ANNOTATED pepoRTS ouRT EO = ee a “anetonnieane® Fei cs ay _ May 12, 2000. itioner, us. SANDIG, tA, petitioner, US. ANG np BAUTS Ce eICE OF THE OMBUDSMay FRANK od Divi LIPPINES, respondents. oF T ae i Investigations: While re | preliminary Criminal Proce Or ined from anonymous. letters it even row inl mation vestigation, the stage of the preliming and ify the initiation of a sspondent can be required to submit hj, oe jon where nae documents to explain, under oath, cay pits ond other te, derived from submitted affidavits held only 7 Se erg witnesses, shall have been duly gath, from the corplainant 2 jgsue has long been laid to.rest in Oliva ae eon iplained that while reports and even raw informa, fi Fon anonymous letters may justify the initiation of an tion iio, this stage ofthe preliminary investigation can be held ioiyaftersulicient evidence, derived from submitted affidavits from the complainants and his witnesses, shall have been duly gathered and evaluated, and only thereafter can the réspondent be required to submit his affidavits and other documents to explain, also under cath, Itis from such affidavits and counter-affidavits that the Om. budsman can determine whether there is a probable cause for bringing the case to court, ae submission of his own Iminary investigati, fore the tigation had ended and was assailed therein was the Chapctitioner Olivas to file his aie against him, he having aie rainet accompanied by a single oe dated by law; while in the i already filed his counter- an compellin, isWer to the 1BVOL. 332, May 12, 2000 127 Bauti eee utista us. Sandiganbayan fi fore tt failure to require the buen and only questioned the latter's submission of his own eon anints to submit affidavits prior to the tigation had ended inter-affidavit after the preliminary inves- ts his counter-affidavit. fe wore Tespondent can be obliged to submit submission of His eeaseerneat atl eaderic in Tight of Bautist's ants’ affidavits, ‘affidavit despite absence of the complain- Same; Same; of the Onbndtannctorr be submitted himself to the jurisdiction preliminary investigation was ed the proceedings to go on until the at the Sandiganbayan is dee mien ote and the Information filed indy SUCRE Re alee whatever right he bce eee ae eh the preliminary Sandigunbayentatsenttleee riminal Case No. 24276 before the fesibereen satieneen aes the letter allegedly sent by the Con- eae jas ao del Sur and the Good Government ployees of Davao del Sur addressed to the Office of the Ombuds- man for Mindanao: It may be true that GIO II Arancon in his Order of 16 January 1997 directed herein petitioner to submit his counter- affidavit thereto without requiring the complainants to submit theirs which were significantly necessary because of the unverified, unsigned and anonymous’ nature of their letter. Hewever, despite the Ombudsman’s noncompliance with the affidavit requirement, petitioner filed his counter-affidavit on 26 February 1997 and an- ewered the charges against him. Hence, having submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and having allowed the pro; ceedings to go on until the preliminary investigation was terminated and the Information filed at. the Sandiganbayan, petitioner is deemed to have waived whatever Fight he may otherwise have to assail the manner in which the preliminary investigation was con- ducted, Consequently, petitioner is, likewise estopped from ques- tioning the validity of the Information filed before the Sandigan- bayan. 8 STE d Corrupt Practices Act; Violation tr 1; The use of the dis- g any undue injury 1 “by giving any private e” connotes that “or as two, bul, = oe bate ee ! iffe constita ner mode O one OS ee ag the ba cach ane ey provides wg any undue injury to be , by wing any private party i discharge of y Pee in the rg ing Svante OF ee ‘erm vor” connotes: that bene eg of the aS 3, ._(e), or a8 aptly held cc. 3 Remmitting the offense. ‘ode constitutes & distinct i st og 8 ‘charged under either at an Jements of Sec. 3 (e) of ‘2 public officer; (b) the officer's official, adminis- through manifest and, (@) nts —The ¢! Some; RA, 9019 are as follows: she public | Een dike er one ‘ trative or j ith or gross inexcusable negligence; : ‘any party, including wate party any unwarranted bene- partiality, evident if the public officer caus! , the Government, or gave any Pr" fits, advantage or preference. ‘same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; The term “private party" or ‘private person” may be used to refer'to persons other than those holding public office; Where a public officer is charged of hav- ing appointed casual employees in violation of rules thereby giving them: unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference, the reckoning tie the casual employees’ incumbency when they were Sate Pes eee finds exception in the term BPs teiete eicaie par. (e), of RA 3019, as amended, mean nee leged to have been appointed by him private partes since they eel benefits could not qualify as ernenpaton of Se, 2 actuality public officers within the ilnabank Employer oon, Of RA 8019, a eal pike rployees ath 19, as amended. Citing as ve that the a ce a i Auditor General, petitioner one tats functions, are ae ernment corporation, regard- on ee employees and, there- idea bec eo as such, one of the warranting fee feat (2 oF RA 8018, tY” or “pnt the dismissal of the Infor- ed any undue injury to Person” may be used torefer to Pei Petitioner jg oS oth 129 : chargeq’s than Rinety-two (199) 84 with c, M90 hota, i Eicon til ont ct PN i Hoa SF aunicality, The Wren tae’ the consequeny neutered se ina Th en omen ea thoir current pagt eh they welt Prod iy hugene ga der und ot wan sitions do ny ie Private individuals, and hone, © sulficieney of the Informa, PETITION for rey; fanbayan, They ere OFari of a decisi » Third Diviers @ decision of the Sandi- The facts Fe stated in mn. the opinion of th C Cesar M. Dureza for ae, Petitioner, The Solicitor Generat for respondents BELLOSILLO, J; _ This petition Seeks to set aside the 13 March 1998 Resolu- tion of the Sandiganbayan‘ denying petitioner's Motion to Quash Crim. Case No. 24276 and its 9 October 1998 Resolu- tion denying reconsideration. The petition also prays for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction aes semapeety training order to restrain and enjoin public respondents prt areal in any manner with Crim, Case No. 24276 urin; f the petition. : ee ae ee and unsigned letter-complaint nymous, d a 20 ‘November 1996 allegedly prepared By ee, i iation of Davao del Sur and the Goot Bie Ba ree of Davao del Sur initiated Cale mplo; ‘Third Divisi ‘and Justice German G. tro as Members. : Be pvc listed inthe let pa ae Field Personnel, Provinci 7 jeld incial Auditor's Fiel nel), eta of Davao del Sur,ANNOTATED 30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS * Pautista vs. Sandiganbayan ddsman for Mindanao chargis Hithithe O Sen incumbent mayor of the ane petitioner Franklin ao del Sur, for violation of See. 3, par Hitipality Of Malte rendéd, otherwise Knowl ais'the her (0) Gt A oie ot Practices Act.” Tho’ lotter-complatie ie Ca te ee ane that palluloney edtised the hiring of ong Bava cite (19H) casual employees in the im” Serie fe sentient: ibe polideal considerations and sie ie ei Hn etett nd, aslacicn yng, chaser i peace Sitnioe fund despite meager savings of the munic;. ae on the letter-complaint, Graft Investigation Officer (C10 1D Corazon A. Arancon issued on 16 January 1997 an Order directing respondent Franklin P. Bautista, petitioner herein, to submit his counter-affidavit.” In his counter- affidavit of 26 February 1997 petitioner, answering the charges against him, claimed that the complaint, which was unsigned, was fictitious and fabricated as shown by the affi- davits of Enrique Ponce De Leon, President of the Contrac- tor's Association of Davao del Sur;* Rogelio E: anos, Gover- nor for Davao del Sur;’ Eduardo M. Masiwel, Vice Mayor of Malita, Davao del Sur;* Engineer Antonio P. Cayoea, Depart- eee Malita Tréasurer/Accounting Personnel, and the Sangguni Bayan of Malita. has ous Dp. 25. unsigned letter of the following 5 ‘MIN-96-180 in the Office of the OMB.-3-96-2900 in the Office181 id Hj, Ae; Qnd District, Davaa del ae rovincial Treastirer of ing erein ‘an and Felipe D. Macali. filing. He furthe, institution op iched, which ise Aiiedtane ninety-two 199)" ed that hae pomplaint Nor cause of ite and Wages did nog justi, Othe payant Of the one hundred After due ate ify the fing ofa art their honoraria dated 27 May 1997 gta, Glo 7 yi i a against him. Sec. 3, par. (@), of RAD a ba gan i 2 lis Resolution and forwarded the 3019, se for violation of . "» 88 amended. i resolu » against petitione: On 3 October 1997 tion to the udsman We applovi tion. There: the Ombuds; man approved the resolu- after, : (©), of RA 3019 lea Information for Violation of Sec. 3, par. fore the Sandiganbayan, i¢cs "3 filed against petitioner er which read—_ MMs docketed is Crim. Case No. 24276," That sometime j f 6 nicipality of Malita, Davao at Sen tite prior therts, in the Mu: thi Honorable (Court) the'absvenanied tomate rmtition of public officer, being the Mayor, Municipality:of Mali Davai Sur, while in the performance of his oficial functinns ne ot lunetions, taking advan: tage of his position and committing the offense in relation to his office, with manifest partiality, did then and there willfully, unlaw fully and criminally caused the hiring of some one hundred ninety. two (192) casual employees in flagrant disregard of Secs. 288 and 289 of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual (GAAM), the honoraria and salaries of whom were eats to the ee = order fund and to the project component and other services activi fund, respectively and which represented 72.5% ofthe total person nel services expenditures, thereby giving unvarran ,1p COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED {UPREM. 132 § - Bautista vs. Sandiganbayan he said casuals, causing undue injury a] ind preference to t hi iors Foality of alia. 1997 petitioner filed a Motion 10 Quash Pad See ed on the ground that the acts charge the Inforahot constitute the offense indicated in Sec, 3, par ior 9019, as amended, and-that, more than one (1) of. i fe), of PA charged in the Information, After the filing of thc ii jenweition, the Sandiganbayan denied on 13 March 1998 ihe | Motion to Quash stating that all essential elements of the a charged were sufficiently alleged in, the Information which charged only one offense. On 13 April 1998 petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but on 9 October 1998 hig motion was denied. | j! Meee. assails in this petition the denial of his Motion to ro? Quash despite failure of the Ombudsman to properly establish a cause of action. H6 asserts that there was no legal basis for | the Ombudsman to conduct a preliminary investigation in Case No. CPL-MIN-96-180, much less file the Information in y Crim. Case No. 24276, as the Ombudsman failed to direct the complainants to reduce their evidence into affidavits before } requiring him to submit his counter-affidavit. Petitioner in- » vokes Sec. 4, Rule II, of the Rules of Procedure of the Om- { budsman which requires that for Purposes of conducting a a ling one ‘the Turiediedon preliminary investigation of cases of the Sandi renal Courts shall be conducted in teen teanbayan and Regional 2 of the Rul ean in the manner prescribed in Sec. 3, tie Court, subject to the following provisions: athe Under oath or is based only on official ering Officer shall require the comelainant of afte affidavits to substantiate the com- 85Ue an ori na¥e been secured. The investigat- supponget’® Sttaching thereto a copy of the aff Porting documents, direct the respondent toVOL, 3g | 82, May 1 2, 2000 133 8. Sand; should have first. requ, “Banbayan Davao del Sur ang the Gara the Contra del Sur to subm; Gor ctor’s Association of oad reoponden tet 4 eer Employees of Davao * Submit }: Ndavits before iris since the letter-complainy |! unter-affidavit opectal’y hence, there WAS NO Valid cause or «infigned and. unverified; Petitioner cites Orig f action against petitioner. the Court declared tastes mae of the Ombudsman" where liminary investigation of cases an investigation, this stage of the preliminary i pag ry investigation can be held only after sufficient evidence, derived from sub- mitted affidavits from the complainants and his witnesses, shall have been duly gathered and evaluated, and only there- after can the respondent be required to submit his affidavits and other documents to explain, also under oath.” It is from such affidavits and counter-affidavits that the Ombudsman can determine whether there’is a probable cause for bringing the case to court. eR RYH despite its wisdom, we must rule that the princi- Hore er er rer CINUPRMURcariig ihe ianane nee: ple enunciated in is he . vt rein was the order of the Om- tion. What was assailed therein wa : ~ « petitioner Olivas to file his counter budsman compelling ee charges against him, he having affidavit in answer to “was not accompanied by a refused to do so sinc nants as mandated by law;is couRT REPORTS ANNOTATED IM! 4 SUPRE) * jsta vs. Sandiganbayan se had ah itioner Bautista had alread; case Pee the’ Omibudemanind onfy filed his counter ofa are to require the complainants to estioned the latter's to the submission of his own counter- submit affidavits Pie inary investigation had ended and an affidavit after the FY" Gled before the Sandiganbayan. The Information already uiring the complainants to submit their iaaue therefore of rear ident can be obliged to submit hie affidavits befor? vmoot and academic in light of Bautista’s Couera ‘of his counter-affidavit despite absence of the complainants’ affidavits. Criminal Case No. 24276 before the Sandiganbayan stemmed from the letter allegedly sent by the Contractors’ Association of Davao del Sur and the Good Government: Em- ployees of Davao del Sur addressed to the Office of the Om- budsman for Mindanao. It may be true that GIO IT Arancon in his Order of 16 January 1997 directed herein petitioner to submit his counter-affidavit thereto without requiring the complainants to submit theirs which were significantly neces- sary because of the unverified, unsigned and anonymous nature of their letter. However, despite the Ombudsman’s oneompliance with the affidavit requirement, petitioner filed his counter-affidavit on 26 February 1997 and answered the charges against him. Hence, having submitted himself to the Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and having allowed the pro- ceedings to go on until the Preliminary investigation was terminated and the Information filed at the Sandiganbayan, B ner ie deemed to have waived whatever right he may alee on te assail the manner in which the preliminary wise estomned fe usenducted, Consequently, petitioner. is like- tion filed beto ‘uestioning the validity of the Informa- Dane. re the Sandiganbayan, while in the instan t least two (2) offenses charged—the ee advantage and preference to eae causing undue injury to itioner invokes Santiago v.135, : where afiviolaling Sees aipgat theta undue injury to any pase) ofa se by giving any private ge; iehiaing® bases PE ‘and an on un tutes two distinct ch, he rate informations, ""*hses 1 idee aa indeed, 'Sec.°3) nar, ©), Ra one of its elemen that the pao tt amended, provides as Eenheer undue injury to nie have acted by ment, or by giving any private m including the govern- advantage or Preference in the ui nwarranted benefits, The use of the disjunctive fare iselitrge of his functions. qualifies as q Violation of Sec, 3, ee that either act Santiago, as two (2) differen: fense. This does not however tutes a distinct offense, but charged under either mode or under both. the minute resolution in Uy v. Sandiganbayan" and started that the “act of giving any private party any unwarrant a benefit, advantage or preference” is nts om gedisveneable element of the offense of “causing any a he at Party,” although there maybe instances136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Bautista vs. Sandiganbayan in Pareto v. Sandiganbayan" the information i ocae giaoblloanitiera aviehenelinte and unlawfully | causing undue injury to the Government and giving unwar. ranted benefits to Tanduay Distillery, Ine,” by failing to verity and act on the validity and/or veracity of the claim for tax | credit filed by the corporation before the BIR. iY In Pilapil v. Sandigandayan* petitioner Pilapil was only on charged with having “willfully caused undue injury to the | Municipality of Tigaon, Camarines Sur, when he failed tg | deliver the ambulance received by him on behalf of the my. nicipality in a Deed of Donation executed by the Philippine i Charity Sweepstakes Office in its favor, to the prejudice and ve damage of the municipal government,” Likewise, in Diaz v, Sandiganbayan” the PUGG Cominis: | y sioners as public officers were charged only with having given 7 Enrique Razon, Jr. a stockholder or officer of the sequestered | corporation Metro Port, unwarranted benefits andior adven: b tage by the approval of his loan application for P5,000,000.00 | belonging to the same sequestered corporation. By analogy, Gallego v. Sandiganbayan* finds application in the instant case. There, Petitioners claimed that the Informa- tion charged the accused with three (3) distinct offenses, to ’ Wit: (a) the giving of “unwarranted” benefits through manifest i partiality; (b) arranted” benefits through administrative functions; and of the Information. The Sandi- on to quash and held that the eI ” and “gross different, modes (e), of RA 3019,Vor “8 3 Sh MAY 22; 2900 uti as amended, eoujq — Sandiganbayan phranes Jn the same Infg'tted, and thy nthe «nareed three (3) qieti™ did not mean that the we In the instant gage, a Ustinet offence” that the in- ah BS: tH Tito ttiatdon eer, against petitioner read 137 xXx unlawful}, i mended sna al 2 ly F oa an sno caused the hiring of some one Mployees in flagrant disregard of v Manual (GAAM), the honoraria ment Accounting and Auditing ind salaries of whem were charged to the peace and order " ¢ fund and to i lures, thereby giving alte nce to the said casuals, causing undue injury to the Municipality of Malita, The use of Pree either be itarpeted a naar anu, tric in addon tothe ging of unease on and preference to the casuals, or as a consequence of the octee giving unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference. Spe- cifically, for hiring some one hundred and ninety-two (192) casuals and the charging of their honoraria and salaries to the peace and order fund, petitioner gave them unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference and caused undue injury to the Municipality of Malita; or thereby caused undue injury to the Municipality of Malita. In either case, the Information will not suffer any defect, as it is clear that petitioner is ch: with violation of Sec. 3, par. (e), of RA 3019, as cael with either mode of commission obtaining or with both manners of violation concurring; , jon in the term “private Finally, petitioner finds CRA Baier granaeeiacd : fe + eo jave been appointed by him ‘could not qualify public officers 3019, as v, Audi-138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Bautista vs. Sandiganbayan * petiti ints out that “the employees of ome Sesh) arabe of the latter's fiatisen, Severe rament employees and, thereforey);they.) are:»not ere: Tea) or entity’”; and as such, one of the elements edie the offense under Sec. 3, par: (e), of RA 3019, as amended, is missing thus warranting the dismissal of the Information. ‘The term “private party” or “private. person” may be used to refer to persons other than those holding public office." How- ever, petitioner is charged with causing the hiring of some one hundred ninety-two (192) casual employees, and the conse- quent awarding of their honoraria and salaries taken from the peace and order fund of the municipality. The reckoning period is before the casual employees’ incumbency when they were still private individuals, and hence, their current posi- tions do not affect the sufficiency of the Information. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Resolution of the Sandiganbayan of 13 March 1998 denying petitioner Franklin P. Bautista’s Motion: to Quash in Crim. Case ‘No. 24276 and its Resolution of 9 October 1998 denying reconsid- eration are AFFIRMED, Consequently, public respondents Sandiganbayan (Third Division) and the Office of the: Om- budsman are directed to proceed with the hearing and trial of Crim. Case No. 24276 against petitioner until terminated. SO ORDERED. Mendoza, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur. De Leon, Jr., J., On leave.Vor, 332 Equatorial Realty py May 12, 2009 nd without “elopmeny, Ing, =e = ut any author, — 2 8; Maypii, ority. ‘fair Theater, Inc, due injury to the: jo" city ™ the er 279 SCRA 434 tiogn iment Severamen, causes un. MAES saapena (O07 sl iene ees out prior authority Posing of ¢ an Bayan constitute a violatjs °°, DENI aetied lumber with: a Sandiganba: Nn of S an Sanggurii Bad rel aU SCRA Sex (iggy TA B01 ti on nite on the f make him liable for <:23"t of ah ac 3019, as amended the (tien of Station aay ieee No. : fai us. Desierto, 298 SCRA 196 (1998) MUSE be “evident.” (Venue +000 G.R. No. 136221, May 12, 20007 EQUATORIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC., petitioner, us. MAYFAIR THEATER, INC., respondent. Judgments; It is a rule that when a judgment becomes final and executory, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable and any amendment or alteration, which: affects @ final and executory judgment, is null and void for lack eh Tae serie. dis entire proceedings held for that,purpose—The Supreme Weur's decision in GR. No, 106063 is clear. Having attained finality, there is nothing left for the parties to do but adhere fe tt eats decision. Tt is a fundamental rule TT stable and unalterable Final and exeeutory, i therehy BEDE: iT Tso fal j ae sd for lack of jurisdiction,