Laurel v.

Desierto OMBUDSMAN The Constitution10 describes the Ombudsman and his Deputies as "protectors of the people," who "shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations." Among the awesome powers, functions, and duties vested by the Constitution11 upon the Office of the Ombudsman is to "[i]nvestigate any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient." In sum, the Ombudsman has the power to investigate any malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance by a public officer or employee of the government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations.12 Neither the Constitution nor the Ombudsman Act of 1989, however, defines who public officers are. A definition of public officers cited in jurisprudence13 is that provided by Mechem, a recognized authority on the subject: A public office is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The individual so invested is a public officer.14 The characteristics of a public office, according to Mechem, include the delegation of sovereign functions, its creation by law and not by contract, an oath, salary, continuance of the position, scope of duties, and the designation of the position as an office.15 Petitioner submits that some of these characteristics are not present in the position of NCC Chair, namely: (1) the delegation of sovereign functions; (2) salary, since he purportedly did not receive any compensation; and (3) continuance, the tenure of the NCC being temporary. Mechem describes the delegation to the individual of some of the sovereign functions of government as "[t]he most important characteristic" in determining whether a position is a public office or not. The most important characteristic which distinguishes an office from an employment or contract is that the creation and conferring of an office involves a delegation to the individual of some of the sovereign functions of government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public; that some portion of the sovereignty of the country, either legislative, executive or judicial, attaches, for the time being, to be exercised for the public benefit. Unless the powers conferred are of this nature, the individual is not a public officer.16 id E.O. 128 delegate the NCC with some of the sovereign functions of government? Certainly, the law did not delegate upon the NCC functions that can be described as legislative or judicial. May the functions of the NCC then be described as executive? We hold that the NCC performs executive functions. The executive power "is generally defined as the power to enforce and administer the laws. It is the power of carrying the laws into practical operation and enforcing their due observance."17 The executive function, therefore, concerns the implementation of the policies as set forth by law. The Constitution provides in Article XIV (Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports) thereof: Sec. 15. Arts and letters shall enjoy the patronage of the State. The State shall conserve, promote, and popularize the nations historical and cultural heritage and resources, as well as artistic creations. The NCC was precisely created to execute the foregoing policies and objectives, to carry them into effect. Thus, the Commission was vested with the following functions: (a) To undertake the overall study, conceptualization, formulation and implementation

of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. A "public officer," under R.A. No. 3019, is defined by Section 2 of said law as follows: SEC. 2. Definition of terms. As used in this Act, the term xxx (b) "Public officer" includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exemption service receiving compensation, even nominal, from the government as defined in the preceding paragraph. [Emphasis supplied.] It is clear from Section 2 (b), above, that the definition of a "public officer" is expressly limited to the application of R.A. No. 3019. Said definition does not apply for purposes of determining the Ombudsmans jurisdiction, as defined by the Constitution and the Ombudsman Act of 1989. Moreover, the question of whether petitioner is a public officer under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act involves the appreciation of evidence and interpretation of law, matters that are best resolved at trial. To illustrate, the use of the term "includes" in Section 2 (b) indicates that the definition is not restrictive.28 The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is just one of several laws that define "public officers." Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code, for example, provides that a public officer is: x x x any person who, by direct provision of law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, takes part in the performance of public functions in the Government of Philippines, or performs in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class. Section 2 (14) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987,29 on the other hand, states: Officer as distinguished from "clerk" or "employee", refers to a person whose duties not being of a clerical or manual nature, involves the exercise of discretion in the performance of the functions of the government. When used with reference to a person having authority to do a particular act or perform a particular person in the exercise of governmental power, "officer" includes any government employee, agent or body having authority to do the act or exercise that function. It bears noting that under Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 6713 (The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), one may be considered a "public official" whether or not one receives compensation, thus: "Public Officials" include elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the career or non-career service including military and police personnel, whether or not they receive compensation, regardless of amount. Which of these definitions should apply, if at all? Assuming that the definition of public officer in R.A. No. 3019 is exclusive, the term "compensation," which is not defined by said law, has many meanings. Under particular circumstances, "compensation" has been held to include allowance for personal expenses, commissions, expenses, fees, an honorarium, mileage or traveling expenses, payments for services, restitution or a balancing of accounts, salary, and wages.30 How then is "compensation," as the term is used in Section 2 (b) of R.A. No. 3019, to be interpreted? Did petitioner receive any compensation at all as NCC Chair? Granting that petitioner did not receive any salary, the records do not reveal if he received any allowance, fee, honorarium, or some other form of compensation. Notably, under the by-laws of Expocorp, the CEO is entitled to per diems and compensation.31 Would such fact bear any significance? Obviously, this proceeding is not the proper forum to settle these issues lest we preempt the trial court from resolving them. MANIPON v. SANDIGANBAYAN The crime of direct bribery as defined in Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code consists of the following elements: (1) that the accused is a public officer; (2) that he received directly or through another some gift or present, offer or promise; (3) that such gift, present or promise has been given in consideration of his commission of some crime, or any act not constituting a crime, or to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do, and (4) that the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer.14 The promise of a public officer to perform an act or to refrain from doing it may be express or implied. Indeed, Manipon's behavior at the very outset, had been marked with irregularities. As early as November 9, 1979, he had already garnished the bank accounts of Dominguez at Comtrust, but he did not notify the labor arbiter so that the corresponding order for the payment by the bank of the garnished amount could be made and the sum withdrawn immediately to satisfy the judgment under execution. His lame excuse was that he was very busy in the sheriff's office, attending to voluminous exhibits and court proceedings. That was also the same excuse he gave for not informing the labor arbiter of the novation. In fact he candidly admitted that he never communicated with the NLRC concerning the garnishment. He returned the writ unsatisfied only on February 20, 1980 although by its express terms, it was returnable within thirty days from October 29, 1979. 22 Clearly, Manipon had planned to get Dominguez to acquiesce to a consideration for lifting the garnishment order. Dacumas v. Sandiganbayan ----n/a---

of programs and projects on the utilization of culture, arts, literature and media as vehicles for history, economic endeavors, and reinvigorating the spirit of national unity and sense of accomplishment in every Filipino in the context of the Centennial Celebrations.
That petitioner allegedly did not receive any compensation during his tenure is of little consequence. A salary is a usual but not a necessary criterion for determining the nature of the position. It is not conclusive. The salary is a mere incident and forms no part of the office. Where a salary or fees is annexed, the office is provided for it is a naked or honorary office, and is supposed to be accepted merely for the public good.23 Hence, the office of petitioner as NCC Chair may be characterized as an honorary office, as opposed to a lucrative office or an office of profit, i.e., one to which salary, compensation or fees are attached.24 But it is a public office, nonetheless. Finally, it is contended that since petitioner supposedly did not receive any compensation for his services as NCC or Expocorp Chair, he is not a public officer as defined in Republic Act No. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and is, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Respondent seeks to charge petitioner with violation of Section 3 (e) of said law, which reads: SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: xxx (e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees

ALMEDA V. PEREZ A study of the provisions of Republic Act No. 1379 readily discloses that the proceeding for forfeiture is in nature and not criminal, as claimed by the petitioners. A test has been suggested to determine whether the proceeding for forfeiture is civil or criminal, thus: . . . Forfeiture proceedings may be either civil or criminal in nature, and may be in rem or in personam. If they are under a statute such that if an indictment is presented forfeiture can be included in the criminal case they are in nature, although they may be civil in form; and where it must be gathered from the statute that the action is meant to be criminal in its nature it cannot be considered as civil. If however, the proceeding does not involve the conviction of wrongdoer for the offense charged the proceeding is of a civil nature; and under statutes which specifically so provision where the act or omission for which the forfeiture is imposed is not also a misdemeanor, such forfeiture may be sued for recovered in a civil action. (37 CJS, Forfeitures, Sec. 5, pp. 15-16). In the first place a proceedings under the Act (Rep. Act No. 1379) does, not terminate in the imposition of penalty but merely in the forfeiture of the properties illegally acquired in favor of the state. (Sec. 6) In the second place the procedure outlined in the law leading to forfeiture is that provided for in a civil action. Thus there is a petition (Sec. 3), then an answer (Sec. 4), and lastly, a hearing. The preliminary investigation which is require prior to the filing of the petition, in accordance with Sec. 2 of the Act, is provided expressly to be one similar to a preliminary investigation in a criminal in a criminal case. If the investigation is only similar to that in a criminal case, but other steps in the proceedings are those for civil proceedings, it stands to reason that the proceeding is not criminal. Had it been a criminal proceeding there would been, after a preliminary investigation, a reading of information, a plea of guilty or not guilty, and a trial thereafter, with the publication of the judgement in the presence of the defendant. But these proceedings as above set forth, are not provided for in the law.1wph1.t Section 12 of the law provides a penalty to the public officer, but said penalty is against the employee or officer for the transfer or conveyance of any unlawfully acquired properties. The law therefore penalizes an officer for transferring or conveying properties unlawfully acquired but does not do so for making the unlawful acquisition; it merely imposes the penalty of forfeiture of the properties unlawfully acquired. As the proceeding for forfeiture, as pointed out and as provided for in the law, is not a penal proceeding but a civil one for the forfeiture of the properties illegally acquired, and as the procedure outlined in the law is that which is followed in civil actions, amendment of the charges or the petition for forfeiture may be made as in ordinary civil actions; i.e., the amendments may be made before trial or in the course of trial without need of another investigation. It also follows that amendments setting forth newly discovered acquisitions may be in the petition without obtaining the consent of the respondent. CABAL V. KAPUNAN Hence, the issue before us boils down to whether or not the proceedings before the aforementioned Committee is civil or criminal in character. In this connection, it should be noted that, although said Committee was created to investigate the administrative charge of unexplained wealth, there seems to be no question that Col. Maristela does not seek the removal of petitioner herein as Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. As a matter of fact he no longer holds such office. It seems, likewise conceded that the purpose of the charge against petitioner is to apply the provisions of Republic Act No. 1379, as amended, otherwise known as the AntiGraft Law, which authorizes the forfeiture to the State of property of a public officer or employee which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property. Such for forfeiture has been held, however, to partake of the nature of a penalty. In a strict signification, a forfeiture is a divestiture property without compensation, in consequence of a default an offense, and the term is used in such a sense in this article. A forfeiture, as thus defined, is imposed by way of punishment not by the mere convention of the parties, but by the lawmaking power, to insure a prescribed course of conduct. It is a method deemed necessary by the legislature to restrain thecommission of an offense and to aid in the prevention of such a offense. The effect of such a forfeiture is to transfer the title to the specific thing from the owner to the sovereign power (23 Am. Jur. 599) (Emphasis ours.) In Black's Law Dictionary a "forfeiture" is defined to be "the incurring of a liability to pay a definite sum of money as the consequence of violating the provisions of some statute or refusal to comply with some requirement of law." It may be said to be a penalty imposed for misconduct or breach of duty. (Com. vs. French, 114 S.W. 255.) As a consequence, proceedings for forfeiture of proper are deemed criminal or penal, and, hence, the exemption of defendants in criminal case from the obligation to be witnesses against themselves are applicable thereto. Generally speaking, informations for the forfeiture of goods that seek no judgment of fine or imprisonment against any person are deemed to be civil proceedings in rem. Such

Although the contrary view formerly obtained, the late decisions are to the effect that suits for forfeitures incurred by the commission of offenses against the law are so far of quasicriminal nature as to be within the reason of criminal proceedings for all purposes of ...

that portion of the Fifth Amendment which declares that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. .... It has frequently been held upon
constitutional grounds under the various State Constitution, that a witness or party called as witness cannot be made to testify against himself as to matters which would subject his property to forfeiture. At early common law no person could be compelled to testify against himself or to answer any question which would have had a tendency to expose his property to a forfeiture or to form a link in a chain of evidence for that purpose, as well as to incriminate him. Under this common-law doctrine of protection against compulsory disclosures which would tend to subject the witness to forfeiture, such protection was claimed and availed of in some early American cases without placing the basis of the protection upon constitutional grounds. (23 Am. Jur., 616; emphasis ours.) Proceedings for forfeitures are generally considered to be civil and in the nature of proceedings in rem. The statute providing that no judgment or other proceedings in civil cases shall be arrested or reversed for any defect or want of form is applicable to them. In

some aspects, however, suits for penalties and forfeitures are of quasi-criminal nature and within the reason of criminal proceedings for all the purposes of ... that portion of the Fifth Amendment which declares, that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The proceeding is one against the owner, as well as
against the goods; for it is his breach of the laws which has to be proved to establish the forfeiture and his property is sought to be forfeited. (15 Am. Jur., Sec. 104, p. 368; emphasis ours.)lawphil.net The rule protecting a person from being compelled to furnish evidence which would incriminate him existsnot only when he is liable criminally to prosecution and punishment, but also when his answer would tend to expose him to a ... forfeiture .... (58 Am. Jur., See. 43, p. 48; emphasis ours.) As already observed, the various constitutions provide that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. This prohibition against compelling a person to take the stand as a witness against himself applied only to criminal, quasicriminal, and penal proceedings, including a proceeding civil in form for forfeiture of property by reason of the commission of an offense, but not a proceeding in which the penalty recoverable is civil or remedial in nature, .... (58 Am. Jur., Sec. 44, p. 49: emphasis ours.) The privilege of a witness not to incriminate himself is not infringed by merely asking the witness a question which he refuses to answer. The privilege is simply an option of refusal, and not a prohibition of inquiry. A question is not improper merely because the answer may tend to incriminate but, where a witness exercises his constitutional right not to answer, a question by counsel as to whether the reason for refusing to answer is because the answer may tend to incriminate the witness is improper. The possibility that the examination of the witness will be pursued to the extent of requiring self-incrimination will not justify the refusal to answer questions. However,

where the position of the witness is virtually that of an accused on trial, it would appear that he may invoke the privilege in support of a blanket refusal to answer any and all questions. (C.J.S., p. 252; emphasis ours.)

A person may not be compelled to testify in an action against him for a penalty or to answer any question as a witness which would subject him to a penalty or forfeiture, where the penalty or forfeiture is imposed as a vindication of the public justice of the state. In general, both at common law and under a constitution provision against compulsory self-incrimination, a person may not be compelled to answer any question as a witness which would subject him to a penalty orforfeiture, or testify in action against him for a penalty. The privilege applies where the penalty or forfeiture recoverable, or is imposed in vindication of the public justice the state as a statutory fine or penalty, or a fine or penalty for violation of a municipal ordinance, even though the action or proceeding for its enforcement is not brought in a criminal court but is prosecuted through the modes of procedure applicable to ordinary civil remedy. (98 C. J. S., pp. 275-6.) Thus, in Boyd vs. U.S. (116 U.S. 616, 29 L. ed. 746), it was held that the information, in a proceeding to declaration a forfeiture of certain property because of the evasion of a certain revenue law, "though technically a civil proceeding is in substance and effect a criminal one", and that suits for penalties and forfeitures are within the reason criminal proceedings for the purposes of that portion the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the U.S. which declares that no person shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself. Similarly, a proceeding for the removal of an officer was held, in Thurston vs. Clark (107 Cal. 285, 40 pp. 435, 437), to be in substance criminal, for said portion of the Fifth Amendment applies "to all cases in which the action prosecution is not to establish, recover or redress private and civil rights, but to try and punish persons charged with the commission of proceedings are criminal in nature to the extent that where the person using the res public offenses" and "a criminal case is a action, suit or cause instituted to punish an infraction the illegally is the owner or rightful possessor of it, the forfeiture proceeding is in the nature of criminal laws, and, with this object in view, it matters not in what form a statute may clothe it; it is a punishment. They have been held to be so far in the nature criminal proceedings that a still a criminal case ...". This view was, in effect confirmed in Lees vs. U.S. (37 L. ed. 1150-1151). Hence, general verdict on several count in an information is upheld if one count is the Lawyer Reports Annotated (Vol. 29, p. 8), after an extensive examination of pertinent cases, good.According to the authorities such proceedings, where the owner of the property appears, concludes that said constitutional provision applies whenever the proceeding is not "purely remedial", are so far considered as quasi-criminal proceeding as to relieve the owner from being a or intended "as a redress for a privategrievance", but primarily to punish "a violation of duty or a

witness against himself and to prevent the compulsory production of his books and papers. ... (23 Am. Jur. 612; emphasis ours.)

public wrong and to deter others from offending in likewise manner. ...". We are unmindful of the doctrine laid down in Almeda vs. Perez, L-18428 (August 30, 1962) in which
the theory that, after the filing of respondents' answer to a petition for forfeiture under Republic Act No.

1379, said petition may not be amended as to substance pursuant to our rules of criminal procedure, was rejected by this Court upon the ground that said forfeiture proceeding in civil in nature. This doctrine refers, however, to the purely proceduralaspect of said proceeding, and has no bearing the substantial rights of the respondents therein, particularly their constitutional right against selfincrimination.

In a declaratory action proceeding then, the objection based on the guaranty against selfincrimination is far from decisive. It is well to note what Justice Tuason stated: "What the above inhibition seeks to [prevent] is compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts." 79Necessarily then, the protection it affords will have to await, in the language of Justice J. B. L. Reyes, the existence of actual cases, "be they criminal, civil or administrative." 80Prior to such a stage, there is no pressing need to pass upon the validity of the fear sincerely voiced that there is an infringement of the nonincrimination clause. What was said in an American State decision is of relevance. In that case, a REPUBLIC V. IAC statutory provision requiring any person operating a motor vehicle, who knows that injury has been Clear from these provisions is that the law creates a presumption against the public officer or employee caused a person or property, to stop and give his name, residence, and his license number to the injured who acquires property grossly disproportionate to his income, i.e. that the property was unlawfully acquired. However, this presumption is juris tantum. It may be rebutted by the public officer or employee party or to a police officer was sustained against the contention that the information thus exacted may be used as evidence to establish his connection with the injury and therefore compels him to incriminate by showing to the satisfaction of the court that his acquisition of the property was lawful. In the instant case, both the trial and the appellate courts had found satisfactory the private respondents' himself. As was stated in the opinion: "If the law which exacts this information is invalid, because such information, although in itself no evidence of guilt, might possibly lead to a charge of crime against the explanation of their acquisition of the properties and consequently held that they do not have any informant, then all police regulations which involve identification may be questioned on the same unexplained wealth as contemplated by the law. The Court has carefully gone over the evidence presented ground. We are not aware of any constitutional provision designed to protect a man's conduct from by private respondents, and like the trial court and the Intermediate Appellate Court, finds the judicial inquiry or aid him in fleeing from justice. But, even if a constitutional right be involved, it is acquisition of the subject properties satisfactorily explained. not necessary to invalidate the statute to secure its protection. If, in this particular case, the The Solicitor General also makes much of the fact that the statements of assets and liabilities filed by constitutional privilege justified the refusal to give the information exacted by the statute, that question private respondent Simplicio Berdon covering the years material to the case did not accurately reflect the can be raised in the defense to the pending prosecution. Whether it would avail, we are not called upon to donation and the loans granted to private respondent spouses and that Simplicio's testimony in effect decide in this proceeding." 81 contradicts the entries in said statements. It must be emphasized, however, that in determining whether or not there is unexplained wealth within the purview of R.A. No. 1379 the courts are not bound by the JAVARATA V. SANDIGANBAYAN There is no question that Jaravata at the time material to the case was a "public officer" as defined by statements of assets and liabilities filed by the respondent. ** On the contrary, this statute affords the respondent every opportunity to explain, to the satisfaction of the court, how he had acquired the property Section 2 of R.A. No. 3019, i.e. "elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, even in question . normal from the government." It may also be said that any amount which Jaravata received in excess of In sum, the presumption under See. 2 of R.A. No. 1379 that the subject properties were unlawfully P36.00 from each of the complainants was in the concept of a gift or benefit. The pivotal question, acquired had been successfully rebutted by private respondents through competent evidence. however, is whether Jaravata, an assistant principal of a high school in the boondocks of Tubao, La MORFE V. MUTUC Police power measure. Statute 32 was precisely aimed at curtailing and minimizing the opportunities for official corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service. It is intended to further promote morality in public administration. A public office must indeed be a public trust. Nobody can cavil at its objective; the goal to be pursued commands the assent of all. The conditions then prevailing called for norms of such character. The times demanded such a remedial device. The statute was framed with that end in view. It is comprehensive in character, sufficiently detailed and explicit to make clear to all and sundry what practices were prohibited and penalized. More than that, an effort was made, so evident from even a cursory perusal thereof, to avoid evasions and plug loopholes. One such feature is the challenged section. Thereby it becomes much more difficult by those disposed to take advantage of their positions to commit acts of graft and corruption. Is this provision for a periodical submission of sworn statement of assets and liabilities after he had filed one upon assumption of office beyond the power of government to impose? Admittedly without the challenged provision, a public officer would be free from such a requirement. To the extent then that there is a compulsion to act in a certain way, his liberty is affected. It cannot be denied however that under the Constitution, such a restriction is allowable as long as due process is observed. Nonetheless, in view of the fact that there is an express recognition of privacy, specifically that of communication and correspondence which "shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of Court or when public safety and order" 60may otherwise require, and implicitly in the search and seizure clause, 61and the liberty of abode 62the alleged repugnancy of such statutory requirement of further periodical submission of a sworn statement of assets and liabilities deserves to be further looked into. Even with due recognition of such a view, it cannot be said that the challenged statutory provision calls for disclosure of information which infringes on the right of a person to privacy. It cannot be denied that the rational relationship such a requirement possesses with the objective of a valid statute goes very far in precluding assent to an objection of such character. This is not to say that a public officer, by virtue of a position he holds, is bereft of constitutional protection; it is only to emphasize that in subjecting him to such a further compulsory revelation of his assets and liabilities, including the statement of the amounts and sources of income, the amounts of personal and family expenses, and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year, there is no unconstitutional intrusion into what otherwise would be a private sphere. 5. Could it be said, however, as plaintiff contends, that insofar as the challenged provision requires the periodical filing of a sworn statement of financial condition, it would be violative of the guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure and against self-incrimination? It thus appears clear that no violation of the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure has been shown to exist by such requirement of further periodical submission of one's financial condition as set forth in the Anti-Graft Act of 1960. Nor does the contention of plaintiff gain greater plausibility, much less elicit acceptance, by his invocation of the non-incrimination clause. According to the Constitution: "No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." 74This constitutional provision gives the accused immunity from any attempt by the prosecution to make easier its task by coercing or intimidating him to furnish the evidence necessary to convict. He may confess, but only if he voluntarily wills it. He may admit certain facts but only if he freely chooses to.75Or he could remain silent, and the prosecution is powerless to compel him to talk. 76 Proof is not solely testimonial in character. It may be documentary. Neither then could the accused be ordered to write, when what comes from his pen may constitute evidence of guilt or innocence. 77 Moreover, there can be no search or seizure of his house, papers or effects for the purpose of locating incriminatory matter. 78 Union, "in his official capacity has to intervene under the law" in the payment of the salary differentials for 1978 of the complainants. It should be noted that the arrangement was "to facilitate its [salary differential] payment accused and the classroom teachers agreed that accused follow-up the papers in Manila with the obligation on the part of the classroom teachers to reimburse the accused of his expenses. In Our opinion, Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019, refers to a public officer whose official intervention is required by law in a contract or transaction. There is no law which invests the petitioner with the power to intervene in the payment of the salary differentials of the complainants or anyone for that matter. Far from exercising any power, the petitioner played the humble role of a supplicant whose mission was to expedite payment of the salary differentials. In his official capacity as assistant principal he is not required by law to intervene in the payment of the salary differentials. Accordingly, he cannot be said to have violated the law afore-cited although he exerted efforts to facilitate the payment of the salary differentials. TRIESTE V. SANDIGANABAYAN What is contemplated in Section 3(h) of the anti-graft law is the actual intervention in the transaction in which one has financial or pecuniary interest in order that liability may attach. (Opinion No. 306, Series 1961 and Opinion No. 94, Series 1972 of the Secretary of Justice). The official need not dispose his shares in the corporation as long as he does not do anything for the firm in its contract with the office. For the law aims to prevent the don-tenant use of influence, authority and power (Deliberation on Senate Bill 293, May 6, 1959, Congressional Record, Vol. 11, page 603). There is absolutely no evidence that petitioner had, in his capacity as Mayor, used his influence, power, and authority in having the transactions given to Trigen. He didn't ask anyone-neither Treasurer Vega nor Secretary Maravilla for that matter, to get the construction materials from Trigen.

Trigen did not gain any undue advantage in the transaction

Petitioner should not be faulted for Trigen's transaction with the municipality, which by the way, has been dealing with it even before petitioner had assumed the mayorship on March 3, 1980. Personal canvasses conducted found that Trigen's offer was the lowest, most reasonable, and advantageous to the municipality. . . . MEJORADA V. SANDIGANBAYAN First, that the accused must be a public officer charged with the duty of granting licenses or permits or other concessions. Petitioner contends that inasmuch as he is not charged with the duty of granting licenses, permits or other concessions, then he is not the officer contemplated by Section 3 (e). Section 3 cited above enumerates in eleven subsections the corrupt practices of any public officers declared unlawful. Its reference to "any public officer" is without distinction or qualification and it specifies the acts declared unlawful. We agree with the view adopted by the Solicitor General that the last sentence of paragraph (e) is intended to make clear the inclusion of officers and employees of officers or government corporations which, under the ordinary concept of "public officers" may not come within the term. It is a strained construction of the provision to read it as applying exclusively to public officers charged with the duty of granting licenses or permits or other concessions. The first element, therefore, of Section 3 (e) is that the accused must be a public officer. This, the informations did not fail to allege. Second, that such public officer caused undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions. Petitioner denies that there was injury or damage caused the Government because the payments were allegedly made on the basis of a document solely made by the Highway District Engineer to which

petitioner had no hand in preparing. The fact, however, is that the government suffered undue injury as a result of the petitioner's having inflated the true claims of complainants which became the basis of the report submitted by the Highway District Engineer to the Regional Director of the Department of Highways and which eventually became the basis of payment. His contention that he had no participation is belied by the fact that as a right-of-way-agent, his duty was precisely to negotiate with property owners who are affected by highway constructions for the purpose of compensating them. On the part of the complainants, the injury caused to them consists in their being divested of a large proportion of their claims and receiving payment in an amount even lower than the actual damage they incurred. They were deprived of the just compensation to which they are entitled. Third, the injury to any party, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference was done through manifest, partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. Petitioner argues that for the third element to be present, the alleged injury or damage to the complainants and the government must have been caused by the public officer in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions and inasmuch as when the damage was caused to the complainants, he was no longer discharging his official administrative functions, therefore, he is not liable for the offense charged. The argument is devoid of merit. The Sandiganbayan established the fact that the petitioner took advantage of his position as a right-of-way-agent by making the claimants sign the aforementioned agreements to demolish and sworn statements which contained falsified declarations of the value of the improvements and lots. There was evident bad faith on the part of the petitioner when he inflated the values of the true claims and when he divested the claimants of a large share of the amounts due them. ESTRADA V. SANDIGANBAYAN VAGUE- As it is written, the Plunder Law contains ascertainable standards and well-defined parameters which would enable the accused to determine the nature of his violation. Section 2 is sufficiently explicit in its description of the acts, conduct and conditions required or forbidden, and prescribes the elements of the crime with reasonable certainty and particularity. Thus -

Combination - the result or product of combining; the act or process of combining. To combine is to
bring into such close relationship as to obscure individual characters. Series - a number of things or events of the same class coming one after another in spatial and temporal succession. Thus when the Plunder Law speaks of "combination," it is referring to at least two (2) acts falling under different categories of enumeration provided in Sec. 1, par. (d), e.g., raids on the public treasury in Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1), and fraudulent conveyance of assets belonging to the National Government under Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (3). On the other hand, to constitute a series" there must be two (2) or more overt or criminal acts falling under the same category of enumeration found in Sec. 1, par. (d), say, misappropriation, malversation and raids on the public treasury, all of which fall under Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1). Verily, had the legislature intended a technical or distinctive meaning for "combination" and "series," it would have taken greater pains in specifically providing for it in the law. As for "pattern," we agree with the observations of the Sandiganbayan9 that this term is sufficiently defined in Sec. 4, in relation to Sec. 1, par. (d), and Sec. 2 -

x x x x under Sec. 1 (d) of the law, a 'pattern' consists of at least a combination or series of overt or criminal acts enumerated in subsections (1) to (6) of Sec. 1 (d). Secondly, pursuant to Sec. 2 of the law, the pattern of overt or criminal acts is directed towards a common purpose or goal which is to enable the public officer to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. And thirdly, there must either be an 'overall unlawful scheme' or 'conspiracy' to achieve said common goal. As commonly understood, the term 'overall unlawful scheme' indicates a 'general plan of action or method' which the principal accused and public officer and others conniving with him follow to achieve the aforesaid common goal. In the alternative, if there is no such overall scheme or where the schemes or methods used by multiple accused vary, the overt or criminal acts must form part of a conspiracy to attain a common goal.
Hence, it cannot plausibly be contended that the law does not give a fair warning and sufficient notice of what it seeks to penalize. Under the circumstances, petitioner's reliance on the "void-for-vagueness" doctrine is manifestly misplaced. T SEC. 4. Rule of Evidence. - For purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to

The running fault in this reasoning is obvious even to the simplistic mind. In a criminal prosecution for plunder, as in all other crimes, the accused always has in his favor the presumption of innocence which is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and unless the State succeeds in demonstrating by proof beyond reasonable doubt that culpability lies, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.29 The use of the "reasonable doubt" standard is indispensable to command the respect and confidence of the community in the application of criminal law. It is critical that the moral force of criminal law be not diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether innocent men are being condemned. It is also important in our free society that every individual going about his ordinary affairs has confidence that his government cannot adjudge him guilty of a criminal offense without convincing a proper factfinder of his guilt with utmost certainty. This "reasonable doubt" standard has acquired such exalted stature in the realm of constitutional law as it gives life to the Due Process Clause which protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.30 SEC. 4. Rule of Evidence. - For purposes of establishing the crime of plunder x x x x It purports to do no more than prescribe a rule of procedure for the prosecution of a criminal case for plunder. Being a purely procedural measure, Sec. 4 does not define or establish any substantive right in favor of the accused but only operates in furtherance of a remedy. It is only a means to an end, an aid to substantive law. Indubitably, even without invoking Sec. 4, a conviction for plunder may be had, for As long as the law affords some comprehensible guide or rule that would inform those who are subject to what is crucial for the prosecution is to present sufficient evidence to engender that moral certitude it what conduct would render them liable to its penalties, its validity will be sustained. It must exacted by the fundamental law to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, even sufficiently guide the judge in its application; the counsel, in defending one charged with its violation; granting for the sake of argument that Sec. 4 is flawed and vitiated for the reasons advanced by and more importantly, the accused, in identifying the realm of the proscribed conduct. Indeed, it can be petitioner, it may simply be severed from the rest of the provisions without necessarily resulting in the understood with little difficulty that what the assailed statute punishes is the act of a public officer in demise of the law; after all, the existing rules on evidence can supplant Sec. 4 more than enough. Besides, amassing or accumulating ill-gotten wealth of at leastP50,000,000.00 through a series or combination Sec. 7 of RA 7080 provides for a separability clause of acts enumerated in Sec. 1, par. (d), of the Plunder Law. Finally, any doubt as to whether the crime of plunder is a malum in se must be deemed to have been Petitioner, however, bewails the failure of the law to provide for the statutory definition of the terms resolved in the affirmative by the decision of Congress in 1993 to include it among the heinous crimes "combination" and "series" in the key phrase "a combination or series of overt or criminal acts" punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Other heinous crimes are punished with death as a straight found in Sec. 1, par. (d), and Sec. 2, and the word "pattern" in Sec. 4. These omissions, according to penalty in R.A. No. 7659. Referring to these groups of heinous crimes, this Court held in People v. petitioner, render the Plunder Law unconstitutional for being impermissibly vague and overbroad and Echegaray:36 deny him the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, hence, violative The evil of a crime may take various forms. There are crimes that are, by their very nature, despicable, of his fundamental right to due process. either because life was callously taken or the victim is treated like an animal and utterly dehumanized The rationalization seems to us to be pure sophistry. A statute is not rendered uncertain and void as to completely disrupt the normal course of his or her growth as a human being . . . . Seen in this light, merely because general terms are used therein, or because of the employment of terms without defining the capital crimes of kidnapping and serious illegal detention for ransom resulting in the death of the them;6 much less do we have to define every word we use. Besides, there is no positive constitutional or victim or the victim is raped, tortured, or subjected to dehumanizing acts; destructive arson resulting in statutory command requiring the legislature to define each and every word in an enactment. Congress death; and drug offenses involving minors or resulting in the death of the victim in the case of other is not restricted in the form of expression of its will, and its inability to so define the words employed crimes; as well as murder, rape, parricide, infanticide, kidnapping and serious illegal detention, where in a statute will not necessarily result in the vagueness or ambiguity of the law so long as the legislative the victim is detained for more than three days or serious physical injuries were inflicted on the victim will is clear, or at least, can be gathered from the whole act, which is distinctly expressed in the Plunder or threats to kill him were made or the victim is a minor, robbery with homicide, rape or intentional Law. mutilation, destructive arson, and carnapping where the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped Moreover, it is a well-settled principle of legal hermeneutics that words of a statute will be interpreted in vehicle is killed or raped, which are penalized by reclusion perpetua to death, are clearly heinous by their their natural, plain and ordinary acceptation and signification,7 unless it is evident that the legislature very nature. intended a technical or special legal meaning to those words.8 The intention of the lawmakers - who are, There are crimes, however, in which the abomination lies in the significance and implications of the ordinarily, untrained philologists and lexicographers - to use statutory phraseology in such a manner subject criminal acts in the scheme of the larger socio-political and economic context in which the state is always presumed. Thus, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary contains the following commonly finds itself to be struggling to develop and provide for its poor and underprivileged masses. Reeling from accepted definition of the words "combination" and "series:" decades of corrupt tyrannical rule that bankrupted the government and impoverished the population, the

1. That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons; 2. That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of the following overt or criminal acts: (a) through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury; (b) by receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickback or any other form of pecuniary benefits from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer; (c) by the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of Government owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries; (d) by obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking; (e) by establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or (f) by taking advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines; and, 3. That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or acquired is at least P50,000,000.00.

prove each and every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy.

Philippine Government must muster the political will to dismantle the culture of corruption, dishonesty, greed and syndicated criminality that so deeply entrenched itself in the structures of society and the psyche of the populace. [With the government] terribly lacking the money to provide even the most basic services to its people, any form of misappropriation or misapplication of government funds translates to an actual threat to the very existence of government, and in turn, the very survival of the people it governs over. Viewed in this context, no less heinous are the effects and repercussions of crimes like qualified bribery, destructive arson resulting in death, and drug offenses involving government officials, employees or officers, that their perpetrators must not be allowed to cause further destruction and damage to society. The legislative declaration in R.A. No. 7659 that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is a malum in se. For when the acts punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong, they are mala in se37 and it does not matter that such acts are punished in a special law, especially since in the case of plunder the predicate crimes are mainly mala in se. Indeed, it would be absurd to treat prosecutions for plunder as though they are mere prosecutions for violations of the Bouncing Check Law (B.P. Blg. 22) or of an ordinance against jaywalking, without regard to the inherent wrongness of the acts. SERAPIO V. SANDIGANBAYAN It should be stressed that the Anti-Plunder law specifically Section 1(d) thereof does not make any express reference to any specific provision of laws, other than R.A. No. 7080, as amended, which coincidentally may penalize as a separate crime any of the overt or criminal acts enumerated therein. The said acts which form part of the combination or series of act are described in their generic sense. Thus, aside from 'malversation' of public funds, the law also uses the generic terms 'misappropriation', 'conversion' or 'misuse' of said fund. The fact that the acts involved may likewise be penalized under other laws is incidental. The said acts are mentioned only as predicate acts of the crime of plunder and the allegations relative thereto are not to be taken or to be understood as allegations charging separate criminal offenses punished under the Revised Penal Code, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees."25 This Court agrees with the Sandiganbayan. It is clear on the face of the amended Information that petitioner and his co-accused are charged only with one crime of plunder and not with the predicate acts or crimes of plunder. It bears stressing that the predicate acts merely constitute acts of plunder and are not crimes separate and independent of the crime of plunder. Resultantly then, the petition is dismissed. LABATAGOS V. SANDIGANBAYAN The only issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the guilt of the petitioner has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The established facts show that respondent court did not err in convicting petitioner for the crime of malversation. As held by said court: There is no merit in the accused's defense. Her claim that she signed the audit report and statement of collections and deposits prepared by the audit team of Francisco Rivera on the understanding that her shortage was only P2,000.00 is belied by the figures clearly reflected on the said documents. Exhibit A, the audit report which she signed without exception, shows that she incurred a shortage of P34,336.19 for the period from January to August 1978; while Exhibit A-1, the statement of her collections and deposits for the same period which she certified as correct, indicates the same amount of P34,336.19 as her shortage. Mrs. Ester Guanzon, the prosecution's rebuttal witness, confirmed that she assisted the accused in the collection of fees; that the accused filed application for maternity leave in March 1978 but continued reporting for work during that month; that the accused did not report for work in April 1978; and that she (Guanzon) was the one assigned to collect the fees in her stead. Miss Guanzon, however, explained that she turned over all her collections to the accused during all the times that she was assisting her in collecting the fees; and that even in April 1978 when the accused was physically absent from office, she also turned over her collections to the accused ill the latters house with the duplicate copies of the receipts she issued which the accused signed after satisfying herself that the amounts I turned over tallied with the receipts. There is color of truth to Mrs. Guanzon's explanation. All the collections for the months of March and April 1978 are fully accounted for they are itemized in the reports of collection, (Exhs. F and G) and shown to have been duly remitted in the remittance advices for those months. (Exhs. F-1 to F-5; G-1 and G-2). The auditor was correct in refusing to credit the accused with the three (3) different amounts mentioned in her letter of October 22, 1980. (Exh. 5) The first sum, P7,140.20, purporting to be refunds of tuition fees to students granted tuition privilages is hot supported by any official authorization for such refunds by the University authorities. Besides, the supposed list of students who were recipients of the refunds (Exh. 10) is incompetent evidence being a mere xerox copy uncertified as a true copy of an existing original. The second sum, P4,494.80 was purportedly spent for the cost of uniforms of the school and basketball balls. P2,100.00 in all (Exhs. 6 and 6-A), and the balance taken by Alikhan Marohombsar and Auditor Casan, (Exh.

6-B). The third amount, P6,702.12, was supposedly covered by vouchers submitted to the Auditor's office through Rosa Cabiguin. (Exh. 12-K) Again, the auditor did not err in not crediting the aforesaid sums to the accused's accountability. The P2,100.00 cost of uniforms and balls, unsupported by a duly accomplished and approved voucher, was not a valid disbursement. And since the alleged vouchers for P6,792.12 were not presented in evidence nor was any effort exerted to compel their production in court by subpoena duces tecum, the same was properly refused to be deduced from the incurred shortage of the accused. All the other sums allegedly taken from the accused by Director Osop, Alikhan Marohombsar and Auditor Casan totalling P31,070.00. (Exhs. 12, 12-A, etc., 13-A and 14-A), supported as they are by mere pieces of paper, despite the admission by Director Osop of having signed some of them (Exhs. 12-A, 12-D, 12-E and 12-I) were not valid disbursements. Granting that the amounts reflected in the chits were really secured by the persons who signed them, the responsibility to account for them still rests in the accused accountable officer. Malversation consists not only ill misappropriation or converting public funds or property to one's personal use but also by knowingly allowing others to make use of or misappropriate them. 2 ESTAPA V. SANDIGANBAYAN In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is proof that the accountable officer had received the public funds and that he did not have them in his possession when demand therefore was made and he could not satisfactorily explain his failure so to account. An accountable public officer may be convicted for malversation even if there is no direct evidence of personal misappropriation, where he has not been able to explain satisfactorily the absence of the public funds involved. 9 Under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, there is prima facie evidence of malversation where the accountable public officer fails to have duly forthcoming any public funds with which he is chargeable upon demand by duly authorized officer. As this Court has pointed out, this presumption juris tantum is founded upon human experience.10 In the present case, petitioner was neither able to produce the missing amount of P50,000.00 nor adequately to explain his failure to produce that amount. Petitioner's explanation leaves one thoroughly dissatisfied. If one took petitioner's explanation seriously and literally, the mysterious, unseen third person could have picked up the missing bundle of P50.00 bills either (1) from the sofa inside the room of Atty. Kempis where he had left the bundles of large denomination bills, without asking anyone to keep an eye on them while he left the room; or (2) from petitioner's cage outside Atty. Kempis' room where he left the bundles of large denomination bills, again without anyone being left in charge thereof, while he went back to Mr. Pangilinan's desk (also outside Atty. Kempis' room) to retrieve the bundles of small denomination bills he had previously deposited on top of said desk without, once more, getting some one to watch those bundles. Petitioner's self-confessed coming and going from sofa to Pangilinan's desk; back to sofa and then to his cage; and back to Pangilinan's desk and finally to his cage created at least two (2) clear opportunities for the invisible third person to pick up the missing P50,000.00. Clearly, petitioner was very relaxed and casual in the handling of the bundles of money entrusted to him. ILOGON V. SANDIGANBAYAN In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is proof that the accountable officer had received public funds and that he did not have them in his possession when demand therefor was made. There is even no need of direct evidence of personal misappropriation as long as there is a shortage in his account and petitioner cannot satisfactorily explain the same.6 In this case, petitioner was the official custodian of the missing funds. He himself admitted the shortage of P118,003.10 in his cash and accounts as Acting Postmaster but could not give a satisfactory explanation for the same. he would invoke what he calls "humanitarian reasons" as the justification for the said shortage. But, like the accused Cabello v. Sandiganbayan,7 petitioner herein knows that his granting of "chits" and "vales" which constituted the bulk of the shortage was a violation of the postal rules and regulations. Such practice, it was held in Cabello, is also prohibited by Memoramdum Circular No. 570, dated June 29, 1968, of the General Auditing Office. This Court went further to state that "giving vales" is proscribed under Presidential Decree No. 1445, otherwise known as the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, specifically Section 69 thereof, which provides that postmasters are only allowed to use their collections to pay money orders, telegraphic transfers and withdrawals from the proper depository bank whenever their cash advances for the purpose are exhausted."8 The fact that petitioner did not personally use the missing funds is not a valid defense and will not exculpate him from his criminal liability. And as aptly found by respondent Sandiganbayan, "the fact that (the) immediate superiors of the accused (petitioner herein) have acquiesced to the practice of giving out cash advances for convenience did not legalize the disbursements". The fact also that petitioner fully settled the amount of P188,003.10 later is of no moment. The return of funds malversed is not a defense. It is neither an exempting circumstance nor a ground for extinguishing the accused's criminal liability. At best, it is a mitigating circumstance.9 AZARCON V. SANDIGANBAYAN

Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

It is hornbook doctrine that in order "(to) ascertain whether a court has jurisdiction or not, the provisions of the law should be inquired into." 25 Furthermore, "the jurisdiction of the court must appear clearly from the statute law or it will not be held to exist. It cannot be presumed or

implied." 26 And for this purpose in criminal cases, "the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the law at the time of commencement of the action." 27 In this case, the action was instituted with the filing of this information on January 12, 1990; hence, the applicable statutory provisions are those of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by P.D. No. 1861 on March 23, 1983, but prior to their amendment by R.A. No. 7975 on May 16, 1995. At that time, Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 provided that: Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise: (a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving: (1) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code; (2) Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, whether simple or complexed with other crimes, where the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years, or a fine of P6,000.00: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that offenses or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the penalty prescribed by law does not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years or a fine of P6,000.00 shall be tried by the proper Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court. xxx xxx xxx In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees. xxx xxx xxx The foregoing provisions unequivocally specify the only instances when the Sandiganbayan will have jurisdiction over a private individual, i.e. when the complaint charges the private individual either as a co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public officer or employee who has been charged with a crime within its jurisdiction. Azarcon: A Public Officer or A Private Individual? The Information does not charge petitioner Azarcon of being a co-principal, accomplice or accessory to a public officer committing an offense under the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. Thus, unless petitioner be proven a public officer, the Sandiganbayan will have no jurisdiction over the crime charged. Article 203 of the RPC determines who are public officers: Who are public officers. For the purpose of applying the provisions of this and the preceding titles of the book, any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent, or subordinate official, of any rank or classes, shall be deemed to be a public officer. Thus, (to) be a public officer, one must be (1) Taking part in the performance of public functions in the government, or Performing in said Government or any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent, or subordinate official, of any rank or class; and (2) That his authority to take part in the performance of public functions or to perform public duties must be a. by direct provision of the law, or b. by popular election, or c. by appointment by competent authority. 28 Granting arguendo that the petitioner, in signing the receipt for the truck constructively distrained by the BIR, commenced to take part in an activity constituting public functions, he obviously may not be deemed authorized by popular election. The next logical query is whether petitioner's designation by the BIR as a custodian of distrained property qualifies as appointment by direct provision of law, or by competent authority. 29 We answer in the negative. The Solicitor General contends that the BIR, in effecting constructive distraint over the truck allegedly owned by Jaime Ancla, and in requiring Petitioner Alfredo Azarcon who was in possession thereof to sign a pro forma receipt for it, effectively "designated" petitioner a depositary and, hence, citing U.S. vs. Rastrollo, 30 a public officer. 31This is based on the theory that (t)he power to designate a private person who has actual possession of a distrained property as a depository of distrained property is necessarily implied in the BIR's power to place the property of a delinquent tax payer (sic) in distraint as provided for under Sections 206, 207 and 208 (formerly Sections 303, 304 and 305) of the National Internal Revenue Code, (NIRC) . . . . 32 We disagree. The case of U.S. vs. Rastrollo is not applicable to the case before us simply because the facts therein are not identical, similar or analogous to those obtaining here. While the cited case involved a judicialdeposit of the proceeds of the sale of attached property in the hands of the debtor, the case at bench dealt with the BIR's administrative act of effecting constructive distraint over alleged property of taxpayer Ancla in relation to his back taxes, property which was received by Petitioner Azarcon. In the cited case, it was clearly within the scope of that court's jurisdiction and judicial power to constitute the judicial deposit and give "the depositary a character equivalent to that of a public official." 33 However, in the instant case, while the BIR had authority to require Petitioner Azarcon to

sign a receipt for the distrained truck, the NIRC did not grant it power to appoint Azarcon a public officer. It is axiomatic in our constitutional framework, which mandates a limited government, that its branches and administrative agencies exercise only that power delegated to them as "defined either in the Constitution or in legislation or in both." 34 Thus, although the "appointing power is the exclusive prerogative of the President, . . ."35 the quantum of powers possessed by an administrative agency forming part of the executive branch will still be limited to that "conferred expressly or by necessary or fair implication" in its enabling act. Hence, "(a)n administrative officer, it has been held, has only such powers as are expressly granted to him and those necessarily implied in the exercise thereof." 36 Corollarily, implied powers "are those which are necessarily included in, and are therefore of lesser degree than the power granted. It cannot extend to other matters not embraced therein, nor are not incidental thereto." 37 For to so extend the statutory grant of power "would be an encroachment on powers expressly lodged in Congress by our Constitution." 38 It is true that Sec. 206 of the NIRC, as pointed out by the prosecution, authorizes the BIR to effect a constructive distraint by requiring "any person" to preserve a distrained property, thus: xxx xxx xxx The constructive distraint of personal property shall be effected by requiring the taxpayer or any person having possession or control of such property to sign a receipt covering the property distrained and obligate himself to preserve the same intact and unaltered and not to dispose of the same in any manner whatever without the express authority of the Commissioner. xxx xxx xxx However, we find no provision in the NIRC constituting such person a public officer by reason of such requirement. The BIR's power authorizing a private individual to act as a depositary cannot be stretched to include the power to appoint him as a public officer. The prosecution argues that "Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code . . . defines the individuals covered by the term 'officers' under Article 217 39 . . ." of the same Code. 40 And accordingly, since Azarcon became "a depository of the truck seized by the BIR" he also became a public officer who can be prosecuted under Article 217 . . . ." 41 The Court is not persuaded. Article 222 of the RPC reads: Officers included in the preceding provisions. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to private individuals who, in any capacity whatever, have charge of any insular, provincial or municipal funds, revenues, or property and to any administrator or depository of funds or property attached, seized or deposited by public authority, even if such property belongs to a private individual. "Legislative intent is determined principally from the language of a statute. Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the law is applied according to its express terms, and interpretation would be resorted to only where a literal interpretation would be either impossible or absurd or would lead to an injustice." 42 This is particularly observed in the interpretation of penal statutes which "must be construed with such strictness as to carefully safeguard the rights of the defendant . . . ." 43 The language of the foregoing provision is clear. A private individual who has in his charge any of the public funds or property enumerated therein and commits any of the acts defined in any of the provisions of Chapter Four, Title Seven of the RPC, should likewise be penalized with the same penalty meted to erring public officers. Nowhere in this provision is it expressed or implied that a private individual falling under said Article 222 is to be deemed a public officer. After a thorough review of the case at bench, the Court thus finds Petitioner Alfredo Azarcon and his coaccused Jaime Ancla to be both private individuals erroneously charged before and convicted by Respondent Sandiganbayan which had no jurisdiction over them. The Sandiganbayan's taking cognizance of this case is of no moment since "(j)urisdiction cannot be conferred by . . . erroneous belief of the court that it had jurisdiction." 44 As aptly and correctly stated by the petitioner in his memorandum: From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the petitioner did not cease to be a private individual when he agreed to act as depositary of the garnished dump truck. Therefore, when the information charged him and Jaime Ancla before the Sandiganbayan for malversation of public funds or property, the prosecution was in fact charging two private individuals without any public officer being similarly charged as a co-conspirator. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the controversy and therefore all the proceedings taken below as well as the Decision rendered by Respondent Sandiganbayan, are null and void for lack of jurisdiction. 45 RODILLAS V. SANDIGANBAYAN The records show that the elements of the crime for which the petitioner was convicted are present. Article 224 of the Revised Penal Code states: ART. 224. Evasion through negligence. If the evasion of the prisoner shall have taken place through the negligence of the officer charged with the conveyance or custody of the escaping prisoner, said officer shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special disqualification. The elements of the crime under the abovementioned article are: a) that the offender is a public officer; b) that he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment; and c) that such prisoner escapes through his negligence (See Reyes, L.B., Revised Penal Code, Book II, 1977 ed., p. 407).

There is no question that the petitioner is a public officer. Neither is there any dispute as to the fact that he was charged with the custody of a prisoner who was being tried for a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The only disputed issue is the petitioner's negligence resulting in the escape of detention prisoner Zenaida Andres. The negligence referred to in the Revised Penal Code is such definite laxity as all but amounts to a deliberate non-performance of duty on the part of the guard (Id., p. 408). It is evident from the records that the petitioner acted negligently and beyond the scope of his authority when he permitted his charge to create the situation which led to her escape. The petitioner contends that human considerations compelled him to grant Zenaida Andres requests to take lunch and to go to the comfort room to relieve herself. As a police officer who was charged with the duty to return the prisoner directly to jail, the deviation from his duty was clearly a violation of the regulations. In the first place, it was improper for the petitioner to take lunch with the prisoner and her family when he was supposed to bring his charge to the jail. He even allowed the prisoner and her husband to talk to each other at the request of a co-officer. It is the duty of any police officer having custody of a prisoner to take necessary precautions to assure the absence of any means of escape. A failure to undertake these precautions will make his act one of definite laxity or negligence amounting to deliberate non-performance of duty. His tolerance of arrangements whereby the prisoner and her companions could plan and make good her escape should have aroused the suspicion of a person of ordinary prudence. The request for lunch and the consequent delay was an opportunity for the prisoner to learn of a plan or to carry out an earlier plan by which she could escape. The plan was in fact carried out with the help of the lady who accompanied his prisoner inside the comfort room. The use of a toilet is one of the most familiar and common place methods of escape. It is inconceivable that a police officer should fall for this trick. The arrangement with a lady friend should have aroused the petitioner's suspicion because the only pretext given by the petitioner was that she was going to answer the call of nature. It was, therefore, unnecessary for her to be accompanied by anyone especially by someone who was not urgently in need of a toilet if the purpose was merely to relieve herself. Despite this, the petitioner allowed the two to enter the comfort room without first establishing for himself that there was no window or door allowing the possibility of escape. He even allowed the prisoner's companion to leave the premises with the excuse that the prisoner was having her monthly period and that there was a need to buy sanitary napkins. And he patiently waited for more than ten minutes for the companion to return. This was patent negligence and incredible naivette on the part of the police officer. Contrary to what the petitioner claims, the escape was not a confluence of facts and,circumstances which were not foreseen and were not unnatural in the course of things. Not only should they have been foreseen but they should have been guarded against. Considering that the city jail was only a kilometer away and it was only 11:30 a.m., it would not have been inhuman for the petitioner to deny the prisoner's request to first take lunch. Neither would it have been inhuman if he cleared the toilet of female occupants and checked all possible exists first and if he did not allow the lady companion to go with Zenaida Andres to the comfort room. These human considerations, however, are immaterial because the fact remains that as a police officer, he should have exercised utmost diligence in the performance of his duty. The supposed confluence of facts does not alter his liability. That he was not trained in escorting women prisoners is likewise unacceptable as there are no hard and fast rules of conduct under all conceivable situations for police officers acting as guards. However, they are expected to use prudence, diligence, and common sense. That Judge Pardo did not immediately pronounce judgment so the petitioner could have immediately brought Zenaida back to jail is inconsequential. In the first place, the escape would not have materialized had he immediately escorted her back to jail after the hearing. That he cannot follow the prisoner inside the comfort room because it would create a commotion, he being a male, is a lame excuse. There is nothing wrong in asking the ladies for permission so he could check the comfort room first to insure that the prisoner cannot escape. The fact that the building is made of concrete and the outside windows covered with grills should not make a police officer complacent especially because well-planned escapes are not uncommon. Escapes are, in fact, even presumed so much so that two (2) guards are usually assigned to a prisoner. (Tsn, August 4, 1981, p. 40) There appears to have been no genuine effort on the part of the petitioner to recapture the escapee. Instead of promptly reporting the matter so that an alarm could immediately be sent out to all police agencies and expert procedures followed, he allegedly tried to look for her in the latter's house in Caloocan and failing in this, proceeded to Nueva Ecija. It was only later in the evening that he formally reported the matter to his superior. This even gave the escapee greater opportunity to make good her escape because the chances of her being recaptured became much less. Such action requires concerted police effort, not a one-man job which petitioner should have been or was probably aware of. The petitioner further contends that he cannot be convicted because there was no connivance between him and the prisoner. In support of his claim, he cites the case of Alberto v. dela Cruz, (98 SCRA 406). The citation, however, is erroneous. It creates the impression that for one to be held liable under Art. 224, there must be a showing that he first connived with the prisoner. This was not the ruling in said case. Conniving or consenting to evasion is a distinct crime under Art. 223 of the Revised Penal Code. The petitioner here is not being charged with conniving under Art. 223 but for evasion through negligence under Art. 224 of the same Code. It is, therefore, not necessary that connivance be proven to hold him liable for the crime of infidelity in the custody of prisoners. We quote the Solicitor General that the Sandiganbayan's observation regarding escaped prisoners is relevant and timely. The Court stated: It is high time that the courts should take strict measures against law officers to whom have been entrusted the custody and detention of prisoners, whether detention prisoners or prisoners serving sentence. Laxity and negligence in the performance of their duties resulting in the mysterious escapes of notorious criminals have become common news

items, involving as it does the suspicion that monetary considerations may have entered into the arrangements which led to the successful escape of such notorious criminals even from military custody. No quarters should be extended to such kind of law officers who, deliberately or otherwise, fail to live up to the standard required of their duties, thus directly contributing not only to the clogging of judicial dockets but also to the inevitable deterioration of peace and order. (Brief for Respondents, pp. 17-18)