Republic ofthe Philippines

SANDIGANBAYAN
Quezon City

FOURTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, SB-17-CRM-0744
Riaintiff, For: Violation of Section 3(e),
R.A. No. 3019

-versus-

Present:

OSCAR 0. MONTILLA, JR., QUIROZ, J., Chairperson

CRUZ, J., and
Accused.
JAG!NIC, J.

Promulgated: II

DECISION

QUIROZ, J:

In a Criminal Information'' dated January 3, 2017, herein accused

Oscar C. Montilla, Jr., (hereinafter referred to as "Montilla") was charged
with Violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, allegedly
committed as follows, to wit:

In 2008 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Sipalay City,

Negros Occidental, Philippines and within this Honorable Court's
jurisdiction, the above-named accused OSCAR C. MONTILLA, JR., a
public officer being then the Mayor of Sipalay City, Negros Occidental,
while in the performance of his official functions, with manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable nealioenrp^ did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally give unwarranted benefit
and advantage to Evangeline A. Seneres, Eva A. Sabusap, Fernando
R. Balbin, Noel Villanueva and Renato Manilla, employees of the local
government of Sipalay City suspended from service by the Office of
the Ombudsman under administrative case No. OMB-V-A-o^-oiSg-D

' Records, Vol. I, p. 1

Decision
People V. Oscar C. Montilla, Jr.
Criminal Cases No. SB-I7-CRM-0744
Page 2 of24
X

for Negligence, by delaying for years without legal basis the

implementation of said suspension despite repeated directives from
the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas, to the detriment of public
service.

CONTRARY TO LAW.^

The case was thereafter docketed as Crim. Case No. SB-17-CRM-

0744.

On April 24, 2017, a Hold-Departure Order against Montilla was

issued by this Court.^

In an Ordei^ dated April 26, the Regional Trial Court of Kabankalan,

Negros Occidental, Branch 61, in behalf of this Court, approved the cash
bond posted by Montilla in Crim. Case No. SB-17-CRM-0744.

On August 1, 2017, Montilla pleaded "notguilty"to the cnvr\e charged

against him during his arraignment.^

The prosecution and the defense stipulated on the following facts

during pre-trial, to wit:

1. The identity ofOscar C. Montilla (hereafter, the 'Accused')

2. At all times relevant and material to this case, the Accused was
the Mayor ofthe CityofSipalay, Province of Negros Occidental.

3. The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas(OMB-Visayas)issued a

Decision dated 14 November 2005 in OMB-V-A-04-oi8gi-D, dismissing
the administrative complaint against the Accused.

4. The Office ofthe Ombudsman-Visayas(OMB-Visayas)issued a

Decision dated 14 November 2005 in OMB-V-A-04-0189-D imposing a
penalty of three-month suspension against Evangeline A. Seneres, Eva
A. Sabusap, Fernando R. Balbin, Noel Villanueva and Renato P. Manilla
(collectively, the 'Respondents').

5. The same 14 November 2005 Decision in OMB-V-[A]-o4-oi8g-D

imposed a penalty ofthree-month suspension against the Respondents.

6. The same 14 November 2003 Decision was received by the

Respondents on 20 May 2008.

7. Respondentsfiled a Motion for Reconsideration on the above-

mentioned Decision on 26 May 2008.

^ Records, Vol. I, p. 1 |/
3 Id, p. 92. /
"W., p. 107.
5 Id. p. 123.
A
Decision
People V. Oscar C. Montilla, Jr.
Criminal Cases No. SB-17-CRM-0744
Page 3 of24
X

8. The OMB-Visayas issued an Order dated 22 September 2008 in

OMB-V-A-o4-oi8g-D, denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by
the Respondents and affirming the penalty imposed upon them.

g. The 22 September 2008 Order un OMB-V-A-o4-oi8g-D also

directed the Accused to implement the 14 November 2005 Decision.

,10. Respondents filed a Motion to Defer Implementation of the

Decision ofthe Office ofthe Ombudsman dated 03 August 2010.

11. In a letter dated 21 July 2011, the Accused informed the OMB-
Visayas regarding the reason why the 'Order ofSuspension against the
respondents in OMB-V-A-04-oi8g-D could not be implemented.

12. In a letter dated g November2011, OMB-Visayas reiterated the

directive for the Accused to cause the implementation of the Decision
dated 14 November 2005 in 0MB-V-A-o4-oi8g-D.

13. The same g November 2011 letter was received by the Accused
on 2g December 2011.

14. The next working dayfrom 2g December 2011 is 3 January

2012.

15. On 3 January 2012, the Accused implemented the Decision in

OMB-V-A-04-oi8g-D against the Respondents, except for Renato P.
Manilla, and reported such implementation to OMB-Visayas in a letter
ofeven date.

16. Renato P. Manilla, being a City Treasurer, is under the control

and supervision ofthe Department ofFinance.

17. The Accused has no authority to suspend Respondent Renato

P. Manillal]

18. The Department ofFinance suspended Renato P. Manilla.

ig. During the preliminary investigation ofOMB-V-C-14-0120, the

Accusedfiled a Counter-Affidavit dated 14 August 2014.

20. The existence, due execution and authenticity of the

documentary evidencefor the Prosecution, as described below.^ (italics
in the original)

During pre-trial, the prosecution and the defense agreed to limit the
issue to be resolved to:

1. Whether or not the accused Is guilty of the offense charged in

the Information.^

pp. 313-314. ' /Pfy

'Id., p. 320. /
.'>r"
Decision
People V. Oscar C. Montilla, Jr.
Criminal Cases No. SB-17-CRM-0744
Page 4 of24
X

The parties also admitted the existence, due execution and contents
of the following documents, to wit:

For the Prosecution:

Exhibit W Decision dated 14 November 2005 issued by the

Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas in OMB-V-A-
04-0189-D.
'B' Order dated 22 September 2008 issued by the
Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas in OMB-V-A-
04-0l8q-D.
T' Letter dated 15 July 2010 of Assistant Ombudsman
Virginia Palanca-Santiago of the OMB-Visayas,
addressed to the City Mayor Oscar Montilla, Jr.,
endorsing for implementation the 22 September
2008 Order in OMB-V-A-04-0189-D.

^C-i' Registry Return Card

^D' Letter dated 8 November 2010 of Assistant Ombuds
Virginia Palaca-Santiago of the OMB-Visayas, addre
to the City Mayor Oscar Montilla, Jr., following up th
July 2010 after submission of a compliance report re
thereto.

^D-i' Registry Return Card

T' Letter dated 1 April 2011 of Assistant Om-budsman
Virginia Palanca-Santiago of the OMB-Visayas,
addressed to the City Mayor Oscar Montifla, Jr.,
inquiring on the action taken on the
implementation Order issued in relation to 0MB-
V-A-04-0189-D.

'E-i' Registry Return Card

'F' Letter dated 21 July 2011 of Mayor Oscar Montilla,
Jr., addressed to Assistant Ombudsman Virginia
Palanca-Santiago, clarifying why the Ord'er of
Suspension issued by OMB-Visayas in OMB-V-A-
04-0189-D had not been implemented.
'G' ■ Letter dated 9 November 2011 of Assista'Dt
Ombudsman Virginia Palanca-Santiago ofthe
OMB-Visayas, addressed to City Mayor Oscar
Montilla, Jr., reiterating the directive to cause the
implementation of the Decision in OMB-V-A-04-
0189-D.
'H' Letter dated 3 January 212 of Mayor Oscar
Montilla, Jr., addressed to Assistant Ombudsman
Virginia Palanca-Santiago, regarding the
implementation of the Decision in OMB-V-A-04-
0189-D.
M' Memorandum Order No. 2012-003 date<d 3 January
2011, issued by Mayor Oscar Montilla, Jr., to
/
Decision
People V. Oscar C. Montilla, Jr.
Criminal Cases No. SB-17-CRIV1-0744
Page 5 of24
X

Evangeline A.Seneres, implementing the Decision

in OMB-V-A-04-0189-D.
Memorandum Order NO. 2012-004 dated 3
January 2011, issued by Mayor Oscar Montilla, Jr.,
to Eva A.Sabusap, implementing the Decision in
OMB-V-A-04-0189-D.
^K' Memorandum Order No. 2012-005 dated 3 January
2011, issued by Mayor Oscar Montilla, Jr., to Noel
Villanueva, implementing the Decision in OMB-V-
A-04-0189-D.
'L' Memorandum Order No. 2012-006 dated 3 January
2011, issued by Mayor Oscar Montilla, Jr., to
Fernando Balbin, implementing the Decision in
OMB-V-A-04-0189-D.
'M' Manifestation/Motion filed by Oscar C. Montilla,
Jr., through counsel, during the preliminary
investigation of OMB-V-C-14-0120.
»N' Counter-Affidavit dated 14 August 2014 filed by
Oscar C. Montilla, Jr., during the preliminary
investigation of OMB-V-C-14-0120.
>0' Complaint-Affidavit dated 25 February 2014 of
Theodore P. Banderado as nominal complainant in
OMB-V-C-14-0120.
'O-i' Final Evaluation Report date 25 February 14 in
CPC-C-11-1712, which was the basis for the
Complaint-Affidavit(Exhibit >0') of Atty.
Banderado in OMB-V-C-14-0120.
'P' Service Record of Oscar C. Montilla, Jr.

or the Defense:

Exhibit V Motion for Reconsideration dated 26 May 2008

^2' Motion to Defer Implementation dated 03 August
2010

^3' Service Records of Respondents in OMB-V-A-

0189-D.
Payroll of Sipalay City from 2008 to 2012.
'5' Letter of the accused to Assistant Ombudsman
Hon.Virginia Palanca-Santiago dated 21 July 2011
'6' Letter-Reply of Hon.Virginia Palanca-Santiago to
the Accused dated 09 November 2011.
7'# '7"3' to 'y-c' Suspension Orders addressed to Fernando Balbin,
Eva Sabusap, Evangeline Seneres and Dr. Noel
Villanueva denominated as Memorandum Orders
of the Office of the City Mayor all dated 03 January
2012.

'8'and W Department of Finance Regional Office Order Nos.

005-2012 dated 03 January 2012 and 043-2012
dated 02 April 2012.
'9' Letter-Compliance of the Accused to Hon.Virginia
Palanca-Santiago dated 03 January 2012
>10' Order of the Ombudsman dated 08 April 2011.
7
Decision
People V. Oscar C. Montilla, Jr.
Criminal Cases No. SB-17-CRM-0744
Page 6 of24
X

.."
11 'Post Office Certification dated 22 May 2018 signed
John D. Delfin, Postmaster for the City of Sipalay,
Negros Occidental re. Registered letter No.9848

'ii-a' Photocopy of the Post Office Delivery Book.

'12' Post Office Certification dated 22 May 2018 signed
John D. Delfin, Postmaster for the City of Sipalay,
Negros Occidental re: Registered Letter No.7054

T2-b' Photocopy of the Post Office Delivery Book.®

Trial thereafter proceeded.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The prosecution opted to not present any testimonial evidence.

On July 16, 2018, the prosecution filed its Formal Offer of Exhibits,^
to wit:

Exhibits Description
"A" Decision dated 14 November 2005 issued
by the Office of the Ombudsman Visayas in
OMB-V-A-04-0189-D

"B" Order dated 22 September 2008 issued by

the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas in
OMB-V-A-04-0189-D

"C" Letter dated 15 July 2010 of Assistant

Ombudsman Virginia Palanca-Santiago of
the OMB-Visayas, addressed to City Mayor
Oscar Montilla, Jr., endorsing for
implementation the 22 September 2008
Order in OMB-V-A-04-0189-D

"C-1" Registry Retum Card

"D" Letter dated 8 November 2010 of Assistant
Ombudsman Virginia Palanca-Santiago of
the OMB-Visayas, addressed to City Mayor
Oscar Montilla, Jr., following-up the 15 July
2010 letter and requesting the submission of
a compliance report relative thereto

^ Id., pp. 315-319. /

'W,pp. 347-353.
Decision
People V. Oscar C. Montilla, Jr. -
Criminal Cases No. SB-17-CRM-0744
Page 7 of24
^

Registry Return Card

"D-1"

"E" Letter dated 1 April 2011 of Assistant

Ombudsman Virginia Palanca-Santiago of
the OMB-Visayas, addressed to the City
Mayor Oscar Montilla, Jr., inquiring on the
action taken on the Implementation Order
issued in relation to OMB-V-A-04-0180-D

"E-1" Registry Return Card

"F" Letter dated 21 July 2011 of Mayor Oscar
Montilla, Jr., addressed to Assistant
Ombudsman Virginia Palanca-Santiago,
clarifying why the Order of Suspension
issued by OMB-Visayas in OMB-V-A-04-
0189-D had not been implemented
"G" Letter dated 9 November 2011 of Assistant
Ombudsman Virginia Palanca-Santiago of
the OMB-Visayas, addressed to City Mayor
Oscar Montilla, Jr., reiterating the directive
to cause the implementation of the Decision
in OMB-V-A-04-0189-D.
"H" Letter dated 3 January 2012 of Mayor Oscar
Montilla, Jr., addressed to Assistant
Ombudsman Virginia Palanca-Santiago,
regarding the implementation of the
Decision in OMB-V-A-04-0189-D.

Memorandum Order NO. 2012-003 dated 3

January 2011, issued by Mayor Oscar
Montilla, Jr., to Evangeline A. Seneres,
implementing the Decision in OMB-V-A-
04-0189-D.

"J" Memorandum Order No. 2012-004 dated 3

January 2011, issued by Mayor Oscar
Montilla, Jr. to Eva A. Sabusap,
Implementing the Decision in OMB-V-A-
04-0189-D.

"K" Memorandum Order NO. 2012-005 dated 3

January 2011, issued by Mayor Oscar
Montilla, Jr., to Fernando Balbin,
Implementing the Decision in OMB-V-A-
04-0189-D.

"L" Memorandum Order NO. 2012-006datd 3

January 2011, issued by Mayor Oscar
Montilla, Jr. to Fernando Balbin,
implementing the Decision in OMB-V-A-
04-0189-D.
"M" Manifestation/Motion filed by Oscar C.
Montilla, Jr. through counsel, during the
preliminary investigation of OMB-V-C-14-
0120.

r
r"
Decision
People V. Oscar C. Montilia, Jr.
Criminal Cases No. SB-17-CRM-0744
Page 8 of24
X

"N" Counter-Affidavit dated 14 August 2014

filed by Oscar C. Montilia, Jr. during the
preliminary investigation of OMB-V-C-14-
0120

"O" Complaint Affidavit dated 25 February 2014

of Theodore P. Bandero as nominal
complainant in OMB-V-C-14-0120.
"O-l" Final Evaluation Report dated February 25
2014 in CPL-C-11-1712, which was the
basis for the Complaint Affidavit (Exhibit
'0') of Atty. Banderado in OMB-V-C-14-
0120.

On August 28, 2018, the Court admitted Exhibits "A" to "O" and sub-
markings ofthe prosecution.'®

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

The defense presented two(2) witnesses, namely:

1. ATTORNEY ELMER C. BALBIN (hereinafter referred to as ''''Atty.

Balbin)

Testifying through his judicial affidavit,'' Atty. Balbin narrated that he

is the current City Legal Officer of the City of Sipalay, Negros Occidental, a
position he has held since 2002. As City Legal Officer, his duties and
responsibilities include rendering legal advice to the Mayor, Vice Mayor,
Sangguniang Panglungsod and/or its members on matters involving questions
of law which are necessary for the aforementioned officers' exercise of their
official functions. He also recommends legal measures to be taken in actions
pertaining to the city or any of its officers, and represents the City of Sipalay
in all civil actions and special proceedings wherein the latter or any of its
officials is a party.

Atty. Balbin testified that he knew herein accused Montilia since the
latter is the incumbent city mayor of Sipalay and also because he had
personally worked with him in his capacity as City Legal Officer. He is
likewi^e-^are of the present criminal case against Montilia involving the
r's belated implementation of the Office of the Ombudsman's
(Ombudsman) suspension order in OMB-V-A-04-0189-D wherein Fernando
Balbin, Eva Sabusap, Evangeline Seneres, Dr. Noel Villanueva and Renato
Manilla, all employees of the City Government of Sipalay, were ordered
suspended for a period of three (3) months without pay. Atty. Balbin also
disclosed that he is the counsel of the aforementioned employees in OMB-Y-

''>Id,p. 369.
"Records, Vol. II, pp. 446-451.
r
Decision
People V. Oscar C. Montiila, Jr.
Criminal Cases No. SB-17-CRM-0744
Page 9 of24
X

A-04-0189-D.

Atty. Balbin narrated that he and his clients received a copy of the
November 14, 2005 Decision ofthe Ombudsman on May 20, 2008 as proven
by the Certification of the Postmaster of Sipalay dated May 22, 2018. In
response, he immediately filed a Motionfor Reconsideration of the aforesaid
judgment on May 26, 2008. Pending resolution of his motion, Atty. Balbin
also stated that he filed a Motion to Defer Implementation of Decision on
August 3, 2010 wherein he argued that the November 14, 2005 Decision of
the Ombudsman is not yet final and executory because he is yet to receive an
order denying his motion for reconsideration. The aforesaid reason was also
the basis of Atty. Balbin when he advised Montiila as to why the November
14, 2005 Decision ofthe Ombudsman cannot be implemented.

Atty. Balbin testified that his Motionfor Reconsideration was denied

on September 22,2008 but he never received a copy ofthe Order denying the
same. Instead, he was verbally informed about the denial of his motion during
the time he and his clients were summoned to the Office of the Ombudsman
in lloilo for a conference sometime in the third quarter of2011. His Motion to
Defer Implementation was also denied by the Ombudsman in its Order dated
April 8, 2011 but Atty. Balbin claimed he only received a copy of the said
order on October 7,2013. Meanwhile,even prior to his receipt ofthe aforesaid
April 8, 2011 Order of the Ombudsman, Atty. Balbin claimed that Montiila
already suspended Fernando Balbin, Eva Sabusap, Evangeline Seneres and
Dr.Noel Villanueva from January 3,2012 to April 3,2012. Montiila, however,
could not cause the suspension of Renato Manilla since the latter is an
appointee of the Department of Finance and hence outside the mayor's
jurisdiction.

On cross-examination, Atty. Balbin disclosed that he had specifically

advised Montiila to defer the implementation of the suspension order
contained in the Ombudsman's November 14, 2005 Decision because there is
still a pending motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid decision. He also
clarified that it was the Ombudsman's Letter dated July 15, 2010 to Montiila
which prompted him to file his Motion to Defer Implementation. The
Ombudsman inquired in the said letter about the implementation of the
suspension order against the five respondents-employees in OMB-V-A-04-
0189-D.

Atty. Balbin likewise admitted that he is aware of the Ombudsman's

su^quent Letters dated November 8, 2010 and April 1, 2011 to Montiila
ich similarly sought for the implementation of the suspension order
contained in the Ombudsman's November 14, 2005 Decision. When his
advice was sought regarding the Ombudsman's November 8, 2010 Letter,
Atty. Balbin testified that he advised Montiila that the five employees should
not be suspended because the Decision oftheir suspension has not yet become
final and executory. This advice, in tum, was used by Montiila as basis when
he explained to Assistant Ombudsman Virginia Palanca-Santiago in his Letter
dated July 21, 2011 the reason why he cannot implement the suspension order ^
Y
Decision
People V. Oscar C. Montilla, Jr.
Criminal Cases No, SB-17-CRM-0744
Page 10 of24
X

against the five employees. Lastly, Montilla admitted that as a lawyer, he is

aware that under the Ombudsman's Rules of Procedure, as contained in
Administrative Order No. 7, the Ombudsman's Decision in administrative
cases shall be immediately executoi^ and that the filing of a motion for
reconsideration does not stay the implementation of a Decision in
administrative cases against a government employee.'^

Upon being asked some clarificatory questions by the Court, Atty.

Balbin testified that Montilla was finally prompted to implement the
suspension order in OMB-V-A-04-0189-D after he informed the latter about
the fact that he was verbally notified of the denial of his Motion for
Reconsideration during his conference at the Office of the Ombudsman in
Iloilo sometime in the third quarter of 2011. Atty. Balbin, however, admitted
that he did not immediately inform Montilla about such fact since he was still
waiting for the written denial of his Motion for Reconsideration and thus
Montilla only ordered the suspension of the five respondents-employees in
OMB-V-A-04-0189-D on January 3, 2012 or three months after he was
verbally notified ofthe denial of his Motion for Reconsideration. Atty. Balbin
likewise explained that he acted as the counsel of the five respondents in
OMB-V-A-04-0189-D because the said city officials were being indicted in
their official capacity.'^

2. OSCAR C. MONTILLA,JR.

Testifying through his judicial affidavit,''^ accused Montilla narrated

that he is the incumbent Mayor of Sipalay, City Negros Occidental. He
categorically denied that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
gross negligence in the implementation ofthe suspension order relative to the
Decision dated November 14, 2005 of the Ombudsman in OMB-V-A-04-
0189-D and explained that a Motion for Reconsideration was immediately
filed on May 26, 2008 by the respondents-employees in the said case after
they received a copy of the Ombudsman's November 14, 2005 Decision on
May 20, 2008. After the said motion was denied, he was informed that the
respondents-employees subsequently filed a Motion to Defer Implementation
ofthe Decision dated August 3, 2010 wherein they argued that since they have
yet to receive a copy of an Order from the Ombudsman denying their Motion
for Reconsideration, the said order has not yet attained finality.

During the pendency of the resolution of Motion to Defer

Implementation, Montilla sought the advice of Sipalay's City Legal Officer,
Atty. Balbin, regarding the proper course of action to take and the latter
advised him that the September 22, 2008 Order of the Ombudsman, which
denied the respondents-employees' Motion for Reconsideration, could not yet
be implemented since the judgment suspending the five respondents in 0MB-
V-A-04-0189-D has not yet become final and executory. Considering he is not

TSN Oscar C. Montilla, Jr, March 11, 2019, pp. 17-29. M

"Id., pp. 24-27
Records, Vol. II, pp. 335-392.
Decision
People V. Oscar C. Montiiia, Jr.
Criminal Cases No. SB-17-CR1V1-0744
Page 11 of24

a lawyer and is also not familiar with the technicalities involved in the case,
he took the advice ofAtty. Balbin and decided to delay the implementation of
the Ombudsman's suspension order. He also wrote a Letter dated July 21,
2011 to Assistant Ombudsman Virginia Palanca-Santiago to inform the latter
of the legal opinion of his City Legal Officer regarding the suspension of the
respondents in OMB-V-A-04-0189-D.

Thereafter, Montiiia claimed he was subsequently informed that the

respondents in OMB-V-A-04-0189-D had gone to the Ombudsman Office in
Iloilo City sometime in the third quarter of2011 to verify and inquire into the
records if they were furnished a copy of the Order denying their Motion for
Reconsideration and the said respondents discovered that their counsel, Atty.
Balbin, was indeed not furnished a copy of the Ombudsman's Order.

Montiiia also testified that he received on December 29,2011 a Letter-

Reply dated November 9, 2011 from the Ombudsman informing him that the
implementation of the Decision dated November 14, 2005 cannot be stayed
by the filing of a motion for reconsideration. Considering that the next
proceeding days - December 30, 2011, January 1, 2012 and January 2, 2012
are legal holidays, Montiiia averred that he was only able to implement the
suspension order against the respondents in OMB-V-A-04-0189-D on January
3, 2012. He was, however, unable to implement the suspension ofrespondent
Renato Manilla because the latter is an appointee of the Department of
Finance (DOF) and hence, beyond the scope of his authority. Nevertheless,
Montiiia testified that the aforesaid employee was eventually suspended by
the DOF.

As proof of his compliance with the directive contained in the

Ombudsman's Letter-Reply dated November 9, 2011, Montiiia pointed to the
certified true copies of the service record and payroll of the four suspended
employees from 2008 to 2012 which shows that the suspended employees
were suspended for a period ofthree(3)months from January 3,2012 to April
3, 2012 and were not paid their salaries during the said period. He likewise
sent his Letter-Compliance dated January 3, 2012 to the Ombudsman
informing the said office that he has already caused the implementation ofthe
decision. He also informed the Ombudsman ofthe fact that he has no authority
to suspend Renato Manilla.

On October 7, 2013, Montiiia testified that his office received an

Or^r dated April 8, 2011 which denied respondents' Motion to Defer
iplementation ofthe Decision.

Considering that the implementation ofthe Ombudsman's suspension

order was attended by intricacies and legal technicalities which are beyond his
personal competence, as shown by the fact that he sought the legal advice of
the City Legal Officer, Montiiia argues that he neither caused any injury to
any party, including the Government, nor gave any unwarranted benefit to the
suspended employees in OMB-V-A-04-0189-D when he delayed the
implementation of the suspension order in the aforesaid case. He also
/
Decision
People V. Oscar C. Montilla, Jr.
Criminal Cases No. SB-17-CRM-0744
Page 12 of24
X

emphasizes that he even referred the matter to the Ombudsman in his Letter
dated July 21, 2011 and that he immediately caused the suspension of the
concerned officials after he received a copy of the Ombudsman's November
9, 2011 Letter.

On cross-examination, Montilla testified that he did not immediately

implement the suspension of the five Sipalay employees in OMB-V-A-04-
0189-D upon the advice of Sipalay's City Legal Officer, Atty. Balbin. He also
conceded that he knew that the latter was representing the aforesaid
respondents-employees before the Ombudsman while performing his
functions as Sipalay's City Legal Officer. Nevertheless, he still consulted Atty.
Balbin when he was directed by the Office ofthe Ombudsman to immediately
implement the suspension ofthe five respondent employees. Montilla likewise
disclosed that as early as November 2010, he had already received a letter
from the Ombudsman directing him to implement the suspension order against
the five respondent-employees but he only chose to implement the same on
January 3, 2012 after receiving on December 29,2011 Assistant Ombudsman
Virginia Palanca-Santiago's Letter-Reply dated November 9, 2011.

During redirect examination, Montilla clarified that as early as 2010,

he was already informed by the City Legal Officer, Atty. Balbin, that there
was already a Decision regarding the suspension of the five respondents-
employees in OMB-V-A-04-0189-D and that he immediately instructed Atty.
Balbin to implement the aforesaid decision but the latter advised him to delay
the implementation of the same since he and his clients have not yet received
any official communication from the Ombudsman. Since he is dependent on
Atty. Balbin on all legal matters in the City Hall, Montilla claimed he just
waited for Atty. Balbin's instruction as to when to finally implement the
Ombudsman's decision despite the fact that the Order ofthe Ombudsman was
directed at him and not on Atty. Balbin. Finally, Montilla averred that that
even though he saw there is a possible conflict of interest, since Atty. Balbin
is also the counsel ofthe five respondents-employees in OMB-V-A-04-0189-
D, he did not have any other choice but to rely on Atty. Balbin's advice since
the City Government does not have any other lawyer under its employ.'^

Upon being asked some clarificatory questions by the Court, Montilla

testified that he is not aware that as early as 2006,the Ombudsman had already
circulated copies of its memorandum order stating that its suspension order is
immediately executory even during the pendency of a motion for
reconsideration. He was also not informed by Atty. Balbin ofthe aforesaid fact
d that the latter instead advised him that the implementation of the
suspension order in OMB-V-A-04-0189-D can be deferred since they are in
the process of seeking a reconsideration of the Ombudsman's judgment.
Montilla also clarified that his office, through Atty. Balbin, only received a
copy of the Ombudsman's November 14, 2005 Decision in OMB-V-A-04-
0189-D on May 20, 2008 and the same was finally implemented on January
3, 2012. Upon being asked what he did when he received the letter-reply of

TSN, Oscar C. Montilla, Jr., March 12, 2019, pp. 18-34.

Decision
People V. Oscar C. Montilla, Jr.
Criminal Cases No. SB-17-CRM-0744
Page 13 of24
X

Assistant Ombudsman Virginia Palanca-Santiago, which informed him that

the implementation of the Decision of the Ombudsman cannot be stayed by
the filing of a motion for reconsideration, Montilla testified that he received
the aforesaid letter-reply on December 29, 2011 and he immediately caused
the implementation ofthe suspension order against the respondent-employees,
except for respondent Renato Manilla, on the next working day, January 3,
2012. Consequently, when his office received the Ombudsman's denial of
Atty. Balbin's Motion to Defer Implementation on October 7, 2013,
Evangeline A. Seneres, Eva A. Sabusap, Fernando R. Balbin and Noel
Villanueva had already been suspended. Lastly, Montilla admitted that he now
believes that suspension orders of the Ombudsman are immediately
executory.'^

On April 25, 2019, the defense filed its Formal Offer of Exhibits,'^ to
wit:

Exhibits Description
a 99
Post Office Certification dated 22 May 2018 signed by John D.
Delfin, Postmaster for the City of Sipalay, Negros Occidental
re. Registered Letter No. 9848.

"1-A" Photocopy of the Post Office Delivery Book re. Registered

Letter No. 9848
"2" Motion for Reconsideration dated 26 May 2008
"3" Motion to Defer Implementation dated 03 August 2010
"4" Letter of the Accused to Assistant Ombudsman Hon. Virginia
Palanca-Santiago dated 21 July 2011
"5" Letter-reply of Hon. Virginia Palanca-Santiago to the Accused
dated 09 November 2011.
"6" Post Office Certification dated 22 May 2018 signed by John D.
Delfin, Postmaster for the City of Sipalay, Negros Occidental
re: Registered Letter No. 7054

"6-a" Photocopy of the Post Office Delivery Book re: Registered

Letter No. 7054.
"7" and series Suspension Orders addressed to Fernando Balbin, Eva
Sabusap, Evangeline Seneres and Dr. Noel Villanueva
denominated as Memorandum Orders of the Office of the City
Mayor all dated 03 January 2012
^-^8" and series Service Records of Respondents in OMB-V-A-0189-D,
namely: Renato Manilla, Fernando Balbin, Evangeline
Seneres, Eva Sabusap and Noel Villanueva
"9" and series Payroll of Sipalay City from 2008 to 2012 for Respondents in
OMB-V-A-0189-D,namely: Renato Manilla,Fernando Balbin,
Evangeline Seneres, Eva Sabusap and Noel Villanueva.
"10" Letter-Compliance of the Accused to Hon. Virginia Palanca-
Santiago dated 03 January 2012.
"11" Order of the Ombudsman dated 08 April 2011
"12"&"12-a" Department of Finance Regional Office Order Nos. 005-2012

TSN,Oscar C. Montilla, Jr., March 12, 2019, pp. 35-54.

''' Records, Vol. II, pp. 46-59. /
Decision
People V. Oscar C. Montilla, Jr.
Criminal Cases No. SB-17-CRJV1-0744
Page 14 of24
X

dated 03 January 2012 and 043-2012 dated 02 April 2012.

In a Resolution^^ dated June 7, 2019, the Court denied Montilla's

formal offer of exhibits for the following reasons, to wit:

"After a careful scrutiny of the said formal offer, it was revealed

that the attached exhibits are all photocopies and that the description of
the exhibits offered by the Accused Oscar C. Montilla are not in
accordance with what is was marked by the Court and that the other
exhibits offered are not so marked.

In view thereof, the said formal offer if exhibits of accused is

hereby DENIED."'^

Montilla sought for a reconsideration ofthe above-quoted resolution^®

and the same was granted by this Court in our Resolution^' dated July 24,
2019, to wit:

"Acting on the accused's Motion for Reconsideration dated 04

June 2019 and noting his Manifestation dated 12 July 2019, the Court,
with the submission ofthe original documents, hereby RESOLVED to
ADMIT defendants exhibits '1,' '1-a,' '2,' '3,' '4,' '5,' '6,' '7,' and
series, '8,' and series,'9' and series, '10,' 'II,''12,' and '12-a,' for
the purposes for which they are offered, subject to the proper evaluation
of their respective probative values.

SO ORDERED."^^(citations omitted, emphases in the original)

ISSUES

Accused Montilla raises the following issue in his memorandum, to

wit:

WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE

CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION.

RULING OF THE COURT

Violation ofSec. 3(e) ofRANo. 3019.

Accused Montilla is charged with having violated Sec.3 (e) of R.A.

"Id, p. 529.
Ibid.
Records, Vol. Ill, pp. 1-13. ^
2' Id, p. 608.
22
Ibid
miSPW-

Decision
People V. Oscar C. Montiila, Jr.
Criminal Cases No. SB-I7-CRM-0744
Page 15 of24
X

No. 3019^^ which states as follows:

Section 3 Corrupt practices ofpublic officers. - In addition to acts or

omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
following shall eonstitute corrupt practices ofany public officer and are
hereby declared to be unlawful:

X X X X

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government,
or giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, 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 offiees or government corporations charged with the grant
of licenses or permits or other concessions.

As can be readily gleaned above, the elements of the crime are as

follows:

(a) that the accused must be a public officer discharging

administrative,judicial, or official functions (or a private
individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers);
(b) that he/she acted with manifest partiality, evident bad
faith, or inexcusable negligence; and
(c) that his/her action caused any undue injury to any party,
including the government, or gave any private party
unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the
discharge of his functions.^"^

The first element is undisputed in the present case. Both parties have
stipulated during pre-trial that Montiila was the Mayor of the City of Sipalay,
Province of Negros Occidental during the time he decided to delay the
implementation of the suspension order issued against Fernando Balbin, Eva
Sabusap, Bvangeline Seneres, Dr. Noel Villanueva and Renato Manilla
(collectively hereinafter referred to as "respondents-employees''') in OMB-V-
A-04-0189-D.

he second and third elements are interrelated hence the same shall be
bussed by this Court in seriatim. It must also be emphasized at this point
the defense is not denying the delay in the implementation of the
suspension order against the respondents-employees and merely argues that
such deferral by Montiila was not attended by manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence as alleged in the criminal information
against him.

Otherwise known as the ''Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act."^

Consigna v. People, G.R. No. 175750, April 2,2014. '
Decision
People V. Oscar C. Montilla, Jr.
Criminal Cases No. SB-17-CRM-0744
Page 16 of24
X

Alleged giving ofunwarranted benefits

and advantage to the respondents in
OMB-V-A-04-0189-D through manifest
partiality, evident badfaith or gross
inexcusable negligence.

In relation to the second element, the Supreme Court made the

following explanation in the case of Giangan v. People, as to what
constitutes ""partiality,""badfaith,"and "gross negligence,"under Sec. 3(e)
of R.A. No. 3019, to wit:

"The second element enumerates the different modes by which

means the offense penalized in Section 3 (e) may be committed.
'Partiality' is synonymous with 'bias' which 'excites a disposition to
see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are.'
'Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it
imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious
doing ofa wrong; a breach ofsworn duty through some motive or intent
or ill will; it partakes ofthe nature offraud.''Gross negligence has been
so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care,
acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious
indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected.
It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless
men never fail to take on their own property. These definitions prove
all too well that the three modes are distinct and different from each
other. Proof of the existence of any of these modes in connection with
the prohibited acts under Section 3 (e) should suffice to warrant
conviction."

To establish any of the modes mentioned above, the prosecution

highlights the fact that Montilla was instructed thrice by the Ombudsman to
implement the suspension order against the respondents-employees in 0MB-
V-A-04-0189-D.

First, in its Order dated September 22, 2008^^ wherein the

Ombudsman denied the Motion for Reconsideration that was filed by Atty.
Balbin in behalf of the respondents-employees, it can be seen that Montilla
was expressly ordered to implement the Ombudsman's November 5, 2005
Decision, to wit:

"WHEREFORE, for lack of plausible reason to overturn the

questioned Decision, respondent's Motion for reconsideration is hereby
DENIED.

Premises considered, the Honorable Citv Mayor of Sinalav Citv.

is hereby directed to implement the Decision dated November 14.2005.
on respondents EVANGELINE A. SENERES. EVA A. SABUSAP.
FERNANDO R. BALBIN.NOEL VILLANUEVA and RENATO P.
MANILLA,with the request to promptly submit to this Office,tlirough
the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Visavas. Department of

G.R. No. 169385, August 26,2015. ^

2« Exhibit"B." / yffl/
 Decision
People V. Oscar C. Montilia, Jr.
Criminal Cases No. SB-17-CRM-0744
Page 17 of24
X

Agriculture. RO-7 Compound. M. Velez St., Guadalupe 6000 Cebu

City, a Compliance Report hereof, indicaitong the subject 0MB case
number.

xxxx

SO ORDERED."^^ (emphases in the original, underscoring

supplied)

Finding that no action was taken by Montilia to comply with the

above-quoted Order. The Ombudsman, through Assistant Ombudsman
Virginia Palanca-Santiago, wrote him a Letter dated July 15, 201(J^ directing
him to implement the concerned employees' suspension, to wit:

"Dear Mayor Montilia:

This refer to an Order issued by this Office re: OMB-V-A-04-0189-D

''Mariono P. Mueda vs. Eve A. Sabusap, et. al finding the respondents
guilty of 'Negligence in the Performance of Official Duties', and
denying their Motion for Reconsideration Enclosed herewith is the said
Order for your perusal.

In this connection, we are respectfully endorsing to your offiee for your

implementation the said Order imposing the penalty of Thi'ee (3)
Months Suspension from Office Without Pay, on respondents
Evangeline A. Seneres, Eva A. Sabusap, Fernando R. Balbin, Noel
Villanueva and Renato P. Manilla.

You are requested to submit to this Offiee a compliance report relative

hereto.

xxxx

(signed)
VIRGINIA PALANCA-SANTIAGO
Assistant Ombudsman"^^

The records ofthe case reveal that Montilia received the above-quoted
letter on July 30, 2010.^®

Thereafter, in a Letter dated November 8, 2010,^' Assistant

Ombiid^an Virginia Palanca-Santiago again wrote Montilia to follow up the
imprlmentation of the suspension order against the respondents-employees
'^d warn him about the repercussions for delaying or refusing to comply with
the Ombudsman's directive, viz:

"Dear Mayor Montilia:

Id, pp. 5-6.

28 Exhibit "C."
2' Ibid.
20 Exhibit "C-1."
2' Exhibit "D." f
Decision
People V. Oscar C, Montilla, Jr.
Criminal Cases No. SB-17-CRM-0744
Page 18 of24
X

We would like to follow-up our letter dated July 25,2010 regarding the
implementation of an Order issued by this Office re: OMB-V-A-04-
0189-D 'Mariano P. Mueda vi'. Eva A. Sabusap, et. al. finding the
respondents guilty of 'Negligence in the Performance of Official
Duties', and denying their Motion for Reconsideration.

In this cormection, we would like to be informed of your action take on

our referral. The said Order imposes the penalty of Three (3) Months
Suspension from Office Without Pay, on respondents Evangeline A.
Seneres, Eva A. Sabusap, Fernando R. Balbin, Noel Villanueva and
Renato P. Manilla.

Please be reminded of Section 28 par. (4) of R.A. 6770, The

Ombudsman Act of 1989 that provides :

Any delay or refusal to comply with the referral or directive of

the Ombudsman or any of his Deputies shall constitute a
ground for administrative disciplinary action against the
officer or employee to whom it was addressed.

xxxx

(signed)
VIRGINIA PALANCA-SANTIAGO
Assistant Ombudsmari"^^ (italics in the original)

Again, as per Registry Return Card with Ref no. 1131^^ it would
appear that Montilla received the above-quoted letter on November 24, 2010.

Sensing no compliance on the part of Montilla, Assistant Ombudsman

Virginia Palanca-Santiago wrote the latter for the third time and exhorted him
to implement the Ombudsman's suspension order. The third Letter dated April
1, 201 stated:

"Dear Mayor Montilla:

We would like to be informed on your action taken on the

Implementation of an Order issued by this Offiee re: OMB-V-A-04-
0189-D 'Mariano P. Mueda vs. Eva A. Sabusap, et. al.', finding the
respondents guilty of 'Negligence on the Performance of Official
Duties.'

This is to inform you that this is our third (3''^) letter directing your
office to implement the said Order.

Please be reminded of Section 15 par.(3) of Republic Act 6770 'The

Ombudsman Act of 1989' that provides:

Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action

against a public officer or employee atfault or who neglect
to perform an act or discharge a duty required by law and

Ibid. y
"Exhibit "D-1."
Exhibit "E."
Decision
People V. Oscar C. Montilla, Jr.
Criminal Cases No. SB-17-CRM-0744
Page 19 of24
X

recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine,

censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith;
or enforce its disciplinary authority as provided in Section
21 of this Act: provided that the refusal by any officer
without just cause to comply with an order of the
Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure, or
prosecute an officer or employee who is at fault or who
neslects to perform an act or discharse a duty required by
law shall be a sround for disciplinary action asainst said
officer.

xxxx

(signed)
VIRGINIA PALANCA-SANTIAGO
Assistant Ombudsmarf^^ (italics and underscoring in the original)

Montilla received the above-quoted letter on June 8, 2011.36

As mentioned earlier above, Montilla is not denying the delay in the

implementation of the Ombudsman's suspension order against the
respondents-employee in OMB-V-A-04-0189-D. To escape criminal liability,
Montilla only avers that he did not act with manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence in staying the Ombudsman's order so as
to be made liable under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

To prove his good faith in postponing the implementation of the

Ombudsman's suspension order, Montilla explains that the delay was due to
his reliance on the instructions of Sipalay's City Legal Counsel, Atty. Balbin,
who advised him that the suspension order issued in OMB-V-A-04-0189-D is
not yet enforceable in view of the pendency of a motion for reconsideration
that was filed by therein. Not being a lawyer and totally unfamiliar with the
technicalities involved in the aforesaid case, Montilla claims he had no choice
but to adhere to the recommendation given to him by the City Legal Counsel.

Thd Court is not persuaded. We find that Montilla exhibited gross

negligence in delaying the implementation of the Ombudsman's suspension
order.

As mentioned above by the High Court in Giangan^''gross negligence

is defiped "as negligence characterized by the want ofeven slight care, acting
initting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently
willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences
in so far as other persons may be affected." Here, the Court again reiterates
that Montilla was actually instructed thrice by the Ombudsman to implement
the suspension order that was meted against the respondents-employees in the
November 14, 2005 Decision of the Ombudsman in OMB-V-A-04-0189-D.
In fact, the last two letters even contained explicit warnings about the legal

35 Ibid. /
35 Exhibit E-1.
33 note 25.
 Decision
People V. Oscar C. Montilla, Jr.
Criminal Cases No. SB-17-CRM-0744
Page 20 of 24
X

consequences under R.A. No. 6770^^ for officials choosing to disobey the
directives ofthe Ombudsman. Montilla, however,chose to disregard Assistant
Ombudsman Virginia Palanca-Santiago's letters and stick with the legal
advice that had been given to him by the City Legal Counsel, Atty. Balbin,
who also happens to be the counsel ofthe respondents-employees in OMB-V-
A-04-0189-D. Considering Montilla's knowledge regarding Atty. Balbin's
apparent conflict ofintertest in OMB-V-A-04-0189-D,this Court believes that
the least Montilla could have done in this situation is to inquire with the
Ombudsman, at the earliest possible time, whether the filing of a motion for
reconsideration has the effect of suspending the implementation of the
decisions ofthe Ombudsman. The records, however, show that Montilla only
chose to seek clarification from Ombudsman Assistant Ombudsman Virginia
Palanca-Santiago on Julv 21, 201 ~_almost three years from the time he
was instructed by the Ombudsman, in its September 22, 2008 Order, to
implement the suspension order against the respondents-employees in 0MB-
V-A-04-0189-D. Because of this. Assistant Ombudsman Virginia Palanca-
Santiago was only able to inform Montilla, in her Letter-Reply dated
November 9, 2011, that under the Ombudsman's Memorandum Circular No.
01-2006,^^ the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative
cases shall be executed as a matter of course. As a result, the suspensions that
were supposed to be implemented by Montilla in 2008 against Evangeline A.
Seneres, Eva A. Sabusap, Femando R. Balbin and Noel Villanueva were only
effected on January 3, 2012.

The Court is likewise not persuaded by the contention of Montilla that

the Supreme Court's ruling in Arias v. Sandiganbayan"^^ absolves him of any
criminal liability. First, Arias is not really on all fours with the present case
since the ruling therein basically states that heads of offices can rely, to a
reasonable extent, on their subordinates and on the good faith of those who
prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations, viz:

"We would be setting a bad precedent if a head of office plagued

by all too common problems-dishonest or negligent subordinates,
overwork, multiple assignments or positions, or plain incompetence is
suddenly swept into a conspiracy conviction simply because he did not

Otherwise known as the "Ombudsman Act of 1989."

Exhibit "F."
Exhibit "5."
Memorandum Circular No. 01, Series of2006 states:

^ection 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, otherwise known as, the 'Ombudsman Rules
of Procedure' provides that: 'A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases
shall be executed as a matter of course.'

In order that the foregoing rule may be strictly observed, all concerned are hereby enjoined to
implement all Ombudsman decisions, orders or resolutions in administrative disciplinary cases,
immediately upon receipt thereof by their respective offices.

The filing of a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review before the Office of the
Ombudsman does not operate to stay the immediate implementation of the foregoing Ombudsman
decisions, orders or resolutions."

"2 Exhibits "J,""K,""L,""M,""9" and"10."

G.R. No. 81563, December 19, 1989. / _
/

:■ -
Decision
People V. Oscar C. Montiila, Jr.
Criminal Cases No. SB-17-CRM-0744
Page 21 of24
X

personally examine every single detail, painstakingly trace every step

from inception, and investigate the motives ofevery person involved in
a transaction before affixing, his signature.
xxxx

We can, in retrospect, argue that Arias should have probed

records, inspected documents, received procedures, and questioned
persons. It is doubtful if any auditor for a fairly sized office
could personally do all these things in all vouchers presented for his
signature. The Court would be asking for the impossible. All heads of
offices have to relv to a reasonable extent 'on their subordinates and on
the good faith of those who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter
into negotiations. If a department secretary entertains important
visitors, the auditor is not ordinarily expected to call the restaurant about
the amount of the bill, question each guest whether he was present at
the luncheon, inquire whether the correct amount of food was served
and otherwise personally look into the reimbursement voucher's
accuracy, propriety, and sufficiency. There has to be some added reason
why he should examine each voucher in such detail. Any executive head
of even small govermnent agencies or commissions can attest to the
volume of papers that must be signed. There are hundreds of
documents, letters and supporting papers that routinely pass through his
hands. The number in bigger offices or departments is even more
appalling."(underscoring supplied)

The instant case does not involve the preparation of bids, purchase of
supplies or contract negotiations. Neither was there an allegation by Montiila
in any of his pleadings that he acceded to Atty. Balbin's advice because he
was overburdened by the hundreds of documents, letters and supporting
papers that pass through his hands as Mayor of Sipalay. Clearly, the situation
in Arias is different from the case at bar and thus the ruling therein cannot be
applied.

Second, even if the ruling in Arias is applicable, the Supreme Court

nevertheless held in the case of Rivera v. People"^"* that the Arias doctrine is
not absolute and that the department head must go beyond the
recommendation ofhis subordinate whenever there are peculiar circumstances
that would call for the exercise of greater circumspection, viz:

"Perez invokes the Arias doctrine which states that '[a]11 heads of
offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinates and on
the good faith of those who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter
to negotiations.' He contends that he merely relied on the vouchers
and reports prepared by his subordinates and released the payments in
good faith.

To clarify, the Arias doctrine is not an absolute rule. It is not a

magic cloak that can be used as a cover by a public officer to conceal
himself in the shadows of his subordinates and necessarily escape
liability. Thus,this ruling cannot be applied to exculpate the petitioners
in view of the peculiar circumstances in this case which shovrld have
prompted them, as heads of offices, to exercise a higher degree of
circumspection and, necessarily, go bevond what their subordinates had

G.R. No. 156577, December 3,2014. ^

Decision
People V. Oscar C. Montilla, Jr.
Criminal Cases No. SB-17-CRIVI-0744
Page 22 of24
X

prepared. The case of Cruz v. Sandiganbayan carved out an exception

to the Arias doctrine, stating that:

Unlike in Arias, however, there exists in the present case an

exceptional circumstance which should have prodded petitioner, if he
were out to protect the interest ofthe municipality he swore to serve, to
be curious and go beyond what his subordinates prepared or
recommended. In fine, the added reason contemplated in Arias which
would have put petitioner on his guard and examine the check/s and
vouchers with some degree of circumspection before signing the same
was obtaining in this case.

In the case at bench, Perez should have placed himself on guard

when the documents and vouchers given to him by his subordinates did
not indicate the retention money required by P.D. No. 1594. Moreover,
when he personally inspected the construction site of PAL Boat, he
should have noticed the financial weakness of the contractor and the
defective works. Deplorably, Perez kept mum and chose to continue
causing undue injury to the government. No other conclusion can be
inferred other than his manifest partiality towards PAL Boat."
(underscoring supplied)

In the present case,the Court again emphasizes that Montilla was fully
aware that Atty. Balbin is the lawyer of the respondents-employees in 0MB-
V-A-04-0189-D. Verily, of all the people that could have been consulted
regarding the propriety ofimplementing the Ombudsman's suspension order,
Montilla chose to seek advice from the lawyer of the very same persons the
Ombudsman is seeking to suspend. Evidently, this degree of carelessness
warrants a conviction under Sec. 3(e)of R.A. No. 3019.

As defined by jurisprudence, "unwarranted" means lacking adequate

or official support; unjustified; unauthorized or without jurisdiction or
adequate reason.'^^ ""Advantage,"on the other hand has been defined as a more
favorable or improved position or condition; benefit, profit or gain of any
kind; benefit from some course of action."^^ Thus, by exhibiting gross
negligence in delaying the implementation of the Ombudsman's suspension
order in OMB-V-A-04-0189-D, the Court finds that an unwarranted benefit
and advantage had been given to Evangeline A. Seneres, Eva A. Sabusap,
Fernando R. Balbin and Noel Villanueva by Montilla. Clearly, the four
aforementioned Sipalay employees benefited from Montilla's unjustified and
improper postponement ofthe Ombudsman's suspension orders.

Finally, it must be stated that no fault can be attributed to Montilla

with respect to Renato Manilla since it is a stipulated fact in this case that the
is under the control and supervision of the Department Finance and
hence beyond the ambit of Montilla's authority to suspend.

Applicable Penalty

Aside from perpetual disqualification to hold public office,the penalty

Ambil V. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 175457, July 6,2011. y

Ibid
Decision
People V. Oscar C. Montiila, Jr.
Criminal Cases No. SB-17-CRM-0744
Page 23 of24
X

for violation of Sec. 3(e)of R.A. No. 3019"*^ is imprisonment of not less than
six(6) years and one month to 15 years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, the Court hereby sentences Montiila to imprisonment of six (6) years
and one(1) month, as minimum, to eight(8) years, as maximum.

ACCORDINGLY,accused Oscar C. Montiila, Jr., is found GUILTY

beyond reasonable of violating Section 3(e)of Republic Act No. 3019 and is
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate
period of SIX(6)YEARS and ONE(1) Month as minimum to EIGHT(8)
YEARS, as maximum. Additionally, said accused is sentenced to suffer
perpetual disqualification from public office.

SO ORDERED.

ALM L. QUntoZ
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR;

P. CRUZ BAYA JACINTO

Associate Justice Associi

Sec.9 of R.A. No. 3019 provides;

Section 9. Penaltiesfor violations. — (a) Any public officer or private person committing any
of the unlawful acts or omissions enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall be
punished with imprisonment for not less than six years and one month nor more than fifteen
years, perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the
Government of any prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to
his salary and other lawful income.

Any complaining party at whose complaint the criminal prosecution was initiated shall, in case
of conviction of the accused, be entitled to recover in the criminal action with priority over the
forfeiture in favor of the Government, the amount of money or the thing he may have given to
the accused, or the fair value of such thing.

(b) Any public officer violating any of the provisions of Section 7 of this Act shall be punished
by a fine of not less than one thousand pesos nor more than five thousand pesos, or by
imprisonment not exceeding one year and six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, at
the discretion of the Court.

The violation of said section proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient
cause for removal or dismissal of a publie officer, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted
against him.(Amended by BP Big. 195, March 16, 1982).
 Decision
People V. Oscar C. Montilia, Jr.
Criminal Cases No. SB-17-CRM-0744
Page 24 of24
X

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation with the Justices ofthe Court's Division.

UJR
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Fourth Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Sections 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and

the Division Chairperson's Attestation,I certify that the conclusions
in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.

'AMPARO M. JE-TA
Presiding Justice

r > r- "v-. -■ •-