Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FORMILLEZA VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts: Formilleza was the personnel supervisor of the regional office of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) in
Tacloban City, Leyte. Her duties include in the processing of the appointment papers of employees. A certain Mrs.
Mutia was employed with NIA on a project basis and she was terminated. Pursuant to the verbal instructions of the
regional director of the administration, she continued working. According to Mrs. Mutia, she took steps to obtain either
a permanent or at least a renewed appointment. She was advised by the regional director to see the petitioner but the
latter refused to her appointment unless given some money. Mrs. Mutia reported her problem to the Philippine
Constabulary and those PC officials were colleagues of her husband. They arranged for an entrapment with marked
money bills worth P100. Petitioner and Mrs. Mutia agreed to meet at the canteen and the latter notified the PC
authorities about the arrangement. At the canteen, petitioner and Mrs. Mutia occupied a table and were joined by
some officemates while the PC officials occupied separate tables. After they took the snacks, Mrs. Mutia handed the
marked money bills under the table to the petitioner who received the money. At that moment, the PC officials
approached the petitioner and held her hand holding the money. The petitioner was arrested.
The respondent court found the petitioner guilty of Indirect Bribery. The petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme
Court for Instant Petition for Review.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner accepted the supposed bribe money
Ruling: The essential ingredient of indirect bribery as defined in Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code is that the
public officer concerned must have accepted the gift of material consideration. There must be a clear intention on the
part of the public officer to take the gift so offered and consider the same as his own property from then on, such as
putting away the gift for safekeeping or pocketing the same. Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign,
circumstances or act to show such acceptance is not sufficient to lead the court to conclude that the crime of indirect
bribery has been committed. To hold otherwise will encourage unscrupulous individuals to frame ip public officers by
simply putting with their physical custody some gift, money or other property.
In case at the bar, if the petitioner knew and was prepared to accept the money from Mrs. Mutia at the canteen, the petitioner
would not have invited her officemates to join them. According to Mrs. Sevilla she did not see the alleged passing of the
money under the table. What she was sure was that when they were about to leave the canteen, two men approached
petitioner, one of whom took pictures and the petitioner shouted at Mrs. Mutia, What are you trying to do to me? The
reaction of petitioner is far from one with a guilty conscience. Without the standard of certainty, it may not be said that the
guilt of the accused in a criminal proceeding has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, petitioner is acquitted.
Ruling: The petitioners contention is untenable. The amendatory provision clearly states that any incumbent public
officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under Republic Act 3019 or for any offense
involving fraud upon he government or public funds or property whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in
whatever stage of execution and mode participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Thus, by the
use of the word office the same applies to any office which the officer charged may be holding and not only the
particular office under which he was charged.
6. PEOPLE VS ALBANO
Facts: This is a two criminal cases under RA 3019 were filed against Mayor Acharon. The first case pertains to Mayor
Acharon of General Santos denied application for renewal of license and permit to operate cockpit to a certain Emilio
Evangelista while the said mayor approved or granted the application of license or permit of his uncle, Luis Acharon to
operate a new cockpit and it is contrary to Sec.3 of RA 3019. The second case is about Mayor Acharon and Vice Mayor
Bernabe were charged with the violation of Sec.1 (A,E,H,J) of RA 3019 when they allegedly fraudulently procured and
purchased 1,635 sack of rice in bulk using the names of 327 employees of City Government of General Santos with the
rice and corn administration office. They used their own money in purchasing said sacks of rice at a very low price and
later disposed to the public at the prevailing price. They directly or indirectly received pecuniary interest in such
fraudulent procurement of rice.
Prosecution filed an urgent motion for issuance of suspension against the accused. Before pre-suspension hearings,
accused were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. The case was redocketed then later an investigation ensued. There
were several postponement until the case was raffled to Judge Albano. The case was set for hearing but later on, Judge
Albano found the two informations invalid ab initio and consequently dismissed the said cases. Prosecution moved for
reconsideration but it was denied.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent court erred in finding the acts for which both accused are charged do not
constitute violations of RA 3019 by taking into consideration matters not alleged in the informations.
Ruling: Yes, Judge Albano erred in its decision of finding the informations invalid ab initio and in dismissing the cases.
Section 13 of RA 3019 provides that the suspension of public officer is mandatory but not automatic. Before a
suspension order issued, a hearing on the validity of the informations must first be had to determine the basis of the
court to either suspend the accused and proceed with the trial on the merits of the case or withhold suspension of the
accused and dismiss the case or correct part of the proceeding which impairs its validity. The far-reaching consequence
of a suspension of public official even before conviction is the reason why the accused can challenge the validity of an
information and the validity of the criminal proceedings. But if the right of the accused does not divest the prosecution
of its right to prove guilt of the accused in a trial on the merits, pre-suspension hearing should not substitute trial
proper.
Considering the mandatory suspension of the accused under a valid information, the law does not contemplate a
proceeding to determine (1) the strength of the evidence of culpability against him, (2) the gravity of the offense
charged, or (3) whether or not his continuance in office could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and
integrity of the records and other evidence, so that a court can have a valid basis in evaluating the advisability of his
suspension pending the trial proper of the case filed against him.
In any event, when the contending parties in both cases agreed to submit the question of the validity of the
informations on the basis of the records of the cases, among others,
12
mandatorily suspended, the trial court was competent to inquire only whether or not (1) accused Acharon had been
afforded due preliminary investigation prior to the filing of the informations against him, (2) the acts for which he was
charged constitute a violation of the provisions of Rep. Act 3019 or of the provisions on bribery of the Revised Penal
Code, or (3) the informations against him can be quashed, under any of the grounds provided in Section 2, Rule 117 of
the Rules of Court, not deemed waived in view of the previous arraignment of the accused.
They were deprived of the services of the man they had elected to serve as mayor. A denial of due process is quite
manifested. In all cases, preventive suspension shall not extend beyond sixty days after the start of said suspension.
The mere fact that petitioner is facing a charge under Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act does not justify a different
rule of law. To do so would be to negate the safeguard of the equal protection guarantee.
Therefore, the certiorari petition is granted and the preventive suspension imposed on petitioner is set aside.