TORRES, REMUEL O.

CRIMLAW2
JD1B CASE DIGESTS

Velasco vs Sandiganbayan,
492 Phil 669, G.R. No. 160991. February 28, 2005.
Justice Callejo Sr.

FACTS
This case is a petition for certiorari seeking for the nullification of the Sandiganbayan
Resolution denying petitioner's Supplemental Motion to Quash the Information.
In 1999, (CSC) issued a Resolution ordering the dismissal of Engr. Emmanuel Agonoy,
Municipal Engineer of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte for gross neglect of duty. Instead of Motion for
Reconsideration at CSC, Agonoy filed for petition for review at the Court of Appeals.
Petitioner Mayor Pacifico C. Velasco of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, allowed Agonoy to report
for work as Municipal Engineer, despite knowledge of the CSC resolution. He issued a
memorandum directing the municipal treasurer to pay Agonoy's salary and other benefits until the
Supreme Court had finally decided the case.
In 2000, CA denied Agonoy's petition for review. His motion for reconsideration was also
denied. He then filed petition for review of the CA decision in the Supreme Court.
Mayor Velasco issued a Memorandum to the Municipal Treasurer directing her to
immediately release Agonoy's salary, Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA) and
other benefits.
SC resolved to deny the petition for review filed by Agonoy. By 2001, Agonoy resigned as
Municipal Engineer.
In 2002, the Vice Mayor of Bacarra, filed a Complaint at the Ombudsman against
petitioner, Agonoy, and the municipal treasurer for violation of Republic Act No. 3019.
Ombudsman found probable cause against petitioner for violation of Section 3(e) of Rep.
Act No. 3019 and filed an Information with the Sandiganbayan. Case against Agonoy was
dismissed since he already resigned, while the municipal treasurer was absolved since she had
merely obeyed the orders of the Mayor.
Petitioner filed a Supplemental Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that it did
not charge the offense of violation of RA3019. He also alleged that 1) he was not bound by the
CSC resolution on dismissal because he was not a party to CSC Case, 2) he did not receive any
directive from the CSC ordering him to implement its resolution, 3) he could not prevent Agonoy
from reporting for work, 4) release of Agonoy's salaries and benefits was because the CSC
resolution was not immediately executory, 5) until final SC decision, he could not be compelled to
implement said CSC resolution.
In 2003, Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying the motion of the petitioner. He filed
a motion for the reconsideration but was denied.

ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not petitioner is guilty of violating RA 3019

HELD:
1. YES. The Court found Velasco guilty of violating RA 3019. The essential elements of
violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019 are as follows:
a. accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official
functions;
 b. must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence;
c. action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave
any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge
of his functions.
Additionally, there are two (2) ways by which a public official violates Section 3(e) of
Rep. Act No. 3019 in the performance of his functions, namely:
a. by causing undue injury to any party, including the Government; or
b. by giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference.
In this case, petitioner was charged of violating Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019
under two alternative modes of committing the crime.
The Court agreed with the findings of Sandiganbayan, in declaring that the Information
filed against the petitioner contained all the essential elements of the crime charged.
Petitioner, as the Municipal Mayor of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, is a public officer mandated to
ensure that all officers, abide by RA 7160 or the Local Government Code which directs
executive officials and employees of the municipality to faithfully discharge their duties.
Petitioner had a duty to enforce decisions or final resolutions, orders or rulings of the CSC.
His refusal to enforce said decisions may result to being cited in contempt of the
Commission.
Contrary to petitioner's contention, it is not necessary that the officer or employee who
willfully refuses to implement such final CSC resolution be a party to the case. For its
implementation, a copy of the CSC Resolution must be furnished to the implementing
agency. In this case, petitioner knew of the questioned CSC Resolution even before he
was officially furnished with a copy thereof. The petitioner unequivocally admitted that he
knew Resolution of the CSC dismissing Agonoy as Municipal Engineer based on the
Memoranda his office issued.
The CSC resolution would also become final and executory upon the failure of Agonoy
to file any motion for the reconsideration of the CSC Resolution. Agonoy did not file for
MR but resorted to petition for review at CA. Such petition/remedy could have the same
effect of suspending execution, only if CA issued a stay of execution under the Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, and of the Rules of Court. Petitioner
filed for petition for review of the CSC Resolution in the CA and in this Court, however, no
stay order was issued by either court in his favor.
By refusing to execute, petitioner defied the CSC Resolution, allowed Agonoy to report
for work and ordered for the payment of his salary, RATA and other benefits.
Petitioner's failure to verify whether Agonoy was able to secure a stay order from the
CA before issuing such memoranda, constitutes gross negligence on his part. The
payment of Agonoy's salary, RATA and other benefits in the total amount of P375,168.00,
demonstrated giving unwarranted benefits to the latter and causing undue injury to the
government.
Petition is dismissed for lack of merit. Decision of Sandiganbayan is affirmed.