(Consolidted petitions for review on certiorari.

Filed by 2 petitioners)

AMBIL VS SANDGANBAYAN
GR No. 175457
July 6, 2011

Villarama, Jr. J.:

FACTS:

An Information before the Ombudsman was filed against petitioners Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr, and Alexandrino
R. Apelado, Sr, governor of Eastern Samar and provincial jail warden, respectively, for allegedly ordering
the release and transfer of Mayor Francisco Adalim from the provincial jail to petitioner Ambil’s residence,
violating Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019. During the pre-trial, petitioners admitted the allegations on the
Information. Petitioners reasoned that the transfer was justified considering the imminent threats upon
the accused posed by his detention in the provincial jail. According to the petitioners, Adalim’s sister, Atty.
Juliana A. Adalim-White, has sent numerous prisoners to the same jail that the accused was to be held.

At the trial, petitioner Apelado testified that Atty. White was questioning the legality of the arrest of
Adalim and even confronted him saying he was under the governor, in the latter’s capacity as the
provincial jailer. For that reason, he submitted to the governor’s orders to relinquish custody of Adalim.

Saandiganbayan found petitioners guilty of violating Section 3(e) of RA no. 3019, otherwise known as Anti-
Graft and Corruption Practices Act. Sandiganbayan set aside petitioner’s claim that Adalim’s transfer was
made to ensure his safety and pointed out that there are isolated cells that could have been used to
separate Adalim from the rest.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Petitioner Ambil, Jr is entitled to the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty
under Article 11(5) of the Revised Penal Code;
2. Whether or not petitioner Apelado, Sr is entitled to justifying circumstance of obedience to an
order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose under Article 11(6) of the Revised Penal Code.

HELD

1. The Court ruled that under paragraph 5 Article 11 of the RPC, ay person who acts in the fulfillment
of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right of office does not incur criminal liability. For the
justifying circumstance to apply, the two (2) requisites must be satisfied: (1) The accused acted in
the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and (2) The injury caused
or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the
lawful exercise of such right or office. Both requisites are lacking in petitioner Ambil Jr’s case.

The court determined that petitioner Ambil, Jr exceeded his authority when he orderd the
transfer and detention of Adalim in his residence without court order. And the resulting violation
 of the Anti-Graft law did not proceed from the due performance of his duty or lawful exercise of
his office.

2. The Court ruled that petitioner Apelado, Sr cannot invoke justifying circumstance under
paragraph 6, Article 11 of the RPC. Under this provision, any person who acts in obedience to an
order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose does not incur any criminal liability. But for
this to apply, these requisites must be followed: (1) an order has been issued by a superior; (2)
such order must be for some lawful purpose; and (3) the means by subordinate to carry out said
order is lawful. Only the first requisite is present in this case.

While the order to transfer detainee Adalim came from petitioner Ambil, Jr. who was then the
Governor, neither said order nor the means employed by petitioner Apelado, Sr. was lawful. In
his capacity as the Provincial Jail Warden of Eastern Samar, he fetched Mayor Adalim at the
provincial jail and unarmed with a court order, transported him to the house of petitioner Ambil,
Jr, unarmed with a court order, transported him, to petitioner Ambil, Jr’s house. Therefore
disqualifying him to avail the justifying circumstance laid down by the RPC.