Petitioners appeal was denied by the CAO II, which affirmed the MGC
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, Petitioner, v. KANLAON Corporate Auditors findings.Unperturbed, petitioner sought a
CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES CO., INC.,Respondent. reconsideration of the CAO II ruling from respondent COA arguing that
his assignment to MGC was required by the primary functions of his office
FACTS: In July 1990, PNR and Kanlaon entered into contracts for the and was also authorized by law, namely Executive Order No. 284 issued on
repair of three PNR station buildings and passenger shelters.By November July 25, 1987. In turn, respondent COA denied petitioners appeal in herein
1990, Kanlaon alleged that it had already completed the three projects. assailed COA Decision No. 2002-213.It upheld the CAO IIs ruling that
characterized the disallowed allowances and reimbursements as prohibited
On 30 June 1994, Kanlaon sent a demand letter to PNR requesting for the by the Constitution.Furthermore, it also ruled that the said allowances and
reimbursements claimed by petitioner failed to pass the test of public (vi)[15] of Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code (LGC)
purpose requirement of the law and further emphasized that it is not before executing any MOA after the issuance of Resolution No. 104-A-
enough that payments made to petitioner be authorized by the Board of 2001.[16]
Directors of the MGC but it is likewise necessary that said payments do not
contravene the principles provided for under Section 4 of Presidential Verceles anchors his petition on the following grounds: COA disregarded
Decree No. 1445 on the use of government funds, more specifically on the Section 465 (b) (1) (vi) of the LGC, an exception to Section 22 (c) of the
public purpose requirement that is provided in Section 4(2) of Presidential same code.[36] According to Verceles, while prior authorization to enter into
Decree No. 1445, otherwise known as the Government Auditing Code of a contract is the general rule, the LGC identifies an exception, i.e., when
the Philippines.A Motion for Reconsiderationwas subsequently filed by the contract entered into is pursuant to a law or ordinance. He points out
petitioner, but this was likewise denied by respondent COA in COA that the funding for the first and third MOAs were approved and included
Decision No. 2003-087. in the budget of the province for CYs 2001 and 2002.[37]
, the MOAs merely implemented the items already identified in the
appropriation ordinances for CYs 2001 and 2002.
ISSUE:
Governor Leandro B. Verceles, Jr. (Verceles) OF Catanduanes, engaged The crucial requisite as far as the fourth and fifth MOAs are concerned is
the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) to the first requisite, i.e., the existence of a law (in this case, ordinance)
carry out the province's tree seedlings production project (the authorizing the governor to augment items in approved budget. As to
project).[4] The province and PENRO entered into several Memoranda of the second MOA, the crucial requisite is the third requisite, i.e., the
Agreement (MOA) to implement the project. existence of an actual item to be augmented.
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) gave blanket authority to the governor
to enter into contracts on behalf of the province.[ The SP reaffirmed the There was no valid augmentation made in CY 2001 that could have
authority given to the governor and also resolved to give the governor the covered the cost of the second MOA.
power to realign, revise, or modify items in the provincial budget.
The cost of the project was allegedly paid out of the Economic
Development Fund (EDF) allocation in the provincial budget for calendar As discussed above, the CY 2001 appropriation ordinance did not identify
years (CY) 2001 and 2002.[9] The EDF is the 20% portion of the province's the specific projects or items[82] to be funded by the EDF. How could
internal revenue allotment (IRA) required by law to be spent on Verceles transfer savings from nonexistent items (in the EDF) to augment
development projects.[10] The province and PENRO subsequently executed the tree seedlings propagation project? The project that was supposed to be
the 5 MOAs.
augmented was also not identified in the CY 2001 appropriation ordinance.
COA Audit Team Leader issued an Audit Observation The augmentation was legally impossible as there were no items from
Memorandum (AOM), finding that Verceles should have sought prior which savings could have been generated from and there was no item to
authority from the SP pursuant to Sections 22 (c)[14] and 465 (b) (1) which such savings could have been transferred.[83] The second MOA was
thus correctly disallowed. G.R. No. 154200 July 24, 2007
Section 22 (c) of the LGC provides that "[u]nless otherwise provided in Thereafter, a Notice of Garnishment was issued against the funds of NEA
this Code, no contract may be entered into by the local chief executive in with Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) to the extent of
behalf of the local government unit without prior authorization by ₱16,581,429.00.
the sanggunian concerned."
Section 465 (b) (1) (vi) of the LGC, on the other hand, states that ". . . the NEA filed a Motion to Quash Writs of Execution/Garnishment, 13 claiming
Chief Executive . . . [shall] [r]epresent the province in all its business that the garnished public funds are exempt from execution under Section
transactions and sign in its behalf all bonds, contracts, and obligations, 414 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1445,15 but manifesting that it is
and such other documents upon authority of the sangguniang willing to pay the claims of Morales, et al.,16 only that it has no funds to
panlalawigan or pursuant to law or ordinance." cover the same, although it already requested the Department of Budget
and Management (DBM) for a supplemental budget.
the local chief executive must inquire if the provisions in the appropriation
ordinance specifically cover the expense to be incurred or the contract to be On July 18, 2000, Morales, et al. filed a Motion for an Order to
entered into. Implement Writ of Execution, but was denied by the RTC. Upon a
Petition for Certiorari27 filed by Morales, et al., the CA granted the
If the project or program is identified in the appropriation ordinance in petition and the respondent judge is directed to implement the Writ of
sufficient detail, then there is no more need to obtain a separate or Execution relative thereto. The CA held that, as such GOCC,
additional authority from the sanggunian. In such case, the project and the petitioner NEA may be subjected to court processes just like any other
cost are already identified and approved by the sanggunianthrough the corporation; specifically, its properties may be proceeded against by
appropriation ordinance. To require the local chief executive to secure way of garnishment or levy.
another authorization for a project that has been specifically identified and
approved by the sanggunian is antithetical to a responsive local NEA and its Board of Directors (petitioners) immediately filed herein
government envisioned in the Constitution[66]and in the LGC. petition for review. It is their contention that the CA erred in directing
implementation of the writ of execution on two grounds: first, execution is
The LGC defines appropriation as the authorization made by ordinance, premature as Morales, et al. (respondents) have yet to file their judgment
directing the payment of goods and services from local government funds claim with the COA in accordance with P.D. No. 1445 and SC
under specified conditions or for specific purposes. [70] The power of Administrative Circular No. 10-2000; and second, execution is not feasible
appropriation involves (a) the setting apart by law (in the case of LGUs, by without DBM as an indispensable party to the petition for certiorari for it
ordinance) of a certain sum from the public revenue for (b) a specified is said department which can certify that funds are available to cover the
purpose.[71] Lump-sum, on the other hand, means 'consisting of a single judgment claim.
sum of money.'[72] Lump-sum appropriation is thus a single sum of money
set aside by the legislature for a specified purpose. ISSUE:
The SP, as the legislative organ of the province, exercises the power of the
purse in much the same way as the Congress does at the national level. Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) committed an error of law in ordering
the implementation of a writ of execution against the funds of the National
The SP decides how the provincial budget will be spent; what projects, Electrification Administration (NEA)
activities and programs to fund; and the amounts of money to be spent for
each project, activity or program. On the other hand, the governor, as the RULING:
local chief executive tasked to enforce ordinances, is expected to faithfully
execute the appropriation ordinance and to spend the budget in accordance
with its provisions.[73] In fine, it was grave error for the CA to reverse the RTC and direct
immediate implementation of the writ of execution through garnishment of
the funds of petitioners,
for augmentations to be valid, the GAA of a given fiscal year must
expressly authorize the transfer of funds in the same year. At the very least,
a law must first be passed authorizing the transfer of savings in the year Respondents (Morales) cannot proceed against the funds of petitioners
that realignments are to be made. because the December 16, 1999 RTC Decision sought to be satisfied is not
a judgment for a specific sum of money susceptible of execution by
garnishment; it is a special judgment requiring petitioners to settle the
In summary, and except for the incorrectly disallowed third MOA, we find claims of respondents in accordance with existing regulations of the COA.
that the COA's assailed decision was made in faithful compliance with its
mandate and in judicious exercise of its general audit power as conferred
on it by the Constitution. The COA was merely fulfilling its mandate in Without question, petitioner NEA is a GOCC36 -- a juridical personality
observing the policy that government funds and property should be fully separate and distinct from the government, with capacity to sue and be
protected and conserved; and that irregular, unnecessary, excessive or sued.37 As such GOCC, petitioner NEA cannot evade execution; its funds
extravagant expenditures or uses of such funds and property should be may be garnished or levied upon in satisfaction of a judgment rendered
prevented. Thus, no grave abuse of discretion may be imputed to the COA. against it.38 However, before execution may proceed against it, a claim for
payment of the judgment award must first be filed with the COA. 39
Under Commonwealth Act No. 327, as amended by Section expenditure involved would be the personal liability of the officer
26 of P.D. No. 1445, it is the COA which has primary jurisdiction to directly responsible for its incurrence.
examine, audit and settle "all debts and claims of any sort" due from
or owing the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies and
In petitioner's request for reconsideration , he argues that the decision
instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
of COA invalidating the contract between the City of Cebu and
corporations and their subsidiaries. With respect to money claims
HFCCI was void since it was already executed and fulfilled. Petitioner
arising from the implementation of R.A. No. 6758, their allowance or
further stresses that COA has no authority to declare a contract
disallowance is for COA to decide, subject only to the remedy of
already executed void.
appeal by petition for certiorari to this Court.
ISSUE: WON the contract entered into by Mayor Duterte for the
NOTES:
construction of the abattoir is valid
In fine, we rule that PHOTOKINA, though the winning bidder, cannot ISSUE: Whether a provincial governor has authority to take personal
compel the COMELEC to formalize the contract. Since PHOTOKINA’s
bid is beyond the amount appropriated by Congress for the VRIS Project, custody of a detention prisoner
the proposed contract is not binding upon the COMELEC and is
considered void; and that in issuing the questioned preliminary writs of
mandatory and prohibitory injunction and in not dismissing Special Civil RULING: NO. Petitions denied.
Action No. Q-01-45405, respondent judge acted with grave abuse of
discretion. Petitioners cannot be compelled by a writ of mandamus to
discharge a duty that involves the exercise of judgment and discretion,
RATIONALE: First, there is no question that petitioners are public officers
especially where disbursement of public funds is concerned.
NOTES: “The Auditing Code of the Philippines (P.D. 1445) further discharging official functions and that jurisdiction over them lay with the
provides that no contract involving the expenditure of public funds shall be Sandiganbayan. Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over public officers
entered into unless there is an appropriation therefor and the proper
accounting official of the agency concerned shall have certified to the charged with violation of the Anti-Graft Law is provided under Section 4
officer entering into the obligation that funds have been duly appropriated of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 8249. Thus, the
for the purpose and the amount necessary to cover the proposed contract
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over petitioner Ambil, Jr. is beyond
question. In this case, we find that petitioners displayed manifest partiality Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where
one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions
and evident bad faith in transferring the detention of Mayor Adalim to in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at
petitioner Ambil, Jr.s house. There is no merit to petitioner Ambil, Jr.s the time of the commission of the offense:
contention that he is authorized to transfer the detention of prisoners by
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional
virtue of his power as the Provincial Jailer of Eastern Samar. Besides, the
director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade ‘27’ and higher, of the
only reference to a transfer of prisoners in said article is found in Section Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No.
1737under which prisoners may be turned over to the jail of the 6758), specifically including:
neighboring province in case the provincial jail be insecure or insufficient
(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang
to accommodate all provincial prisoners. However, this provision has been panlalawigan and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers and other
superseded by Section 3, Rule 114 of the RevisedRules of Criminal provincial department heads[;]
Procedure, as amended. Section 3, Rule 114.
xxxx
In the case at hand, the Information specifically accused petitioners of In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding
giving unwarranted benefits and advantage to Mayor Adalim, a public to Salary Grade ‘27’ or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No.
6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original
officer charged with murder, by causing his release from prison and
jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court,
detaining him instead at the house of petitioner Ambil, Jr. Petitioner Ambil, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial
Jr. negates the applicability of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 in this case on court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdiction as
provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
two points. First, Section 3(e) is not applicable to him allegedly because
the last sentence thereof provides that the provision shall apply to officers
and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the
grant of licenses, permits or other concessions and he is not such SPO1 RAMON LIHAYLIHAY AND C/INSP. VIRGILIO V.
government officer or employee. Second, the purported unwarranted VINLUAN, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
benefit was accorded not to a private party but to a public officer.
G.R. No. 191219; July 31, 2013
However, as regards his first contention, it appears that petitioner Ambil, Acting on the special audit report5 submitted by the Commission on
Jr. has obviously lost sight, if he is not altogether unaware, of our ruling Audit, the Philippine National Police (PNP) conducted an internal
investigation6 on the purported "ghost" purchases of combat, clothing,
in Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan[42] where we held that a prosecution for and individual equipment (CCIE) worth ₱133,000,000.00 which were
violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft Law will lie regardless of allegedly purchased from the PNP Service Store System (SSS) and
delivered to the PNP General Services Command (GSC). As a result of
whether or not the accused public officer is charged with the grant of
the internal investigation, an Information7 was filed before the
licenses or permits or other concessions. Following is an excerpt of what Sandiganbayan, charging 10 PNP officers, including, among others,
we said in Mejorada, Vinluan and Lihaylihay, for the crime of violation of Section 3(e) of
RA 3019.
Without a court order, petitioners transferred Adalim and detained him in a Accused Gen. Nazareno in his capacity as Chief, PNP and concurrently
Board Chairman of the PNP Service Store System, surreptitiously
place other than the provincial jail. The latter was housed in much more
channeled PNP funds to the PNP SSS through "Funded RIVs" valued at ₱8
comfortable quarters, provided better nourishment, was free to move about [M]illion and Director Domondon released ASA No. 000-200-004-92 (SN-
the house and watch television. Petitioners readily extended these benefits 1353) without proper authority from the National Police Commission
(NAPOLCOM) and Department of Budget and Management (DBM), and
to Adalim on the mere representation of his lawyers that the mayors life caused it to appear that there were purchases and deliveries of combat
would be put in danger inside the provincial jail. clothing and individual equipment (CCIE) to the General Service
Command (GSC), PNP, by deliberately and maliciously using funds for
personal services and divided the invoices of not more than ₱500,000.00
each.
As the Sandiganbayan ruled, however, petitioners were unable to establish
the existence of any risk on Adalims safety. To be sure, the latter would not
thereafter, accused members of the Inspection and Acceptance Committee
be alone in having unfriendly company in lockup. Yet, even if we treat together with respondents Marcelo Castillo III and Ramon Lihay-Lihay
Akyatans gesture of raising a closed fist at Adalim as a threat of certified or caused to be certified that the CCIE items covered by the
aforementioned invoices were delivered, properly inspected and accepted,
aggression, the same would still not constitute a special and compelling
and subsequently distributed to the end-users, when in truth and in fact, as
reason to warrant Adalims detention outside the provincial jail. For one, accused well knew, no such purchases of CCIE items were made and no
there were nipa huts within the perimeter fence of the jail which could have items were delivered, inspected, accepted and distributed to the respective
end-users; that despite the fact that no deliveries were made, respondent
been used to separate Adalim from the rest of the prisoners while the Alejandro claimed payment therefor, and respondent Obillos approved the
isolation cell was undergoing repair. Anyhow, such repair could not have disbursement vouchers therefor as well as the checks authorizing payment
which was countersigned by respondent Aquino; and as a result, the
exceeded the 85 days that Adalim stayed in petitioner Ambil, Jr.s government, having been caused to pay for the inexistent purchases and
house. More importantly, even if Adalim could have proven the presence deliveries, suffered undue injury in the amount of EIGHT MILLION
of an imminent peril on his person to petitioners, a court order was still PESOS (₱8,000,000.00), more or less.
RULING: the Court finds that the Ombudsman gravely abused its ISSUE: WON CABEROY can be ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE FOR
discretion when it disregarded the CoA Memo and patently misapplied OPPRESSION
existing jurisprudence – particularly, the Ariascase – in ruling that there
was no probable cause for the crime of Violation of Section 3 (e), 60 RA
RULING:
3019. Accordingly, respondents should be indicted for such. However, the
same does not hold true for the other crimes of Technical Malversation and
Malversation of PublicFunds through Falsification of Public Documents In this case before us, the records is bereft of substantial evidence to
for reasons that will be hereinafter discussed. support respondent Ombudsman’s findings and conclusion that petitioner
committed oppressive acts against private respondent and violated Sections
3(e) and (f) of RA 3019. On the contrary and as earlier discussed,
The non-existence of valid appropriations rendered the contracts void and
respondent Ombudsman found and concluded that private respondent was
the payments illegal.
paid her June salary albeit late. Hence, it cannot be gainsaid that the act of
respondent Ombudsman in concluding that petitioner is guilty as charged
The validity of the appropriations and the subsequent transactions were not despite absence of substantial evidence to support the same is totally
considered in audit due tolack of legal basis, to wit: unfounded and is therefore, tantamount to grave abuse of discretion
amounting to a lack or excess of discretion. x x x.
a. No sources of funds for the ₱14.005M appropriation rendering it invalid
Even assuming, as the Ombudsman asserted, that Tuares received her June
2002 salary only on July 2002, the same does not constitute Oppression or
b. Non-release of allotments for the ₱14.005 M appropriation
Grave Abuse of Authority. The delay in the release of Tuares’ salary
hardly qualifies as an "act of crueltyor severity or excessive use of
Hence, unless the CoA’s findings are substantially rebutted, the allotment’s authority," especially when she contributed to the cause of the delay, that
absence should have roused respondents’ suspicions, as regards the is, she submitted her Form 48 (Daily Time Record) for June 2002 only on
project’s legality, and, in consequence, prevented them from approving the July 11, 2002.
disbursements therefor. This is especially true for Roman, who, as the
Local Chief Executive of the Province at that time, was primarily charged
Except for the Ombudsman’s deduction based on the dates of issuance of
with the issuance of allotments.68 As such, he was in the position to know
the vouchers and the checks as shown in the payroll, the records of this
if the allotment requirement had, in the first place, been complied with,
case are bereft of evidence that will support its view that the delay in the
given that it was a pre-requisite before the project could have been
release of Tuares’ salary indicated that she was singled out. Moreover, as
contracted.
correctly pointed out by the CA, "[t]he certifications issued by Acting
Book keeper Hayde S. Momblan will show that it was not only [Tuares]
In addition, the Court observes the same degree of negligence on the part who was not included in the June 2002 payrolls; there were other teachers
of respondents in seemingly attesting to the project’s 100% completion who were not included because they failed to submit the required year-end
when such was not the case. The erroneous certification rendered the clearance. x x x Evidently, [Tuares] was not singled out or discriminated
disbursements made by the Province suspect as V.F. Construction had still against as insisted by her and respondent Ombudsman.
to fulfill its contractual obligations to the Province and yet were able to
receive full payment.
NOTES: Oppression is also known as grave abuse of authority, which is a
misdemeanor committed by a public officer, who under color of his office,
Considering that the illegal diversion of public funds for the mini theafter wrongfully inflict upon any person any bodily harm, imprisonment or other
project would undermine the execution of other projects legitimately injury. It is an act of cruelty, severity, or excessive use of authority.23 To be
supported by proper allotments, it is quite obvious that undue injury on the held administratively liable for Oppression or Grave Abuse of Authority,
part of the Province and its residents would be caused. Likewise, there must be substantial evidence presented proving the complainant’s
considering that V.F. Construction had already received full payment for a allegations.24 Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence
project that had yet to be completed,it also appears that a private party was which a reasonable mind might accept asadequate to support a conclusion.
given unwarranted benefits by respondents inthe discharge of their
functions (third element).
It must be stressed that like other grave offenses classified under the Civil
Service laws, bad faith must attend the act complained of. Bad faith
Thus, with the elements of the crime of Violation of Section 3 (e), RA connotes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing
3019 herein ostensibly present, the Court hereby holds that the of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill
Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion whenit dismissed said will; it partakes of the nature of fraud.35 There must be evidence,
charge against respondents. independent of the fact of such delay, which will lead to the inevitable
conclusion that it was for the purpose of singling out Tuares. The Court has public official was already deceased long before this case was filed in
consistently upheld the principle that in administrative cases, to be court, for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused, the Court
disciplined for grave misconduct or any grave offense, the evidence against grants the Motion to Quash and the Information filed in this case is hereby
the respondent should be competent and must be derived from direct
ordered quashed and dismissed.
knowledge.36 "Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions
will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on."37
ISSUE: Whether or not herein respondent, a private person, may be
indicted for conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 even if the
014 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs HENRY T. public officer, with whom he was alleged to have conspired, has died prior
GO to the filing of the Information.
G. R. No. 168539 March 25, 2014
HELD: YES. The settled rule that private persons, when acting in
conspiracy with public officers, may be indicted and, if found guilty, held
FACTS: liable for the pertinent offenses under Section 3 of R.A. 3019, in
consonance with the avowed policy of the anti-graft law to repress certain
Nature: petition for review on certiorari assailing the Resolution of the acts of public officers and private persons alike constituting graft or corrupt
Third Division of the Sandiganbayan (SB) practices act or which may lead thereto.
After the prosecution finished presenting its evidence, FPres. Estrada filed, (a) The principal accused Joseph Ejercito Estrada, at the time of the
with leave of court, a demurrer to evidence. The demurrer, however, was commission of the acts charged in the Amended Information was the
denied by the court. Accused Serapio opted not to present his own President of the Republic of the Philippines;
evidence, and instead adopted the evidence presented by FPres. Estrada
and Jinggoy Estrada.
(b) He acted in connivance with then Governor Luis œChavit• Singson,
who was granted immunity from suit by the Office of the Ombudsman, and
Incidentally, in 2007, the Sandiganbayan approved the Plea Bargaining with the participation of other persons named by prosecution witnesses in
Agreement between the prosecution and accused Atong Ang, the latter the course of the trial of this case, in amassing, accumulating and
pleading guilty to a lesser offense of Corruption of Public Officials under acquiring ill-gotten wealth as follows:
Article 212 in relation to Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code. Accused
Atong Ang was sentenced to two years and four months of prision
(i) by a series of acts of receiving bi-monthly collections from œjueteng•, a
correccional minimum, as minimum, to six years of prision correccional
form of illegal gambling, during the period beginning November 1998 to
maximum, as maximum, and to pay the amount of P25,000,000.00 to the
August 2000 in the aggregate amount of P545,291,000.00. Out of this
Government as his civil liability. Accused Atong Ang is now out of jail
amount, P200,000,000.00 was deposited in the Erap Muslim Youth
under probation.
Foundation; and
Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property, business enterprise or On the other hand, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable
material possession of any person within the purview of Section Two (2) doubt the allegations under sub-paragraph (b) and (d) of the amended
hereof, acquired by him directly or in directly through dummies, nominees, Information:
agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or
series of the following means or similar schemes:
1. Acts under sub-paragraph (b) of the Amended Information. – With
1) Through misappropriation, conversation, misuse, or malversation of
respect to the act of divesting, receiving or misappropriating a portion of
public funds or raids on the public treasury;
the tobacco excise tax share allocated for the Province of Ilocos Sur, the
2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share,
paper trail in relation to the P130,000,000.00 diverted tobacco excise
percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any
taxes began with Gov. Singson and ended with Atong Ang. This Court does
person and/ or entity in connection with any government contract or
not find the evidence sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that
project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer
FPres. Estrada or any member of his family had instigated and/or
concerned;
benefited from the diversion of said funds. The prosecution failed to prove,
3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of asset belonging
beyond reasonable doubt, who among the accused benefited from the
to the National Government or any of its subdivision, agencies or
misappropriation of the excise tax share of Ilocos Sur and in what
instrumentalities or government-owned or “controlled corporations and
amounts.
their subsidiaries;
4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of
stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including 2. Acts under sub-paragraph (d) of the Amended Information. – While the
promises of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking; prosecution presented overwhelming evidence that there were numerous
5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or deposits of astoundingly large sums of money into the Jose Velarde
other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended account, it failed to prove the predicate act/s as defined under Section 1(d)
to benefit particular persons or special interests; or of R.A. No. 7080 through which the said deposits could have been acquired
6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, or amassed, except for the amount of P189,700,000.00, representing illegal
connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the commissions from the sales of Belle shares and the money collected from
illegal gambling. It is not per se the accumulation of wealth which is
proscribed by the Anti-Plunder Law. The acquisition of wealth of not less 3. Whether Plunder as defined in RA 7080 is a malum prohibitum.
than P50,000,000.00 must be linked to the commission of overt or criminal
acts falling within the ambit of the said law. All that the prosecution has
Ruling:
succeeded in showing is that the Jose Velarde account is the repository or
receptacle of vast wealth belonging to FPres. Estrada.
A pattern was established by the carefully planned system of jueteng It is a well-settled principle of legal hermeneutics that words of a statute
money collection on a regular bi-monthly basis from the dfferent provinces will be interpreted in their natural, plain, and ordinary acceptation and
nationwide to enrich FPres. Estrada with the connivance and/or signification, unless it is evident that the legislature intended a technical or
participation of Gov. Singson, Yolanda Ricaforte, Emma Lim, Carmencita special legal meaning to those words.
Itchon, SPO2 Artates, Jamis Singson and other jueteng collectors referred
to in the Amended Information as œJohn Does• and œJane Does.• As
proven, the collections in œseveral instances• from illegal gambling
money went way beyond the minimum of P50,000,000.00 set by the Anti- Every provision of the law should be construed in relation and with
reference to every other part.
Plunder Law. These repeated collections of jueteng money from November
1998 to August 2000 would fall within the purview of a œseries• of illegal
acts constituting plunder. The said series of acts, on its own, would have
been sufficient to convict the principal accused, FPres. Estrada. However, There was nothing vague or ambiguous in the provisions of R.A. 7080
this Court also finds that FPres. Estrada is criminally liable for plunder for
receiving commissions from the purchase of Belle Shares by the GSIS and
by the SSS in grave abuse of his power on two separate occasions as 2. No. The legislature did not in any manner refashion the
charged in sub-paragraph (b) of the Amended Information. Clearly, the standard quantum of proof in the crime of plunder. The burden still
receipt of these commissions on two occasions likewise meets the remains with the prosecution to prove beyond any iota of doubt every fact
definition of a series of two similar unlawful acts employing the same or element necessary to constitute a crime.
scheme to accumulate ill-gotten wealth.
What the prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt is only a
It is unnecessary to indulge in an exposition of whether the two series of number of acts sufficient to form a combination or series which would
acts falling under sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) of the Amended Information, constitute a pattern and involving an amount of at least P50,000,000.00.
proven in the course of the trial could have amounted to two (2) counts of There is no need to prove each and every other act alleged in the
plunder. It would be a purely academic exercise, as the accused cannot be information to have been committed by the accused in furtherance of the
convicted of two offenses or two counts of plunder on the basis of a single overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-
Information, clearly charging him of only one count of plunder, because gotten wealth.
that would violate his constitutional rights to due process, given the
severity of the crime charged in this case.
3. No. It is malum in se. The legislative declaration in RA No.
The predicate acts alleged in sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) of the Amended 7659 that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is a malum in se. For
Information, which formed two separate series of acts of a different nature, when the acts punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong, they
were linked by the fact that they were plainly geared towards a common are mala in se and it does not matter that such acts are punished in a special
goal which was the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth for FPres. Estrada law, especially since in the case of plunder that predicate crimes are mainly
and that they shared a pattern or a common method of commission which mala in se.
was the abuse or misuse of the high authority or power of the Presidency.
Its abomination lies in the significance and implications of the subject
In sum, the Court finds that prosecution has proven beyond reasonable criminal acts in the scheme of the larger socio-political and economic
doubt the commission by the principal accused former President Joseph context in which the state finds itself to be struggling to develop and
Ejercito Estrada of the crime of plunder but not so in the case of former provide for its poor and underprivileged masses. Reeling from decades of
Mayor Jose Jinggoy Estrada and Atty. Edward Serapio. corrupt tyrannical rule that bankrupted the government and impoverished
the population, the Philippine Government must muster the political will to
dismantle the culture of corruption, dishonesty, green and syndicated
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 148560, 36 SCRA 394 (November criminality that so deeply entrenched itself in the structures of society and
19, 2001) the psyche of the populace. [With the government] terribly lacking the
money to provide even the most basic services to its people, any form of
Facts: misappropriation or misapplication of government funds translates to an
actual threat to the very existence of government, and in turn, the very
survival of people it governs over.
1. Joseph Ejercito Estrada (Estrada), the highest-ranking official to
be prosecuted under RA 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime
of Plunder) as amended by RA 7659.. Note:
2. Estrada wishes to impress the Court that the assailed law is so
defectively fashioned that it crosses that thin but distinct line which divides
the valid from the constitutionality infirm. That there was a clear violations
of the fundamental rights of the accused to due process and to be informed
A statute establishing a criminal offense must define the offense
with sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can
of the nature and cause of the accusation.
understand what conduct is prohibited by the statute. It can only be
invoked against the specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face,
Issue/s: i.e., that which cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by
construction.
The “Reasonable Doubt” standard has acquired such exalted
1. Whether or not the Plunder Law is unconstitutional for being statute in the realm of constitutional law as it gives life to the Due Process
vague. Clause which protects the accused against conviction except upon proof
2. Whether or not Plunder Law requires less evidence for beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime
providing the predicate crimes of plunder and therefore violates the rights with which he is charged.
of the accused to due process.
A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lack To begin with, Section 13 of Article III (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution
comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application. In such mandates:
instance, the statute is repugnant to the Constitution in two (2) respects it
violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties
targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid; and it leaves law Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable
enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle. The first may be “saved”
by proper construction, while no challenge may be mounted as against the conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
second whenever directed against such activities. recognizance as may be provided by law. xxx.
Even if the capital offense charged is bailable owing to the weakness of the
The test in determining whether a criminal statute is void for uncertainty is
evidence of guilt, the right to bail may justifiably still be denied if the
whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the
proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and probability of escape is great. Here, ever since the promulgation of the
practice. It must be stressed, however, that the “vagueness” doctrine
assailed Resolutions a little more than four (4) years ago, Jinggoy does not,
merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld
– not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude. as determined by Sandiganbayan, seem to be a flight risk. We quote with
approval what the graft court wrote in this regard:
HELD: RA 7080 otherwise known as the Plunder Law, as amended by Senator is harboring any plan to give up his Senate seat in exchange for
becoming a fugitive from justice.
RA 7659, is CONSTITUTIONAL. Consequently, the petition to
People of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan and Jinggoy Estrada, G.R. G.R. No. 213455, August 11, 2015
No. 158754, 10 August 2007. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
HON. AMPARO M. CABOTAJE-TANG, HON. SAMUEL R.
MARTIRES, AND HON. ALEX L. QUIROZ OF THE THIRD DIVISION
FACTS: This petition seeks to reverse and set aside the Resolution of OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.
Considerations. He reiterated his earlier plea for bail filed with the On July 3, 2014, the Sandiganbayan denied Enrile’s motions and ordered
Sandiganbayan. Jinggoy filed before the Sandiganbayan an Omnibus the issuance of warrants of arrest on the plunder case against the accused
Application for Bail against which the prosecution filed its comment and On July 10, 2014, Enrile filed a motion for bill of particulars before the
opposition. Bail hearings were then conducted, followed by the submission Sandiganbayan. On the same date, he filed a motion for deferment of
arraignment since he was to undergo medical examination at the Philippine
by the parties of their respective memoranda. Petitioner suggests that General Hospital (PGH).
Jinggoy is harboring a plan to escape, thus a flight risk. But in a
When the court session resumed, PJ Cabotaje-Tang announced the Court’s
Resolution, the Sandiganbayan granted Jinggoy’s Omnibus Application for denial of Enrile’s motion for bill of particulars essentially on the following
Bail. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied. grounds:
ISSUE: Is the grant of bail in favor of Jinggoy proper on the ground that he (1)
is no longer considered a flight risk? the details that Enrile desires are “substantial reiterations” of the arguments
he raised in his supplemental opposition to the issuance of warrant of arrest
HELD: YES, the grant of bail is proper.
and for dismissal of information; and
(2) Thus, the prosecutor shall not be required to include in the bill of
the details sought are evidentiary in nature and are best ventilated during particulars matters of evidence relating to how the people intend to prove
trial. the elements of the offense charged or how the people intend to prove any
item of factual information included in the bill of particulars
Enrile claims in this petition that the Sandiganbayan acted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it Thus, if the Information is lacking, a court should take a liberal attitude
denied his motion for bill of particulars despite the ambiguity and towards its granting and order the government to file a bill of particulars
insufficiency of the Information filed against him. Enrile maintains that the elaborating on the charges. Doubts should be resolved in favor of granting
denial was a serious violation of his constitutional right to be informed of the bill to give full meaning to the accused’s Constitutionally guaranteed
the nature and cause of the accusation against him. rights.
Enrile further alleges that he was left to speculate on what his specific
participation in the crime of plunder had been. He posits that the
Information should have stated the details of the particular acts that
allegedly constituted the imputed series or combination of overt acts that
led to the charge of plunder. Juan Ponce Enrile v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 213455
Enrile posits that his ‘desired details’ are not evidentiary in nature; they are
material facts that should be clearly alleged in the Information so that he The Office of the Ombudsman filed an Information for plunder against
may be fully informed of the charges against him and be prepared to meet Enrile, Jessica Lucila Reyes, Janet Lim Napoles, Ronald John Lim, and
the issues at the trial.
John Raymund de Asis before the Sandiganbayan.
Enrile adds that the grounds raised in his motion for bill of particulars are
cited in a context different from his opposition to the issuance of a warrant
of arrest. He maintains that the resolution of the probable cause issue was The Information reads:
interlocutory and did “not bar the submission of the same issue in
subsequent proceedings especially in the context of a different
proceeding.” xxxx
ISSUE (S)
In 2004 to 2010 or thereabout, in the Philippines, and within this
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan exercised its discretionary power in an Honorable Court’s jurisdiction, above-named accused JUAN PONCE
arbitrary or despotic manner in denying Enrile’s motion for bill of
ENRILE, then a Philippine Senator, JESSICA LUCILA G. REYES, then
particulars
Chief of Staff of Senator Enrile’s Office, both public officers, committing
Held:
the offense in relation to their respective offices, conspiring with one
After due consideration, we resolve to partially GRANT the petition under another and with JANET LIM NAPOLES, RONALD JOHN LIM, and
the terms outlined below.
JOHN RAYMUND DE ASIS, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
a. We PARTIALLY GRANT the present petition for certiorari, and SET and criminally amass, accumulate, and/or acquire ill-gotten wealth
ASIDE the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions dated July 11, 2014, which denied amounting to at least ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY TWO MILLION
Enrile’s motion for bill of particulars and his motion for reconsideration of
this denial. EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
PESOS (Php172,834,500.00) through a combination or series of overt
b. We DIRECT the People of the Philippines to SUBMIT, within a non-
extendible period of fifteen (15) days from finality of this Decision, with criminal acts, as follows:
copy furnished to Enrile, a bill of particulars containing the facts sought
that we herein rule to be material and necessary. The bill of particulars 1. by repeatedly receiving from NAPOLES and/or her
shall specifically contain the following:LawlibraryofCRAlaw representatives LIM, DE ASIS, and others, kickbacks or commissions
under the following circumstances: before, during and/or after the
Ratio project identification, NAPOLES gave, and ENRILE and/or REYES
received, a percentage of the cost of a project to be funded from
The constitutional right of the accused to be informed ENRILE’S Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), in
consideration of ENRILE’S endorsement, directly or through REYES,
Under the Constitution, a person who stands charged of a criminal offense to the appropriate government agencies, of NAPOLES’ non-
has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation government organizations which became the recipients and/or target
against him implementors of ENRILE’S PDAF projects, which duly-funded
projects turned out to be ghosts or fictitious, thus enabling NAPOLES
The objective is to describe the act with sufficient certainty to fully to misappropriate the PDAF proceeds for her personal gain;
appraise the accused of the nature of the charge against him and to avoid 2. by taking undue advantage, on several occasions, of their
possible surprises that may lead to injustice. Otherwise, the accused would official positions, authority, relationships, connections, and influence
be left speculating on why he has been charged at all. The Revised Rules of to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense and to the damage and
Criminal Procedure, in implementing the constitutional right of the accused prejudice, of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him,
specifically require certain matters to be stated in the Information for its
sufficiency. The requirement aims to enable the accused to properly CONTRARY TO LAW.
prepare for his defense since he is presumed to have no independent
knowledge of the facts constituting the offense charged. Enrile filed a motion for bill of particulars before the Sandiganbayan.
On the same date, he filed a motion for deferment of arraignment since
In general, a bill of particulars is the further specification of the charges or
claims in an action, which an accused may avail of by motion before he was to undergo medical examination at the Philippine General
arraignment, to enable him to properly plead and prepare for trial. Hospital (PGH).
The rule requires the information to describe the offense with sufficient The Court denied Enrile’s motion for bill of particulars.
particularity to apprise the accused of the crime charged with and to enable
the court to pronounce judgment. The particularity must be such that
persons of ordinary intelligence may immediately know what the ISSUE: Is a Motion to Quash the proper remedy if the information is
Information means. vague or indefinite resulting in the serious violation of
The general function of a bill of particulars, whether in civil or criminal Enrile’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of
proceedings, is to guard against surprises during trial. It is not the function the accusation against him?
of the bill to furnish the accused with the evidence of the prosecution.
We DIRECT the People of the Philippines to SUBMIT, within a non-
HELD: NO. When allegations in an Information are vague or indefinite, extendible period of fifteen (15) days from finality of this Decision, with
the remedy of the accused is not a motion to quash, but a motion for a copy furnished to Enrile, a bill of particulars containing the facts sought
bill of particulars. that we herein rule to be material and necessary. The bill of particulars
The purpose of a bill of particulars is to supply vague facts or shall specifically contain the following:
1. The particular overt act/s alleged to constitute the
allegations in the complaint or information to enable the accused to
“combination or series of overt criminal acts” charged in the
properly plead and prepare for trial. It presupposes a valid Information, Information.
one that presents all the elements of the crime charged, albeit under vague 2. A breakdown of the amounts of the “kickbacks or
commissions” allegedly received, stating how the amount of
terms. Notably, the specifications that a bill of particulars may supply P172,834,500.00 was arrived at.
are only formal amendments to the complaint or Information. Thus, if 3. A brief description of the ‘identified’ projects where kickbacks
or commissions were received.
the Information is lacking, a court should take a liberal attitude 4. The approximate dates of receipt, “in 2004 to 2010 or
towards its granting and order the government to file a bill of thereabout,” of the alleged kickbacks and commissions from the
identified projects. At the very least, the prosecution should state the
particulars elaborating on the charges. Doubts should be resolved in year when the kickbacks and transactions from the identified
favor of granting the bill to give full meaning to the accused’s projects were received.
5. The name of Napoles’ non-government organizations (NGOs)
Constitutionally guaranteed rights. which were the alleged “recipients and/or target implementors of
Notably, the government cannot put the accused in the position of Enrile’s PDAF projects.”
6. The government agencies to whom Enrile allegedly endorsed
disclosing certain overt acts through the Information and withholding Napoles’ NGOs. The particular person/s in each government
others subsequently discovered, all of which it intends to prove at the agency who facilitated the transactions need not be named as a
particular.
trial. This is the type of surprise a bill of particulars is designed to
All particulars prayed for that are not included in the above are hereby
avoid. The accused is entitled to the observance of all the rules designated
denied.
to bring about a fair verdict. This becomes more relevant in the present
case where the crime charged carries with it the severe penalty of capital ISSUE: whether there is probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest against
punishment and entails the commission of several predicate criminal an accused
acts involving a great number of transactions spread over a considerable Reason for Requirement for Particulars of Overt Acts
period of time. Notably, conviction for plunder carries with it the penalty of
Plunder is the crime committed by public officers when they amass wealth
capital punishment; for this reason, more process is due, not less. When a involving at least P50 million by means of a combination or series of overt
person’s life interest – protected by the life, liberty, and property acts.97 Under these terms, it is not sufficient to simply allege that the
amount of ill-gotten wealth amassed amounted to at least P50 million; the
language recognized in the due process clause – is at stake in the manner of amassing the ill-gotten wealth – whether through a
proceeding, all measures must be taken to ensure the protection of combination or series of overt acts under Section 1(d) of R.A. No. 7080–
is an important element that must be alleged.
those fundamental rights.
While both the motion to dismiss the Information and the motion for When the Plunder Law speaks of “combination,” it refers to at least two
(2) acts falling under different categories listed in Section 1, paragraph (d)
bill of particulars involved the right of an accused to due process, the
of R.A. No. 7080 [for example, raids on the public treasury under Section
enumeration of the details desired in Enrile’s supplemental opposition 1, paragraph (d), subparagraph (1), and fraudulent conveyance of assets
belonging to the National Government under Section 1, paragraph (d),
to issuance of a warrant of arrest and for dismissal of information and in
subparagraph (3)].
his motion for bill of particulars are different viewed particularly from
the prism of their respective objectives. In the former, Enrile took the On the other hand, to constitute a “series” there must be two (2) or more
overt or criminal acts falling under the same category of enumeration
position that the Information did not state a crime for which he can be found in Section 1, paragraph (d) [for example, misappropriation,
convicted; thus, the Information is void; he alleged a defect of malversation and raids on the public treasury, all of which fall under
Section 1, paragraph (d), subparagraph (1)].98redarclaw
substance. In the latter, he already impliedly admits that the
Information sufficiently alleged a crime but is unclear and lacking in With respect to paragraph (a) of the Information –
[(i.e., by repeatedly receiving from NAPOLES and/or her representatives
details that would allow him to properly plead and prepare his LIM, DE ASIS, and others, kickbacks or commissions under the following
defense; he essentially alleged here a defect of form. Note that in circumstances: before, during and/or after the project identification,
NAPOLES gave, and ENRILE and/or REYES received, a percentage of the
the former, the purpose is to dismiss the Information for its failure to cost of a project to be funded from ENRILE’S Priority Development
state the nature and cause of the accusation against Enrile; while the Assistance Fund (PDAF), in consideration of ENRILE’S endorsement,
directly or through REYES, to the appropriate government agencies, of
details desired in the latter (the motion for bill of particulars) are NAPOLES’ non-government organizations which became the recipients
required to be specified in sufficient detail because the allegations in and/or target implementers of ENRILE’S PDAF projects, which duly
funded projects turned out to be ghosts or fictitious, thus enabling
the Information are vague, indefinite, or in the form of conclusions NAPOLES to misappropriate the PDAF proceeds for her personal gain x x
and will not allow Enrile to adequately prepare his defense unless x)] –
we hold that the prosecution employed a generalized or shotgun
specifications are made.That every element constituting the offense had
approach in alleging the criminal overt acts allegedly committed by
been alleged in the Information does not preclude the accused from Enrile. This approach rendered the allegations of the paragraph uncertain to
requesting for more specific details of the various acts or omissions he is the point of ambiguity for purposes of enabling Enrile to respond and
prepare for his defense. These points are explained in greater detail below.
alleged to have committed. The request for details is precisely the function
of a bill of particulars. Hence, while the information may be sufficient The heart of the Plunder Law lies in the phrase “combination or series of
for purposes of stating the cause and the crime an accused is charged, overt or criminal acts.” Hence, even if the accumulated ill-gotten wealth
the allegations may still be inadequate for purposes of enabling him to amounts to at least P50 million, a person cannot be prosecuted for the
crime of plunder if this resulted from a single criminal act. This
properly plead and prepare for trial.
interpretation of the Plunder Law is very clear from the congressional
deliberations.99redarclaw
Thus, the several (i.e., at least 2) acts which are indicative of the overall
scheme or conspiracy must not be generally stated; they should be stated
with enough particularity for Enrile (and his co-accused) to be able to
prepare the corresponding refuting evidence to meet these alleged overt
acts.
A reading of the Information filed against Enrile in the present case shows
that the prosecution made little or no effort to particularize the
transactions that would constitute the required series or combination of
overt acts.
To stress, this final sum is not a general ball park figure but a
very specific sum based on a number of different acts and hence must
have a breakdown. Providing this breakdown reinforces the required
specificity in describing the different overt acts.
Negatively stated, unless Enrile is given the particulars and is later given
the chance to object to unalleged details, he stands to be surprised at the
trial at the same time that the prosecution is given the opportunity to play
fast and loose with its evidence to satisfy the more than P50 Million
requirement of law.