a

D
r
u
a
m
v
a
a
n
t
a

v
s
I
.-

S
a
\n
d
C
i
R
g
a
I
n
M

Laurelvs.Desierto[G.R.No.145368April12,2002]
Post undercase digests,Political LawatPosted bySchizophrenic
Mind
Facts:President Corazon C. Aquino issued Administrative Order No.
223"constitutingaCommitteewhichwasmandated"totakechargeof
the nationwide preparations for the National Celebration of the
PhilippineCentennialoftheDeclarationofPhilippineIndependence
andtheInaugurationoftheMalolosCongress."Subsequently,President
Fidel V. Ramos issued ExecutiveOrder No. 128, "reconstituting the
said Committee and renamed it as the "National
CentennialCommission." Appointed to chair was VicePresident
SalvadorH.Laurel.PresidentsDiosdadoM.MacapagalandCorazonC.
AquinowerenamedHonoraryChairpersons.
VicePresidentLaurelbyvirtueofhischairmanshipalsobecamethe
chairman ofEXPOCORP, a corporation organized to undertake the
FreedomRingProjectinrelationtothecentennialcelebration.Later
in1999,investigationwasconductedbyanindependentcommitteddue
to allegations of graft and corruption against Laurel as NCC and
EXPOCORP chair. The committee recommended thefilingof charges by
theOmbudsmanuponwhichtheOfficeoftheOmbudsmantookcognizance
ofthecase.LaurelthenquestionedthejurisdictionoftheOmbudsman
byfilingthis petition, saying that (1) EXPOCORP was aprivate
corporation,(2)thatNCCisnotapublicofficeand(3)thatheis
not a public officer as defined in the AntiGraft and
CorruptPracticesAct.
Issue:Whetheror not the contentions of Vice President Laurelare
correct.
Held:No.TheOmbudsmanhasthepowertoinvestigateanymalfeasance,
misfeasanceandnonfeasancebyapublicofficeroremployeeofthe
government,orofanysubdivision,agencyorinstrumentalitythereof,
including governmentowned or controlled corporations. However, is
NCC a public office? Yes, it is because itexercisesexecutive
functionsbyimplementingthepoliciessetforthintheConstitution
regardinghistoryandculturalheritage,thussatisfyinganimportant
elementofpublicoffice:thedelegationofsovereignfunctions.It
alsofollowsthatLaurelisapublicofficer.Thathedidnotreceive
compensation is of no consequence. A salary is a usual but not a
necessarycriterionfordeterminingthenatureoftheposition.Itis
notconclusive.Thesalaryisamereincidentandformsnopartof
theoffice.
Whereasalaryorfeesisannexed,theofficeisprovidedforitisa

nakedorhonoraryoffice,andissupposedtobeacceptedmerelyfor
thepublicgood.Hence,theofficeofpetitionerasNCCChairmaybe
characterizedasanhonoraryoffice,asopposedtoalucrativeoffice
oranofficeofprofit,i.e.,onetowhichsalary,compensationor
fees are attached. It bears noting that under Section 3 (b) of
RepublicActNo.6713(TheCodeofConductandEthicalStandardsfor
Public Officials and Employees), one may be considered a public
official whether or not one receives compensation, thus: Public
Officials include elective and appointive officials and employees,
permanentortemporary,whetherinthecareerornoncareerservice
includingmilitaryandpolicepersonnel,whetherornottheyreceive
compensation,regardlessofamount.
MANIPONVSSANDIGANBAYAN
Nathaniel S. Manipon, Jr., a deputy sheriff of the Court of First
Instance of Baguio City and Benguet, Branch IV, was assigned to
enforce an order of the Minister of Labor dated October 31, 1979
directing the Sheriff of Baguio City or his deputy to execute the
decision of the labor arbiter in NLRC Case No. RB1C142879
entitled"LongogTabek,etalvs.HarryDominguezetal"andtomake
a return within thirty (30) days from said date.3The labor
arbiter'sdecisionorderedHarryDominguez,abuildingcontractorand
thethenmunicipalmayorofTadian,topayLongogTabekandtheother
judgment creditors the amount of P2,720.00 with interest, as the
balanceoftheirworkcontract.4
Pursuant to that assignment, Manipon on November 9, 1979 sent a
noticetotheCommercialBankandTrustbranch[Comtrust]inBaguio
CitygarnishingthebankaccountsofDominguez.5Thebankagreedto
holdtheaccounts.Foronereasonoranother,Manipondidnotinform
the labor arbiter of the garnishment nor did he exert efforts to
immediatelysatisfythejudgmentunderexecution.
On November 12, 1979, Dominguez sought Manipon's help in the
withdrawalofthegarnishedaccount.ManipontoldDominguezthatthe
moneycouldnotbewithdrawn.
However,onDecember27,1979whenthetwometagainattheOfficeof
the National Intelligence and Security Authority [NISA] in Baguio
City,ManipontoldDominguezthathe"canremedythewithdrawalso
theywillhavesomethingfortheNewYear."6Dominguezinterpreted
thistomeanthatManiponwouldwithdrawthegarnishedamountfora
consideration.Dominguezagreedandtheyarrangedtomeetatthebank
later in the afternoon.After Manipon left,Dominguez confided the
offer to NISA SubStation Commander Luisito Sanchez. They then
hatchedupaplantoentrapManiponbypayinghimwithmarkedmoney
the next day. Col. Sanchez and a Col. Aguana were able to put up
P700.00 in fiftypeso bills which were then authenticated, xeroxed

anddustedwithfluorescentpowder.7
Thus,atabout4:00o'clockintheafternoonofDecember28,1979,
Dominguez went to Comtrust as planned. Manipon showed up with two
companions,namedDeputySheriffCrisantoFloraandBaltazarPacis.
Manipon delivered his letter to the bank lifting the
garnishment.8Then Dominguez prepared a withdrawal slip for
P2,500.00.9AssoonasDominguezreceivedthemoneyfromtheteller,
he took out P300.00 therefrom added it to the P 700.00 in marked
billsandhandedthetotalamountofPl,000.00toManipon.Thenthey
allleftthebank.Dominguezwalkedovertohiscaranddroveoff.
Manipon and his two companions walked down Session Road. Moments
later, PC and NISA operatives accosted them, seized the P1,000.00
fromtheleftbreastpocketofManiponandthereafterbroughtthemto
CampDangwaforquestioning.Maniponwassubjectedtoanultraviolet
lighttestandfoundpositiveforfluorescentpowder.However,after
executingacertificationrelativetothemoneyrecovered,herefused
togiveanystatement.10Hefiledhissheriff'sreturnunsatisfied
onFebruary20,1980orafter114days.11
Originally,ManiponwaschargedwithviolationofPresidentialDecree
No.46forhavingdemandedandreceivedPl,000.00fromDominguez,a
privateindividual,forafavorextendedbyhimtothelatter,i.e.,
bynotenforcingthegarnishmentorderissuedtoComtrustwhichwas
hisofficialduty.However,inanamendedinformationdatedFebruary
16,1981,thechargewaschangedtodirectbriberyundertheRevised
PenalCode.12
Manipon was released on bail. When arraigned, he pleaded not
guilty.13
In his brief, Manipon contends that the Sandiganbayan erred in
convicting him of direct bribery, in not giving credence to the
defensetheorythattherewasnovationofthemoneyjudgmentandin
admittingillegallyobtainedevidence.
ThecrimeofdirectbriberyasdefinedinArticle210oftheRevised
PenalCodeconsistsofthefollowingelements:(1)thattheaccused
isapublicofficer;(2)thathereceiveddirectlyorthroughanother
somegiftorpresent,offerorpromise;(3)thatsuchgift,present
orpromisehasbeengiveninconsiderationofhiscommissionofsome
crime,oranyactnotconstitutingacrime,ortorefrainfromdoing
somethingwhichitishisofficialdutytodo,and(4)thatthecrime
or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public
officer.14Thepromiseofapublicofficertoperformanactorto
refrainfromdoingitmaybeexpressorimplied.15
Itisnotdisputedthatatthetimeofthecommissionofthecrime
Manipon was the deputy sheriff of the Court of First Instance of
BenguetandBaguioassignedtoimplementtheexecutionorderissued

inNLRCCaseNo.RB1C142879.ItisalsonotdisputedthatManipon
garnished the bank accounts of Dominguez at Comtrust and that he
lifted the same on December 28, 1979 after which he received P
l,000.00fromDominguez.
ItisthetheoryofthedefensethattheP1,000.00Maniponcollected
fromDominguezonDecember28,1979wasnotabribebutapaymentin
partial satisfactionof the judgment under execution to which the
judgmentcreditorsheadedbyLongogTabekhadagreed.
ManiponnarratesthatduringhismeetingwithDominguezattheNISA
officeonDecember27,1979,DominguezrequestedManipontoconveyto
thecreditorsthathewasonlywillingtopayforthetimebeinga
partialamountofP1,000.00,thebalanceofP1,720.00tobepaid
aftertheNewYear.16SohevisitedLongogTabekwhowasthe"lead
man."Tabek,anilliterate,consentedtothelesseramountbecausehe
neededmoneybadly.17HisarrangementswithTabekandDominguezwere
all verbal. At that time he found no reason to have some written
memorandumforhisownprotection.
AtComtrustafterDominguezhadgivenhimtheP1,000.00Maniponmade
amovetohandhimatemporaryreceiptbutDominguezbrusheditaside
and

said

he

was

in

a
hurry.18
Manipon maintains that Dominguez had framed him up because of a
grudge. He said that in 1978 he and Flora had levied execution
againstseveralvehiclesownedbyDominguez,anactwhichthelatter
hadopenlyresented.19
The defense theory is so incredible that it leaves no doubt
whatsoeverintheCourt'smindthatManiponisguiltyofthecrime
charged.
Itisverystrangeindeedthatforsuchanimportantagreementthat
wouldmodifyafinaljudgment,noonetookthebotherofputtingit
downonpaper.OfcourseManiponwouldhaveusbelievethattherewas
noneedforitbecausehetrustedDominguezandTabek.Andyetdidhe
notalsoclaimthatDominguezhadframedhimupbecauseofagrudge?
Andiftherewasreallyanagreementtoalterthejudgment,whydid
henotinformthelaborarbiteraboutitconsideringthatitwasthe
laborarbiterwhohadissuedtheorderofexecution?Maniponcould
not give satisfactory explanations because there was no such
agreementinthefirstplace.
Thetemporaryreceipt20adducedbyManipon,ascorrectlypointedout
by the Solicitor General, is a lastminute fabrication to provide
proofoftheallegedagreementforthetrialpaymentofthejudgment
debt. Contrary to Manipon's claim, it is hard to believe that
Dominguez was not interested in getting said temporary receipt
becausepreciselythatwastheproofheneededtoshowthathehad

partiallycompliedwithhislegalobligation.
The testimonies of Crisanto Flora and Longog Tabek are of no help
eithertothedefense.FloraisManipon'scosheriffandistherefore
biased.Ontheotherhand,Tabek,onseveraloccasionsonthewitness
stand, answeredwith obvious hesitation, betraying himself to be a
rehearsedwitness.Whileheclaimedthathewasthesupposedheadman
oftheothercreditors,hecouldnotpresentanyauthoritythatwould
allow him to speak for them, let alone agree to receive a lesser
amountintheirbehalf.Heevenadmittedthathedidnotknowtheir
names.21
Indeed,Manipon'sbehaviorattheveryoutset,hadbeenmarkedwith
irregularities. As early as November 9, 1979, he had already
garnishedthebankaccountsofDominguezatComtrust,buthedidnot
notify the labor arbiter so that the corresponding order for the
paymentbythebankofthegarnishedamountcouldbemadeandthesum
withdrawn immediately to satisfy the judgment under execution. His
lame excuse was that he was very busy in the sheriff's office,
attendingtovoluminousexhibitsandcourtproceedings.Thatwasalso
thesameexcusehegavefornotinformingthelaborarbiterofthe
novation. In fact he candidly admitted that he never communicated
with the NLRC concerning the garnishment. He returned the writ
unsatisfiedonlyonFebruary20,1980althoughbyitsexpressterms,
it was returnable within thirty days from October 29,
1979.22Clearly,ManiponhadplannedtogetDomingueztoacquiesce
toaconsiderationforliftingthegarnishmentorder.
Manipon was also asked about the affidavit he executed during the
preliminary investigation.23That affidavit contained two annexes
butthetemporaryreceiptwhichheallegedlypreparedonDecember28,
1979 wasnotincluded. He said he misplaced it in his office and
founditonlyseveralweeksafterhehadmadetheaffidavit.24This
leadsustostronglysuspecttherewasactuallynotemporaryreceipt
at all at the time of payment on December 28 and that it was
concocted by the defense as a lastditch effort to make the
authoritiesbelievethatwhathadtranspiredwasnotapayoffbuta
legitimatepartialsatisfactionofajudgmentdebt.
In the final analysis, it all boils down to credibility. In this
regard,theprosecutionwitnesseshaveacquittedthemselvesweltThe
Sandiganbayan did not err in giving weight and credence to their
versioninsteadofManipon's.Indeed,Manipon'sguiltforthecrime
ofdirectbriberyhasbeenprovedbeyondreasonabledoubt.
Dwelling on one last point, Manipon has pointed out that the
P1,000.00 was illegally seized because there was no valid March
warrantandthereforeinadmissible.
Theargumentisuntenable.Therulethatsearchesandseizuresmust

besupportedbyavalidwarrantisnotanabsoluterule.Thereareat
leastthreeexceptionstotherulerecognizedinthisjurisdiction.
Theseare:1)searchincidentaltoanarrest,2)searchofamoving
vehicle,and3)seizureofevidenceinplainview.25
In the case at bar, the records show that at about 2:00 p.m. on
December28,1979,NISASubStationCommanderColonelLuisitoSanchez
held a final briefing among his men and some operatives from the
BenguetPhilippineConstabularyconcerningtheplannedentrapment.He
had earlier received word from Dominguez that the lifting of the
garnishment would be effected that afternoon and he informed them
that Manipon was asking money from Dominguez.26As Colonel Sanchez
earliertestified,partofthemoneytobewithdrawnafterlifting
the garnishment was to be given to the accused27for agreeing to
lifttheorderofgarnishment.Afterthebriefingwhichlastedfrom
tentofifteenminutes,theyanheadedfortheComtrustbank.
NISAAgentCaesarMurlastationedhimselfnearthedoorofthebank
so that he could observe what transpired inside the bank.28He
testified that he saw Dominguez give the marked money to Manipon
whichthelatteracceptedandcounted.UponseeingManipontakethe
moneyfromDominguez,AgentMurlagaveasignaltosomeoftheagents
positionednearbybyplacinghisrighthandonhisheadtoindicate
thatthemoneyhadchangedhands.Immediatelythereafter,Dominguez
leftthebank,Maniponplacedthemoneyinhisleftbreastpocketand
followed suit. As Manipon walked past Murla on his way out, the
lattergaveanothersignalbyputtinghishandonhisleftbreastto
indicate that Manipon had placed the money in his left breast
pocket.29
Upon noticing the second signal, the NISA agents and the PC
operatives approached Manipon and his two companions. After
Identifying themselves as peace officers, they retrieved the P
l,000.00 from Manipon. Through it all, Manipon remained amazingly
silentandvoicednoprotest.30
ThesearchandseizureoftheP1,000.00fromManiponwouldtherefore
fallwithinthefirstexception.Thesearchwasmadeasanincident
toalawfularrest,inaccordancewithourpronouncementinMoreno
v.AgoChi12Phil.439,reiteratedinAlverov.Dizon76Phil.637,
towit:
An officer making an arrest may take from the person
arrestedanymoneyorpropertyfounduponhispersonwhich
wasusedinthecommissionofthecrimeorwasthefruitof
the crime or which might furnish the prisoner with the
meansofcommittingviolenceorescaping,orwhichmaybe
usedinevidenceinthetrialofthecase.
The evident purpose of this exception is both to protect the

arresting officer against physical harm from the person being

arrested who might be armed with a concealed weapon and also to
prevent the person arrested from destroying evidence within his
reach.31
SincetheotherissuesraisedbyManiponarefactualtheyneednotbe
discusshere.
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,theinstantpetitionisdenied
for lack of merit, with costs against petitioneraccused Nathaniel
Manipon, Jr. The decision of the Sandiganbayan dated September 30,
1981isaffirmed.
Maniponvs.Sandiganbayan

Casewherethedeputysheriffsaidthathecanremedythe
withdrawalofthegarnishedamountsothattheycanhavesomething
forNewYear.

Directbribery:Thecrimeofdirectbriberyasd e f i n e d i n 2 1 0
i n R P C c o n s i s t s o f t h e f f elements:1)thattheaccusedisa
publicofficer2 ) t h a t h e r e c e i v e d d i r e c t l y o r t h r o u g h
a n o t h e r somegiftorpresent,offerorpromise3 ) t h a t s u c h g i f t ,
p r e s e n t o r p r o m i s e h a s b e e n givenionconsiderationofhis
commissionofsomecrime,oranyactnotconstitutiongacrime,
ortorefrainfromdoingsomethingwhichitishisofficialduty
todoand4)thatthecrimeoractrelatestotheexerciseof his
functionsaspublicofficer

Thepromiseofapublicofficertoperformanactortorefrainfrom
doingitmaybeexpressorimplied.
Dacumasvs.Sandiganbayan

ThesettlementoftaxliabilitywhichreducedthetaxoftheRevilla
Interiors.

Pullingoutassessmentpapersand
thelikew a s n o t p a r t o f h i s o f f i c i a l d u t i e s , t h u s elements
fordirectbriberywerenotallmet.

Besidesthepromisedactwasnotimpossibletocarryoutgivenhis29
yearsinservice,hesurelyknowshiswayaround.(expandedmeaning
ofofficialduties)
PRESIDENTIALDECREENo.46November10,1972
MAKINGITPUNISHABLEFORPUBLICOFFICIALSANDEMPLOYEESTORECEIVE,

ANDFORPRIVATEPERSONSTOGIVE,GIFTSONANYOCCASION,INCLUDING
CHRISTMAS
WHEREAS, under existing laws and the civil service rules, it is
prohibitedtoreceive,directlyorindirectly,anygift,presentor
anyotherformofbenefitinthecourseofofficialduties;
WHEREAS,itisbelievednecessarytoputmoreteethtoexistinglaws
and regulations to wipe out all conceivable forms of graft and
corruption in the public service, the members of which should not
onlybehonestbutabovesuspicionandreproach;and
WHEREAS, the stoppage of the practice of giftgiving togovernment
menisaconcretestepintheadministration'sprogramofreformsfor
thedevelopmentofnewmoralvaluesinthesocialstructureofthe
country,oneofthemainobjectivesoftheNewSociety;
NOW,THEREFORE,I,FERDINANDE.MARCOS,PresidentofthePhilippines,
by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution as
CommanderinChief of all the ArmedForces of the Philippines, and
pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081 dated September 21, 1972, and
General Order No. 1 dated September 22, 1972, do hereby make it
punishable for any public official or employee, whether of the
national or local governments, to receive, directly or indirectly,
andforprivatepersonstogive,oroffertogive,anygift,present
or other valuable thingto any occasion, including Christmas, when
suchgift,presentorothervaluablethingisgivenbyreasonofhis
officialposition,regardlessofwhetherornotthesameisforpast
favororfavorsorthegiverhopesorexpectstoreceiveafavoror
bettertreatmentinthefuturefromthepublicofficialoremployee
concernedinthedischargeofhisofficialfunctions.Includedwithin
theprohibitionisthethrowingofpartiesorentertainmentsinhonor
oftheofficialoremployeesorhisimmediaterelatives.
For violation of this Decree, the penalty of imprisonment for not
less than one (1) year nor morethan five (5) yearsandperpetual
disqualificationfrompublicofficeshallbeimposed.Theofficialor
employee concerned shall likewise be subject to administrative
disciplinary action and, if found guilty, shall be meted out the
penaltyofsuspensionorremoval,dependingontheseriousnessofthe
offense.
Anyprovisionoflaw,executiveorder,ruleorregulationorcircular
inconsistent with this Decree is hereby repealed or modified
accordingly.
ThisDecreeshalltakeeffectimmediatelyafteritspublication.
DoneintheCityofManila,this10thdayofNovember,intheyearof
OurLord,nineteenhundredandseventytwo.


PD749:GRANTINGIMMUNITYFROMPROSECUTIONTOGIVERSOFBRIBESAND
OTHERGIFTSANDTOTHEIRACCOMPLICESINBRIBERYANDOTHERGRAFTCASES
AGAINSTPUBLICOFFICERS
WHEREAS,publicofficeisapublictrust:publicofficersarebut
servantsofthepeople,whomtheymustservewithutmostfidelityand
integrity;
WHEREAS,ithasheretoforebeenvirtuallyimpossibletosecurethe
convictionandremovalofdishonestpublicservantsowingtothelack
ofwitnesses:thebribeorgiftgiversbeingalwaysreluctantto
testifyagainstthecorruptpublicofficialsandemployeesconcerned
forfearofbeingindictedandconvictedthemselvesofbriberyand
corruption;
WHEREAS,itisbetterbyfarandmoresociallydesirable,aswellas
just,thatthebribeorgiftgiverbegrantedimmunityfrom
prosecutionsothathemayfreelytestifyastotheofficial
corruption,thanthattheofficialwhoreceivesthebribeorgift
shouldbeallowedtogofree,insolentlyremaininginpublicoffice,
andcontinuingwithhisnefariousandcorruptpractices,tothegreat
detrimentofthepublicserviceandthepublicinterest.
NOW,THEREFORE,I,FERDINANDE.MARCOS,PresidentofthePhilippines,
byvirtueofthepowersinmevestedbytheConstitution,dohereby
decreeandorderthat:
Section1.Anypersonwhovoluntarilygivesinformationaboutany
violationofArticles210,211,and212oftheRevisedPenalCode;
RepublicActNumberedThreeThousandNineteen,asamended;Section
345oftheInternalRevenueCodeandSection3604oftheTariffand
CustomsCodeandotherprovisionsofthesaidCodespenalizingabuse
ordishonestyonthepartofthepublicofficialsconcerned;and
otherlaws,rulesandregulationspunishingactsofgraft,corruption
andotherformsofofficialabuse;andwhowillinglytestifies
againstanypublicofficialoremployeeforsuchviolationshallbe
exemptfromprosecutionorpunishmentfortheoffensewithreference
towhichhisinformationandtestimonyweregiven,andmaypleador
provethegivingofsuchinformationandtestimonyinbarofsuch
prosecution:Provided;thatthisimmunitymaybeenjoyedevenin
caseswheretheinformationandtestimonyaregivenagainstaperson
whoisnotapublicofficialbutwhoisaprincipal,oraccomplice,
oraccessoryinthecommissionofanyoftheabovementioned
violations:Provided,further,thatthisimmunitymaybeenjoyedby
suchinformantorwitnessnotwithstandingthatheofferedorgavethe
bribeorgifttothepublicofficialorhisaccompliceforsuchgift
orbribegiving;andProvided,finally,thatthefollowingconditions
concur:
1.Theinformationmustrefertoconsummatedviolationsofanyofthe
abovementionedprovisionsoflaw,rulesandregulations;

2.Theinformationandtestimonyarenecessaryfortheconvictionof
theaccusedpublicofficer;
3.Suchinformationandtestimonyarenotyetinthepossessionof
theState;
4.Suchinformationandtestimonycanbecorroboratedonitsmaterial
points;and
5.Theinformantorwitnesshasnotbeenpreviouslyconvictedofa
crimeinvolvingmoralturpitude.
Section2.Theimmunitygrantedhereundershallnotattachshouldit
turnoutsubsequentlythattheinformationand/ortestimonyisfalse
andmaliciousormadeonlyforthepurposeofharassing,
molestingorinanywayprejudicingthepublicofficerdenounced.In
suchacase,thepublicofficersodenouncedshallbeentitledtoany
action,civilorcriminal,againstsaidinformantorwitness.
Section3.Allpreliminaryinvestigationsconductedbyaprosecuting
fiscal,judgeorcommittee,andallproceedingsundertakenin
connectiontherewith,shallbestrictlyconfidentialorprivatein
ordertoprotectthereputationoftheofficialunderinvestigation
intheeventthatthereportprovestobeunfoundedornoprimafacie
caseisestablished.
Section4.Allacts,decreesandrulesandregulationsinconsistent
withtheprovisionsofthisdecreeareherebyrepealedormodified
accordingly.
Section5.ThisDecreeshalltakeeffectimmediately.
DONEintheCityofManila,this18thdayofJuly,intheyearofOur
Lord,nineteenhundredandseventyfive.
REPUBLICACTNo.1379
ANACTDECLARINGFORFEITUREINFAVOROFTHESTATEANYPROPERTYFOUND
TOHAVEBEENUNLAWFULLYACQUIREDBYANYPUBLICOFFICEROREMPLOYEE
ANDPROVIDINGFORTHEPROCEEDINGSTHEREFOR.
Section1.Definitions.(a)ForthepurposesofthisAct,a"public
officeroremployee"meansanypersonholdinganypublicofficeor
employmentbyvirtueofanappointment,electionorcontract,andany
personholdinganyofficeoremployment,byappointmentorcontract,
inanyStateownedorcontrolledcorporationorenterprise.
(b) "Other legitimately acquired property" means any real or
personalproperty,moneyorsecuritieswhichtherespondenthas
atanytimeacquiredbyinheritanceandtheincomethereof,or
by gift inter vivos before his becoming a public officer or
employee,oranyproperty(orincomethereof)alreadypertaining
tohimwhenhequalifiedforpublicofficeoremployment,orthe
fruitsandincomeoftheexclusivepropertyoftherespondent's
spouse.Itshallnotinclude:

1.Propertyunlawfullyacquiredbytherespondent,butits
ownership is concealed by its being recorded in the name
of, or held by, the respondent's spouse, ascendants,
descendants,relatives,oranyotherperson.
2. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent, but
transferredbyhimtoanotherpersonorpersonsonorafter
theeffectivityofthisAct.
3. Property donated to the respondent during his
incumbency,unlesshecanprovetothesatisfactionofthe
courtthatthedonationislawful.
Section 2.Filing of petition.Whenever any public officer or
employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property
whichismanifestlyoutofproportiontohissalaryassuchpublic
officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income
fromlegitimatelyacquiredproperty,saidpropertyshallbepresumed
primafacietohavebeenunlawfullyacquired.TheSolicitorGeneral,
uponcomplaintbyanytaxpayertothecityorprovincialfiscalwho
shall conduct a previous inquiry similar to preliminary
investigationsincriminalcasesandshallcertifytotheSolicitor
General that there is reasonable ground to believe that there has
beencommittedaviolationofthisActandtherespondentisprobably
guiltythereof,shallfile,inthenameandonbehalfoftheRepublic
of the Philippines,in the Court ofFirst Instance of the city or
province where said public officer or employee resides or holds
office,apetitionforawritcommandingsaidofficeroremployeeto
showcausewhythepropertyaforesaid,oranypartthereof,should
not be declared property of the State:Provided, That no such
petitionshallbefiledwithinoneyearbeforeanygeneralelection
orwithinthreemonthsbeforeanyspecialelection.
Theresignation,dismissalorseparationoftheofficeroremployee
fromhisofficeoremploymentintheGovernmentorintheGovernment
ownedorcontrolledcorporationshallnotbeabartothefilingof
thepetition:Provided,however,Thattherighttofilesuchpetition
shallprescribeafterfouryearsfromthedateoftheresignation,
dismissalorseparationorexpirationofthetermoftheofficeor
employeeconcerned,exceptastothosewhohaveceasedtoholdoffice
withintenyearspriortotheapprovalofthisAct,inwhichcasethe
proceedings shall prescribe after four years from the approval
hereof.
Section 3.The petition. The petition shall contain the following
information:
(a)Thenameandaddressoftherespondent.
(b) The public officer or employment he holds and such other
publicofficesoremploymentwhichhehaspreviouslyheld.

(c) The approximate amount of property he has acquired during

hisincumbencyinhispastandpresentofficesandemployments.
(d)Adescriptionofsaidproperty,orsuchthereofashasbeen
identifiedbytheSolicitorGeneral.
(e)Thetotalamountofhisgovernmentsalaryandotherproper
earningsandincomesfromlegitimatelyacquiredproperty,and
(f)Suchotherinformationasmayenablethecourttodetermine
whetherornottherespondenthasunlawfullyacquiredproperty
duringhisincumbency.
Section4.Periodfortheanswer.Therespondentshallhaveaperiod
offifteendayswithinwhichtopresenthisanswer.
Section5.Hearing.TheCourtshallsetadateforahearing,which
maybeopentothepublic,andduringwhichtherespondentshallbe
givenampleopportunitytoexplain,tothesatisfactionofthecourt,
howhehasacquiredthepropertyinquestion.
Section 6.Judgment.If the respondent is unable to show to the
satisfactionofthecourtthathehaslawfullyacquiredtheproperty
inquestion,thenthecourtshalldeclaresuchproperty,forfeitedin
favor of the State, and by virtue of such judgment the property
aforesaid shall become property of the State:Provided, That no
judgment shall be rendered within six months before any general
election or within three months before any special election. The
Court may, in addition, refer this case to the corresponding
ExecutiveDepartmentforadministrativeorcriminalaction,orboth.
Section7.Appeal.The parties may appeal from the judgment of the
CourtofFirstInstanceasprovidedintheRulesofCourtforappeals
incivilcases.
Section 8.Protection against selfincrimination.Neither the
respondentnoranyotherpersonshallbeexcusedfromattendingand
testifyingorfromproducingbooks,papers,correspondence,memoranda
and other records on the ground that the testimony or evidence,
documentaryorotherwise,requiredofhimmaytendtoincriminatehim
orsubjecthimtoprosecution;butnoindividualshallbeprosecuted
criminally for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing
concerningwhichheiscompelled,afterhavingclaimedhisprivilege
against selfincrimination, to testify or produce evidence,
documentaryorotherwise,exceptthatsuchindividualsotestifying
shallnotbeexemptfromprosecutionandconvictionforperjuryor
false testimony committed in so testifying or from administrative
proceedings.
Section 9.Immunity.The Solicitor General may grant immunity from
criminal prosecution to any person who testifies to the unlawful
mannerinwhichtherespondenthasacquiredanyofthepropertyin

question in cases where such testimony is necessary to prove

violationsofthisAct.
Section 10.Effect of record of title.The fact that any real
propertyhasbeenrecordedintheRegistryofPropertyorofficeof
theRegisterofDeedsinthenameoftherespondentorofanyperson
mentionedinparagraphs(1)and(2)ofsubsection(b)ofsectionone
hereofshallnotpreventtherenderingofthejudgmentreferredtoin
sectionsixofthisAct.
Section 11.Laws on prescription.The laws concerning acquisitive
prescription and limitation of actions cannot be invoked by, nor
shall they benefit the respondent, in respect of any property
unlawfullyacquiredbyhim.
Section 12.Penalties.Any public officer or employee who shall,
after the effective date of this Act, transfer or convey any
unlawfullyacquiredpropertyshallberepressedwithimprisonmentfor
atermnotexceedingfiveyears,orafinenotexceedingtenthousand
pesos,orbothsuchimprisonmentandfine.Thesamerepressionshall
beimposeduponanypersonwhoshallknowinglyacceptsuchtransfer
orconveyance.
Section13.Separabilityofprovisions.IfanyprovisionofthisAct
or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held
invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of such
provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby.
Section 14.Effective date.This Act shall take effect on its
approval,andshallapplynotonlytopropertythereafterunlawfully
acquired but also to property unlawfully acquired before the
effectivedateofthisAct.
Approved:June18,1955
ALMEDAVSPEREZ
InOctober,1961,EpifanioT.VillegasandJesusA.Mendoza,fileda
complaintwiththeSecretaryofJustice,chargingMarianoG.Almeda,
Sr. with having acquired, during his incumbency as government
employee, cash and properties from unknown sources in the total
amountofP121,407.98whichacquisitions,accordingtothecomplaint,
were manifestly out of proportion to the salary and other lawful
incomeofsaidMarianoG.Almeda,Sr.,and,therefore,inviolation
oftheprovisionsofRepublicActNo.1379,otherwiseknownasthe
AntiGraftLaw.PursuanttotheprovisionsofsaidAct,apreliminary
investigation was conducted by a committee of investigators
designated by the Secretary of Justice. In a resolution of said
investigators,datedNovember4,1960,itwascertifiedthatthereis

reasonable ground to believe that from 1950 to 1959, Mariano G.

Almeda,Sr.acquiredpropertiesmanifestlyoutofproportiontohis
salaryasAssistantDirectoroftheNationalBureauofInvestigation,
andtohisotherlawfulincome.
On the basis of the findings of the investigators, the Solicitor
General,representingtheRepublicofthePhilippinesaspetitioner,
filedonNovember12,1960,with,CourtofFirstInstanceofManila,
apetitionforforfeitureagainstMarianoG.Almeda,Sr.,docketedas
Civil Case No. 44693. It charges him with having committed while
engaged in the performance of his official and, in consequence of
saidgraft,hadacquiredpropertiesandmadecashdisbursementsfrom
1950to1959grosslydisproportionatetohislawfulincome.Hiswife
wasincludedasacorespondentinhercapacityaswifeofMarianoG.
Almeda,Sr.andascoowneroftheirconjugalproperties.
PetitionershereinfiledtheiransweronDecember1960andthereafter
thecasewassetforhearing,butFebruary15,1961,theSolicitor
Generalfileda"MotionforLeavetoAmendPetitionforForfeiture".
ThejudgegrantedthemotionbutrejectedtheinclusionofMarianoF.
Almeda, Jr. as party respondent. On March 25, 196 the Solicitor
General filed the amended petition for forfeiture, adding other
countsanditemsofallegedunlawfulacquisitionsanddisbursements
thusincreasingtheallegedcashfromunexplainedsourcesreceivedby
the respondent from the years 195059 to P208,682.45, as against
respondent's salary and other lawful income of only P59,860.97.
Respondents, petitioners herein, objected to the amendment on the
groundthatthenewcountsorchargesalreadybeeninvestigatedand
dismissedafterinvestigation,andrespondentshadnotbeengivena
new preliminary investigation with respect to the new counts or
charges that the proceeding under Republic Act No. 1379 being
criminal in nature, the petition may not be amended as substance
withoutrespondents' consent. It isalso claim thattheamendments
werepresentedonlytodelaytheproceedingstotheprejudiceofthe
respondents,andthatthenewcountsorchargescouldnotbeincluded
because one year had already elapsed after a general election in
violation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 1379. After the
filingofmemorandabythepartiestherespondentjudgeissuedthe
order sought to be reviewed, authorizing the presentation of the
second amended petition but without including therein Mariano F.
Almeda,Jr.asapartyrespondent.Thecourtruledasfollows:
The Court finds no merit to the contention that the amended
petition seeks to include new counts which were previously
dismissedbytheinvestigatingFiscalsbecausenosuchdismissal
appears in the resolution of said investigating fiscal and
moreover,theonlyfunctionoftheinvestigatingfiscalsinthe
preliminaryinvestigationwastodeterminewhetherornotthere

is probable cause that respondents have acquired properties

beyondtheirmeans.Theitemsofreceiptsanddisbursementsor
acquisitions referred to as new counts by the respondents are
but allegations in detail respecting the main allegation that
respondentsunlawfullyacquiredthepropertiesdescribedinthe
amended petition. The new allegations of receipts and
disbursements embodied in the amended petition objected to by
the respondents merely supplement or amplify the facts of
unlawful acquisition originally alleged in the original
petition.Theseamendmentshencerelatebacktothedateofthe
filing of the original petition so that the prohibition
contained in Rep. Act 1379 that no petition shall be filed
within one year before a general election cannot apply with
respect to the new items of receipts and disbursements. The
Court finds no merit in the respondents' contention that the
amendedpetitionshouldnotbeadmittedontheallegationthat
this proceeding is penal in nature and no amendment as to
mattersofsubstancecanbeadmittedaftertherespondentshave
filedtheiranswerbecausethisisacivilcaseandtherules
respectingamendmentsincivilcasesandnotofinformationsin
criminalcasesshouldgoverntheadmissionofamendmentsinthis
case.Themerefactthatapreliminaryinvestigationisrequired
tobeheldinaproceedingofthisnaturedoesnotmakethesame
a criminal proceeding. Hence, the rule that amendments of
pleadings are favored and should be liberally allowed in the
furtheranceofjusticeshouldbeapplied.
With reference to the objection that no preliminary
investigation was conducted insofar as the new respondent
MarianoP.Almedaisconcerned,theCourtfindssaidobjection
tobewellfoundedbecausenopreliminaryinvestigationwasin
fact conducted insofar as said new respondent is concerned in
violationofSec.2ofRep.Act1379.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders the petitioner to file,
within ten days, a second amended petition without including
therein,MarianoF.Almedaaspartyrespondentormakereference
thereinwithrespecttosaidperson.
SOORDERED.
The principal contention of the petitioners herein, respondents in
thecourtbelow,isthatRepublicActNo.1379ispenalinsubstance
andeffect,hence the presentation of the amended petition without
the benefit of a previous preliminary investigation under the Act
cannot be allowed; that the amendment would have the effect of
presentingcharge(underRepublicActNo.1379)withinoneyearfrom
thedateofageneralelection;andlastlythatamendmentmaynotbe
madeonamatterofsubstanceafterthedefendantshadpleaded.

AstudyoftheprovisionsofRepublicActNo.1379readilydiscloses
thattheproceedingforforfeitureisinnatureandnotcriminal,as
claimedbythepetitioners.Atesthasbeensuggestedtodetermine
whethertheproceedingforforfeitureiscivilorcriminal,thus:
...Forfeitureproceedingsmaybeeithercivilorcriminalin
nature,andmaybeinremorinpersonam.Iftheyareundera
statutesuchthatifanindictmentispresentedforfeiturecan
beincludedinthecriminalcasetheyareinnature,although
theymaybecivilinform;andwhereitmustbegatheredfrom
the statute that the action is meant to be criminal in its
nature it cannot be considered as civil. If however, the
proceedingdoesnotinvolvetheconvictionofwrongdoerforthe
offensechargedtheproceedingisofacivilnature;andunder
statutes which specifically so provision where the act or
omission for which the forfeiture is imposed is not also a
misdemeanor, such forfeiture may be sued for recovered in a
civilaction.(37CJS,Forfeitures,Sec.5,pp.1516).
InthefirstplaceaproceedingsundertheAct(Rep.ActNo.1379)
does,notterminateintheimpositionofpenaltybutmerelyinthe
forfeiture of the properties illegally acquired in favor of the
state.(Sec.6)Inthesecondplacetheprocedureoutlinedinthelaw
leadingtoforfeitureisthatprovidedforinacivilaction.Thus
thereisapetition(Sec.3),thenananswer(Sec.4),andlastly,a
hearing.Thepreliminaryinvestigationwhichisrequirepriortothe
filing of the petition, in accordance with Sec. 2 of the Act, is
providedexpresslytobeonesimilartoapreliminaryinvestigation
in a criminal in a criminal case. If the investigation is only
similar to that in a criminal case, but other steps in the
proceedingsarethoseforcivilproceedings,itstandstoreasonthat
the proceeding is not criminal. Had it been a criminal proceeding
there would been, after a preliminary investigation, a reading of
information,apleaofguiltyornotguilty,andatrialthereafter,
with the publication of the judgement in the presence of the
defendant.Buttheseproceedingsasabovesetforth,arenotprovided
forinthelaw.1wph1.t
Section12ofthelawprovidesapenaltytothepublicofficer,but
saidpenaltyisagainsttheemployeeorofficerforthetransferor
conveyanceofanyunlawfullyacquiredproperties.Thelawtherefore
penalizes an officer for transferring or conveying properties
unlawfully acquired but does not do so for making the unlawful
acquisition; it merely imposes the penalty of forfeiture of the
propertiesunlawfullyacquired.
Astheproceedingforforfeiture,aspointedoutandasprovidedfor
in the law, is not a penal proceeding but a civil one for the
forfeitureofthepropertiesillegallyacquired,andastheprocedure

outlined in the law is that which is followed in civil actions,

amendmentofthechargesorthepetitionforforfeituremaybemade
asinordinarycivilactions;i.e.,theamendmentsmaybemadebefore
trial or in the course of trial without need of another
investigation. It also follows that amendments setting forth newly
discoveredacquisitionsmaybeinthepetitionwithoutobtainingthe
consentoftherespondent.
WHEREFORE, the petition should be, as it is hereby, denied, with
costs.Soordered.
.R.

No.

L19052,

December

29,

1962
MANUELF.CABAL,petitioner,vs.HON.RUPERTOKAPUNAN,JR.,andTHE
CITY

FISCAL

OF

MANILA,respondents.
CONCEPCION,

J.:
Col.JoseC.MaristelafiledwiththeSecretaryofNationalDefensea
lettercomplaint charging petitioner Manuel Cabal, then Chief of
StaffoftheAFP,with"graft,corruptpractices,unexplainedwealth,
and other equally reprehensible acts". The President of the
Philippines created a committee to investigate the charge of
unexplainedwealth.TheCommitteeorderedpetitionerhereintotake
thewitnessstandintheadministrativeproceedingandbesworntoas
witness for Maristela, in support of his aforementioned charge of
unexplained wealth. Petitioner objected to the order of the
Committee, invoking his constitutional right against self
incrimination. The Committee insisted that petitioner take the
witness stand and be sworn to, subject to his right to refuse to
answersuchquestionsasmaybeincriminatory.Thisnotwithstanding,
petitionerrespectfullyrefusedtobesworntoasawitnesstotake
thewitnessstand.
TheCommitteereferredthemattertotheFiscalofManila,forsuch
actionashemaydeemproper.TheCityFiscalfiledwiththeCourtof
FirstInstanceofManilaa"charge"ofcontemptforfailingtoobey
theorderoftheCommitteetotakethewitnessstand.The"charge"
was assigned to the sala of respondent judge Kapunan. Petitioner
filed with respondent Judge a motion to quash, which was denied.
Hencethispetitionforcertiorariandprohibition.
ISSUE:WhetherornottheCommittee'sorderrequiringpetitionerto
take the witness stand violates his constitutional right against
selfincrimination.
HELD:Yes.
Although the said Committee was created to investigate the
administrative charge of unexplained wealth, it seems that the

purposeofthechargeagainstpetitioneristoapplytheprovisions
oftheAntiGraftLaw,whichauthorizestheforfeituretotheState
ofpropertyofapublicofficeroremployeewhichismanifestlyout
ofproportiontohissalaryassuchpublicofficeroremployeeand
his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired
property.However,suchforfeiturehasbeenheldtopartakeofthe
natureofapenalty.Asaconsequence,proceedingsforforfeitureof
propertyaredeemedcriminalorpenal,and,hence,theexemptionof
defendants in criminal case from the obligation to be witnesses
against

themselves

are

applicable

thereto.
No person shallbe compelled inanycriminal case to bea witness
againsthimself.Thisprohibitionagainstcompellingapersontotake
thestandasawitnessagainsthimselfappliestocriminal,quasi
criminal,andpenalproceedings,includingaproceedingcivilinform
forforfeitureofpropertybyreasonofthecommissionofanoffense,
but not a proceeding in which the penalty recoverable is civil or
remedial

in

nature.
The privilege of a witness not to incriminate himself is not
infringedbymerelyaskingthewitnessaquestionwhichherefusesto
answer. The privilege is simply an option of refusal, and not a
prohibitionofinquiry.Aquestionisnotimpropermerelybecausethe
answer may tend to incriminate but, where a witness exercises his
constitutional right not to answer, a question by counsel as to
whetherthereasonforrefusingtoanswerisbecausetheanswermay
tend to incriminate the witness is improper.
Thepossibilitythattheexaminationofthewitnesswillbepursued
to the extent of requiring selfincrimination will not justify the
refusal to answer questions. However, where the position of the
witness is virtually that of an accused on trial, it would appear
thathemayinvoketheprivilegeinsupportofablanketrefusalto
answer

any

and

all

questions.
Note: It is not disputed that the accused in a criminal case may
refuse, not only to answer incriminatory questions, but, also, to
takethewitnessstand.
REPUBLICACTNo.3019
ANTIGRAFTANDCORRUPTPRACTICESACT
Section1.Statement of policy.It isthepolicy of the Philippine
Government, in line with the principle that a public office is a
publictrust,torepresscertainactsofpublicofficersandprivate
personsalike whichconstitute graft orcorruptpractices or which

mayleadthereto.
Section2.Definitionofterms.AsusedinthisAct,thatterm
(a) "Government" includes the national government, the local
governments, the governmentowned and governmentcontrolled
corporations,andallotherinstrumentalitiesoragenciesofthe
RepublicofthePhilippinesandtheirbranches.
(b)"Publicofficer"includeselectiveandappointiveofficials
andemployees,permanentortemporary,whetherintheclassified
orunclassifiedorexemptservicereceivingcompensation,even
nominal, from the government as defined in the preceding
subparagraph.
(c)"Receivinganygift"includestheactofacceptingdirectly
orindirectlyagiftfromapersonotherthanamemberofthe
public officer's immediate family, in behalf of himself or of
any member of his family or relative within the fourth civil
degree, either by consanguinity or affinity, even on the
occasion of a family celebration or national festivity like
Christmas,ifthevalueofthegiftisunderthecircumstances
manifestlyexcessive.
(d)"Person"includesnaturalandjuridicalpersons,unlessthe
contextindicatesotherwise.
Section3.Corruptpracticesofpublicofficers.Inadditiontoacts
or omissions ofpublic officersalreadypenalized by existing law,
the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public
officerandareherebydeclaredtobeunlawful:
(a)Persuading,inducingorinfluencinganotherpublicofficer
to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and
regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an
offenseinconnectionwiththeofficialdutiesofthelatter,or
allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to
commitsuchviolationoroffense.
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
present,share,percentage,orbenefit,forhimselforforany
other person, in connection with any contract or transaction
between the Government and any other part, wherein the public
officerinhisofficialcapacityhastointerveneunderthelaw.
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
presentorotherpecuniaryormaterialbenefit,forhimselfor
foranother,fromanypersonforwhomthepublicofficer,inany
mannerorcapacity,hassecuredorobtained,orwillsecureor
obtain,anyGovernmentpermitorlicense,inconsiderationfor
the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Section
thirteenofthisAct.

(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept

employment in a private enterprise which has pending official
businesswithhimduringthependencythereoforwithinoneyear
afteritstermination.
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
official administrative or judicial functions through manifest
partiality,evidentbadfaithorgrossinexcusablenegligence.
Thisprovisionshallapplytoofficersandemployeesofoffices
orgovernmentcorporationschargedwiththegrantoflicensesor
permitsorotherconcessions.
(f)Neglectingorrefusing,afterduedemandorrequest,without
sufficientjustification,toactwithinareasonabletimeonany
matterpendingbeforehimforthepurposeofobtaining,directly
or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some
pecuniaryormaterialbenefitoradvantage,orforthepurpose
offavoringhisowninterestorgivingundueadvantageinfavor
ofordiscriminatingagainstanyotherinterestedparty.
(g)Entering,onbehalfoftheGovernment,intoanycontractor
transactionmanifestlyandgrosslydisadvantageoustothesame,
whether or not the public officer profited or will profit
thereby.
(h) Director or indirectly having financing or pecuniary
interestinanybusiness,contractortransactioninconnection
withwhichheintervenesortakespartinhisofficialcapacity,
orinwhichheisprohibitedbytheConstitutionorbyanylaw
fromhavinganyinterest.
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal
gain,orhavingamaterialinterestinanytransactionoract
requiringtheapprovalofaboard,panelorgroupofwhichheis
amember,andwhichexercisesdiscretioninsuchapproval,even
if he votes against the same or does not participate in the
actionoftheboard,committee,panelorgroup.
Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those
public officers responsible for the approval of manifestly
unlawful,inequitable,orirregulartransactionoractsbythe
board,panelorgrouptowhichtheybelong.
(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit,
privilegeorbenefitinfavorofanypersonnotqualifiedforor
not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or
advantage,orofamererepresentativeordummyofonewhois
notsoqualifiedorentitled.

(k)Divulgingvaluableinformationofaconfidentialcharacter,
acquired by his office or by him on account of his official
positiontounauthorizedpersons,orreleasingsuchinformation
inadvanceofitsauthorizedreleasedate.
The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage or benefit
referredtoinsubparagraphs(b)and(c);orofferingorgivingto
thepublicofficertheemploymentmentionedinsubparagraph(d);or
urging the divulging or untimely release of the confidential
informationreferred toin subparagraph(k)of thissectionshall,
togetherwiththeoffendingpublicofficer,bepunishedunderSection
nineofthisActandshallbepermanentlyortemporarilydisqualified
inthediscretionoftheCourt,fromtransactingbusinessinanyform
withtheGovernment.
Section 4.Prohibition on private individuals.(a) It shall be
unlawfulforanypersonhavingfamilyorclosepersonalrelationwith
any public official to capitalize or exploit or take advantage of
such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly
requesting or receivinganypresent, gift or material or pecuniary
advantage from any other person having some business, transaction,
application,requestorcontractwiththegovernment,inwhichsuch
publicofficialhastointervene.Familyrelationshallincludethe
spouseorrelativesbyconsanguinityoraffinityinthethirdcivil
degree. The word "close personal relation" shall include close
personal friendship, social and fraternal connections, and
professional employment all giving rise to intimacy which assures
freeaccesstosuchpublicofficer.
(b)Itshallbeunlawfulforanypersonknowinglytoinduceor
causeanypublicofficialtocommitanyoftheoffensesdefined
inSection3hereof.
Section5.Prohibitiononcertainrelatives.Itshallbeunlawfulfor
thespouseorforanyrelative,byconsanguinityoraffinity,within
the third civil degree, of the President of the Philippines, the
VicePresident of the Philippines, the President oftheSenate,or
theSpeakeroftheHouseofRepresentatives,tointervene,directly
orindirectly,inanybusiness,transaction,contractorapplication
withtheGovernment:Provided,Thatthissectionshallnotapplyto
anypersonwho,priortotheassumptionofofficeofanyoftheabove
officialstowhomheisrelated,hasbeenalreadydealingwiththe
Governmentalongthesamelineofbusiness,nortoanytransaction,
contractorapplicationalreadyexistingorpendingatthetimeof
suchassumptionofpublicoffice,nortoanyapplicationfiledbyhim
the approval of which is not discretionary on the part of the
official or officials concerned but depends upon compliance with
requisitesprovidedbylaw,orrulesorregulationsissuedpursuant
tolaw,nortoanyactlawfullyperformedinanofficialcapacityor

intheexerciseofaprofession.
Section6.ProhibitiononMembersofCongress.Itshallbeunlawful
hereafterforanyMemberoftheCongressduringthetermforwhichhe
has been elected, to acquire or receive any personal pecuniary
interestinanyspecificbusinessenterprisewhichwillbedirectly
and particularly favored or benefited by any law or resolution
authoredbyhimpreviouslyapprovedoradoptedbytheCongressduring
thesameterm.
Theprovisionofthissectionshallapplytoanyotherpublicofficer
who recommended the initiation in Congress of the enactment or
adoptionofanylaworresolution,andacquiresorreceivesanysuch
interestduringhisincumbency.
ItshalllikewisebeunlawfulforsuchmemberofCongressorother
publicofficer,who,havingsuchinterestpriortotheapprovalof
suchlaworresolutionauthoredorrecommendedbyhim,continuesfor
thirtydaysaftersuchapprovaltoretainsuchinterest.
Section7.Statementofassetsandliabilities.Everypublicofficer,
withinthirtydaysaftertheapprovalofthisActorafterassuming
office, and within the month of January of every other year
thereafter,aswellasupontheexpirationofhistermofoffice,or
upon his resignation or separation from office, shall prepare and
filewiththeofficeofthecorrespondingDepartmentHead,orinthe
caseofaHeadofDepartmentorchiefofanindependentoffice,with
the Office of the President, or in the case of members of the
Congressandtheofficialsandemployeesthereof,withtheOfficeof
theSecretaryofthecorrespondingHouse,atruedetailedandsworn
statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of the
amountsandsourcesofhisincome,theamountsofhispersonaland
family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next
preceding calendar year: Provided, That public officers assuming
officelessthantwomonthsbeforetheendofthecalendaryear,may
filetheirstatementsinthefollowingmonthsofJanuary.
Section8.Dismissalduetounexplainedwealth.Ifinaccordancewith
theprovisions of Republic Act NumberedOnethousand three hundred
seventynine, a public official has been found to have acquired
duringhisincumbency,whetherinhisnameorinthenameofother
persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of
proportiontohissalaryandtohisotherlawfulincome,thatfact
shallbeagroundfordismissalorremoval.Propertiesinthenameof
the spouse and unmarried children of such public official may be
takenintoconsideration,whentheiracquisitionthroughlegitimate
means cannot besatisfactorily shown. Bank depositsshall be taken
into consideration in the enforcement of this section,
notwithstandinganyprovisionoflawtothecontrary.

Section 9.Penalties for violations.(a) Any public officer or

private person committing any of the unlawful acts or omissions
enumeratedinSections3,4,5and6ofthisActshallbepunished
withimprisonmentfornotlessthanoneyearnormorethantenyears,
perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation or
forfeitureinfavoroftheGovernmentofanyprohibitedinterestand
unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and
otherlawfulincome.
Anycomplainingpartyatwhosecomplaintthecriminalprosecutionwas
initiatedshall,incaseofconvictionoftheaccused,beentitledto
recoverinthecriminalactionwithpriorityovertheforfeiturein
favoroftheGovernment,theamountofmoneyorthethinghemayhave
giventotheaccused,orthevalueofsuchthing.
(b) Any public officer violation any of the provisions of
Section7ofthisActshallbepunishedbyafineofnotless
thanonehundredpesosnormorethanonethousandpesos,orby
imprisonmentnotexceedingoneyear,orbybothsuchfineand
imprisonment,atthediscretionoftheCourt.
The violation of said section proven in a proper administrative
proceedingshallbesufficientcauseforremovalordismissalofa
publicofficer,evenifnocriminalprosecutionisinstitutedagainst
him.
Section 10.Competent court.Until otherwise provided by law, all
prosecutionsunderthisActshallbewithintheoriginaljurisdiction
oftheproperCourtofFirstInstance.
Section11.Prescription of offenses.All offenses punishable under
thisActshallprescribeintenyears.
Section12.Terminationofoffice.Nopublicofficershallbeallowed
to resign or retire pending an investigation, criminal or
administrative,orpendingaprosecutionagainsthim,foranyoffense
underthisActorundertheprovisionsoftheRevisedPenalCodeon
bribery.
Section 13.Suspension and loss of benefits.Any public officer
againstwhomanycriminalprosecutionunderavalidinformationunder
thisActorundertheprovisionsoftheRevisedPenalCodeonbribery
is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Should he be
convictedbyfinaljudgment,heshallloseallretirementorgratuity
benefitsunderanylaw,butifheisacquitted,heshallbeentitled
toreinstatementandtothesalariesandbenefitswhichhefailedto
receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative
proceedingshavebeenfiledagainsthim.
Section 14.Exception.Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or
insignificant value offered or given as a mere ordinary token of

gratitudeorfriendshipaccordingtolocalcustomsorusage,shallbe
exceptedfromtheprovisionsofthisAct.
NothinginthisActshallbeinterpretedtoprejudiceorprohibitthe
practiceofanyprofession,lawfultradeoroccupationbyanyprivate
personorbyanypublicofficerwhounderthelawmaylegitimately
practicehisprofession,tradeoroccupation,duringhisincumbency,
except where the practice of such profession, trade or occupation
involves conspiracy with any other person or public official to
commitanyoftheviolationspenalizedinthisAct.
Section15.Separabilityclause.IfanyprovisionofthisActorthe
application of such provision to any person or circumstances is
declaredinvalid,theremainderoftheActortheapplicationofsuch
provisiontootherpersonsorcircumstancesshallnotbeaffectedby
suchdeclaration.
Section16.Effectivity.ThisActshalltakeeffectonitsapproval,
butforthepurposeofdeterminingunexplainedwealth,allproperty
acquiredbyapublicofficersinceheassumedofficeshallbetaken
intoconsideration.
Approved:August17,1960
RepublicActNo.6713February20,1989
ANACTESTABLISHINGACODEOFCONDUCTANDETHICALSTANDARDSFOR
PUBLICOFFICIALSANDEMPLOYEES,TOUPHOLDTHETIMEHONOREDPRINCIPLE
OFPUBLICOFFICEBEINGAPUBLICTRUST,GRANTINGINCENTIVESAND
REWARDSFOREXEMPLARYSERVICE,ENUMERATINGPROHIBITEDACTSAND
TRANSACTIONSANDPROVIDINGPENALTIESFORVIOLATIONSTHEREOFANDFOR
OTHERPURPOSES
BeitenactedbytheSenateandHouseofRepresentativesofthe
PhilippinesinCongressassembled::
Section1.Title.ThisActshallbeknownasthe"CodeofConduct
andEthicalStandardsforPublicOfficialsandEmployees."
Section2.DeclarationofPolicies.ItisthepolicyoftheState
to promote a high standard of ethics in public service. Public
officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the
peopleandshalldischargetheirdutieswithutmostresponsibility,
integrity,competence,andloyalty,actwithpatriotismandjustice,
leadmodestlives,andupholdpublicinterestoverpersonalinterest.
Section3.DefinitionofTerms.AsusedinthisAct,theterm:
(a) "Government" includes the National Government, the local
governments, and all other instrumentalities, agencies or
branches of the Republic of the Philippines including
governmentowned or controlled corporations, and their

subsidiaries.lawphi1.net
(b) "Public Officials" includes elective and appointive
officialsandemployees,permanentortemporary,whetherinthe
career or noncareer service, including military and police
personnel,whetherornottheyreceivecompensation,regardless
ofamount.
(c) "Gift" refers to a thing or a right to dispose of
gratuitously,oranyactorliberality,infavorofanotherwho
acceptsit,andshallincludeasimulatedsaleoranostensibly
onerousdispositionthereof.Itshallnotincludeanunsolicited
giftofnominalorinsignificantvaluenotgiveninanticipation
of, or in exchange for, a favor from a public official or
employee.
(d)"Receivinganygift"includestheactofacceptingdirectly
orindirectly,agiftfromapersonotherthanamemberofhis
familyorrelativeasdefinedinthisAct,evenontheoccasion
ofafamilycelebrationornationalfestivitylikeChristmas,if
thevalueofthegiftisneithernominalnorinsignificant,or
the gift is given in anticipation of, or in exchange for, a
favor.
(e) "Loan" covers both simple loan and commodatum as well as
guarantees,financingarrangementsoraccommodationsintendedto
ensureitsapproval.
(f) "Substantial stockholder" means any person who owns,
directly or indirectly, shares of stock sufficient to elect a
director of a corporation. This term shall also apply to the
partiestoavotingtrust.
(g) "Family of public officials or employees" means their
spousesandunmarriedchildrenundereighteen(18)yearsofage.
(h)"Person"includesnaturalandjuridicalpersonsunlessthe
contextindicatesotherwise.
(i) "Conflict of interest" arises when a public official or
employeeisamemberofaboard,anofficer,orasubstantial
stockholder of a private corporation or owner or has a
substantial interest in a business, and the interest of such
corporationorbusiness,orhisrightsordutiestherein,maybe
opposedtooraffectedbythefaithfulperformanceofofficial
duty.
(j) "Divestment" is the transfer of title or disposal of
interest in property by voluntarily, completely and actually
deprivingordispossessingoneselfofhisrightortitletoit
in favor of a person or persons other than his spouse and
relativesasdefinedinthisAct.

(k) "Relatives" refers to any and all persons related to a

public official or employee within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinityoraffinity,includingbilas,insoandbalae.
Section4.NormsofConductofPublicOfficialsandEmployees.(A)
Every public official and employee shall observe the following as
standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of
officialduties:
(a)Commitmenttopublicinterest.Publicofficialsand
employeesshallalwaysupholdthepublicinterestoverand
above personal interest. All government resources and
powers of their respective offices must be employed and
used efficiently, effectively, honestly and economically,
particularlytoavoidwastageinpublicfundsandrevenues.
(b)Professionalism.Publicofficialsandemployeesshall
performanddischargetheirdutieswiththehighestdegree
of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill.
They shall enter public service with utmost devotion and
dedicationtoduty.Theyshallendeavortodiscouragewrong
perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of
unduepatronage.
(c) Justness and sincerity. Public officials and
employees shall remain true to the people at all times.
They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not
discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the
underprivileged.Theyshallatalltimesrespecttherights
of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to
law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public
order, public safety and public interest. They shall not
dispenseorextendunduefavorsonaccountoftheiroffice
to their relatives whether by consanguinity or affinity
except with respect to appointments of such relatives to
positionsconsideredstrictlyconfidentialorasmembersof
their personal staff whose terms are coterminous with
theirs.
(d)Politicalneutrality.Publicofficialsandemployees
shall provide service to everyone without unfair
discrimination and regardless of party affiliation or
preference.
(e) Responsiveness to the public. Public officials and
employees shall extend prompt, courteous, and adequate
servicetothepublic.Unlessotherwiseprovidedbylawor
whenrequiredbythepublicinterest,publicofficialsand
employeesshallprovideinformationoftheirpoliciesand
procedures in clear and understandable language, ensure

opennessofinformation,publicconsultationsandhearings
whenever appropriate, encourage suggestions, simplify and
systematize policy, rules and procedures, avoid red tape
anddevelopanunderstandingandappreciationofthesocio
economic conditions prevailing in the country, especially
inthedepressedruralandurbanareas.
(f) Nationalism and patriotism. Public officials and
employeesshallatalltimesbeloyaltotheRepublicand
totheFilipinopeople,promotetheuseoflocallyproduced
goods,resourcesandtechnologyandencourageappreciation
and pride of country and people. They shall endeavor to
maintainanddefendPhilippinesovereigntyagainstforeign
intrusion.
(g) Commitment to democracy. Public officials and
employeesshallcommitthemselvestothedemocraticwayof
life and values, maintain the principle of public
accountability, and manifest by deeds the supremacy of
civilian authority over the military. They shall at all
times uphold the Constitution and put loyalty to country
aboveloyaltytopersonsorparty.
(h) Simple living. Public officials and employees and
theirfamiliesshallleadmodestlivesappropriatetotheir
positionsandincome.Theyshallnotindulgeinextravagant
orostentatiousdisplayofwealthinanyform.
(B)TheCivilServiceCommissionshalladoptpositivemeasures
to promote (1) observance of these standards including the
disseminationofinformationprogramsandworkshopsauthorizing
meritincreasesbeyondregularprogressionsteps,toalimited
numberofemployeesrecognizedbytheirofficecolleaguestobe
outstanding in their observance of ethical standards; and (2)
continuing research and experimentation on measures which
providepositivemotivationtopublicofficialsandemployeesin
raisingthegenerallevelofobservanceofthesestandards.
Section 5.Duties of Public Officials and Employees. In the
performanceoftheirduties,allpublicofficialsandemployeesare
underobligationto:lawphi1.net
(a)Actpromptlyonlettersandrequests.Allpublicofficials
and employees shall, within fifteen (15) working days from
receiptthereof,respondtoletters,telegramsorothermeansof
communications sent by the public. The reply must contain the
actiontakenontherequest.
(b) Submit annual performance reports. All heads or other
responsibleofficersofofficesandagenciesofthegovernment
andofgovernmentownedorcontrolledcorporationsshall,within

fortyfive(45)workingdaysfromtheendoftheyear,rendera
performance report of the agency or office or corporation
concerned.Suchreportshallbeopenandavailabletothepublic
withinregularofficehours.
(c)Processdocumentsandpapersexpeditiously.Allofficial
papers and documents must be processed and completed within a
reasonabletimefromthepreparationthereofandmustcontain,
as far as practicable, not more than three (3) signatories
therein. In the absence of duly authorized signatories, the
officialnextinrankorofficerinchargeshallsignforandin
theirbehalf.
(d)Actimmediatelyonthepublic'spersonaltransactions.All
publicofficialsandemployeesmustattendtoanyonewhowants
toavailhimselfoftheservicesoftheirofficesandmust,at
alltimes,actpromptlyandexpeditiously.
(e) Make documents accessible to the public. All public
documentsmustbemadeaccessibleto,andreadilyavailablefor
inspectionby,thepublicwithinreasonableworkinghours.
Section 6.System of Incentives and Rewards. A system of annual
incentivesandrewardsisherebyestablishedinordertomotivateand
inspirepublic servantsto uphold the highest standardsof ethics.
For this purpose, a Committee on Awards to Outstanding Public
OfficialsandEmployeesisherebycreatedcomposedofthefollowing:
the Ombudsman and Chairman of the Civil Service Commission as Co
Chairmen, and the Chairman of the Commission on Audit, and two
governmentemployeestobeappointedbythePresident,asmembers.
It shall be the task of this Committee to conduct a periodic,
continuing review of the performance of public officials and
employees, in all the branches and agencies of Government and
establishasystemofannualincentivesandrewardstotheendthat
due recognition is given to public officials and employees of
outstanding merit on the basis of the standards set forth in this
Act.
Theconfermentofawardsshalltakeintoaccount,amongotherthings,
thefollowing:theyearsofserviceandthequalityandconsistency
ofperformance,theobscurityoftheposition,thelevelofsalary,
theuniqueandexemplaryqualityofacertainachievement,andthe
risksortemptationsinherentinthework.Incentivesandrewardsto
government officials and employees of the year to be announced in
public ceremonies honoring them may take the form of bonuses,
citations, directorships in governmentowned or controlled
corporations, local and foreign scholarship grants, paid vacations
andthelike.Theyshalllikewisebeautomaticallypromotedtothe
nexthigherpositionwiththecommensuratesalarysuitabletotheir

qualifications.Incasethereisnonexthigherpositionoritisnot
vacant,saidpositionshallbeincludedinthebudgetoftheoffice
inthenextGeneralAppropriationsAct.TheCommitteeonAwardsshall
adoptitsownrulestogoverntheconductofitsactivities.
Section 7.Prohibited Acts and Transactions. In addition to acts
andomissionsofpublicofficialsandemployeesnowprescribedinthe
Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute
prohibitedactsandtransactionsofanypublicofficialandemployee
andareherebydeclaredtobeunlawful:
(a) Financial and material interest. Public officials and
employeesshallnot,directlyorindirectly,haveanyfinancial
ormaterialinterestinanytransactionrequiringtheapproval
oftheiroffice.
(b)Outsideemploymentandotheractivitiesrelatedthereto.
Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall
not:
(1)Own,control,manageoracceptemploymentasofficer,
employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or
nomineeinanyprivateenterpriseregulated,supervisedor
licensedbytheirofficeunlessexpresslyallowedbylaw;
(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
withtheirofficialfunctions;or
(3) Recommend any person to any position in a private
enterprise which has a regular or pending official
transactionwiththeiroffice.
Theseprohibitionsshallcontinuetoapplyforaperiodofone
(1) year after resignation, retirement, or separation from
publicoffice,exceptinthecaseofsubparagraph(b)(2)above,
buttheprofessionalconcernedcannotpracticehisprofessionin
connectionwithanymatterbeforetheofficeheusedtobewith,
inwhichcasetheoneyearprohibitionshalllikewiseapply.
(c) Disclosure and/or misuse of confidential information.
Public officials and employees shall not use or divulge,
confidentialorclassifiedinformationofficiallyknowntothem
byreasonoftheirofficeandnotmadeavailabletothepublic,
either:
(1) To further their private interests, or give undue
advantagetoanyone;or
(2)Toprejudicethepublicinterest.
(d)Solicitationoracceptanceofgifts.Publicofficialsand

employeesshallnotsolicitoraccept,directlyorindirectly,
any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of
monetaryvaluefromanypersoninthecourseoftheirofficial
dutiesorinconnectionwithanyoperationbeingregulatedby,
or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of
theiroffice.
As to gifts or grants from foreign governments, the Congress
consentsto:
(i) The acceptance and retention by a public official or
employeeofagiftofnominalvaluetenderedandreceived
asasouvenirormarkofcourtesy;
(ii)Theacceptancebyapublicofficialoremployeeofa
giftinthenatureofascholarshiporfellowshipgrantor
medicaltreatment;or
(iii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of
travelgrantsorexpensesfortraveltakingplaceentirely
outsidethePhilippine(suchasallowances,transportation,
food, and lodging) of more than nominal value if such
acceptanceisappropriateorconsistentwiththeinterests
of the Philippines, and permitted by the head of office,
branchoragencytowhichhebelongs.
The Ombudsman shall prescribe such regulations as may be
necessarytocarryoutthepurposeofthissubsection,including
pertinentreportinganddisclosurerequirements.
NothinginthisActshallbeconstruedtorestrictorprohibit
any educational, scientific or cultural exchange programs
subjecttonationalsecurityrequirements.
Section 8.Statements and Disclosure. Public officials and
employees have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations
underoathof,andthepublichastherighttoknow,theirassets,
liabilities,networthandfinancialandbusinessinterestsincluding
thoseoftheirspousesandofunmarriedchildrenundereighteen(18)
yearsofagelivingintheirhouseholds.
(A) Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial
Disclosure.Allpublicofficialsandemployees,exceptthose
who serve in an honorary capacity, laborers and casual or
temporary workers, shall file under oath their Statement of
Assets,LiabilitiesandNetWorthandaDisclosureofBusiness
InterestsandFinancialConnectionsandthoseoftheirspouses
andunmarriedchildrenundereighteen(18)yearsofageliving
intheirhouseholds.
Thetwodocumentsshallcontaininformationonthefollowing:

(a) real property, its improvements, acquisition costs,

assessedvalueandcurrentfairmarketvalue;
(b)personalpropertyandacquisitioncost;
(c)allotherassetssuchasinvestments,cashonhandor
inbanks,stocks,bonds,andthelike;
(d)liabilities,and;
(e)allbusinessinterestsandfinancialconnections.
Thedocumentsmustbefiled:
(a)withinthirty(30)daysafterassumptionofoffice;
(b)onorbeforeApril30,ofeveryyearthereafter;and
(c) within thirty (30) days after separation from the
service.
Allpublicofficialsandemployeesrequiredunderthissection
to file the aforestated documents shall also execute, within
thirty(30)daysfromthedateoftheirassumptionofoffice,
thenecessaryauthorityinfavoroftheOmbudsmantoobtainfrom
all appropriate government agencies, including the Bureau of
Internal Revenue, such documents as may show their assets,
liabilities, net worth, and also their business interests and
financialconnectionsinpreviousyears,including,ifpossible,
theyearwhentheyfirstassumedanyofficeintheGovernment.
Husbandandwifewhoarebothpublicofficialsoremployeesmay
filetherequiredstatementsjointlyorseparately.
The Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the
DisclosureofBusinessInterestsandFinancialConnectionsshall
befiledby:
(1) Constitutional and national elective officials, with
thenationalofficeoftheOmbudsman;
(2)SenatorsandCongressmen,withtheSecretariesofthe
Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively;
Justices, with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court;
Judges, with the Court Administrator; and all national
executiveofficialswiththeOfficeofthePresident.
(3) Regional and local officials and employees, with the
DeputyOmbudsmanintheirrespectiveregions;
(4)Officersofthearmedforcesfromtherankofcolonel
or naval captain, with the Office of the President, and
thosebelowsaidranks,withtheDeputyOmbudsmanintheir
respectiveregions;and
(5) All other public officials and employees, defined in

RepublicActNo.3019,asamended,withtheCivilService
Commission.
(B) Identification and disclosure of relatives. It shall be the
dutyofeverypublicofficialoremployeetoidentifyanddisclose,
tothebestofhisknowledgeandinformation,hisrelativesinthe
Governmentintheform,mannerandfrequencyprescribedbytheCivil
ServiceCommission.
(C)Accessibilityofdocuments.(1)Anyandallstatementsfiled
underthisAct,shallbemadeavailableforinspectionatreasonable
hours.
(2) Such statements shall be made available for copying or
reproductionafterten(10)workingdaysfromthetimetheyare
filedasrequiredbylaw.
(3) Any person requesting a copy of a statement shall be
required to pay a reasonable fee to cover the cost of
reproductionandmailingofsuchstatement,aswellasthecost
ofcertification.
(4)AnystatementfiledunderthisActshallbeavailabletothe
public for a period of ten (10) years after receipt of the
statement. After such period, the statement may be destroyed
unlessneededinanongoinginvestigation.
(D)Prohibitedacts.Itshallbeunlawfulforanypersontoobtain
oruseanystatementfiledunderthisActfor:
(a)anypurposecontrarytomoralsorpublicpolicy;or
(b)anycommercialpurposeotherthanbynewsandcommunications
mediafordisseminationtothegeneralpublic.
Section 9.Divestment. A public official or employee shall avoid
conflicts of interest at all times. When a conflict of interest
arises, he shall resign from his position in any private business
enterprise within thirty (30) days from his assumption of office
and/ordivesthimselfofhisshareholdingsorinterestwithinsixty
(60)daysfromsuchassumption.
Thesameruleshallapplywherethepublicofficialoremployeeisa
partnerinapartnership.
Therequirementofdivestmentshallnotapplytothosewhoservethe
Government in an honorary capacity nor to laborers and casual or
temporaryworkers.
Section 10.Review and Compliance Procedure. (a) The designated
CommitteesofbothHousesoftheCongressshallestablishprocedures
for the review of statements to determine whether said statements
whichhavebeensubmittedontime,arecomplete,andareinproper
form.Intheeventadeterminationismadethatastatementisnotso

filed, the appropriate Committee shall so inform the reporting

individualanddirecthimtotakethenecessarycorrectiveaction.
(b)InordertocarryouttheirresponsibilitiesunderthisAct,
thedesignatedCommitteesofbothHousesofCongressshallhave
thepowerwithintheirrespectivejurisdictions,torenderany
opinioninterpretingthisAct,inwriting,topersonscoveredby
this Act, subject in each instance to the approval by
affirmative vote of the majority of the particular House
concerned.
The individual to whom an opinion is rendered, and any other
individual involved in a similar factual situation, and who,
afterissuanceoftheopinionactsingoodfaithinaccordance
withitshallnotbesubjecttoanysanctionprovidedinthis
Act.
(c)Theheadsofotherofficesshallperformthedutiesstated
in subsections (a) and (b) hereof insofar as their respective
officesareconcerned,subjecttotheapprovaloftheSecretary
of Justice, in the case of the Executive Department and the
ChiefJusticeoftheSupremeCourt,inthecaseoftheJudicial
Department.
Section 11.Penalties. (a) Any public official or employee,
regardless of whether or not he holds office or employment in a
casual, temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity,
committinganyviolationofthisActshallbepunishedwithafine
notexceedingtheequivalentofsix(6)months'salaryorsuspension
notexceedingone(1)year,orremovaldependingonthegravityof
theoffenseafterduenoticeandhearingbytheappropriatebodyor
agency. If the violation is punishable by a heavier penalty under
another law, he shall be prosecuted under the latter statute.
ViolationsofSections7,8or9ofthisActshallbepunishablewith
imprisonmentnotexceedingfive(5)years,orafinenotexceeding
fivethousandpesos(P5,000),orboth,and,inthediscretionofthe
court of competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold public
office.
(b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative
proceedingshallbesufficientcauseforremovalordismissalof
apublicofficialoremployee,evenifnocriminalprosecution
isinstitutedagainsthim.
(c) Private individuals who participate in conspiracy as co
principals,accomplicesoraccessories,withpublicofficialsor
employees, in violation of this Act, shall be subject to the
samepenalliabilitiesasthepublicofficialsoremployeesand
shallbetriedjointlywiththem.
(d) The official or employee concerned may bring an action

againstanypersonwhoobtainsorusesareportforanypurpose
prohibitedbySection8(D)ofthisAct.TheCourtinwhichsuch
actionisbroughtmayassessagainstsuchpersonapenaltyin
anyamountnottoexceedtwentyfivethousandpesos(P25,000).
Ifanothersanctionhereunderorunderanyotherlawisheavier,
thelattershallapply.
Section 12.Promulgation of Rules and Regulations, Administration
and Enforcement of this Act. The Civil Service Commission shall
have the primary responsibility for the administration and
enforcementofthisAct.Itshalltransmitallcasesforprosecution
arising from violations of this Act to the proper authorities for
appropriate action: Provided, however, That it may institute such
administrativeactionsanddisciplinarymeasuresasmaybewarranted
inaccordancewithlaw.Nothinginthisprovisionshallbeconstrued
asadeprivationoftherightofeachHouseofCongresstodiscipline
itsMembersfordisorderlybehavior.
TheCivilServiceCommissionisherebyauthorizedtopromulgaterules
andregulationsnecessarytocarryouttheprovisionsofthisAct,
including guidelines for individuals who render free voluntary
servicetotheGovernment.TheOmbudsmanshalllikewisetakestepsto
protectcitizenswhodenounceactsoromissionsofpublicofficials
andemployeeswhichareinviolationofthisAct.
Section 13.Provisions for More Stringent Standards. Nothing in
this Act shall be construed to derogate from any law, or any
regulationprescribedbyanybodyoragency,whichprovidesformore
stringentstandardsforitsofficialandemployees.
Section 14.Appropriations. The sum necessary for the effective
implementationofthisActshallbetakenfromtheappropriationsof
theCivilServiceCommission.Thereafter,suchsumasmaybeneeded
for its continued implementation shall be included in the annual
GeneralAppropriationsAct.
Section15.Separability Clause. If any provision of this Act or
theapplicationofsuchprovisiontoanypersonorcircumstanceis
declaredinvalid,theremainderoftheActortheapplicationofsuch
provisiontootherpersonsorcircumstancesshallnotbeaffectedby
suchdeclaration.
Section 16.Repealing Clause. All laws, decrees and orders or
partsthereofinconsistentherewith,aredeemedrepealedormodified
accordingly,unlessthesameprovideforaheavierpenalty.
Section 17.Effectivity. This Act shall take effect after thirty
(30)daysfollowingthecompletionofitspublicationintheOfficial
Gazetteorintwo(2)nationalnewspapersofgeneralcirculation.
Approved,February20,1989.

laintiffappellee:JesusP.Morfe(JudgeofCFI)
Defendantsappellants:AmelitoR.Mutuc(ExecutiveSecretary)etal.
Facts:
TheLaw:AntiGraftandCorruptPracticesActof1960(RANo.3019)
Everypublicofficerwithin30daysafteritsapprovalorafterhis
assumptionofofficeandwithinthemonthofJanuaryofeveryyear
thereafter,aswellasuponterminationofhisposition,shall
prepareandfilewiththeheadoftheofficetowhichhebelongs,a
truedetailedandswornstatementofassetsandliabilities,
includingastatementoftheamountsandsourcesofhisincome,the
amountsofhispersonalandfamilyexpensesandtheamountofincome
taxespaidforthenextprecedingcalendaryear.
PlaintiffMorfe,ajudgeofaCFI,contendsthattheperiodical
submissionwithinthemonthofJanuaryofeveryotheryear
thereafteroftheirswornstatementofassetsandliabilities(SAL)
isviolativeofdueprocessasanoppressiveexerciseofpolicepower
andasanunlawfulinvasionoftheconstitutionalrighttoprivacy
implicitonthebanagainstunreasonablesearchandseizureconstrued
togetherwiththeprohibitionagainstselfincrimination.
ExecutiveSecretaryandDOJSec:
Acceptanceofpublicposition=voluntaryassumptionofobligation
Merelyseekstoadoptareasonablemeasureofinsuringtheinterest
ofgeneralwelfareinhonestandcleanpublicserviceandis
thereforealegitimateexerciseofpolicepower.
CFIofPangasinanheldthattherequirementexceedsthepermissible
limitofthepolicepowerandisthusoffensivetothedueprocess
clause

Issue/s:
WhethertheperiodicalsubmissionofSALforpublicofficersis:1.
Anoppressiveexerciseofpolicepower;2.Violativeofdueprocess
andanunlawfulinvasionoftherighttoprivacyimplicitintheban

againstunreasonablesearchandseizureconstruedtogetherwiththe
prohibitionagainstselfincrimination;3.Aninsulttothepersonal
integrityandofficialdignityofpublicofficials.

Ruling:Decisionreversed.
Ratio:
1.Presumptionofvalidity
PlaintiffassertedthatthesubmissionofSALwasareasonable
requirementforemploymentsoapublicofficercanmakeofrecordhis
assetsandliabilitiesuponassumptionofoffice.Plaintiffdidnot
presentevidencetorebutthepresumptionofvalidity.
Ifthelibertyinvolvedwerefreedomofthemindortheperson,the
standardforthevalidityofgovernmentalactsismuchmorerigorous
andexacting,butwherethelibertycurtailedaffectsthemostrights
ofproperty,thepermissiblescopeofregulatorymeasureiswider.
(ErmitaMalateHotelv.MayorofManila)
1.ExerciseofPolicepowerandthedefenseprovidedbytheDue
ProcessClause
inherentandplenarypowerinthestatewhichenablesitto
prohibitallthingshurtfultothecomfort,safetyandwelfareof
society(JusticeMalcolm)
Thepowerofsovereignty,thepowertogovernmenandthingswithin
thelimitsofitsdomain(JusticeTaney,goingbeyondcurtailmentof
rights)
Anyonewithanallegedgrievanceregardingtheextensionofpolice
powertoregulatoryactionaffectingpersonsinpublicorprivate
lifecaninvoketheprotectionofdueprocess.
Ithasbeenheldthatdueprocessmayberelieduponbypublic
officialtoprotectthesecurityoftenurewhichinalimitedsense
isanalogoustoproperty.Thereforehecouldalsousedueprocessto
strikedownwhatheconsidersasaninfringementofhisliberty.
UndertheConstitution,thechallengedprovisionisallowableas
longasdueprocessisobserved.

ThestandardfordueprocessisREASONABLENESS.Test:Official
actionmustnotoutruntheboundsofreasonandresultinsheer
oppression.
Itwouldbetodwellintherealmofabstractionsandtoignorethe
harshandcompellingrealitiesofpublicservicewithitsever
presenttemptationtoheedthecallofgreedandavaricetocondemn
asarbitraryandoppressivearequirementasthatimposedupon
publicofficialsandemployeestofilesuchswornstatementof
assetsandliabilitieseverytwoyearsafterhavingdonesoupon
assumingofficeTherewasthereforenounconstitutionalexerciseof
policepower.
1.Righttoprivacy
Righttobeletalone
Itcannotbesaidthatthechallengedstatutoryprovisioncallsfor
disclosureofinformationwhichinfringesontherightofapersonto
privacy.Itcannotbedeniedthattherationalrelationshipsucha
requirementpossesseswiththeobjectiveofavalidstatutegoesvery
farinprecludingassenttoanobjectionofsuchcharacter.Thisis
nottosaythatapublicofficer,byvirtueofpositionheholds,is
bereftofconstitutionalprotection;itisonlytoemphasizethatin
subjectinghimtosuchafurthercompulsoryrevelationofhisassets
andliabilities,includingthestatementoftheamountsofpersonal
andfamilyexpenses,andtheamountofincometaxespaidforthenext
precedingcalendaryear,thereisnounconstitutionalintrusioninto
whatotherwisewouldbeaprivatesphere.
1.UnreasonableSearchandSeizure
Theconstitutionalguaranteeagainstunreasonablesearchandseizure
doesnotgivefreedomfromtestimonialcompulsion.
1.Rightagainstselfincrimination
Wearenotawareofanyconstitutionalprovisiondesignedtoprotect
amansconductfromjudicialinquiry,oraidhiminfleeingfrom
justice.
1.Insulttopersonalintegrityandofficialdignity
Onlycongressionalpowerorcompetence,notthewisdomoftheaction

taken,meybethebasisfordeclaringastatuteinvalid.

G.R.No.L56170January31,1984
HILARIOJARAVATApetitioner,
vs.
THEHON.SANDIGANBAYANandTHEPEOPLEOFTHE
PHILIPPINES,respondents.
FrancoL.LoyolaandSabasCacanantaforpetitioner.
TheSolicitorGeneralforrespondents.

ABADSANTOS,J.:
This is a petition to review the decision of the Sandiganbayan in
CriminalCaseNo.873.
HilarioJaravata was accused ofviolating Section 3(b) of Republic
Act No. 3019, as amended, said to have been committed in the
followingmanner:
ThatonorabouttheperiodfromApril30,1979toMay25,
1979,intheMunicipalityofTubao,ProvinceofLaUnion,
Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorable
Court, the abovenamed accused, being then the Assistant
Principal of the Leones Tubao, La Union Barangay High
School and with the use of his influence as such public
official and taking advantage of his moral and official
ascendancy over his classroom teachers, with deliberate
intent did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniouslymadedemandandactuallyreceivedpaymentsfrom
other classroom teachers, ROMEO DACAYANAN, DOMINGO LOPEZ,
MARCELA BAUTISTA, and FRANCISCO DULAY various sums of
money,namely:P118.00,P100.00,P50.00andP70.00outof
their salary differentials, in consideration of accused
havingofficiallyintervenedinthereleaseofthesalary
differentials of the six classroom teachers, to the
prejudiceanddamageofthesaidclassroomteachers,inthe
totalamountofTHREEHUNDREDTHIRTYEIGHT(P338.00)PESOS,
PhilippineCurrency.(Decision,p.12.)
Aftertrial,theSandiganbayanrenderedthefollowingjudgment:
WHEREFORE,accusedisherebyfoundguiltybeyondreasonable
doubtforViolationofSection3(b),RepublicActNo.3019,
as amended, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate imprisonment ranging from ONE (1) YEAR, is

minimum,toFOUR(4)YEARS,asmaximum,tofurthersuffer
perpetual special disqualification from public office and
topaythecosts.
No pronouncement as to the civil liability it appearing
thatthemoneygiventotheaccusedwasalreadyrefundedby
him.(Id.pp,1617.)
Thepetitionraisesfactualandlegalissuesbutforobviousreasons
Ourdecisionshalldealwiththelegalissueonly.
TheSandiganbayanstatesinitsdecisionthefollowing:
A perusal of the conflicting versions of the prosecution
and the defense shows that there is no dispute that
[complainants] Ramos, Lloren, Lopez, Dacayanan, Dulay and
BautistaareclassroomteachersoftheLeonesBarangayHigh
School with accused as their assistant principal and
[ConradoBaltazarastheadministrator;thatonJanuary5,
1979, accused informed the classroom teachers of the
approvalofthereleaseoftheirsalarydifferentialsfor
1978 and to facilitate its payment accused and the
classroomteachersagreedthataccusedfollowupthepapers
inManilawiththeobligationonthepartoftheclassroom
teachers to reimburse the accused of his expenses; that
accused incurred expenses in the total amount of P220.00
and there being six classroom teachers, he divided said
amount by six or at the rate of P36.00 each; that the
classroom teachers actually received their salary
differentials and pursuant to said agreement, they, with
theexceptionofLlorenandRamos,gavetheaccusedvarying
amountsbutasBaltazardidnotapproveit,heorderedthe
accused to return the money given to him by Lopez,
Dacayanan,DulayandBautista,andaccusedcomplied(Pp.7
8.)
Thedecisionalsorecitesthat"theevidenceisoverwhelmingtoshow
thataccusedreceivedmorethantherightfulcontributionofP36.00
from four classroom teachers, namely: Lopez, Dulay, Dacayanan and
Bautista. Lopez categorically declared that he gave the accused
P100.00(TSN,p.5,August21,1980hearing)afterhereceivedhis
salarydifferentialoranexcessofP64.00.SowithDulay,thathe
gave P70.00 to the accused (TSN, p. 16,supra) or an excess of
P34.00; Dacayanan, that he gave to the accused P118.00 (TSN, p.
26,supra)oranexcessofP82.00,andBautista,thathegavetothe
accusedP50.00(TSN,p.38,supra)oranexcessofP14.00.Inshort,
thetotalamountreceivedbytheaccusedinexcessoftheshareof
the classroom teachers in the reimbursement of his expenses is
P194.00."(P.9.)

RepublicActNo.3019,otherwiseknownastheAntiGraftandCorrupt
PracticesActprovides,interaliathefollowing:
Sec.3.Corruptpracticesofpublicofficers.Inaddition
toactsoromissionsofpublicofficersalreadypenalized
by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt
practicesofanypublicofficerandareherebydeclaredto
beunlawful:
xxxxxxxxx
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any
gift,present,share,percentage,orbenefit,forhimself
orforanyotherpersoninconnectionwithanycontractor
transaction between the Government and any other party,
whereinthepublicofficerinhisofficialcapacityhasto
interveneunderthelaw.
xxxxxxxxx
Thelegalissueiswhetherornot,underthefactsstated,petitioner
Jaravataviolatedtheabovequotedprovisionofthestatute.
Asimplereadingoftheprovisionhastoyieldanegativeanswer.
ThereisnoquestionthatJaravataatthetimematerialtothecase
wasa"publicofficer"asdefinedbySection2ofR.A.No.3019,i.e.
"elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or
temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt
servicereceivingcompensation,evennormalfromthegovernment."It
mayalsobesaidthatanyamountwhichJaravatareceivedinexcessof
P36.00fromeachofthecomplainantswasintheconceptofagiftor
benefit. The pivotal question, however, is whether Jaravata, an
assistantprincipalofahighschoolintheboondocksofTubao,La
Union,"inhisofficialcapacityhastointerveneunderthelaw"in
thepaymentofthesalarydifferentialsfor1978ofthecomplainants.
It should be noted that the arrangement was "to facilitate its
[salary differential] payment accused and the classroom teachers
agreed that accused followup the papers in Manila with the
obligation on the part of the classroom teachers to reimburse the
accusedofhisexpenses.
In Our opinion, Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019, refers to a public
officerwhoseofficialinterventionisrequiredbylawinacontract
ortransaction.
There is no law which invests the petitioner with the power to
intervene in the payment of the salary differentials of the
complainants or anyone for that matter. Far from exercising any
power,thepetitionerplayedthehumbleroleofasupplicantwhose
missionwastoexpeditepaymentofthesalarydifferentials.Inhis
officialcapacityasassistantprincipalheisnotrequiredbylawto

interveneinthepaymentofthesalarydifferentials.Accordingly,he
cannot be said to have violated the law aforecited although he
exerted efforts to facilitate the payment of the salary
differentials.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted and the judgment of the
Sandiganbayan convicting the petitioner is set aside. Costsde
oficio.
SOORDERED.

[G.R.No.124067.March27,1998]

PERLA A. SEGOVIA, REYNALDO C. SANTIAGO and WINIFREDO SM.

PANGILINAN,petitioners vs.The SANDIGANBAYAN, PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, and the PRESIDENT of the NATIONAL POWER
CORPORATION,respondents.
DECISION
NARVASA,C.J.:
The special civil action of certiorari and prohibition at bar
seeksnullificationoftwo(2)ResolutionsoftheSecondDivisionof
the Sandiganbayanissued in Criminal Case No. 21711 in which
petitioners are prosecuted for violationof the AntiGraftand
Corrupt Practices Act : Republic Act No. 3019, as amended. The
resolutionassailedare:
1)thatdatedFebruary1,1996,whichorderedpetitioners
preventivesuspensionforninety(90)daysinaccordancewithSection
13ofsaidR.A3019;and
2)thatdatedFebruary23,1996,whichdeniedpetitionersmotionfor
reconsiderationofthesuspensionorder.
The primary issue raised is whether it ismandatory or
discretionaryfor the Sandiganbayan to place under preventive
suspensionpublicofficerswhostandaccusedbeforeit,pursuantto
saidSection13ofthelaw.Section13reads:
Sec.13SuspensionandLossofbenefits.Anyincumbentpublic
officeragainstwhomanycriminalprosecutionunderavalid

informationunderthisActorunderTitle7,BookIIoftheRevised
PenalCodeorforanyoffenseinvolvingfraudupongovernmentor
publicfundsorpropertty,whetherasasimpleorasacomplex
offenseinwhateverstageofexecutionandmodeofparticipation,is
pendingincourt,shallbesuspendedfromoffice.****
It is petitioners' submission that preventive suspension under
this section rest in the sound discretion of the Sandiganbayan
despitetheostensiblymandatorylanguageofthestatute,andthat
that discretion was gravely abused by the Sandiganbayan, or it
exceededitsjurisdiction,whenitdecreedtheirsuspension.
PetitionersPerlaSegovia,ReynaldoSantiago,andWinifredoSM
Pangilinan all hold regular executive positions in the National
PowerCorporation(NPC).Theytogetherwithtwootherofficerswho
havesinceresignedfromtheNPC,namely:GilbertoA.Pastoraland
CeciliaD.ValesweredesignatedbytheNPCBoardtocomposethe
Contracts Committee for said NPCs Mindanao Grid LDC & SCADA/EMS
SystemOperationControlCenterandFacilitiesProject.
The Contracts Committee thus constituted conducted the
prequalificationandbiddingproceduresfortheproject.Thelowest
andsecondlowestbiddersweretheJointVentureofINPHASEandT&
D, and Urban Consolidated Constructors, Inc.,respectively. The
TechnicalTaskForceonBidEvaluationoftheNPCreviewedallthe
bidssubmittedandrecommendedapprovaloftheresults.Thecontracts
Committee, however, declared the lowest bidder(Joint
Venture)disqualified after verification from the Philippines
ContractorsAccreditionBoardthatthatgroup,aswellasthesecond
lowest bidder(Urban)had been downgraded, thereby rending both
ineligibleasbidders.
The Contracts Committee also stated that since a review of
relevant factors disclosed that the other bids had exceeded the
ApprovedAgencyEstimatesandtheAllowableGovernmentEstimatesfor
OptionsAandBoftheProject,itwaswasneedfulfortheNPCBoard
to declare a failure of bidding and direct a rebidding. The
recommendation was unanimously approved by the NPC Board; but for
reasonsnotappearingonrecord(and,inanyevent,notrelevantto
theinquiry),theprojectwaseventuallycancelled.
Obviouslyfeelingaggrievedbytheturnofevents,Urbanfileda
complaintwiththeOfficeoftheOmbudsmanagainsttheChairmanand
Members of the Board of Directors of NPC; the Chairman (Gilberto
Pascual) and Members of the NPC Contracts Awards Committee; the
Chairman (Perla Segovia) of the PreQualification Bids & Awards
Committee;theManager(CeciliaD.Vales)oftheContractsManagement

Office, and two others.[1]Urbanalleged that before the

bidding,Joint Venturehad been disqualified, but the Contracts
Committee,withoutbasisandinordertofavorit,reconsideredits
disqualificationandthusenabledittotakepartinthebiddingand
infacttosubmitthelowestbid;thattheNPCwasalreadypoisedto
awardthecontracttoJointVenturebutbecauseUrbanprotested,it
was compelled to "postdisqualify" the former; however, intead of
awardingthecontractfortheprojecttoUrbanasthesecondlowest
bidder,theCommitteeandtheNPCBoarddeclaredafailureofbidding
and ultimatelycancelled the project.These acts, it is claimed,
constitutedaviolationoftheAntiGraftandCorruptPracticesAct.
A preliminary investigation was conducted by the Ombudsmans
OfficeafterwhichGraftInvestigationOfficerA.A.Amantesubmitted
aResolutiondatedAugust2,1994[2]recommending,amongothers,that:
1)petitionersPerlaSegovia,ReynaldoSantiago,WinifredoSM
Pangilinan,aswellasGilbertoPastoralandCeciliaValesbecharged
withaviolationofSection3(e)ofRA3019ofhavinginonewayor
theotherextendedundueadvantagetoJointVenturethroughmanifest
partiality,evidentbadfaithandgrossinexcusablenegligence;and
2)theNPCPresident,NPCcharmanandMembersoftheBoardof
Directorsbeclearedofthe**complaintastheirofficialactuation
ofsustainingafailureofbiddingandtheconsequentrebiddingis
supportedbyfactualandlegalbasis.
Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo L. Aportadera, Jr., favorably
endorsedtherecommendationwhichwaseventuallyapprovedonDecember
6,1994byHon.ConradoM.Vasquez,thentheOmbudsman.[3]
An information was accordingly filed with the Sandiganbayan
against petitioners Segovia, Santiago, and Pangilinan, as well as
PastoralandVales,docketedasCriminalCaseNo.21711.Theywere
chargedwithinfringementofSection3(e)ofRA3019:i,e.,causing
undueinjurytoanyparty,includingtheGovernment,orgivingany
party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his official, administrative or judicial function
throughmanifestpartiality,evidentbadfaithyorgrossinexcusable
negligence.
Petionerssoughtandobtainedareinvestigationoftheircasebut
gainednobenefitthereby.Foralthoughthereinvestigatingofficer
madearecommendationonMarch7,1995thattheinformationagainst
petitioners be withdrawn because the prima faciecase had
already been overthrown, considering that, as it now stands, the
evidence at hand cannot stand judicial scrunity[4] and that
recommendation met withtheaprroval oftheSpecialProsecutor,it

was ultimately turned down by the chief Special Prosecutor[5]on

April18,1995,andonApril20,1995,bytheOmbudsmanhimself.[6]
The case thus proceeded in the Sandiganbayan.The accused were
arraignedandenteredpleasofnotguilty;andapretrialwasheld
which resulted in stipulation of facts embodied in an order dated
January11,1996.[7]
Earlier, the People had filed a Motion to Suspend
AccusedPendenteLitedatedOctober24,1995,invokingSection13of
RA3019.,asamended,andrelevantjurisprudence,andallegingthat
theinformation/sis/arevalid.[8]
Petitioner opposed the motion.[9]Intheir pleading dated
November28,1995,thetheorizedthattheexplicittermsofthelaw
notwithstanding,theirsuspensionwasnotmandatoryinthepremises.
They claimed that the admissions at the pretrial show that the
transactions in question resulted inno unwarranted benefits,
advantageorpreference,orinjury,toanyone;thattwoofthefive
accusedwere nolonger employees oftheNPC; that two of the five
accusedwerenolongeremployeesoftheNPC;thatthepositionsthat
Segovia,PangilinanandSantiagocontinuedtooccupyintheNPCwere
quite sentitive and had no relation to prequalification of
contractors,biddingsorawardswhichwasanadditionalfunction
temporarily assigned to them and for which the received no
compensation at all and their suspension might cause delay of
vital projects of the NPC; and that under the circumstances
obtaining,theywereinnopositiontotamperwithanyevidence.
Petitioners opposition was overruled.On January 31, 1996 the
Sandiganbayan[10]handed down its Resolution suspending them for a
period of ninety (90) days.[11]The Sandiganbayan held that the
suspensionwasmandatedunderthelawuponafindingthataproper
preliminary investigation had been conducted , the information was
valid,andtheaccusedwerechargedwithanyofthecrimesspecified
inthelaw;andstressedthatitsauthorityandpowertosuspendthe
accused had been repeatedly upheld in severalprecedents.It
subsequently denied petitioners motion for reconsideration dated
February14,1996,(c)onsideringthepaucityofthe(ir)arguments**
andinthelightofthemassofjurisprudenceinvolvingthepowerand
authorityofthisCourttoissueordersforpreventivesuspensionof
theaccused**.[12]
PetitionerswouldnowhavethisCourtstrikedowntheseresolution
becausesupposedlyrenderedinexcessofjurisdictionorwithgrave
abuseofdiscretion.Thecourtwillnotdoso.Innosensemaythe
challeged resolutions be stigmatized as so clearly capricious,

whimsical,oppressive,egregiouslyerroneousorwantinginlogicas
to call for invalidation by the extraordinary writ
ofcertiorari.On the contrary, in promulgating those resolution,
theSandiganbayandidbutadheretotheclearcommandofthelawand
what it calls a mass of jurispudence emanating from this Court,
sustainingitsauthoritytodecreesuspensionofpublicofficialsand
employees indicted before it. Indeed, that the theory of
discretionary suspension should still be advocated to this late
date,despitethemassofjurisprudencerelevanttotheissue,it
littleshortofamazing,borderingoncontumaciousdisregardofthe
solemnmagisterialpronouncementsoftheHighestcourtoftheland.
RepublicActno.3019wasenactedbyCongressmorethan37years
ago,onAugust17,1960,becomingeffectiveonthesamedate.The
lawwaslateramendedbyRepublicActNo.3047,PresidentialDecree
677 and Presidential Decree No. 1288.The last amendment to
Section 13 thereof was introduced byBatas Pambansa Bilang
195,approvedonMarch16,1972.
ThevalidityofSection13,R.A.3019,asamendedtreatingof
thesuspensionpendenteliteofanaccusedpublicofficermayno
longer be put at issue, having been repeatedly upheld by this
Court.As early as 1984, in Bayotv.Sandiganbayan,[13]the Court
held by this Court.As suspension was not penal in character but
merely a preventive measure before final judgement; hence, the
suspensionofapublicofficerchargedwithoneofthecrimeslisted
in the amendinglaw, committed before said amendment, does not
violate the constitutional provision against anex post
factolaw.The purpose of suspension is to prevent the accused
public officer from frustrating or hampering his prosecution by
intimidatingorinfluencingwitnessesortamperingwithdocumentary
evidence, or fromcommitting further acts of malfeasance while in
office.[14]SubstantiallytothesameeffectwastheCourtsholding
in1991,inGonzagav.Sandiganbayan,[15]thatpreventivesuspension
is not violative suspension remains entitled to the constitutional
presumption of innocence since his culpability must still be
established.
The AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act implicitly recognizes
thatthepowerofpreventivesuspensionliesinthecourtinwhich
the criminal charge is filed; once a case is filed in court, all
other acts connected with the discharge of court functions
including preventive suspension should be aknowledged as within
the competence of the court that has taken cognizance thereof, no
violationofthedoctrineofseparationofpowersbeingperceivable
inthatacknowledgment.[16]

Theprovisionofsuspensionpendenteliteappliestoallpersons
indicated upon a valid information under Act, whether they be
appointive or elective officials; or permenent or temporary
employees,orpertainingtothecareerornoncareerservice.[17]It
appears to a Public High School Principal;[18]a Municipal Mayor;
[19]aGovernor;[20]a Congressman;[21]a Department ofScienceand
Technology (DOST) noncareer Project Manager;[22]aCommissioner of
thePresidentialCommissiononGoodGovernment(PCGG).[23]Theterm
officeinSection13ofthelawappliestoanyofficeinrelation
towhichheischarged.[24]
Itismandatoryforthecourttoplaceunderpreventivesuspension
a public officer accused before it.[25]Imposition of suspension,
however,isnotautomaticorselfoperative.Apreconditiontherefor
is the existence of a valid information, determined at a pre
suspensionhearing.Suchahearingisinaccordwiththespiritof
thelaw,consideringtheseriousandfarreachingconsequencesofa
suspensionofapublicofficialevenbeforehisconviction,andthe
demands of public interest for speedy determination of the issues
involvedinthecase.[26]Thepurposeofthepresuspensionhearing
isbasicallytodetrminethevalidityoftheinformationandthereby
furnish the court with a basis to either suspend the accused and
proceed with the trial on the merits of the case, or refuse
suspensionofthelatteranddismissthecase,orcorrectanypartof
the proceeding which impairs its validity.27The accused should be
givenadequateoppurtunitytochallegethevalidityorregularityof
the criminal proceedings against him; e.g. that he has not
beenafforded the right to due preliminary investigation; that he
has not beenafforded the right to due preliminary investigation;
that the acts imputed to him do not constitute a specific crime
(underR.A.3019ortheRevisedPenalCode)warrantinghismandatory
suspension from office under Section 13 of the Act; or that the
informationissubjecttoquashalonanyofthegroundssetoutin
Rule117oftheRulesofCourt.28Butonceaproperdeterminationof
the validity of the Information has been made, it becomes the
ministerial duty of the court to forthwith issue the order of
preventivesuspensionoftheaccusedofficialonthepretextthatthe
orderdenyingthelattersmotiontoquashispendingreviewbefore
theappellatecourts.29
However, the preventive suspension may not be of indefinite
duration or for an unreasonable length of time; it would be
constitutionally proscribed otherwise as it raises, at the very
least,questionsofdenialofdueprocessandequalprotectionofthe
laws.30The Court has thus laid down the rule that preventive
suspensionmaynotexceedthemaximumperiodofninety(90)daysin
consonance with Presidential Decree No. 807 (the Civil Service

Decree),noewSection52oftheAdministrativeCodeof1987.31
WhilepetitionersconcedethatthisCourthasalmostconsistently
ruledthatthepreventivesuspensioncontemplatedinSection13ofRA
3019ismandantoryincharacter,theynonethelessurgetheCourtto
consider their case an exception because of the peculiar
circumstances thereof. They assert that the evils sought to be
avoidedbyseperatingapublicofficialfromthesceneofhisalleged
misfeasance while the same is being investigated32 e.g., to
preclude the abuse of the prerogative of ** (his) office, such as
through intimidation of witnesses,33or the tampering with
documentary evidence will not occur in the present situation
where:
1.TheProjecthasbeencancelled.
2.(Their)**officialdutiesnolongerpertain,inanymanner,to
theprequalificationofcontractorsdealingwiththeNPC.Neitherare
theynowinvolvedinanybiddingfororawardingofcontracts,**it
(being) emphasized (in this connection) that they were merely
designated as ad hoc members of the Committee without additional
compensationfortheiradditionalduties.
3.Alltherelevantdocumentaryevidencehadbeensubmittedeither
totheOmbudsmanortheHonorableSandiganbayan.
They conclude that their preventive suspension at this point
would actually be purposeless, as there is no more need for
precautionary measures against their abuse of the prerogatives of
theiroffice.
Theargumentsarenotnew.Theyhavebeenadvancedandrejectedin
earliercases.Theywillagainbesorejectedinthiscase.
The Courts pronouncements in Bolastig v. Sandiganbayan,
supra.,34aregermane:
Ourholdingthat,uponthefilingofavalidinformationcharging
violationofRepublicActNo.3019,BookII,Title7oftheRevised
PenalCode,orfraudupongovernmentorpublicproperty,itisthe
dutyofthecourttoplacetheaccusedunderpreventivesuspension
disposesofpetitionersothercontentionthatsincethetrialinthe
Sandiganbayan is now over with respect to the presentation of
evidence for the prosecution there is no longer any danger that
petitionerwouldintimidateprosecutionswitnesses.Thefactisthat
the possibility that the accused would intimidate witnesses or
otherwise hamper his prosecution is just one of the grounds for

preventivesuspension.Theotheroneis,**topreventtheaccused
fromcommittingfurtheractsofmalfeasancewhileinoffice.
Bolastigalsodisposesoftheothercontentionthatvitalprojects
ofNPCmaybedelayedbytheirpreventivesuspension,viz.:35
Finally, the fact that petitioners preventive suspension may
deprivethepeopleofSamaroftheservicesofanofficialelectedby
them,atleasttemporarily,isnotasufficientbasisforreducing
what is otherwise a mandatory period prescribedby law. The vice
governor, who has likewise been elected by them, will act as
governor. (The Local Government Code of 1991, sec. 46[a]) Indeed,
even the Constitution authorizes the suspension for not more than
sixty days of members of Congress found guilty of disorderly
behavior,(Art.VI,sec.16[3])thusrejectingtheviewexpressedin
onecase(Alejandrinov.Quezon.46Phil.83,96[1924])thatmembers
of the legislature could not be suspended because in the case of
suspension,unlikeinthecaseofremoval,theseatremainsfilled
buttheconstitutentsaredeprivedofreprensation.
Thefirmly entrenched doctrine is that under Section 13ofthe
AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Law, the suspension of a public
officer is mandatory after a determination has been made of the
validityoftheinformationinapresuspensionhearingconductedfor
thatpurpose.
InSocratesv.Sandiganbayan,etal.,36decidedfairlyrecently,
theCourtagainexpatiatedonthemandatorycharacterofsuspension
pendenteliteunderSection13ofR.A.No.3019andthenatureofthe
presuspensionhearing.
ThisCourthasruledthatunderSection13oftheantigraftlaw,
thesuspensionofapublicofficerismandatoryafterthevalidityof
theinformationhasbeenupheldinapresuspensionhearingconducted
for that purpose. This presuspension hearing is conducted to
determinebasicallythevalidityoftheinformation,fromwhichthe
Courtcanhaveabasistoeithersuspendtheaccusedandproceedwith
thetrialonthemeritsofthecase,orwithholdthesuspensionof
the latter and dismissed the case, or correct any part of the
proceedingwhichimpairsitsvalidity.Thathearingmaybetreatedin
thesamemannerasachallengetothevalidityoftheinformationby
wayofamotiontoquash(SeePeoplevs.Albano,etc.,et.al.,L
4537677,July28,1988,163SCRA511)
IntheleadingcaseofLuciano,etal.vs.Mariano,etal.(L
32950,July30,1971,40SCRA187),wehavesetouttheguidelines
tobefollowedbythelowercourtsintheexerciseofthepowerof

suspensionunderSection13ofthelaw,towit:
(c) By way of broad guidelines for the lower courts in the
exerciseofthepowerofsuspensionfromofficeofpublicofficers
chargedunder avalid information undertheprovisions of Republic
ActNo.3019 orunder the provisions oftheRevisedPenal Code on
bribery,pursuanttosection13ofsaidAct,itmaybebrieflystated
that upon the filing of such information, the trial court should
issueanorderwithpropernoticerequiringtheaccusedofficerto
showcauseataspecificdateofhearingwhyheshoudnotbeordered
suspendedfromofficepursuanttothecitedmandatoryprovisionsof
theAct.Whereeithertheprosecutionseasonablyfilesamotionfor
anorderofsuspensionortheaccusedinturnfilesamotiontoquash
theinformationorchallengesthevaliditythereof,suchshowcause
order of the trial court would no longer be necessary. What is
indispensable is that the trial court duly hear the parties at a
hearing held for determining the validity of the information, and
thereafterhanddownitsruling,issuingthecorrespondingorderof
suspension should it uphold the validity of the information or
withholdsuchsuspensioninthecontrarycase.
(d)Nospecificrulesneedbelaiddownforsuchpresuspension
hearing.Sufficeittostatethattheaccusedshouldbegivenafair
andadequate opportunity tochallenge the validity of the criminal
proceedings against him, e.g., that he has not been afforded the
rightofduepreliminaryinvestigation,theactforwhichhestands
chargeddonotconstituteaviolationoftheprovisionsofRepublic
ActNo.3019orofbriberyprovisionsoftheRevisedPenalCodewhich
wouldwarranthismandatorysuspensionfromofficeunderSection13
oftheAct,orhemaypresentamotiontoquashtheinformationon
anyofthegroundsprovidedintheRule117oftheRulesofCourt.
Themandatorysuspensiondecreedbytheactupondeterminationofthe
pendencyincourtorcrimianlprosecutionforviolationoftheAnti
GraftActorforbriberyunderavalidinformationrequiresatthe
sametimethatthehearingbeexpeditious,andnotundulyprotracted
suchastothwartthepromptsuspensionenvisionedbytheAct.Hence,
if the trial court, say, finds the ground alleged in thequashal
motionnottobeindubitable,thenitshallbecalledupontoissue
the suspension order upon its upholding the validity of the
informationandsettingthesamefortrialonthemerits.
Withtheaforequotedjurisrudentialauthorityasthebasis,itis
evident that upon a proper determination of the validity of the
information, it bacomes mandatory forthe court to immmediately
issuethesuspensionorder.Theruleonthematterisspecificand
categorical.Itleavesnoroomforinterpretation.Itisnotwithin
the courts discretion to hold in abeyance the suspension of the

accusedofficeronthepretextthattheorderdenyingthemotionto
quashispendingreviewbeforetheappellatecourts.Itsdiscretion
liesonlyduringthepresuspensionhearingwhereitisrequiredto
ascertain whether or not (1) the accused had been afforded due
preliminary investigation prior to the filling of theinformation
against him, (2) the acts for which he was charged constitute a
violation of the provisions of Republic Act. No. 3019 or of the
provisionsoftitle7,BookIIoftherevisedPenalCode,or(3)the
information against him canbe quashed, under any of the grounds
providedinSection2,Rules117oftheRulesofCourt.(Peoplevs.
Albana,etc.,atal.Supra,fn.26)
Once the information is found to besufficient in form and
substance, then the court must issue the order of suspension as a
matterofcourse.Therearenoifsandbutsaboutit.Thisisbecause
apreventivesuspensionisnotpenalty.Itisnotimposedasaresult
of judicial proceedings. In fact, if acquitted, the official
concernedshallbeentitledtoreinstatementandtothesalariesand
benefits which he failed to receive during suspension. In view of
thislatterprovisions,theaccusedelectivepublicofficerdoesnot
standtobeprejudicedbytheimmediateenforcementofthesuspension
order in the event that the informationis subsequently declared
nullandvoidonappealandthecasedismissedasagainsthim.Taking
into consideration the public policy involved in preventively
suspending a publicofficerchargedunder avalid information, the
protection of public interest will definitely have to prevail over
the private interest of the accused. (Bayot vs. Sandiganbayan, et
al.,G.R.Nos.6177661861,March23,1984,128SCRA383)
To further emphasize the ministerial duty of the court under
Section13ofRepublicActNo.3019,itissaidthatthecourttrying
thecasehasneitherdiscretionnordutytodeterminewhetherornot
apreventivesuspensionisrequiredtopreventtheaccusedfromusing
hisoffice to intimidate witnesses or frustratehisprosecutionor
continue commiting malfeasance in office. The presumption is that
unlesstheaccusedissuspended,hemayfrustratehisprosecutionor
commitfurtheractsofmalfeasanceordoboth,insamewaythatupon
afindingthatthereisprobablecausetobelievethatacrimehas
beencommittedandthattheaccusedisprobablyguiltythereof,the
law requires the judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the
accused.Thelawdoesnotrequirethecourttodeterminewhetherthe
accusedislikelytoescapeorevadethejurisdictionofthecourt.
The Court is satisfied that the Second Division of the
Sandiganbayan, after upholding the validity of the information
against petitioners, correctly ordered their preventive suspension
fromanypublicofficeforperiodofninety(90)days.

AswasstressedinLibananv.Sandiganbayan37
**Whenthestatuteisclearandexplicit,thereishardlyroom
foranyextendedcourtratiocinationorrationalizationofthelaw.
Republic ActNo. 3019 unequivocally mandates the suspension of a
public official from office pending a criminal prosecution against
him.ThisCourthasrepeatedlyheldthatsuchpreventivesuspension
ismandatory**,andtherearenoifsandbutsaboutit.
WHEREFORE,thepetitioninthiscaseisherebyDISMISSEDforlack
ofmerit.Costagainstpetitioners.
SOORDERED.
.R.No.175457;July6,2011
RUPERTOA.AMBIL,JRvs.SANDIGANBAYANandPEOPLEOFTHE
PHILIPPINES,Respondent.
G.R.No.175482
ALEXANDRINOR.APELADO,SRvs.PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES
Facts:
EasternSamarGovernorRupertoAmbilandProvincialwarden
AlexandrinoApeladowerefoundguiltybeforetheSandiganbayanfor
violatingSection3(e)ofRepublicActNo.3019otherwiseknownas
theAntiGraftandCorruptPracticesActafterGovernorAmbil,
conspiringwithApelado,orderedthereleaseofthencriminally
chargedanddetainedmayorFranciscoAdalimandhadthelatter
transferredfromtheprovincialjailtothethegovernorsresidence.
Issues:
1.)WhetherornottheSandiganbayanhadjurisdictionoverasuit
whereoneofthe2accusedhasaSalaryGradeclassifiedtobe
cognizablebeforethelowercourts.
2.)Whetherornotthetransferofthedetainee,whowasamayor,by
thegovernorwasaviolationincontemplationofSec3(e)ofRA3019
inrelationtosec2(b)ofthesameact.
Held:
TheSandiganbayanhadjurisdictionoverthesuitwhereoneofthe2
accusedheldapositionwithaclassificationofSalaryGrade27.
Onlywhennoneofthenumerousaccusedoccupiesapositionwitha
salarygrade27orhighercanexclusivejurisdictionbefallinthe
lowercourts.SandiganbayanhasjurisdictionoverAmbilasprovincial

governorandsoaswithApeladoforbeingacoprincipalinthe
perpetrationoftheoffensealthoughhehadasalarygradeof22.
ThepowerofcontrolandsupervisiongrantedtobytheLocal
GovernmentCodeandAdministrativeCodeof1917doesnotincludenor
permittheusurpationofpowerdulyvestedbeforethecourts.Facts
showedthattransferbyAmbilofAdalimwasattendedbyevidentbias
andbadfaith.Section3(e)stillappliestothecaseathandevenif
theactwasnotonerelativetothegrantingoflicensesand
concessions.Theprovisionwasmeanttoincludeofficerswithsuch
dutytothelistalreadyenumeratedthereinandnotnecessarilyto
provideexclusivity.Furthermore,thefactthatAndalim,asthe
reciepientofthebenefit,wasapublicofficer,didnotpreclude
application.Theactemploysthephraseprivateparty,whichis
morecomprehensiveinscopetomeaneitheraprivatepersonora
publicofficeractinginaprivatecapacitytoprotecthispersonal
interest.
ThustheverdictbytheSAndiganbayan,findingtheaccusedguiltyof
violatingRA3019wasproper.
SantiagovsGarchitorena
G.R.No.109266
December,21993
Narvasa,C.J.,Cruz,Padilla,Bidin,Regalado,Davide,Jr.,Nocon,
Bellosillo,MeloandPuno,JJ.,concur.
Facts:
OnMay1,1991,petitionerSantiagowaschargedbytheSandiganbayan
withviolationofSection3(e)ofR.A.No.3019,asamended,
otherwiseknownastheAntiGraftandCorruptPracticesAct,
allegedlycommittedbyherfavoring"unqualified"alienswiththe
benefitsoftheAlienLegalizationProgram.
OnMay24,1991,petitionerfiledapetitionforcertiorariand
prohibitiontoenjointheSandiganbayanfromproceedingwithcriminal
caseonthegroundthatsaidcasewasintendedsolelytoharassher
asshewasthenapresidentialcandidate.Sheallegedthatthiswas
inviolationofSection10,ArticleIXCoftheConstitutionwhich
providesthat"(b)onafidecandidatesforanypublicofficeshallbe
freefromanyformofharassmentanddiscrimination."Thepetition
wasdismissedonJanuary13,1992.
OnOctober16,1992,petitionerfiledamotionforinhibitionof
PresidingJusticeGarchitorena,whichmotionwassetforhearingon

November13,1992.tendaysafter,theSandiganbayan(First
Division),ofwhichPresidingJusticeGarchitorenaisamember,set
thecriminalcaseforarraignmentonNovember13,1992.OnNovember
6,1992,petitionermovedtodeferthearraignmentonthegrounds
thattherewasapendingmotionforinhibition,andthatpetitioner
intendedtofileamotionforabillofparticulars.However,on
November9,1992,theSandiganbayan(FirstDivision)deniedthe
motiontodeferthearraignment.
Moreso,thepetitionercannotacceptthelegalmoralityof
SandiganbayanJusticeFrancisGarchitorenawhowouldherfromgoing
abroadforaHarvardscholarshipbecauseofgraftchargesagainst
her.Itappearsthatpetitionertriedtoleavethecountrywithout
firstsecuringthepermissionoftheSandiganbayan,promptingitto
issuetheholddepartureorderwhich.TheletterofPresidingJustice
Garchitorena,writtenindefenseofthedignityandintegrityofthe
Sandiganbayan,merelystatedthatallpersonsfacingcriminalcharges
incourt,withnoexception,havetosecurepermissiontoleavethe
country.
ThecourtissuedtheResolutiondatedMarch25,1993,ordering
PresidingJusticeGarchitorena"toCEASEandDESISTfromsittingin
thecaseuntilthequestionofhisdisqualificationisfinally
resolvedbythisCourtandfromenforcingtheresolutiondatedMarch
11,1993,orderingpetitionertopostbailbondsforthe32Amended
Informationsandfromproceedingwiththearraignmenton
April12,1993.
Issue:
(a)Whetherthepetitionerischargedwithcontinuedcrime(delito
continuado)underArticle48oftheRevisedPenalCode?
Held:
The32AmendedInformationschargedtothepetitionerisknownas
delitocontinuadoor"continuedcrime"andsometimesreferredtoas
"continuouscrime."InfairnesstotheOmbudsman'sOfficeofthe
SpecialProsecutor,itshouldbeborneinmindthattheconceptof
delitocontinuadohasbeenavexingprobleminCriminalLaw
difficultasitistodefineandmoredifficulttoapply.
Theconceptofdelitocontinuado,althoughanoutcryoftheSpanish
PenalCode,hasbeenappliedtocrimespenalizedunderspeciallaws,
e.g.violationofR.A.No.145penalizingthechargingoffeesfor
servicesrenderedfollowingupclaimsforwarveteran'sbenefits
(Peoplev.Sabbun,10SCRA156[1964]).UnderArticle10ofthe

RevisedPenalCode,theCodeshallbesupplementarytospeciallaws,
unlessthelatterprovidethecontrary.Hence,legalprinciples
developedfromthePenalCodemaybeappliedinasupplementary
capacitytocrimespunishedunderspeciallaws.
Inthecaseatbench,theoriginalinformationchargedpetitioner
withperformingasinglecriminalactthatofherapprovingthe
applicationforlegalizationofaliensnotqualifiedunderthelawto
enjoysuchprivilege.Theoriginalinformationalsoaverredthatthe
criminalact:(i)committedbypetitionerwasinviolationofalaw
ExecutiveOrderNo.324datedApril13,1988,(ii)causedanundue
injurytooneoffendedparty,theGovernment,and(iii)wasdoneona
singleday,i.e.,onoraboutOctober17,1988.
TheResolutiondatedMarch3,1993inCriminalCaseNo.16698ofthe
Sandiganbayan(FirstDivision)isaffirmedanditsResolutiondated
March11,1993inCriminalCaseNo.16698ismodifiedinthesense
thattheOfficeoftheSpecialProsecutoroftheOfficeofthe
Ombudsmanisdirectedtoconsolidatethe32AmendedInformations
(CriminalCasesNos.18371to18402)intooneinformationcharging
onlyoneoffenseundertheoriginalcasenumber,i.e.,No.16698.The
temporaryrestrainingorderissuedbythisCourtonMarch25,1993is
liftedinsofarastothedisqualificationofPresidingJustice
FrancisGarchitorenaisconcerned.

RepublicActNo.7080July12,1991
ANACTDEFININGANDPENALIZINGTHECRIMEOFPLUNDER
BeitenactedbytheSenateandHouseofRepresentativesofthe
PhilippinesinCongressassembled::
Section1.DefinitionofTermsAsusedinthisAct,theterm
a)PublicOfficermeansanypersonholdinganypublicofficein
theGovernmentoftheRepublicofthePhilippinesbyvirtueof
anappointment,electionorcontract.
b)GovernmentincludestheNationalGovernment,andanyofits
subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, including
governmentowned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries.
c)Personincludesanynaturalorjuridicalperson,unlessthe
contextindicatesotherwise.
d) Illgotten wealth means any asset, property, business
enterprise or material possession of any person within the
purviewofSectionTwo(2)hereof,acquiredbyhimdirectlyor

indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates

and/orbusinessassociatesbyanycombinationorseriesofthe
followingmeansorsimilarschemes:
1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or
malversation of public funds or raids on the public
treasury;
2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission,
gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of
pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in
connection with any government contract or project or by
reason of the office or position of the public officer
concerned;
3)Bytheillegalorfraudulentconveyanceordisposition
of assets belonging to the National Government or any of
its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or
governmentowned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries;
4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or
indirectlyanysharesofstock,equityoranyotherformof
interest or participation including promise of future
employmentinanybusinessenterpriseorundertaking;
5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial
monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of
decreesandordersintendedtobenefitparticularpersons
orspecialinterests;or
6) By taking undue advantage of official position,
authority, relationship, connection or influence to
unjustlyenrichhimselforthemselvesattheexpenseandto
the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the
RepublicofthePhilippines.
See Section 2 As amended bySection 12 of RA No.7659
Section2.DefinitionoftheCrimeofPlunder;PenaltiesAnypublic
officerwho,byhimselforinconnivancewithmembersofhisfamily,
relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates,
subordinatesorotherpersons,amasses,accumulatesoracquiresill
gottenwealththroughacombinationorseriesofovertorcriminal
actsasdescribedinSection1(d)hereof,intheaggregateamountor
totalvalueofatleastSeventyfivemillionpesos(P75,000,000.00),
shallbeguiltyofthecrimeofplunderandshallbepunishedbylife
imprisonment with perpetual absolute disqualification from holding
any public office. Any person who participated with said public
officerinthecommissionofplundershalllikewisebepunished.In
the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the
attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances shall be

considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill
gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets
includingthepropertiesandsharesofstockderivedfromthedeposit
orinvestmentthereofforfeitedinfavoroftheState.
Section 3.Competent Court Until otherwise provided by law, all
prosecutionsunderthisActshallbewithintheoriginaljurisdiction
oftheSandiganbayan.
Section4.RuleofEvidenceForpurposesofestablishingthecrime
of plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and every
criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or
conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire illgotten wealth, it
being sufficient toestablish beyond reasonabledoubt apatternof
overtorcriminalactsindicativeoftheoverallunlawfulschemeor
conspiracy.
Section 5.Suspension and Loss of Benefits Any public officer
againstwhomanycriminalprosecutionunderavalidinformationunder
thisActinwhateverstageofexecutionandmodeofparticipation,is
pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Should he be
convictedbyfinaljudgment,heshallloseallretirementorgratuity
benefitsunderanylaw,butifheisacquitted,heshallbeentitled
to reinstatement and to the salaries and other benefits which he
failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime,
administrativeproceedingshavebeenfiledagainsthim.
Section6.PrescriptionofCrimesThecrimepunishableunderthis
Actshallprescribeintwenty(20)years.However,therightofthe
State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officers
fromthemorfromtheirnomineesortransfereesshallnotbebarred
byprescription,laches,orestoppel.
Section7.SeparabilityofProvisionsIfanyprovisionsofthisAct
or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held
invalid,theremainingprovisionsofthisActandtheapplicationof
such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be
affectedthereby.
Section 8.Scope This Act shall not apply to or affect pending
prosecutionsorproceedings,orthosewhichmaybeinstitutedunder
ExecutiveOrderNo.1,issuedandpromulgatedonFebruary28,1986.
Section 9.Effectivity This Act shall take effect after fifteen
(15) days from its publication in the Official Gazette and in a
newspaperofgeneralcirculation.
Approved:July12,1991
Estradavs.Sandiganbayan
G.R.No.148560.November19,2001

Petitioner:JosephEjercitoEstrada
Respondents:Sandiganbayan(ThirdDivision)andPeopleofthe
Philippines
Ponente:J.Bellosillo
FACTS:
Section2ofR.A.No.7080(AnActDefiningandPenalizingtheCrime
ofPlunder)asamendedbyR.A.No.7659substantiallyprovidesthat
anypublicofficerwhoamasses,accumulatesoracquiresillgotten
wealththroughacombinationorseriesofovertorcriminalactsin
theaggregateamountortotalvalueofatleastfiftymillionpesos
(P50,000,000.00)shallbeguiltyofthecrimeofplunder.Petitioner
JosephEjercitoEstrada,beingprosecutedunderthesaidAct,
assaileditsconstitutionality,arguinginteralia,thatitabolishes
theelementofmensreaincrimesalreadypunishableunderThe
RevisedPenalCode;andassuch,aviolationofthefundamental
rightsoftheaccusedtodueprocessandtobeinformedofthenature
andcauseoftheaccusationagainsthim.
ISSUE:
WhetherornotthecrimeofplunderasdefinedinR.A.No.7080is
amalumprohibitum.
HELD:
No.TheSupremeCourtheldthatplunderismaluminsewhichrequires
proofofcriminalintent.Moreover,thelegislativedeclarationin
R.A.No.7659thatplunderisaheinousoffenseimpliesthatitis
amaluminse.Thepredicatecrimesinthecaseofplunderinvolve
actswhichareinherentlyimmoralorinherentlywrong,andare
committedwillfully,unlawfullyandcriminallybytheoffender,
alleginghisguiltyknowledge.Thus,thecrimeofplunderisamalum
inse.
SERAPIOV.SANDIGANBAYAN
CONSOLIDATEDCASESJanuary28,2003
G.R.No.148468,G.R.No.148769,G.R.No.149116
FACTS:
EdwardSerapiowasamemberoftheBoardofTrusteesandtheLegal
CounselofErapMuslimYouthFoundation.Thisfoundationwas
establishedtohelpprovideeducationalopportunitiesforthepoor
andunderprivilegedbutdeservingMuslimyouthandstudents.
Donationscamepouringinfromvariousinstitutions,organizations
andthatofChavitSingson.However,onthelatterpartof

2000,ChavitaccusedthenPresidentEstradaandhiscohortsof
engagingintheillegalnumbergamejuetengasprotector,beneficiary
andrecipient.TheOmbudsmantookthenecessarystepsandfind
probablecause,thusthecaseofplunderbeforetheSandiganbayan.
Theaccused,hereinpetitionertookalllegalremedytobailbut
consequentlyduetonumerouspetitionsandmotiontoquash,thesame
wassuspendedandcounterpetitioned.Petitioneralsoprayed
forissuanceofhabeascorpus.
ISSUE:
WONpetitionershouldbearraignedfirstbeforehearinghispetition
forbail;
WONpetitionermayfileamotiontoquashtheamendedinformation
duringpendencyofhispetitiontobail;and
WONpetitionershouldinsteadbereleasedthroughawritofhabeas
corpus.
HELD:
A.Althoughhewasalreadyarraigned,nopleahasyetbeenentered
therebyrenderingthecasemoot.Nonetheless,thecourttakes
cognizanceandheldthatarraignmentisnotaprerequisitetoconduct
hearingonpetitionforbail.
B.Thecourtfindsnoinconsistencybetweenanapplicationofan
accusedforbailandhisfilingofmotiontoquash.Bail,isa
securitygiventoreleaseapersonincustodyofthelaw.Amotionto
quashontheotherhandisamodebywhichanaccusedassailsthe
validityofacriminalcomplaintfiledagainsthimforinsufficiency
ofitsfactsinpositslaw.Thistowhasobjectivesnotnecessarily
antitheticaltoeachother.
C.Inexceptionalcases,habeascorpusmaybegrantedbythecourt
evenwhenthepersonisdetainedpursuanttoavalidarrestorhis
voluntarysurrender.However,inthecaseatbar,thereisnoshowing
ofanybasisfortheissuanceofthewrit.Thegeneralruleisthat
thewritdoesnotapplywhenthepersonallegedtoberestraintof
hislibertyisincustodyofanofficerunderprocessissuedby
competentcourt;moreso,petitionerisunderdetentionpursuanttoa
validarrestorder.
ThepetitionwaspartlyGRANTEDonmotiontoquash.Thepetitionfor
habeascorpusandbailwasDISMISSED.

Estepavs.Sandiganbayan

Paymastercase.

Incrimeofmalversation,allthatisnecessaryforconvictionis
proofthataccountableofficerhadreceivedthepublicfundsandthat
hedidn o t h a v e t h e m i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n w h e n demand
thereforewasmadeandhecouldnotsatisfactorilyexplainhisfailure
sotoaccount.

Anaccountableofficermaybeconvicted
form a l v e r s a t i o n e v e n i f t h e r e i s n o t d i r e c t evidenceof
personalmisappropriationwherehehasnotbeenabletoexplain
satisfactorilytheabsenceofthefundsinvolved.

Under217thereisprimafacieevidence
ofmalverdationwheretheaccountablepublicofficer
failstohavedulyforthcominganypublicfundswithwhichhe
ischargeableupondemandbydulyauthorizedofficer.
Ilogonvs.Sandiganbayan

Valescase.

Thefactthatpetitionerdidnotpersonallyusethemissingfundsis
notavaliddefense
andw i l l n o t e x c u l p a t e h i m f r o m h i s c r i m i n a l liability.And
asaptlyfound
byrespondentS a n d i g a n b a y a n , t h e f a c t t h e i m m e d i a t e superiors
oftheaccusedhaveacquiescedtothepracticeofgivingoutcase
advances
forc o n v e n i e n c e d i d n o t l e g a l i z e t h e disbursements.
Azarconvs.Sandiganbayan

CasewhereAzarconwasrequestedbytheDirectoroftheBIRto
distraint
thegoods,c h a t t e l s o r o t h e r p r o p s o f A n c l a b e c a delinque
nttaxpayer.

Althoughsec206oftheNIRCauthorizestheBIRtoeffecta
constructivedistraintbyrequiringanypersontopreservedistrainedprop
thereisnoprovisionintheNIRCconstitutingsuchpersonapublic
officerbyreasonofsuchrequirement.TheBIRspowerauthorizinga
privateindivtoactasdepositarycannotbestretchedtoinclude
thepowertoappointhimasapublicofficer.

ConsiderationofART.222privateindivaspublicofficer.SCruledthata

privateindivwhohasinhischargeanyofthepublicfundsorprop
enumeratedandcommitsanyoftheactsdefinedshouldlikewisebe
penelizedwiththesamepenaltymetedtoerringpublicofficers.Nowhere
inthesaidprovisionisitexpressedorimpliedthataprivateindiv
bedeemedapublicofficer.AzarconandAncla,hiscoaccused,areboth
privateindivs.
INFIDELITYINTHECUSTODYOFPRISONERS
Rodillasvs.Sandiganbayan

CasewherethepoliceallowedthewomantogototheCRwithout
inspectingfirstiftherewasawayforhertoescape.

Itwasimproperforpettoallowpristohavelunchwithfamilywhen
hewassupposedtobringtheprisbacktojailwhichis1Kawayfrom
thesalaofthejudge.Itishisdutytotakenecessaryprecautionsto
assuretheabsenceofanymeansofescape.Afailuretoundertakethese
precautionswillmakehisactoneofdefinitelaxityofnegligence
amountingtodeliberatenonperformanceofduty.