CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

A. Introduction

It is none other done the fundamental law of the land which guarantees the

right of a person charged with a criminal offense to be presumed innocent 1 and to

have a just and speedy disposition of his case 2. In recognition of these rights,

procedural laws including internal rules are promulgated by the courts handling

them. As it is ruled, procedural law ensures the effective enforcement of substantive

rights by providing for a system that obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or

whimsicality in the settlement of disputes3.

The power to make these rules are vested upon the Supreme Court 4. Such

fact does not however preclude other courts from promulgating their own internal

rules governing their business and addressing certain peculiarities pursuant with

their mandate and their jurisdiction. One example of these courts is the

Sandiganbayan – the anti-graft court of the country 5.

3
Sebastian v. Morales, 445 Phil. 595, 608 (2003) cited in the case of Mocaral Macawiag vs. Judge Rasad
Balindong and Soraida A. Macawiag, G.R. No. 159210, September 20, 2006
4

1
 Sandiganbayan is authorized by law to promulgate its internal rules that

would govern all the business and procedures it conducts 6. Presently, it is governed

by the 2018 Revised Internal Rules of Procedures in the Sandiganbayan 7. Being a

court which directly tries and hears criminal cases 8, among others, some rules are

still referred with the rules of criminal proceedings under the Rules of Court. The

Sandiganbayan acts by division and decides through a collegial body 9. As such, it is

but natural that in some cases, unanimous decision of the three (3) justices may not

be derived. As a recourse, its Internal Rules provide under Rule 9, Section 2 that:

“…In the event a unanimous vote is not obtained, the

Presiding Justice shall designate by raffle, on rotation
basis, two (2) Justices from all the other members of
the Sandiganbayan to sit temporarily with them, forming
a Special Division of five (5) Justices, and the vote of a
majority of such Special Division shall be necessary for
the rendition of a judgment or final order.”

As stated, in case a unanimous vote cannot be reached, two (2) other justices

shall be designated by raffle to sit with the division-in-charge temporarily and the

opinion which will gain the vote of the majority will be the rendered decision. This

rule naturally results in a situation where the majority decision favors the conviction

of the accused and the two remaining opinions opposes with such and will present

noteworthy considerations showing the presence of reasonable doubt. In effect, it

6

2
creates a thought that conviction still lies despite the presence of doubt which was

presented by the opposing justices. This runs contrarily with the established rule that

the slightest presence of doubt shall be ruled in favor of the accused 10 which rule is

grounded and based on the right of a person charged to be presumed innocent 11.

Arguably, it can be said that since there is presence of reasonable doubt, as seen by

the other justices, the resort should only be in favor of the accused.

Sandiganbayan, as the trial court for graft and corrupt practices, directly

accepts the evidence, witnesses the trial and observes the circumstances

surrounding the case. It has the first hold with regard everything which is material to

the case. It has the advantage in determining on whether there is reasonable doubt

or none compared to other courts. In this regard, it is similar with regular trial courts

which, notably, also exercise limited jurisdiction with cases involving graft and

corrupt practices12. However, these courts do not decide in a collegial way and do

not follow the rules of the Sandiganbayan in exercising such given limited

jurisdiction. As such, the cited provision cannot be applied with someone being tried

by regular trial courts in their given limited jurisdiction. The only outcome within

these courts is a final or executory judgment, in case of acquittal 13, or a judgment on

appeals taken, if opted by the accused.

10

11

12

13

3
 If doubts as regard the conviction of an accused originates at the

Sandiganbayan – believed to have the knowledge and experience in handling cases

of graft and corruption14 – a settlement of such case even on appeal may not really

put a “rest” on the case. While it may be argued that an appeal may still be made, it

will generally pass only on questions of law and not on questions of facts which may

have been the bases of reasonable doubt. Moreover, this option is not very well-

taken15 as it prolongs the disposition of the case and adds to the congestion of the

Supreme Court’s dockets16. Further, it implies that it is easier and faster to have a

final disposition of cases in regular trial courts than at the Sandiganbayan – only one

judge decides, no variation of opinions. This is despite the fact that both are trial

courts handling similar graft and corruption cases, which are similar crimes, and their

jurisdiction only differs regarding the person and the amount involved.

In view of the foregoing, this study seeks to analyze Rule 9, Section 3 of the

Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan in relation with the rule of proof beyond

reasonable doubt. In analyzing, this study first aims to determine how the said court

observe the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt in its decision-making

processes. Upon such determination, the study analyzes how the said principle shall

be complied with in accordance with the rules and with the pronouncements of the

14

15

16

4
Supreme Court in consideration of the peculiarities of the Sandiganbayan. Lastly,

the study looks on how the present rules address the implications of the Rule 9,

Section 3 of the internal rules of the Sandiganbayan with relation to the principle of

proof beyond reasonable doubt.

B. Conceptual Framework

Analysis on
Analysis of the whether the rules Proposed
principle of in deciding cases guidelines in
“Proof Beyond under the
rules in deciding deciding cases
Reasonable exclusive original
criminal cases in under Sec.4 of
Doubt” jurisdiction of the
regular courts RA 10660 which
Sandiganbayan
and the conferred in effect would
limited jurisdiction be consistent
under sec.4 of RA with the
rules in deciding Comparison 10660 in favor of concept of
criminal cases of the said regular courts are proof beyond
under the rules consistent with the reasonable
exclusive original importance and doubt
jurisdiction of the significance of
Sandiganbayan proof beyond
reasonable doubt

Figure 1. Study Paradigm

The first box entails the concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The two

immediate boxes beside it show how the said concept is applied on the procedures

being applied on criminal cases filed on both regular courts and the Sandiganbayan.

5
 The consequent box refers to the comparison of the rules applied in the

mentioned courts. It deals with their similarities and differences and the bases or

justification of such.

The next variable refers on an overall analysis on whether the rules in

deciding cases under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and

the conferred limited jurisdiction under sec.4 of RA 10660 in favor of regular courts

together with the justifications of said procedures are consistent with the concept of

proof beyond reasonable doubt as analyzed. The analysis would determine the

consistency of the rules together with their bases with the concept and significance

of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The last box refers to the proposed guidelines in order to have rules in

deciding said cases which are consistent with the concept of proof beyond

reasonable doubt and with the considerations affecting the jurisdiction of the courts.

C. Statement of the Problem

This study seeks to analyze Rule 9, Section 3 of the Internal Rules of the

Sandiganbayan in relation with the rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Research Questions

Particularly, this study seeks to answer the following questions:

6
 1. How shall the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt be complied with

in accordance with the rules and with the pronouncements of the Supreme

Court?

a. Generally within regular trial courts

b. In consideration of the peculiarities of the jurisdiction of the

Sandiganbayan

2. How does the Sandiganbayan observe the rule of proof beyond

reasonable doubt in its decision-making processes?

3. How do the present rules address the implications of the Rule 9, Section 3

of the internal rules of the Sandiganbayan with relation to proof beyond

reasonable doubt?

D. Assumptions of the study

1. This study assumes the importance of guilt beyond reasonable doubt being

grounded on the presumption of innocence of any accused.

2. This study believes that the principle of guilt beyond reasonable doubt shall

be equally observed in all kinds of criminal proceedings and all kinds of courts

to pursue the true objective in administering justice.

3. This study assumes that the rules of procedure, together with the courts’

internal rules are made after consideration of its structure and mandate.
7
 4. This study believes that there are certain rules that deviate from the true

meaning and significance of the principle.

E. Significance of the Study

The main purpose of this study is to analyze the concept of guilt beyond

reasonable doubt which is grounded on the fundamental principle and right of a

person to be presumed innocent. The study seeks to analyze the principle and

undermine the way it is reflected and applied in Philippine courts – regular or special

– despite the natural and circumstantial differences of the courts as well as the

contrast of the limits of their jurisdictions.

Considering such, this study is of significance to law students, lawyers or law

practitioners, legal analysts or future legal-topic interested researchers and the

Filipino citizens.

To law students, this study may serve as an additional knowledge and may

also serve as a guide in understanding the rules of procedure, specifically those that

govern criminal cases being covered by this study. Moreover, this study may help

them in learning more about the concept of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and its

required quantum of proof.

To lawyers or law practitioners, this study may apprise them of how is guilt

beyond reasonable doubt really contemplated and the consequential duty that
8
comes with it. Also, this research may also give them further in-depth knowledge

and analysis of the factors being considered in criminal proceedings.

To legal analysts or future legal-topic interested researchers, this may

enlighten them further as regards the principles of presumption of innocence and

guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This may also guide them in understanding more

how are such principles being applied and why are they needed in criminal

proceedings.

Lastly, and most importantly, this is significant to the Filipino citizens who are

given the freedom regulated and limited by laws. This work may enlighten them of

the real meaning of their rights and how such rights may be applied or exercised by

them in case they will be charged of an offense and when they stand in front of both

an unprejudiced court and a hostile public.

F. Scope and Delimitation

This study is focused on the question on whether the rules of procedure of the

Sandiganbayan in deciding of cases under its exclusive original jurisdiction

consistent with the principle of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The study is mainly

an analysis of the said rules and does not include the rules of said court in deciding

cases in its appellate jurisdiction. The principle in this study solely refers to the

principle of guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

9
 The analysis on the principle of guilt beyond reasonable doubt in this study is

mainly pinned on how it is applied and how is it applicable with all the considerations

present in this country and on the particular cases being handled by both regular

and special court. The special court being referred in this study is the

Sandiganbayan and will not cover the rules of procedure of other special courts.

This research does not focus on analyzing rules on criminal proceedings in

the regular trial courts. Said rules are only used in this study as bases of comparison

in the analysis on how the principle is being uniformly observed or applied

regardless of the kind of court deciding a criminal case.

This study cites certain dissenting opinions from the decisions of

Sandiganbayan which are not used as basis of answering the research questions or

as basis for recommendations. They are cited only for purposes of showing how the

procedure in deciding cases in Sandiganbayan is done and of comparing it with the

regular trial courts.

G. Definitions of Terms

The following terms are defined according to how they are used in this study:

Acquittal. A discharge after a trial, or an attempt to have one, upon its

merits17. The evidence does not show that his guilt is beyond reasonable doubt 18.
17
Clemente vs PAL. 42765-R. January 28, 1975
18
Republic vs Erum. SP-0587. April 30, 1985
10
 Burden of Proof. The duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in

issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence

required by law19.

Collegial Body. Members act on the basis of consensus or majority rule 20.

Dissenting Opinion. Opinion in which a judge announces his dissent from

the conclusions held by the majority of the court, and expounds his own views 21.

Graft and Corruption. Charges that are typically leveled at highly-placed

government officials, who are able to use public funds to improve their own

fortunes22.

Jurisdiction. Power or authority given by the law to a court or tribunal to hear

and determine certain controversies. Power of courts to hear and determine a

controversy involving rights which are demandable and enforceable. 23

Justice. Person duly commissioned to hold court sessions, to try and decide

controversies and administer justice24.

19
Sec.1, Rule 131, Rules of Court
20
Assistant Special Prosecutor Iii Rohermia J. Jamsani-Rodriguez vs Justices Gregory S. Ong, Jose R. Hernandez,
And Rodolfo A. Ponferrada, Sandiganbayan. A.M. No. 08-19-SB-J. August 24, 2010
21
https://thelawdictionary.org/dissenting-opinion/
22
https://legalbeagle.com/6635615-meaning-graft-corruption.html
23
https://batasnatin.com/law-library/remedial-law/criminal-procedure/384-what-is-jurisdiction-venue.html
24
https://definitions.uslegal.com/j/justice/
11
 Majority opinion. Majority opinion is a judicial opinion agreed to by more

than half of the members of a court. A majority opinion sets forth the decision of the

court and an explanation of the rationale behind the court's decision.

Moral Certainty. A certainty that ultimately appeals to a person's very

conscience25.

Quantum of Evidence. The amount of evidence needed that must be

presented before a Court before a fact can be said to exist or not exist 26.

Reasonable Doubt. That state of the case which, after the entire comparison

and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in such a condition

that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth

of the charge27.

25
Capistrano Daayata, Dexter Salisi, And Bregido Mala Cat, Jr. vs People of the Philippines. G.R. No. 205745.
March 8, 2017
26
Definition of Quantum of Evidence. Accessed on July 22, 2019. https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-
essays/criminal-law/criminal-or-civil-standard-of-proof-law-essays.php
27
People of the Philippines vs Carlito Claro. G.R. No. 199894. April 5, 2017
12
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

I. Related Literature

The Sandiganbayan

This court which in its literal sense is considered as the society’s advocate 28 is

a special court which possesses all the powers inherent to a court of justice 29. It was

first conceptualized during the administration of then President Ferdinand Marcos

and was mandated by the 1973 Constitution 3031 as provided under its Article XIII,

Section 5, to wit:

“SEC. 5. The National Assembly shall create a

special court, to be known as Sandiganbayan, which shall
have jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft
and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by
public officers and employees, including those in
government-owned or controlled corporations, in relation to
their office as may be determined by law”

28

29
Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1486
30
http://sb.judiciary.gov.ph/aboutsb.html
31
https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/60572-know-sandiganbayan-graft-plunder
13
 By such mandate, Sandiganbayan has been commonly referred to as the

“Anti-Graft Court” and it has still continued having jurisdiction over criminal and civil

referred cases under the current Constitution 32.

This special court was created by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1486

issued on June 11, 1978 by the late President Marcos by virtue of the emergency

legislative power granted unto him under Amendment No. 6 of the 1976

Amendments to the 1973 Constitution33. Initially, it was set on the same level as

what were then known as the Courts of First Instance, now the Regional Trial

Courts34 but was shortly elevated to that of the Court of Appeals 35. This means that,

following the principle of hierarchy of courts 36, an appeal from a decision of the

Sandiganbayan shall only be filed with the Supreme Court 37.

Similar with the Court of Appeals and other special courts (e.g. Court of Tax

Appeals), Sandiganbayan is a collegial body. It has seven (7) divisions with three (3)

Justices including the presiding Justice38.

Presently, the Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over

the following:

32
Article 11, Section 4, 1987 Philippine Constitution
33
http://sb.judiciary.gov.ph/aboutsb.html
34
Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1486
35
Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1606
36

37

38
Sec.3, Rule III, 2018 Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan
14
 “a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
Republic Act No. 1379, and 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 in
the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim
capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:

(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of

regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade
’27’ and higher, of the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758),
specifically including:

(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the

sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers,
assessors, engineers, and other provincial department
heads:
(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang
panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other
city department heads;
(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position
of consul and higher;
(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains,
and all officers of higher rank;
(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying
the position of provincial director and those holding the rank
of senior superintendent and higher;
(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and
officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman
and special prosecutor;
(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of
government-owned or controlled corporations, state
universities or educational institutions or foundations.

(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as

Grade ’27’ and higher under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989;

15
 (3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution;
(4) Chairmen and members of the Constitutional
Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution; and

(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade

’27’ and higher under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989.

b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed

with other crimes committed by the public officials and
employees mentioned in subsection a. of this section in
relation to their office.
c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in
connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A,
issued in 198639.”

The court, in exercise of its exclusive original jurisdiction over the cases

enumerated above, directly precedes through hearing and tries the case similar to

that of the trial courts. 40 The proceedings in this court is governed by Republic Act

No. and the court’s own promulgated internal rules of procedure 41 in addition to

those already provided by the Rules of Court particularly intended for the procedures

of the Sandiganbayan42.

The Sandiganbayan exercises appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,

resolutions or orders of the RTC whether in the exercise of their original or appellate

jurisdiction over crimes and civil cases falling within the original exclusive jurisdiction

39
Section 4, Presidential Decree 1606 as amended by Republic Act No. 10660
40

41

42

16
of the Sandiganbayan but which were committed by public officers below Salary

Grade 2743.

a. The Scope of Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan

The Sandiganbayan is not considered as special only because it is specially

mandated by the Constitution. A court is referred as special when the cases it

handles is specifically distinguished from those being tried by the regular trial courts.

The particularity of Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction is hereby further elaborated by

classifying its scope as to what actions may be heard and who may be charged and

tried before it.

i. Actions being tried by the Sandiganbayan

Sandiganbayan exercises its jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases

involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public

officers and employees, including those in government-owned or controlled

corporations, in relation to their office as may be determined by law 44.

The Criminal acts being tried under the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan are the

following:

1. Bribery of public officials penalized under the Revised

Penal Code45;
2. Acts enumerated under Republic Act No. 3019
including the following:
43

44

45

17
a. Persuading, inducing or influencing another public
officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules, or
an offense in connection with official duties
b. Requesting or receiving any gift, present, share,
percentage or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in
connection with any contract or transaction between the
government and any other party, wherein the public officer in
his official capacity has to intervene under the law
c. Requesting or receiving any gift, present or other
pecuniary or material benefit, from any person for whom the
public officer has secured or obtained, or will secure or
obtain, any government permit or license
d. Accepting or having any member of his family accept
employment in a private enterprise that has pending official
business with him, during the pendency thereof or within one
year after its termination
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
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
gross inexcusable negligence
f. Neglecting or refusing to act within a reasonable time
on any matter pending before him for the purpose of
obtaining some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage,
or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving
undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any
other interested party
g. Entering, on behalf of the government, into any
contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public
officer profited or will profit thereby
h. Having financial or pecuniary interest in any business,
contract or transaction in connection with which he
intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he
is prohibited from having any interest
i. Becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a
material interest in any transaction or act requiring the
approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a
member, even if he votes against the same or does not

18
 participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or
group
j. Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit,
privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified
k. Divulging to unauthorized persons valuable
information of a confidential character acquired by his office
or by him on account of his official position, or releasing such
information in advance of its authorized release date 46;
3. Act of public officials and employees from soliciting or
accepting, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor,
entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any
person:
a. in the course of their official duties; or
b. in connection with any operation being
regulated by, or any transaction which may be
affected by, the functions of their office;prohibited
under Republic Act 6713 (The Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees).
4. Act of giving, or offering to give, to a public official or
employee, a gift, present or other valuable thing on any
occasion punished under Presidential Decree No. 46 (Giving
of Gifts on any Occasion), including Christmas, when such
gift, present or other valuable thing is given by reason of the
public official/employee’s position, regardless of whether or
not the same is for past favour or the giver hopes or expects
to receive a favour or better treatment in the future from the
public official or employee concerned, in the discharge of his
official functions. Included within the prohibition is the
throwing of parties or entertainment in honour of the public
official or employee, or of his immediate relatives;
5. Act of who acquiring ill-gotten wealth in the total of at
least PHP 50 million through overt or criminal acts which is
known as Plunder punished by Republic Act 7080.

ii. Persons who may be tried at the Sandiganbayan

46

19
 Considering that all the acts tried and decided by Sandiganbayan refer to

those which are done when holding a position in public office, it only follows that the

main actors with whom the court may exercise its jurisdiction are public officers or

officials. The term “public officers”, however, is defined by the three different laws

mentioned above: RA 3019 or Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act 47, the Revised

Penal Code, and RA 671348.

Under RA 3019, public officers are those which includes elective and

appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the

classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, even nominal,

from the government as defined in the preceding subparagraph. Government

includes the national government, the local governments, the government-owned

and government-controlled corporations, and all other instrumentalities or agencies

of the Republic of the Philippines and their branches 49.

The Revised Penal Code defines “public officer” as any person who, by direct

provision of law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take

part in the performance of public functions in the government of the Philippine

Islands, or shall perform in said government or in any of its branches public duties as

an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class 50.

47

48

49

50

20
 RA 6713 defines “public officers” as including elective and appointive officials

and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the career or non-career

service, including military and police personnel, whether or not they receive

compensation, regardless of amount51.

iii. The Amendment of Section 4, PD 1606: when

referred to regular trial courts

The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is originally provided by Section 4 of

Presidential Decree No. 160652. Said decree is issued by then President Marcos in

order to revise PD 148653 – the decree which created Sandiganbayan. The first law

amending the court’s jurisdiction is Republic Act 8249 54. Seven years later, the said

section is amended again by Republic Act No. 10660 55.

Under PD 1606, there is no rule providing which confers the regular courts of

any jurisdiction originally mandated for the Sandiganbayan.

The jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan may be considered to be the most

amended provision from the 1973 Constitution to RA 8249 of 1997 56. In the case of

51

52
Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486 Creating a Special Court to be Known as “Sandiganbayan” and for
Other Purposes
53
Creating a Special Court to be known as "Sandiganbayan" and for other purposes, June 11, 1978
54
An Act further defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, amending for the purpose Presidential Decree
No. 1606, as amended, providing funds therefor, and for other purposes, February 5, 1997
55
An Act Strengthening Further the Functional and Structural Organization of the Sandiganbayan, Further
Amending Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended, And Appropriating Funds Therefor, July 28, 2014
56

21
Inding vs Sandiganbayan57, the application of the special court’s jurisdiction over the

officials that may be tried before it was put into issue.

Petitioner Inding moved to dismiss the case being charged against him and

for the case to be referred with either the Regional Trial Court or the Municipal Trial

Court. The primary basis of such motion is allegedly lack of jurisdiction over him or

the public official being charged. He asserted that under Republic Act No. 7975,

which amended Presidential Decree No. 1606, the Sandiganbayan exercises

original jurisdiction to try cases involving crimes committed by officials of local

government units only if such officials occupy positions with SG 27 or higher, based

on Rep. Act No. 6758, otherwise known as the Compensation and Position

Classification Act of 1989. He contended that under Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as

amended by Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975, the RTC, not the Sandiganbayan, has

original jurisdiction over the crime charged against him.

Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying the petitioners omnibus motion.

According to the court, the Information alleged that the petitioner has a salary grade

of 27. Furthermore, Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975, which amended Section 4 of

P.D. No. 1606, provides that the petitioner, as a member of the Sangguniang

Panlungsod of Dapitan City, has a salary grade of 27.

57
Ricardo S. Inding vs The Honorable Sandiganbayan and The People of the Philippines, G.R. NO. 143047 : July
14, 2004
22
 The petitioner filed a Supplemental Motion to his omnibus motion, citing Rep.

Act No. 8294 and the ruling of this Court in Organo v. Sandiganbayan, where it was

declared that Rep. Act No. 8249, the latest amendment to the law creating the

Sandiganbayan, collated the provisions on the exclusive jurisdiction of the

Sandiganbayan, and that the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as a trial

court was made to depend not on the penalty imposed by law on the crimes and

offenses within its jurisdiction but on the rank and salary grade of accused

government officials and employees.

The main issue raised and resolved in this case is whether the

Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over the petitioner, a member of the

Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dapitan City, who was charged with violation of Section

3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices

Act.

The Court ruled in the affirmative and first discussed the reckoning point in

determining which law shall govern the rule on jurisdiction. The crime charged in this

case was committed when RA 7975 was still the applicable law. The said law

specifically included a list of public officers regardless of their salary grades,

including members of Sangguniang Panglungsod, to be tried originally at the

Sandiganbayan in cases of violation of RA 3019. The Court, in elaborating the

reason behind the said inclusion, cited the sponsorship speech of Senator Raul
23
Roco for Senatorial Bill No. 844 which was adopted and eventually became RA

8249, to wit:

“ To speed up trial in the Sandiganbayan, Republic Act

No. 7975 was enacted for that Court to concentrate on the
larger fish and leave the small fry to the lower courts.This
law became effective on May 6, 1995 and it provided a two-
pronged solution to the clogging of the dockets of that court,
to wit:
It divested the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over
public officials whose salary grades were at Grade 26 or
lower, devolving thereby these cases to the lower courts,
and retaining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan only over
public officials whose salary grades were at Grade 27 or
higher and over other specific public officials holding
important positions in government regardless of salary grade
26.”

The Court further emphasized that said inclusion was deemed appropriate by

the legislature since those public officers enumerated therein are considered by

them as big fish and their positions important.

Composition collegial

Jury decision

Collegial decision

24
 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY OR RESEARCH DESIGN

This part presents the methods of research. It aims to give description to the

data and references, data-gathering techniques, and analytical treatment of data.

A. Methods of Research

The study used descriptive method of research which primarily describes

“what is”. It is fact-finding with adequate interpretation wherein the data collected are

studied from the point of view of its objectives and assumptions in order to determine

the true meaning of the data collected.

This study also adopts the qualitative method or research which involves a

rich collection of data from various sources to gain a deeper understanding of

individual participants, including their opinions, perspectives, and attitudes. This

often involves an inductive exploration of the data to identify recurring themes,

patterns, or concepts and then describing and interpreting those categories. 58

These methods attempt to describe, explain and interpret the procedure of

the Sandiganbayan in its decision-making capacity in relation with the required

quantum of evidence which is proof beyond reasonable doubt. The data gathered

will be used as bases to have an in depth appreciation and analysis of said

58
Nassaji, Hossein. (2015). Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis. Language
Teaching Research. 19. 129-132. 10.1177/1362168815572747.
25
procedure and quantum of evidence in order to fill in some gaps and to harmonize

each other in compliance with the rights mandated in favor of an accused by the

Constitution and with other legal principles related therewith.

B. Data and Reference Sources

Data and information are gathered and collected from extensive research

of pertinent procedural laws particularly the Rules of Court and the present Revised

Rules of the Sandiganbayan. It also includes certain studies relative to the present

study that were found in books, journals, theses or studies and electronic resources.

It includes Sandiganbayan decisions and resolutions from the year 2009 to year

2019 decided by a special division created under Rule 9, Section 3 of the Revised

Rules of the Sandiganbayan and related jurisprudence from the same period relating

with cases under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and with discussions of proof

beyond reasonable doubt.

C. Collection Techniques

The researcher acquired these sources by visiting libraries of the

university and of other government offices. The researcher tried to locate all the

relevant books, journals including articles posted in internet websites.

Most sources are provided by the official websites of the Sandiganbayan

and of the Supreme Court for the relevant decisions and resolutions.

D. Analytical Treatment of Data

26
 The data gathered by the researcher were sorted and examined according

to their relevance in the subject matter of the study. From these data, researcher

came up with the interpretations backed up by provisions of our laws and existing

jurisprudence. Thereafter, inferences were drawn and connected to one another for

the drawing of truthful conclusions.

27
 CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the data which address the questions posed in Chapter

I with the object of analyzing the rule provided under Rule 9, Section 3 of the

Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan,59 creating a special division consisting of five

(5) justices in deciding a criminal action, whether it is in accordance with the rule of

proof beyond reasonable doubt. As earlier discussed, the natural consequence of

this setup is having a variation and conflicting opinions at the first level of

determination. This study focuses on this implication particularly in having a majority

opinion favoring conviction despite the presence of reasonable doubt found by the

dissenting justices.

I. The rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt as provided by the Rules

of Court and discussed in Court decisions

a. Compliance of the rule in regular trial courts

First, this study deals with the analysis on the determination on when is the

rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt complied with generally by trial courts as

given by the rules and by the pronouncements of the Supreme Court. Rule 133,

Section 2 of the Rules of Court introduces this weight of evidence, to wit:

59

28
 Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a
criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal,
unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof
beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree
of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute
certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that degree
of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced
mind.

This provision may be break down into the following statements: that an

accused is entitled to an acquittal unless his guilt is proven beyond reasonable

doubt; and that reasonable doubt does not imply the presence of absolute certainty

but only requires moral certainty in an unprejudiced mind.

The following elements, in order to justify that the proof is beyond reasonable

doubt, may also be derived from the above-mentioned provision: that there be proof

or evidence; that the totality of such is in such degree as would produce moral

certainty to an unprejudiced mind; and such moral certainty is inclined to the guilt of

the accused. If one of these elements is not present, it can be said that there is

presence of reasonable doubt and therefore the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

What is only needed therefore in deciding criminal cases, at the same time to

say that a conviction is based on proof beyond reasonable doubt, is that the totality

of the proof or evidence admitted by the court will give moral certainty. When

admitted, it presupposes compliance with the Rules of Evidence with regard the

29
rules of admissibility and competency, unless such is waived for failure to raise a

proper objection60.

The rule also mentioned that proof beyond reasonable doubt refers to such

degree that would produce conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The rule is silent,

however, on how such degree is measured – how to determine that it has reached

such extent that would induce an unprejudiced mind. It only implies that it depends

on a case-to-case basis. In order to ease the burden in determining the guilt, the

elements of the crimes and the exact prohibited acts are provided by the Revised

Penal Code and expressly, by the various special penal laws. As such, the

admissibility and consequently the guilt are determined by depending on these

elements provided by the Code or the penal laws. As the Court has pronounced,

“The determination of the guilt of an accused hinges on how a court appreciates

evidentiary matters in relation to the requisites of an offense. Determination of guilt

is, thus, a fundamentally factual issue. 61” The principles serving as guidelines in

determining an accused’ guilt are given by the Court and in Guilbemer Franco vs

People62, it discussed that:

“It must be emphasized that "[c]ourts must judge

the guilt or innocence of the accused based on facts and
not on mere conjectures, presumptions, or suspicions." …
the Court has, time and again, declared that if the
60

61
People of the Philippines vs Willington Rodriguez y Hermosa, G.R. No.211721, September 20, 2017
62

30
 inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or
more interpretations, one of which being consistent with
the innocence of the accused and the other or others
consistent with his guilt, then the evidence in view of the
constitutional presumption of innocence has not fulfilled
the test of moral certainty and is thus insufficient to
support a conviction.”

Concisely, moral certainty is based on the evidence submitted to the court

and appreciated by the Court. The determination on when such certainty, as to

produce conviction, may be obtained solely depends wholly in the totality of those

evidence and facts surrounding the case. Noteworthy is that the Court also included

above the Equipoise Rule. With this rule, as indicated above, if the evidence

admitted are so balanced as to have two or more interpretations – one for innocence

and one for guilt – it is considered equal to reasonable doubt and shall result to

acquittal63. The inclusion of this rule and other rules like “in dubio pro reo”64 implies

that these rules are also required to be observed and considered in the appreciation

of evidence and the facts surrounding the case, consequently on whether there will

be moral certainty as to warrant conviction.

On the other hand, what does the law then mean when it mentions of

“unprejudiced mind”? In the case of People vs Rodriguez65, the Court laid the

following discussion:

63

64

65
Ibid
31
 “… In other words, the conscience must be satisfied that
the accused is responsible for the offense charged.
Reasonable doubt does not refer to any doubt or a mere
possible doubt … It is that state of the case which, after a
comparison of all the evidence, does not lead the judge
to have in his mind a moral certainty of the truth of the
charge...”

In addition and in connection therewith, the Court discussed in the case of People vs

Mahinay66 that:

“It is that state of the case which, after the entire

comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves
the minds of jurors in such a condition that they cannot
say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty,
of the truth of the charge… a certainty that convinces and
directs the understanding and satisfies the reason and
judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously
upon it.”

From the foregoing, it implies that when the law mentions unprejudiced mind, it

refers to the conscience or the mind of the judge, the reason and understanding of

those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it – referring also to judges trying

and hearing the criminal case.

From the foregoing, it may be derived that the second and third sentence of

Rule 133, section 2 of the Rules of Court may be interpreted as to mean that proof

beyond reasonable doubt does not need absolute certainty but only such degree of

admitted proof or evidence as to lead the mind and conscience of the judge to

convict the person charged of an offense.

66

32
 b. Compliance with the rule in consideration of the “special” nature
of the Sandiganbayan

Having settled on how shall proof beyond reasonable doubt is complied and

manifested generally in trial courts, in accordance with the rules and jurisprudence,

the question will now be as regards how it should be manifested in special courts

particularly the Sandiganbayan.

The fact is settled that the Sandiganbayan is a special 67 trial court68 exercising

original and exclusive jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases arising from graft and

corrupt practices69 of certain public officers70. In order to meet the particularities of its

special jurisdiction, it is authorized by law 71 to promulgate its own rules to govern its

procedures in handling such cases as well as for its internal operations. This

authority is conferred as follows:

Section 9. Rule-making Power. The Sandiganbayan

shall have the power to promulgate its own rules of
procedure and, pending such promulgation, the Rules of
Court shall govern its proceedings.

Section 10. Authority over internal affairs. The

Sandiganbayan shall administer its own internal affairs and
may adopt such rules governing the constitution of its

67
R.A. No. 8249 (An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan) classifies the Sandiganbayan as
"[A] special court, of the same level as the Court of Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a court
of justice … x x x (Section 1)."
68
R. A. No. 8249, Section 2, empowers the Sandiganbayan to "hold sessions x x x for the trial and
determination of cases filed with it.
69

70

71

33
 divisions, the allocation of cases among them, the rotation of
justices and other matters relating to its business.

This authority was amended by Section 4 of RA 7975 72 which rule still

presently stands. The amendment provides that:

Section 4. Section 9 of the same Decree is hereby

amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 9. Rules of Procedure. - The Rules of Court
promulgated by the Supreme Court shall apply to all cases
and proceedings filed with the Sandiganbayan. The
Sandiganbayan shall have no power to promulgate its own
rules of procedure, except to adopt internal rules governing
the allotment of cases among the divisions, the rotation of
justices among them, and other matters relating to the
internal operations of the court which shall be inforced until
repealed or modified by the Supreme Court."

A reading of the foregoing provisions shows that Sandiganbayan was

originally authorized to promulgate its own rules of procedure, apart from the rules

intended for its internal affairs. The amendment, however, divested such authority

from the Sandiganbayan. As such, the Sandiganbayan does not have the authority

to promulgate its own rules of procedure like its own rules on the admissibility and

competency of evidence that may be submitted to them. In this regard, it is similar

with regular trial courts as it shall follow the Rules of Evidence provided by the Rules

of Court and is consequently bound to comply with the rule of proof beyond

reasonable doubt in deciding criminal cases. This implies that the elements of this

72

34
rule as discussed earlier may also be used to determine how should said rule be

manifested as to prove a person’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

As mentioned there should be proof or evidence submitted and admitted by

the Court in accordance with the Rules of Evidence – admissible and competent.

The courts in appreciating said evidence should consider them together with all the

factual circumstances surrounding such case and the principles provided by the

Court.

Next thing to consider is that the totality of evidence admitted shall produce a

moral certainty to an unprejudiced mind and as discussed above, the latter refers to

the conscience and mind of the judge trying the case. The Sandiganbayan, in

contrast to regular trial courts where decisions are made by one judge, is a collegial

body comprised of divisions, generally consisting of three members each 73. How

does this collegial nature of Sandiganbayan fair and meet the definition of

unprejudiced mind?

Referring back from how unprejudiced mind is defined, it refers to the

conscience or the mind of the judge, the reason and understanding of those who are

bound to act conscientiously upon it – referring also to judges trying and hearing the

criminal case. What may be noticed in this pronouncement is that it refers to the

reason and understanding of those bound to act upon the case. There is no rule as

73
Section 1, Republic Act No. 10660, July 28, 2014 amending Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1606
35
limiting the number of minds to determine and to appreciate the submitted evidence

of a certain case. As such, having three judges sitting in court to try a case does not

defy the rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt when it mentions “unprejudiced

mind”.

In addition, this collegial nature of the Sandiganbayan is mentioned in the

landmark case of Nunez vs Sandiganbayan74. In this case, the Court resolved the

raised allegations of unconstitutionality regarding, PD 1606, the law which created

the Sandiganbayan. The Court, speaking through Justice Fernando said: “the

Constitution specifically makes mention of the creation of a special court, the

Sandiganbayan precisely in response to a problem, the urgency of which cannot be

denied, namely, dishonesty in the public service”. Justice Barredo, in his concurring

opinion, discussed the essence of the collegial nature of the Sandiganbayan, to wit:

“… the accused has a better guarantee of a real and

full consideration of the evidence and the determination of
the facts where there are three judges actually seeing and
observing the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses. It is
Our constant jurisprudence that the appellate courts should
rely on the evaluation of the evidence by the trial judges,
except in cases where pivotal points are shown to have been
overlooked by them. With more reason should this rule apply
to the review of the decision of a collegiate trial court. xxx”

To reiterate, Sandiganbayan is a special court particularly exercising

jurisdiction over criminal offenses of public officers the urgency to be met by its
74

36
justices is the implications of dishonesty in the public service. In this regard, the

Sandiganbayan, in deciding through a collegial body is justified to have a better

guarantee of a real and full consideration of the evidence and the determination of

the facts in the presence of three judges actually seeing and observing the

demeanor and conduct of the witnesses. This is also to make sure that the

evaluation of evidence will be appropriate and sufficient enough to be relied upon by

the Supreme Courts in case the accused, convicted in the Sandiganbayan, will

resort to an appeal. This is in consideration of the rule providing that the only

available appeal under the Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan shall only be in

accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court raising only pure questions of law.

II. The Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan and the rule of proof
beyond reasonable doubt

The rule of proving a person’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt is grounded

on the right of an accused to be presumed innocent mandated by the Constitution.

Corollary, this shall be included in the rules that governs the Sandiganbayan and

shall be manifested and showed in its proceedings.

The preceding discussion showed the justification of the collegial nature in

the conduct of deciding cases at the Sandiganbayan. But as initially introduced, a

unanimous decision cannot always be resorted to. In such case, the Internal Rules

provides:
37
 “Sec. 2. Votes Required to Decide. – The unanimous
vote of three (3) justices in a decision shall be necessary for
the rendition of a judgment or final order. In the event a
unanimous vote is not obtained, the Presiding Justice shall
designate by raffle, on rotation basis, two (2) Justices from
all the other members of the Sandiganbayan to sit
temporarily with them forming a Special Division of five (5)
Justices, and the vote of a majority of such Special Division
shall be necessary for the rendition of a judgment or final
order.”

This rule effectively provides a remedy to address the mentioned situation.

Two additional justices will be chosen by draw lots to sit with them and only a

majority vote is required to have a decision. As primarily discussed and opined, this

naturally results to a variation of opinions, which are often contradicting – majority for

conviction, minority for acquittal or the reverse. This is a natural consequence in a

collegial body consisting of persons with different perspective and understanding

and is also observed in other higher courts also deciding through a collegial body.

However, it must be emphasized that the Sandiganbayan, in cases where it

exercises exclusive and original jurisdiction, serves as the first level court, a trial

court having the advantage of observing the demeanor of the parties during the

trial75 compared to the higher courts which generally only refer with the factual

findings of the former.

One case decided by the Sandiganbayan, which applied the abovementioned

rule, is the case of Entienza vs Sandiganbayan.76 In this case, the accused was
75

76

38
charged and convicted for Falsification of Public Document penalized under

paragraph 4, Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Entienza was, at the

time of the commission of the crime, the incumbent Municipal Mayor of Calauag,

Quezon. The charge against him sprung from the complaint of one Adriano Marana

who claimed of having been given of a falsified document – a certification of

employment stating that a certain Annaliza De Torres Prudente is a municipal

employee when in fact, after careful scrutiny of Marana, is not. Prudente happens to

be the former live-in partner of Mayor Entienza with whom he had two (2) children.

The said certification was allegedly signed and issued by the accused as testified in

court by Marana and through a video recording by Prudente. The signature was

allegedly that of the accused as testified by one Alpuerto who worked in accused’

office during the period of 2002-2006.

To analyze this case, the elements earlier provided maybe resorted upon.

First, are the evidence in the case admitted by the court all admissible? As

mentioned by Justice Martires in his dissenting opinion, the Certificate of

Employment was not offered in accordance with Section 21, Rule 132 of the Rules

of Court. The video recordings of Prudente, testifying as regards the reason why the

Certificate was allegedly issued, were not testified and authenticated in court since

Prudente was not presented as witness.

39
 The second consideration is whether the totality of evidence presented

produces a moral certainty favoring conviction to an unprejudiced mind. The

ponencia was favored by three (3) of the five (5) justices present in the proceedings.

The former concurred for conviction ruling that all the elements of falsification of a

public document are all present and conviction was determined as follows:

a. The Certificate of Employment is a public document as defined

under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court and with

reference to Black’s Law Dictionary;

b. It was issued by Entienza, the incumbent Mayor then and

authorized to issue such Certification. This determination is after

the failure of Entienza to prove his allegation that his signature was

forged; and

c. The facts stated therein are all false as proven by the testimony of

the HR representative.

Justice Martires, in his dissenting opinion, countered the foregoing bases as

follows:

a. The Certificate of Employment was not offered in accordance with

the provision of the Rules of Court – there is no public record and

no corroboration from a legal custodian. Moreover, the municipal

administrator, in charge with all the documents that shall bear the
40
 signature of the accused, testified that the document does not bear

her initials which means, as per standard office procedures, it did

not come from their office or was not issued by the accused;

b. The document came into the possession of Marana in a very

irregular and unverifiable way77 and this was testified by him but

was not corroborated;

It is noticed from the foregoing that the major point is the public document

subject of the case which refers to the Certificate of Employment. As pointed by

Associate Justice Samuel Martires78, though the document in question squarely fits

the definition of public document as provided under Section 19, Rule 132 of the

Rules of Court and Black’s Law Dictionary (cited in the decision), it shall still be

offered in accordance with the manner provided under Section 24, Rule 132 of the

Rules79 which the prosecution failed to comply with. The case now lacks a proof of

official record signifying that the document was issued in an official capacity. As

such, the certification cannot be considered as a public document and assuming that

the signature thereon is that of the accused, the first element is still not present

considering that the document is not a public document or at the very least, is not

intended to serve as such. Another point noted by Justice Martires is the manner on

77

78

79

41
how Marana obtained such document. According to the case, it was merely handed

to him by an unknown person when he was about to leave the office 80 of the

accused and without actually witnessing the signing of such. Alpuerto merely said

that it was given to her by Prudente for safekeeping but she did not, likewise,

witnessed the signing of the document.

A reading of the decision shows that the main basis of Entienza’s conviction

is the failure to prove his allegation of forgery considering that once an accused As

pointed by Justice Martires, the issue is not whether the Office of the Mayor is

authorized to issue such certificate but is whether the document is really issued by

the accused81 as to consider it as a public document. Failing to address this issue

and the fact that no one among the prosecution witnesses saw the accused signing

the subject document amounts to a reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused.

Noteworthy is that this dissent is not discussed nor mentioned in the ponencia in

order to compare the contradicting appreciation of facts and evidence.

Another case worthy of being cited in this study is the case of Republic vs

Dumaluan82. In this case, Doloreich Dumaluan was the incumbent Mayor of Panglao,

Bohol during the period of the commission of the crime. The case involves an

alleged violation of Section3(f) of Republic Act 3019. As found by the court, Bohol

80
Facts decision
81
Dissent
82

42
Resort and Development Incorporation (BRDI) was applying for a building permit for

the construction of additional establishments within its property, Bohol Beach Club.

One of the requirements to obtain such permit is the locational clearance allegedly

being issued by the accused Dumaluan. Lagumbay, BBC’s officer in charge with

transactions relating with real estates, went to the accused three times regarding the

clearance application. First, he was told by the accused that the latter will first check

the area. After this meeting Dumaluan ordered one of the defense witness to

checked the area being applied for and it was then that he knew that it was the lot he

has a claim. On the second meeting, the accused told him that the latter has an

adverse claim over the lot upon where the establishments are to be constructed and

the same scenario happened on the third time. The accused has a pending case

against BBC, PENRO and the Register of Deeds of the Province of Bohol regarding

the ownership of the subject lot. The locational clearance was already drafted in May

2005 by the Municipal Engineering, even before the completion of the requirements

in September 2005. However, it was only issued in December 2005 when the

accused was suspended and the Vice Mayor, holding office that time, was the one

who attested such.

Dumaluan’s conviction was based by majority of the justices on the following:

a. The elements for violation of Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019

are present:
43
 i. Evidence provided that the accused is a public officer; that in

the mind of the majority of justices, there is no sufficient

justification as regards the refusal of the accused to do what

was demanded or requested from him to be done; that

reasonable time has lapsed from the demand; and the

refusal was for obtaining from a person interested as to such

any pecuniary or material benefit

b. The pending civil case filed by the accused against BBC, PENRO

and the Register of Deeds did not amount to sufficient justification –

included in the submitted requirements of BBC is the Torrens title

over the subject property of the case. The court followed the

principle of indefeasibility of the title unless nullified by the court

and further stated that and adverse claim cannot negate the legal

effects of such title.

Two justices dissented the ponencia, namely Justice Musngi and Justice

Samuel Martires. Justice Martires shared his opinion and contrary perception as

follows:

a. There is sufficient justification for the refusal of Dumaluan for the

right to acquire and own a property is a right not prohibited by the

Constitution
44
 b. Such right is not lost by assuming public office and property rights

of a public official been subservient to that of a private individual for

that will be tantamount to a punishment of public office

c. The Local Government Code is silent as to who shall issue

locational clearance or certifications. It only mentions the duty of

the Mayor to direct the formulation of the municipal development

plan; and

d. According to existing laws particularly related in issuing locational

clearances, the mayor does not have authority to issue such

contrary to what was claimed prosecutor witness Asilo.

The decision of conviction is focally based on the reason that majority

concurred that there is no sufficient justification for the refusal issuing the locational

clearance or certification. On the issue of authority, the court based its discussion on

the testimonies of prosecutor witness Asilo. In deciding the issue as regards the

adverse claim of Dumaluan over the subject lot, the court maintained that

considering that a Torrens title in the name of BBC covers the subject lot, it is

indefeasible. As such, relying solely on the indefeasibility of said title, in the minds of

majority of the justices, it is just right to issue the locational clearance or certification.

45