Ebarle vs.

Sucaldito
Second Division
Date: December 29, 1987
Ponente: Sarmiento
Facts:
• petitioner Bienvenido Ebarle was then provincial Governor of Zamboanga and
a candidate for re-election in the 1971 local elections
• Anti-Graft League of the Phils. filed different complainst with the City Fiscal
against the petitioner for violations of provisions of the Anti-Graft Law (RA
3019) as well as Arts. 171, 182, 183, 213 & 318 of the Revised Penal Code
o on the bidding for the supply of gravel and sand for the province of
Zamboanga del Sur in favour of Tabiliran Trucking Company
o on the collection of advances under the trucking contract of Tabiliran
Trucking Company, making it appear that it was collected by Teoson
Trucking Company, who held the subsisting contract
o on the bidding for the construction of the right wing portion of the
Capitol Building of the Province of Zamboanga del Sur, in favour of
supposed winning bidder who is the brother-in-law of Ebarle
o on petitioner’s testifying falsely under oath that he acquired a certain
lot by purchase but the lot was in fact owned by the provincial
government of Zamboanga del Sur (where the provincial jail is located)
o on the simulated bidding in favour of Tabiliran Trucking Company
o on appointments of people related to Ebarle to different positions in
the government
• petitioner filed for prohibition and certiorari in the Court of First Instance of
Zamboanga del Sur but the case was dismissed
• in the petition filed before the SC, petitioner claims that the respondents City
Fiscal and the Anti-Graft League failed to comply with the provisions of EO
264 preliminary to their criminal recourses
o OUTLINING THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH COMPLAINANTS CHARGING
THE GOV’T OFFICIALS AND EPLOYEES WITH THE COMMISSION OF
IRREGULARITIES SHOULD BE GUIDED
• petitioner assails the standing of respondent Anti-Graft League to commence
the series of prosecutions
• petitioner contends that the respondent Fiscal (in G.R. No. 34162) in giving
due course to the complaints notwithstanding the order the SC had issued
(in G. R. 33628) which he claims applies as well thereto, committed a grave
abuse of discretion
• petitioner claims that the prosecutions were politically motivated, initiated by
his rivals

Issues:
• WoN respondents had to comply with the provisions of EO 264
• WoN Anti-Graft League had standing to commence the series of
prosecutions
• WoN the complaints are politically motivated and thus should be
dismissed

Ruling: Petitions Dismissed.

 • Held: the petitioner’s reliance upon the provisions of EO 264 has no merit
o it is plain from the very wording of the Order that it has exclusive
application to administrative, and not criminal complaints
o Title: “Commission of Irregularities”
 no mention, not even by implication, of criminal “offenses”, or
crimes
 while “crimes” amount to “irregularities”, the EO could have
very well referred to the more specific term had It intended to
make itself applicable thereto
o “procedure provided by law and regulations”
 pertains to existing procedural rules with respect to the
presentation of administrative charges against erring
government officials
o the aforequoted paragraphs are but restatements of existing rules
 Paragraph 3 = Sec. 33 of RA 2260, Civil Service Act of 1959
 Paragraph 4 = Decentralization Act of 1967
 Paragraph 5 = Police Act of 1966
o specific reference to “erring officials or employees…removed or
otherwise vindicated”
 if it were to apply to criminal prosecutions, it would have
employed such technical terms as “accused,” “convicted,” or
“acquitted”
 is here material in construing the intent of the measure
o more compelling is the Constitutional implications if the petitioner’s
arguments were accepted
 EO 264 was promulgated under the 1935 Constitution in which
the legislative power was vested exclusively in Congress
 if the EO was to be considered law, SC would be forced to say
that it is an amendment to RA 5180 which would give rise to a
Constitutional anomaly
• Challenge against the personality of Anti-Graft League has no merit
o a complaint filed with the fiscal prior to a judicial action may be filed by
any person
• the TRO issued in G.R. No. 33628 does not embrace the complaint subject of
G.R. No. 34162 because the charges are not identical to one another
• the proper venue for determining whether the cases were filed to harass
petitioner is the preliminary wishes he wishes to block

Petitions dismissed, TROs lifted and set aside.

-LZC-