Republic of the Philippines

SANDIGANBAYAN
Quezon City

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- Criminal Case No. 27417

For: Violation of Section 3 (e) of
R.A. No. 3019

CAPT. WALTER E. BRIONES,

et al.,
Accused.
)(----------------------------------------------)(
Present:
CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.
FERNANDEZ,J.
TRESPESES,J.

Promulgated:

~~/t//~~
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-------~

RESOLUTION
~ --~
..

CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.:

For resolution is accused .Julito M. Casillan Ill's Motion to

Payor Restitute Amount of Public Fund Allegedly Lost in the
Amount of P97,996.08 dated August 29,2016.1

,,-
 2
RESOLUTION
People vs. Briones, et al.
Criminal Case 1\0. 27417
x ----------- -- ---- - ....- --------------------------~ x

"jobless and thought of re-entering the government service to

generate income and he (sic) able to finance the medication and
hospitalization of his wife who seriously suffered from aneurysm
making her comatose for quite a long time.":

In cornpliance with the Court's Order dated September 13,

2016,5 the prosecution submitted its Opposition dated
September 16, 2016 to the subject motion. Therein, the
6

prosecution argues that accused-movant's offer to pay the

amount of PhP97, 996.08 is not allowed by law and against
public policy and interest.

The Court finds accused-movant's motion bereft of merit.

By offering to payor to "restitute" the amount of

PhP97,996.08, accused-movant obviously labors on the
impression that this criminal case for violation of Section 3 (e)
of Republic Act (R.A.)No. 3019 would already be dismissed and
his purported criminal liability extinguished. This is evidenced
by the fact: that he is offering to pay the said amount with the
thought of "re-entering the government service to generate
income" and to finally put an end to this case which has been
pending for the last eleven (11) years.

However, as correctly pointed out by the prosecution, the

offer to pay the amount of the check that was allegedly issued
in violation of existing auditing rules is not among the instances
which extinguishes criminal liability under Article 89 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC). This article reads:

Art. 8Q. How criminal liability is totally extinguished.

Criminal liability is totally extinguished:

1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties

and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished
only when the death of the offender occurs before final
judgment.

2. By service of the sentence;

3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty

and all its effects;

_____ 4_._B_Y_ absolute pardon~

45

6
Par.236,
p. Record
3, id
p. 237, id
r ~ .A//r'.
._6(,""- r
 3
RESOLUTION
People vs. Briones, et al.
Criminal Case No. 27417
x --------------------------- -------------- ..------ x

5. By prescription of the crime;

6. By prescription of the penalty;

7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in

Article 344 of this Code.

Article 100 of the RPC provides that every person

criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. The criminal
and civil liabilities of the accused in a criminal case are only
determined after the necessary proceedings shall have been
undertaken where the prosecution and the defense are given
the opportunity to present their respective evidence.

Here, accuscd-rnovant wants to precipitately put an end to

the criminal case by offering to "restitute" the amount of
PhP97,996.08. Said amount, however, merely pertains to the
civil aspect of the criminal case, the payment of which, as stated
above, cannot result in the extinction of his criminal liability, if
any. There is thus an imperative need to first establish whether
the herein accused, including accused-movant, indeed violated
Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 before the Court could adjudge
them as criminally liable, and eventually, civilly accountable for
the amount ofPhP97,996.08. Absent such determination of the
herein accused's criminal liability, the Court does not have any
legal basis to accept accused-movant's offer of "restitution"
considering that the latter is offering to settle the subject
amount "without xxx admitting his guilt to [the] offense charged."
In other words, the Court cannot allow the accused-movant to
pay the amount involved "for the dismissal of the case against
him."

More importantly, it is worthy to point out that accused-

movant was not indicted in this case for the purported "loss" of
the amount of PhP97,996.08, but for "taking advantage of their
junctions [as government officials], xxx acting with evident bad
faith and manifest partiality, xxx and xxx willjully, unlawfully
and criminally cause undue injury to the people/ government by
disbursing and paying Check No. 687187 xxx payable to the
order of "It's a Deal Trading," xxx in violation of Sec. 85 PD 1445
xxx which payment resulted to the damage and prejudice of the
people/ government in the aforesaid sum of Php97, 996. 08 xxx

)/:'
/'~If'.
 4
RESOLUTION
People vs. Brioncs, et al.
Criminal Case No. 27417
x --- ---- --- - -- - - -- - - -- - --- ----------------------~ x

and detriment of public

seruice"! Thus, more than the
settlement of the civil aspect of the case, the Court is duty-
bound to determine whether the herein accused indeed violated
Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, to give meaning and
life to the intendment of the said law to repress acts which
constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thcreto.f

WHEREFORE, accused Julito M. Casillan Ill's Motion to

Payor Restitute Amount of Public Fund Allegedly Lost in the
Amount of P97, 996. 08 dated August 29, 2016, is DENIED for
lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.
Quezon City, Metro Manila.

WE CONCUR:

7 p. 2, Amended tnjormation
8 Section 1, RA No. 3019, as amended
9 Per Administrative Order No. 227-1026 dated July 26, 2016