Case Digests

G.R. NO. 175457: July 6, 2011

RUPERTO A. AMBIL, JR., Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
FACTS:
Mayor Francisco Andalim (Mayor Andalim) was the accused in a murder case. During
the trial, Mayor Andalim was transferred from the provincial jail of Eastern Samar to
the residence of Governor Ruperto A. Ambil Jr. (Gov. Ambil). The NBI conducted an
investigation and recommended that charges be filed against Gov. Ambil for violation
of R.A. No 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The IBP, which initially
requested investigation in the case, dismissed their request and informed the
Ombudsman they would no longer pursue the case.
The Office of the Ombudsman charged Gov. Ambil and Alexandrino Apelado, Sr. for
violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Art. 156 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Sandiganbayan First Division found Gov. Ambil and Apelado, Sr. liable.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused are liable for violation of R.A. No 3019.
HELD:
CRIMINAL LAW: violation of the Anti-Graft Act
Without a court order, petitioners transferred Adalim and detained him in a place
other than the provincial jail.The latter was housed in much more comfortable
quarters, provided better nourishment, was free to move about the house and watch
television.Petitioners readily extended these benefits to Adalim on the mere
representation of his lawyers that the mayor life would be put in danger inside the
provincial jail. As the Sandiganbayan ruled, however, petitioners were unable to
establish the existence of any risk on Adalim safety.
As held by the Court in Sison v. People, in order to be found guilty under the second
mode, it suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another in
the exercise of his official, administrative or judicial functions.
Petition is DENIED.