G.R. No. 175457 Ambil, Jr. v.

Sandiganbayan July 6, 2011

Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr., The First Division of the Sandiganbayan and the
petitioners People of the Philippines,
respondents
Villarama, Jr., J.

FACTS:
Mayor Francisco Andalim (Mayor Andalim) was the accused in a murder case. During the trial, Mayor
Andalim was transferred from the provincial jail of Eastern Samar to the residence of Governor Ruperto
A. Ambil Jr. (Gov. Ambil). The NBI conducted an investigation and recommended that charges be filed
against Gov. Ambil for violation of R.A. No 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The IBP,
which initially requested investigation in the case, dismissed their request and informed the Ombudsman
they would no longer pursue the case.
The Office of the Ombudsman charged Gov. Ambil and Provincial warden Alexandrino Apelado, Sr. for
violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Art. 156 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Sandiganbayan First Division found Gov. Ambil and Apelado, Sr. liable after Governor Ambil,
conspiring with Apelado, for ordering and causing the release from the Provincial Jail of detention prisoner
Mayor Francisco Adalim and had the latter transferred from the provincial jail to the governors residence.

ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over a suit where one of the two accused has a Salary Grade
classified to be cognizable before the lower courts. YES
(2) Whether or not the transfer of the detainee, who was a mayor, by the governor was a violation in
contemplation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 in relation to Section 2 (b) of the same act. YES

HELD:
(1) YES, Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the suit where one of the two accused held a position with a
classification of Salary Grade 27.
- The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over petitioner Ambil, Jr. is beyond question. The same is true
as regards petitioner Apelado, Sr. As to him, a Certification from the Provincial Government
Department Head of the HRMO shows that his position as Provincial Warden is classified as Salary
Grade 22. Nonetheless, it is only when none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to
salary grade 27 or higher shall exclusive jurisdiction be vested in the lower courts. Here, petitioner
Apelado, Sr. was charged as a co-principal with Governor Ambil, Jr., over whose position the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. Accordingly, he was correctly tried jointly with said public officer in
the proper court which had exclusive original jurisdiction over them the Sandiganbayan.
(2) YES, the verdict by the Sandiganbayan, finding the accused guilty of violating RA 3019 was proper.
- The power of control and supervision granted to by the Local Government Code and Administrative
Code of 1917 does not include nor permit the usurpation of power duly vested before the courts. Facts
showed that transfer by Ambil of Adalim was attended by evident bias and bad faith. Section 3(e) still
applies to the case at hand even if the act was not one relative to the granting of licenses and
concessions. The provision was meant to include officers with such duty to the list already enumerated
therein and not necessarily to provide exclusivity. Furthermore, the fact that Andalim, as the recipient
of the benefit, was a public officer, did not preclude application. The act employs the phrase private
party, which is more comprehensive in scope to mean either a private person or a public officer acting
in a private capacity to protect his personal interest.
G.R. No. 175457 Ambil, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan July 6, 2011

- Without a court order, petitioners transferred Adalim and detained him in a place other than the
provincial jail. The latter was housed in much more comfortable quarters, provided better nourishment,
was free to move about the house and watch television. Petitioners readily extended these benefits to
Adalim on the mere representation of his lawyers that the mayor life would be put in danger inside the
provincial jail. As the Sandiganbayan ruled, however, petitioners were unable to establish the existence
of any risk on Adalim safety.
- As held by the Court in Sison v. People, in order to be found guilty under the second mode, it suffices
that the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another in the exercise of his official,
administrative or judicial functions.