Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS Case Digests 30july 2011
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS Case Digests 30july 2011
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS Case Digests 30july 2011
SPL DIGESTED CASES Saturday Classes 1st Semester 2011 under Judge Abbu standard of honesty in the public service and to promote morality in the public service. Public office is a public trust. To satisfy due process, however, official act must not outrun the bonds of reason and result in sheer oppression. It must be free from arbitrariness. It is not within the province of the courts to supervise legislation and keep it within the bonds of propriety and common sense. ARTURO MEJORADA VS.SANDIGANBAYAN FACTS: Mejorada was a right of way agent employed in the Office of the Highway District Engineer in Pasig, Metro Manila. His work was to negotiate with property owners affected by highway constructions/improvements for the purpose of compensating them for the damages that they may incur. Mejorada required the claimants de Leon et.al to sign blank copies of Sworn Statement on the Correct Assessment and Fair Market Value of Real Properties as well as an Agreement to demolish, remove and reconstruct improvements. Claimants did sign without bothering what those documents were about as they were more concerned with just compensation supposedly due them. In the signed documents, Mejorada made it appear that the value of the properties of the claimants were much higher than actual value claimed by the de leon et. Al. What was reflected in the Agreement was the value of improvements that was P2,000 lower than the value declared by the owner/claimants. Also, declarations of property were attached to the documents, which declarations were actually falsified as they were registered under different names other than the claimants. Claimants were later accompanied by Mejorada to receive the proceeds of their checks. But Mejorada took part of the proceeds. Claimants could not complain as they were afraid of Mejoradas armed companions. Claimants de leon et.al later filed complaints against Mejorada (assisted by their counsel) with the Provincial Fiscal Office in Pasig. Consequently, 8 informations were filed against Mejorada.
hanipaporo2013
Mejoradas contentions 1. He cannot be guilty of violating S3 of RA 3019 as he is not charged with the duty of granting licenses, permits as mentioned in the provision. 2. His act was not done while in the performance of his official functions 3. Claimants were not injured party 4. The most that can be charged against him is Robbery not liable under RA 3019 ISSUES: WON Mejoradas act constitute the offense in S3 of RA 3019 (i.e. causing undue injury to any partygiving party unwarranted benefits... thru manifest partiality, evident bad faith / gross inexcusable negligence.) and have been clearly and convincingly proven by the prosecution? Other Issues (Crimpro related): WON offense proved during trial should prevail over offense charged in the info WON Sandiganbayan is the competent court with jurisdiction over the case
DELOSO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN FACTS: Deloso was elected governor of Zambales on January 18,1988. Regular term of a governor is 3 years although he shall serve until 12nn of June 30, 1992. He was however suspended from performing his duties as governor by the Sandiganbayan (S13 of RA301/ preventive suspension) by virtue of criminal charges filed against him (which were committed during his tenure as Mayor of Botolan, Zambales: (1) for awarding LTO fish corrals and (2) issuance of 5 tractors of the Municipality of Botolan, Zambales to certain individuals without agreement to pay rentals therefor). The suspension order did not have a definite period so that Deloso may be suspended for the rest of his term unless his case is terminated sooner. (N.B.The case of Garcia vs. Exec.Sec. was cited in this case. Garcia was an appointive public officer who was suspended by the President of the Republic of the Philippines and his suspension order was beyond the maximum period of 60 days (S35 of CSC). Later, Garcia was able to have in his favor an injunction against Preventive Suspension from the court). Deloso wanted to push through with the trial of the case, but the Sandiganbayan said it had to dispose of other cases with higher priority. ISSUE: WON Garcias case is applicable to an elective official facing criminal charges under RA 3019? RULING: YES. The decision in Garcias case, ie.. injunction against preventive suspension for an unreasonable period of time applies with greater force to elective officials and especially to Deloso, whose term is a relatively short one. The interest of the sovereign electorate and the province of Zambales cannot be subordinated to the heavy case load of the Sandiganbayan and of the Supreme Court. Should the purposes behind preventive suspension such as preventing the abuse of the prerogatives of the office, intimidation of witnesses, etc. become manifest, the
hanipaporo2013
RULING: YES. Mejorada is guilty under RA3019 for violating S3 of the law. He is a public officer who took advantage of his position by making claimants sign agreements which contained falsified declarations of the value of improvements and lots. There was manifest evident bad faith on his part when he inflated the values of the true claims and when he divested the claimants of a large share of the amounts due them. The claimants are not the only injured party but also the State because the latter was disadvantaged with Mejoradas act of inflating said values of property. The law is not limited to those public officials who committed the prohibited act while discharging their duty of granting licenses, permits but also those who committed prohibited acts while being public officers. Offense charged in the info should prevail over offense proved during trial. Since this is the case, the appropriate penalty that should be imposed upon Mejorada is 56 years and 8 days and this did not violate the 3 Fold rule of the RPC. Art. 70 speaks of service of sentence, duration of penalty and penalty to be inflicted and not on the
PEOPLE VS. ALBANO FACTS: Two criminal cases under RA 3019 were filed against Mayor Acharon. 1st case : Mayor Acharon of General Santos denied application for renewal of license and permit to operate cockpit to Emilio Evangelista and instead approved/ granted application of his uncle Luis Acharon (contrary to S3 of RA 3019) 2nd case : Mayor Acharon and Vice Mayor Bernabe were charged with violation of S1 (a,e,h, j) of RA 3019 when they allegedly fraudulently procured and purchased 1,635 sacks of rice in bulk using the names of 327 employees of City Government of Gen. San with the Rice and Corn Administration Office. They used their own money in purchasing said sacks of rice at a very low price and later disposed to the public (excluding the 327 employees) at the prevailing price. They directly or indirectly received pecuniary interest in such fraudulent procurement of rice. Prosecution filed an urgent motion for issuance of suspension order against the accused. Before pre-suspension hearings, accused were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. The case was redocketed then later a reinvestigation ensued. There were several postponements until the case was raffled to the sala of Judge Albano. The case was set for hearing. Later, Judge Albano found the 2 informations invalid ab initio and consequently dismissed the cases. Prosecution moved for reconsideration, but was denied. ISSUES: 1. WON Judge Albano erred in considering matters not alleged in the informations and finding acts of accused not violative of RA 3019. 2. WON Judge Albano erred in deciding case on merits without trial.
LUCIANO VS. ESTRELLA FACTS: Mayor Estrella et.al were charged with violations of S3(g) and S4 (b) of RA 3019. They entered into a contract with JEP Enterprises re: 59 units of traffic deflectors (price= P1,426.50/ unit). 34 of these deflectors were delivered, installed and paid for by the Municipality of Makati Rizal at P48,000+, less 10% retention, which is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the municipality. The Gutierrezes of JEP Enterprises allegedly knowingly induced/ caused public officials Mayor Estrella et. Al to enter into such contract. CFI found the accused guilty for having violated S3(g) and S4 (b) of RA 3019/ Sham bidding and series of falsification of documents. Penalty imposed was 6 yrs + perpetual disqualification to hold public office. CA Estrella et. Al filed for a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered material evidence (NDE). Auditor Declaro was presented as their witness. Declaro
hanipaporo2013
hanipaporo2013