or if that day is a non-working
holiday, on the next working day.
Motions requiring immediate action may be acted upon
on shorter notice.
In appealed cases, the provisions of Sec. 3, Rule 49 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, on Motions
shall apply. (Emphasis supplied.)
Under the Rules of Sandiganbayan, effective January 10,
1979, a petition for reconsideration of a judgment or final
order may be filed upon the grounds, in the form and
subject to the requirements, for motions for new trial in
criminal cases under Rule 121 of the Rules of Court. 24 In
the case of Alvarezv. Sandiganbayan25 decided in 1991,
the Court upheld the Sandiganbayan in not considering
"the failure of the movant to fix the place, date and time
of the hearing of his motion a substantial defect, for
instead of giving the motion a short shrift, it set the
incident for hearing, and even granted the prosecution
ten days from notice within which to oppose/comment."
The Court noted what was then the practice of the
Sandigabayan itself, rather than the movant, to determine
the date and time of hearings of motions. The peculiar
circumstances of said case heavily weighed in favor of
relaxation of the rules, with the Court’s finding that the
evidence presented against the petitioner does not fulfill
the test of moral certainty and may not be deemed
sufficient to support a conviction. Hence, the Court was
not prepared "to declare that petitioner’s omission to set
his motion for hearing is so grievous an error as to
foreclose the award to him of the relief to which he is
otherwise entitled."
In any event, the mandatory setting for hearing a motion
for reconsideration to reverse or modify a judgment or
final order of the Sandiganbayan is already settled. This
Court categorically ruled in the recent case of Flores v.
People26
Flores filed a motion for the reconsideration. As the
motion did Not contain any notice of hearing, the
Prosecution filed its Motion to Expunge from the Records
Accused’s Motion for Reconsideration."
In its Resolution, dated November 29, 2007, the
Sandiganbayan denied the motion for being a mere scrap
of paper as it did not contain a notice of hearing and
disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion for
Reconsideration of accused Flores is considered pro
forma which did not toll the running of the period to
appeal, and thus, the assailed judgment of this Court has
become FINAL and EXECUTORY.
SO ORDERED.
xxxx
Flores claims that the outright denial of his motion for
Reconsideration by the Sandiganbayan on a mere
technicality amounts to a violation of his right to due
process. The dismissal rendered final and executory the
assailed decision which was replete with baseless
conjectures and conclusions that were contrary to the
evidence on record. He points out that a relaxation of
procedural rules is justified by the merits of this case as
the facts, viewed from the proper and objective
perspective, indubitably demonstrate self-defense on his
part.
Flores argues that he fully complied with the
requirements of Section2 of Rule 37 and Section 4 of Rule
121 of the Rules of Court when the motion itself was
served upon the prosecution and the latter, in fact,
admitted receiving a copy. For Flores, such judicial
admission amounts to giving due notice of the motion
which is the intent behind the said rules. He further
argues that a hearing on a motion for reconsideration is
not necessary as no further proceeding, such as a hearing,
is required under Section 3 of Rule 121.
Flores’ argument fails to persuade this Court.
Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court reads:
SECTION 5. Notice of hearing. – The notice of hearing
shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall
specify the time and date of the hearing which must not
be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.
Section 2, Rule 37 provides:
SEC. 2. Contents of motion for new trial or
reconsideration and notice thereof. – The motion shall be
made in writing stating the ground or grounds therefore,
a written notice of which shall be served by the movant
on the adverse party.
xxxx
A pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration shall
not toll the reglementary period of appeal.
Section 4, Rule 121 states:
SEC. 4. Form of motion and notice to the prosecutor. – The
motion for a new trial or reconsideration shall be in
writing and shall state the grounds on which it is based. x
x x. Notice of the motion for new trial or reconsideration
shall be given to the prosecutor.
As correctly stated by the Office of the Special Prosecutor
(OSP), Sec.2 of Rule 37 and Sec. 4 of Rule 121 should be
read in conjunction with Sec.5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of
Court. Basic is the rule that every motion must be set for
hearing by the movant except for those motions which the
court may act upon without prejudice to the rights of the
adverse party. The notice of hearing must be addressed to
all parties and must specify the time and date of the
hearing, with proof of service.
This Court has indeed held, time and again, that under
Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, the
requirement is mandatory. Failure to comply with the
requirement renders the motion defective. "As a rule, a
motion without a notice of hearing is considered pro
forma and does not affect the reglementary period for the
appeal or the filing of the requisite pleading."
In this case, as Flores committed a procedural lapse in
failing to include a notice of hearing, his motion was a
worthless piece of paper with no legal effect whatsoever.
Thus, his motion was properly dismissed by the
Sandiganbayan.27 (Emphasis supplied.)
We thus find no grave abuse of discretion committed by
the Sandiganbayan when it denied due course to
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on the ground that
it "has not been set for hearing as required by the rules"
and the same is "deemed pro forma."
Violation of Section 3(e)of R.A. No. 3019
The essential elements of the crime defined in Section 3(e)
of R.A. No. 3019, otherwise known as The Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, are:
1. The accused must be a public officer
discharging administrative, judicial or official
functions;
2. He must have acted with manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence; and
3. That his action caused any undue injury to any
party, including the government, or giving any
private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference in the discharge of his functions.28
There is no question regarding the presence of the first
requisite considering that at the time the subject
appointments were made, both petitioners were faculty
members and holding administrative positions in UP
Diliman. What petitioners dispute is the existence of the
second and third requisites.
In Criminal Case No. 25465, the information charged that
petitioners willfully, unlawfully and criminally gave
unwarranted benefits to Dr. Posadas in appointing him as
TMC Project Director, in violation of the prohibition
against multiple positions and the rule on non-
retroactivity of appointments, thereby causing undue
injury to the Government.
In Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan,29 this Court explained that
there are two (2) ways by which a public official violates
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 in the performance of his
functions, namely: (a) by causing undue injury to any
party, including the Government; or (b) by giving any
private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference. The accused may be charged under either
mode or under both. Moreover, in Quibal v.
Sandiganbayan,30 the Court held that the use of the
disjunctive term "or" connotes that either act qualifies as
a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. 31 Here,
petitioners were charged with committing the offense
under both modes.
Upon the entire evidence on record, the Sandiganbayan
was convinced that petitioners were guilty of causing
undue injury to the Government. In Llorente, Jr. v.
Sandiganbayan,32 this Court said that to hold a person
liable for causing undue injury under Section 3(e), the
concurrence of the following elements must be
established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution:
(1) that the accused is a public officer or a private
person charged in conspiracy with the former;
(2) that said public officer commits the prohibited
acts during the performance of his or her official
duties or in relation to his or her public positions;
(3) that he or she causes undue injury to any
party, whether the government or a private party;
and
(4) that the public officer has acted with manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence.
We sustain the decision of the Sandiganbayan holding
petitioners liable for causing undue injury to the
Government in appointing Dr. Posadas as TMC Project
Director with evident bad faith.
Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or
negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral
obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of
sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it
partakes of the nature of fraud.33 It contemplates a state of
mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or some
motive of self interest or ill will for ulterior
purposes.34 Evident bad faith connotes a manifest
deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong
or cause damage.35
In Pecho v. Sandiganbayan,36 the Court en banc defined
injury as "any wrong or damage done to another, either
in his person, or in his rights, reputation or property; the
invasion of any legally protected interests of another." It
must be more than necessary or are excessive, improper
or illegal. It is required that the undue injury caused by
the positive or passive acts of the accused be quantifiable
and demonstrable and proven to the point of moral
certainty.37 "Undue" means illegal, immoral, unlawful,
void of equity and moderations.38
In this case, that petitioners acted in evident bad faith was
duly established by the evidence. We recall that the MOA
was executed on September 18, 1995 and became effective
upon the signature of the parties.39 Between that date and
the China trip scheduled in the first week of November
(the invitation was dated July 30, 1995), Dr. Posadas could
have already appointed the Project Director and
Consultant as indeed the retroactive appointment was
even justified by them because supposedly "project
activities" have already started by September 18, 1995.
And yet, he waited until the China trip so that in his
absence the designated OIC Chancellor, Dr. Dayco,
would be the one to issue the appointment. Apparently,
Dr. Posadas’ appointment by Dr. Dayco in an OIC
capacity was pre-conceived. Prof. Jose Tabbada testified
that when he was summoned by Dr. Posadas to his office,
the latter asked him how he (Posadas) could be appointed
TMC Project Director. He then suggested that Dr. Dayco
as OIC Chancellor can appoint him to the position and
even drafted the memo for this purpose. He admitted that
he gave such advice with some reservations but it turned
out to have been pursued by petitioners.40
However, the Sandiganbayan ruled that the delegated
authority of the OIC Chancellor has limitations and did
not include the power to appoint.
Section 204 of the Government Accounting and Auditing
Manual (Volume I on Government Auditing Rules and
Regulations) provides:
Sec. 204. Appointment issued by an officer-in-charge. -- A
person designated in an acting capacity may be
differentiated from one who is designated merely as an
Officer-in-Charge (OIC). In the latter case, the OIC enjoys
limited powers which, are confined to functions of
administration and ensuring that the office continues its
usual activities. The OIC may not be deemed to possess
the power to appoint employees as the same involves the
exercise of discretion which is beyond the power of an
OIC (CSC Res. 1692, Oct. 20, 1978).
To prove the alleged practice in the University of an OIC
appointing a Chancellor to a certain position, petitioners
presented copies of temporary appointment papers
issued by OIC Chancellor Paz G. Ramos to former
Chancellor Ernesto G. Tabujara who was appointed
Consultant-In-Charge of the Campus Planning,
Development and Maintenance Office, UP Diliman with
₱2,000.00 monthly honorarium effective January 1, 1986
to December 31, 1986. It must be noted, however, that the
said appointment was made by the OIC "by authority of
the Board of Regents" and these were actually approved
and signed by then Secretary of the University, Prof.
Martin V. Gregorio, while the renewal appointment was
approved by Secretary of the University Prof. Emerlinda
R. Roman. Both Gregorio and Roman signed the
Notification of Approval of Temporary Appointment.41
Petitioners nonetheless argue that the appointments
made by Dr. Dayco were valid on the basis of Section 9(a)
of the Resolution of the BOR reorganizing UP into the UP
System adopted at its 828th meeting on December 21,
1972, as amended at its 863rd meeting on July 31, 1975.
Under said resolution, the BOR authorized the Chancellor
of an autonomous university of the UP System to delegate
his functions and responsibilities which have been
assigned or delegated to him by the BOR, unless
instructed otherwise by the BOR. It also enumerated
those functions that may not be delegated, among which
is:
B. Functions That May Not Be Delegated
xxxx
f. Authority to approve the following appointments –
(1) those covered in II, C, 1, and e of the
President’s Memorandum Circular No. 30 dated
August 28, 1975; and
(2) those covered in II, C, 4, a through c of the
aforecited memorandum circular of the
President;
x x x x42
MC No. 30 dated August 28, 1975 issued by former UP
President Onofre D. Corpuz provided for "Operating
Guidelines on Appointments and Related Personnel
Transactions in the University System," which specifically
delineated the authority to appoint of university officials.
The pertinent provisions of said MCNo. 30 read:
C. Delegated Authority of the Chancellor to Appoint
1. The Chancellor of an autonomous University approves
appointments to the following positions:
a. directors or heads and assistant directors or
assistant heads of units supervised by or attached
to principal units, except those whose starting
salaries are equal to or higher than that of
associate professor;
b. program or project directors;
xxxx
5. The Chancellor approves the appointment of
personnel, regardless of rank or salary range, incidental
to employment in research projects, study and training
programs and other programs or projects undertaken in
collaboration with, or with the support of, public or
private institutions or persons.
TYPES OF APPOINTMENT/PERSONNEL ACTION
COVERED:
Appointment as used in II, C, 5 above includes all types
of appointment and personnel action pertaining to
appointment, except transfer to permanency of faculty
members. (Emphasis supplied.)
According to petitioners, since appointments falling
under II, C, 5 was not specifically mentioned in the
enumeration of those functions of the Chancellor that
may not be delegated, it follows that such appointments
may be validly delegated, as in this case, the
appointments issued by OIC Chancellor Dayco to Dr.
Posadas as TMC Project Director and Consultant.
Moreover, it is argued that in the BOR Resolution itself,
the designated OIC Chancellor was granted full powers:
E. Extent of Authority of One Appointed in an
Acting/Officer-in-Charge Capacity
One appointed/designated, in an acting or officer-in-
charge capacity, to the office of chancellor shall discharge
all the functions of the position unless instructed
otherwise by the regular incumbent, and in any case,
subject to the latter’s instructions, to the policies of the
Board of Regents and to the provisions of D herein above
and of F herein below; provided, that "all the functions of
the position" as used in and for purposes of this resolution
shall be construed as inclusive of all the functions
assigned to the position by competent University
authority and all such functions as usually pertain, or are
"inherent," to the position although not expressly
assigned thereto by competent University authority.
Petitioners’ argument fails to persuade.
It must be emphasized that the subject appointments
involve not an ordinary personnel or faculty member but
the Chancellor himself who was also vested with
administrative supervision over the institution
implementing the TMC Project, TMC. Note that while II,
C, 5 in MC No. 30 speaks of "personnel, regardless of rank
or salary range, incidental to employment," the same
could not possibly refer to the Chancellor himself. This is
evident from the exception provided in II, B, 1 where it is
the President himself who approves the appointment, viz:
B. Delegated Authority of the President to Appoint
1. The President approves the appointment of officers and
employees (including faculty members if there are any)
who are not included in or covered by the enumerations
in II, A above and of those who are covered in II, C, 5
below who are:
a. in or directly under the Office of the President;
or
b. in University-wide units; or
c. in other offices or units, academic or non-
academic, that are not part of any autonomous
University;
to the same extent and under the same conditions
stipulated in II, C below for the delegated authority of the
Chancellor of an autonomous University to appoint.
TYPES OF APPOINTMENT/PERSONNELACTION
COVERED:
Appointment as used in II, B, 1 above includes all types
of appointment and personnel action pertaining to
appointment, except transfer to permanency of faculty
members. (Emphasis supplied.)
Considering that it is the Chancellor himself who is being
appointed to a project covered in II, C, 5, the BOR
resolution on the authority of the Chancellor to delegate
his functions may not be invoked because the situation is
covered by II, B, 1, the Chancellor being directly under the
administrative supervision of the UP President as the
Chief Executive Officer of the University. The Chancellor,
on the other hand, is the executive officer and the head of
the faculty of the Constituent University, who likewise
performs other functions that the BOR or the President
may delegate to her/him. This is clearly indicated in the
organizational structure of the UP Diliman, sourced from
the Faculty Manual of the University of the Philippines
Diliman43:
[photo]
Thus, even granting that the subject appointments in UP
Diliman, an autonomous educational institution, are not
covered by Section 204 of the Government Accounting
and Auditing Manual, they are still invalid and illegal,
because the delegated authority to appoint in this case,
involving as it does the Chancellor himself, pertains to the
President of the University. Indeed, the Chancellor
cannot exercise the delegated authority to appoint in the
situations covered by II, C, 5 when he himself is the
appointee. The designated OIC likewise had no authority
to make the appointment.
As to the prohibition on government officials and
employees, whether elected or appointed, from holding
any other office or position in the government, this is
contained in Section 7, Article IX-B of the 1987
Constitution, which provides:
xxxx
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary
functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold
any other office or employment in the Government, or
any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled corporations
or their subsidiaries. (Emphasis supplied.)
The prohibition on dual employment and double
compensation in the government service is further
specified under Sections 1 and 2, Rule XVIII of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. No.
292,44 as follows:
Sec. 1. No appointive official shall hold any other office or
employment in the Government or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-
owned or controlled corporations with original charters
or their subsidiaries, unless otherwise allowed by law or
by the primary functions of his position.
Sec. 2. No elective or appointive public officer or
employee shall receive additional, double, or indirect
compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, xxx.
Under Section 2(d), Rule III of the Revised Omnibus Rules
on Appointments and Other Personnel
Actions,45appointments of personnel under Foreign-
assisted projects shall be issued and approved as
coterminous with the project. The MOA itself provides
that the "services of the contractual personnel of the
University for the Project shall be discontinued upon its
completion or termination." The appointment of Dr.
Posadas as TMC Project Director falls within the
prohibition against holding of multiple positions since
there is no distinction in Section 7, Article IX-B as to the
employment status, i.e., whether permanent, temporary
or coterminous. Petitioners failed to cite any law to justify
Dr. Posadas’ holding of concurrent positions as
Chancellor and TMC Project Director.
Another legal infirmity in the appointment of Dr. Posadas
as TMC Project Director is the fact that it was made
retroactive, in violation of CSC MC No. 38, Series of 1993,
the Omnibus Guidelines on Appointments and Other
Personnel Actions. Section II, 5 B (7) thereof reads:
7. Effectivity of Appointment
a. The effectivity of an appointment shall be the
date of actual assumption by the appointee but
not earlier than the date of issuance of the
appointment, which is the date of signing by the
appointing authority.
b. No appointment shall be made effective earlier
than the date of issuance, except in the case of
change of status in view of qualifying in written
examination, the effectivity of which is the date
of release of the result of the examination.
However, the issuance of such appointments
shall be within the period of the temporary
appointment or provided the temporary
appointment has not yet expired.
xxxx
Petitioners assert that appointment as TMC Project
Director is not covered by the above rule because it is in
the nature of consultancy which is no longer required to
be submitted to the CSC.
A perusal of the duties and responsibilities of the TMC
Project Director reveals that the latter is tasked to perform
the following:
● Provide overall direction to the Project;
● Exercise supervision over Project personnel,
including the visiting experts;
● Approve the recruitment of personnel,
disbursement of Project funds, and changes in the
Project activities and schedule;
● Coordinate with other persons, agencies and
institutions involved in technology management;
● Perform such other functions as may be
necessary to ensure the efficient, orderly and
effective management and timely completion of
the Project.46
The foregoing duties and responsibilities are not
susceptible of partial performance or division into parts
as would justify its classification into lump sum work.
Neither are these advisory in nature as would make it fall
under the scope of a consultancy service.47 The status of
Dr. Posadas’ employment as TMC Project Director is a
coterminous one. Under civil service rules, appointments
of personnel under foreign-assisted projects shall be
issued and approved as coterminous with the
project,48 that is, they are considered employees for the
duration of the project, in which case, the name of the
project and its completion date shall be indicated in the
appointment.49 This status of employment is to be
distinguished from contract of services which covers
lump sum work or services such as janitorial, security or
consultancy services, whose appointments need not be
submitted to the CSC for approval.
We also find no merit in petitioners’ argument that the
element of injury caused to the Government is lacking
since the budget for TMC Project came from a foreign
source and hence no public funds are involved. Under the
MOA, UP shall be "principally accountable for the project
funds" which shall be released to and properly managed
by it to ensure the attainment of the Project’s objectives.
Clearly, these funds are in the nature of "trust fund"
which is defined by Presidential Decree No. 1445 as "fund
that officially comes in the possession of an agency of the
government or of a public officer as trustee, agent or
administrator, or that is received for the fulfillment of
some obligation.50 A trust fund may be utilized only for
the "specific purpose for which the trust was created or
the funds received."51 The Sandiganbayan thus correctly
held that the funds received for the TMC Project were
impressed with public attributes or character from the
time it came into UP’s possession.
The disbursement and payment of the ₱30,000.00
monthly salary as TMC Project Director to Dr. Posadas
was improper, in view of his invalid appointment. Said
amount represents the actual injury to the Government.
The third requisite of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019,
therefore, was sufficiently established by the prosecution.
Violation of Section 7(b),R.A. No. 6713
In Criminal Case No. 25466, the charge involves the
private practice of profession prohibited under Section
7(b) of R.A. No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees, by appointing Dr. Posadas as Consultant of
the TMC Project. Said provision reads:
SEC. 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. – In addition to
acts and omissions of public officials and employees now
prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the
following shall constitute prohibited acts and
transactions of any public official and employee and are
hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxxx
(b) Outside employment and other activities related
thereto. – Public officials and employees during their
incumbency shall not:
xxxx
(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession
unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided
that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with
their official functions; or
xxxx
Pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 93-1881 dated May 25,
1993, a contract for consultancy services is not covered by
Civil Service Law, rules and regulations because the said
position is not found in the index of position titles
approved by DBM. Accordingly, it does not need the
approval of the CSC.52 CSC MC No. 38, series of 1993
expressly provides that consultancy services are not
considered government service for retirement purposes.
A "consultant" is defined as one who provides
professional advice on matters within the field of his
special knowledge or training. There is no employer-
employee relationship in the engagement of a consultant
but that of client-professional relationship.53
Consultancy is deemed private practice of profession.
Under CSC Resolution 02126454 dated September 27,
2002, accepting a consultancy job under a part-time status
is subject to the following conditions:
1. It must not violate the rule against holding
multiple positions
2. The employee/officer must obtain permission
or authority from his/her head of agency as the
same constitutes private practice of profession;
3. The consultancy job must not conflict or tend
to conflict with his/her official functions; and
4. It must not affect the effective performance of
his/her duty.
In convicting petitioners, the Sandiganbayan cited Article
250 of the University Code, which provides:
Art. 250. No member of the academic staff, officer or
employee of the University shall, without permission
from the President or the Chancellor, as the case may be,
practice any profession or manage personally any private
enterprise which in any way may be affected by the
functions of his office, nor shall he be directly financially
interested in any contract with the University unless
permitted by the Board. Violation of this provision shall
be punishable by reprimand, suspension, or dismissal
from the service. (Emphasis supplied.)
Since Dr. Posadas and Dr. Dayco entered into the contract
for consultancy services for the TMC Project without
prior permission from the University President, the
Sandiganbayan ruled that they violated Section 7(b) of
R.A. No. 6713.
Petitioners contend that the section of the University
Code cited by the Sandiganbayan had already been
superseded by the guidelines on outside activities
promulgated by the BOR at its 1031st Meeting on June 28,
1990. Thus, in the Faculty Manual of the University of the
Philippines Diliman while the consultancy at TMC
Project falls under the coverage of "outside activities,"
prior authorization by the University President is no
longer required. The pertinent provisions of the manual
read:
10.3 Guidelines on Outside Activities [1031st BOR
meeting, June 28, 1990]
10.3.1 Coverage
Outside activities of University personnel shall include:
limited practice of profession, management of private
enterprises, outside consultancy, secondment, teaching in
other educational or training institutions with which the
University has a Memorandum of Agreement, as well as
research and other activities or projects under the
auspices of outside agencies which are not considered
integral functions of the University. Such activities shall
not be considered part of the regular workload of the
personnel concerned.
10.3.2 Prior Authorization
No member of the University personnel shall engage in
outside activities without prior authorization from the
Chancellor, upon endorsement by the Dean, Director, or
head of office concerned, subject to the exigencies of the
service.
xxxx
10.3.5 Penalties
Violation of any of the rules on outside activities shall be
ground for disciplinary action. The immediate superior of
the faculty/staff member shall immediately submit a
report on any violation of the rules to the Office of the
Chancellor, through channels.
Disciplinary action on any faculty/staff member may be
imposed, but only in accordance with the law, and after
due process.
10.3.6 Types
xxxx
c. Limited/private practice of profession
Permission to engage in private practice of the profession
of faculty members may be granted only if such private
practice may enhance their usefulness to the University
or improve their efficiency. [Art. 252]
The privilege of private practice, when granted, shall be
for a definite period of one (1) year, renewable at the
discretion of the Chancellor for one-year periods, and
under such conditions as may be prescribed by him/her
regarding the nature of the work, the time of
performance, and other circumstances. [Art. 253;
amended at BOR meetings: 839th , Nov. 29, 1973; 1031st,
June 28, 1990]
The limited practice of one’s profession shall be governed
by the following guidelines:
1) No member of the academic staff, officer or
employee of the University shall, without prior
permission from the Chancellor, practice any
profession or manage personally any private
enterprise which in any way may be affected by
the functions of her/his office; nor shall s/he be
directly financially interested in any contract
with the University unless permitted by the
Board.
Violation of this provision shall be punishable by
reprimand, suspension, or dismissal from the
service. [Art. 250; amended at 1031st BOR
meeting, June 28, 1990]
2) Permission to engage in private practice of
profession may granted provided that such
practice:
● is NOT ADVERSE to the interests of the
University;
● shall NOT be conducted on official
time;
● will improve the person’s efficiency
and usefulness to the University; and
● shall be subject to such other
requirements as may be imposed by law
or University rules and regulations.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Notwithstanding the supposed amendment of the rule on
limited practice of profession as contained in Article 250
of the University Code, we sustain the Sandiganbayan in
holding that petitioners should have obtained prior
permission from the University President for the contract
for consultancy services in the TMC Project. As with our
conclusion on the issue of authority to appoint the TMC
Project Director, considering that it is the Chancellor
himself who was engaged as TMC Project Consultant, the
contract for consultancy services of Dr. Posadas should
have been authorized by the University President as the
chief executive officer of the UP System. To hold
otherwise is to leave the matter of determining the criteria
or conditions for allowing the private practice of
profession provided in the University rules entirely to Dr.
Posadas himself as then UP Diliman Chancellor.
Consistent with the Civil Service rules that prior
authorization by the head of the agency or institution
must be sought by the government officer or employee
who desires to accept a consultancy job, it is no less than
the University President who should have given
permission to Dr. Posadas, the latter being directly under
his administrative supervision.
Upon the established facts and applicable law and
jurisprudence, we hold that no grave abuse of discretion
was committed by the Sandiganbayan in convicting
petitioners for violation of Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713.
Conspiracy
A conspiracy is proved by evidence of actual cooperation;
of acts indicative of an agreement, a common purpose or
design, a concerted action or concurrence of sentiments to
commit the felony and actually pursue it.55 For the
accused to be held as conspirators, it is not necessary to
show that two or more persons met together and entered
into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an
unlawful scheme or the details by which an illegal
objective is to be carried out." Therefore, if it is proved
that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the
accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing
a part so that their acts, though apparently independent,
were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a
closeness of personal association and a concurrence of
sentiment, then a conspiracy may be inferred though no
actual meeting among them to concert means is proved.56
The Sandiganbayan’s finding of conspiracy rests on firm
factual support. Although Dr. Dayco tried to downplay
his participation, stating that he did not benefit from the
subject appointments and that there were many other
appointment papers he had signed in the absence of Dr.
Posadas, it is clear as daylight that he had a principal and
indispensable role in effecting the said appointments. To
stress the point, the Sandiganbayan quoted the relevant
portions of the Report submitted by the ADT, as follows:
It would be the height of naiveté to assume that before
making the two (2) appointments of respondent Posadas
as Director of the TMC Project and as Consultant to the
TMC, respondent Dayco did not, in any manner, confer
with respondent Posadas about the matter. To believe the
claim of respondent Posadas that he just saw his
appointment papers at his desk when he came back from
his trip is to tax human credulity too much.
Under the said circumstances, the natural course of
events necessarily points to connivance between
respondent Posadas and respondent Dayco in the making
of the questioned appointments.
Despite the claim of respondent Posadas that he just saw
the appointment papers on his desk when he returned
from his trip, the admitted fact is that respondent Dayco
made those appointments for respondent Posadas and
the latter acted upon the same favourably as he
(respondent Posadas) collected the compensation therein
(Exhibits :E" and "E-1"). In fact, as Chancellor, respondent
Posadas approved his own Disbursement Voucher for
payment from the coffers of the University, covering his
honoraria and consultancy fees as Project Director for the
TMC Project and as consultant to the TMC, respectively
(Exhibit "E-2").57
Penalty
Any person guilty of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No.
3019 is punishable with imprisonment for not less than six
(6) years and one (1) month nor more than fifteen (15)
years and perpetual disqualification from public
office.58 Thus, the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan
which is an indeterminate penalty of nine (9) years and
one day as minimum and twelve (12) years as maximum,
with the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification
from public office, is in accord with law. Petitioners shall
also indemnify the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines the amount of THREE HUNDRED THIRTY
SIX THOUSAND PESOS (₱336,000.00) representing the
compensation/salaries paid to Dr. Posadas as TMC
Project Director.
As to the offense defined in Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713,
Section 11 of said law provides that violations of Section
7 shall be punishable with imprisonment not exceeding
five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos
(₱5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court,
disqualification to hold public office. The Sandiganbayan
imposed the maximum penalty of five (5) years
imprisonment and disqualification to hold public office.
The Court is aware of the sentiments of the succeeding
BOR who agonized while deliberating whether to
readmit petitioners into the faculty of UP Diliman, with
majority of the Regents lamenting the loss of two of its
distinguished intellectuals and scientists who had served
the University for so long despite the meager
compensation UP has to offer compared to private
educational institutions.59 The BOR eventually allowed
them to teach part-time in the TMC even waiving the
conditions the previous BOR had imposed -- a move
perceived to be a first step in the healing process for the
academic community that was "torn into pieces" by the
issue.
However, this Court's mandate is to uphold the
Constitution and the laws. Our Constitution stresses that
a public office is a public trust and public officers must at
all times be accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency,
act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest
lives.60 These constitutionally enshrined principles, oft-
repeated in our case law, are not mere rhetorical
flourishes or idealistic sentiments. They should be taken
as working standards by all in the public service.61
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Decision
dated June 28, 2005 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal
Cases Nos. 25465-66 is hereby AFFIRMED and UPHELD.

With costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.