APPLICATION OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW EXPLAINED In the case of People vs. Gabres, Gabres, the Court has had occasion to so state that — “Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the penalty shall be ‘that which, in view of the attendin circumstances, circumstances, could be properly imposed! under the "evised #enal Code, and the minimum shall be within the rane of the penalty next lower to that prescribed! for the offense$ %he penalty next lower should be based on the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense, without first considerin any modifyin circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime$ %he determination of the minimum penalty is left by law to the sound discretion of the court and it can be anywhere within the rane of the penalty next lower without any reference to the periods into which it miht be subdivided$ %he modifyin circumstances are considered only in the imposition of the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence$ “%he fact that the amounts involved in the instant case exceed #&&,'''$'' should not be considered in the initial determinat determination ion of the indeterminate indeterminate penalty( penalty( instead, instead, the matter matter should should be so ta)en as analoous to modifyin modifyin circumstances in the imposition of the maximum term of the full indeterminate sentence$ %his interpretation of the law accords with the rule that penal laws should be construed in favor of the accused$ Since the penalty prescribed by law for the estafa chare aainst accused*appellant is prision is prision correccional maximum maximum to prision to prision mayor minimum, minimum, the penalt penalty y next lower lower would would then be prision correccional minim minimum um to medium medium$$ %hus, %hus, the minimum minimum term term of the indeterminate sentence should be anywhere within six +- months and one +.- day to four +/- years and two +&months $ $ $0 +#eople v$ Saley( 1" .&..23, 4uly &, !35INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW; APPLICABLE ALSO IN DRUG CASES: %he final 6uery is wheth whether er or not the Indete Indetermi rminat nate e Senten Sentence ce Law is applic applicabl able e to the case now before before us$ 7pparently it does, since dru offenses are not included in nor has appellant committed any act which would put him within within the exceptio exceptions ns to said law and the penalty to be imposed imposed does not involve involve reclusion perpetua perpetua or death, provided, of course, that the penalty as ultimately resolved will exceed one year of imprisonment$ %he more important aspect, however, is how the indeterminate sentence shall be ascertained$ It is true that Section . of said law, after providin providin for indetermin indeterminate ate sentence sentence for an offense offense under the "evised "evised #enal Code, states states that “if the offense offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same0 8e hold that this 6uoted portion of the section indubitably refers to an offense under a special law wherein the penalty imposed was not ta)en from and is without reference to the "evised #enal Code, as discussed in the precedin illustrations, such that it may be said that the “offense is punished0 under that law$ %here can be no sensible debate that the afore6uoted rule on indeterminate sentence for offenses under special laws was necess necessary ary because because of the nature nature of the former former type type of penalt penalties ies under said laws laws which which were were not included included or contemplated in the scale of penalties in 7rticle 2. of the Code, hence there could be no minimum “within the rane of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense,0 as is the rule for felonies therein$ In the illustrative examples of penalties in special laws hereinbefore provided, this rule applied, and would still apply, apply, only to the first and last examples$ 9urthermore, considerin the vintae of 7ct :o$ /.'; as earlier noted, this holdin is but an application and is artin SimonWHEN THE BENEFITS OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW IS NOT APPLICABLE ( a$ ?ffenses punished by death or life imprisonment$ b$ %hose convicted of treason +7rt$ ../-, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason +7rt$ ..=-$ c$ %hose convicted of misprision of treason +7rt$ ..-, rebellion +7rt$ .;/-, sedition +7rt$ .;3-, or espionae +7rt$ ..2-$ d$ %hose convicted of piracy +7rt$ .&&-$
e$ @abitual delin6uents +7rt$ &, par$ =-$ f$ %hose who escaped from confinement or those who evaded sentence$ $ %hose ranted conditional pardon and who violated the terms of the same +7rt$ .=3-$ + People v. Corral , 2/ #hil$ ;=3-$ h$ %hose whose maximum period of imprisonment does not exceed one year$ i$ %hose who are already servin final adriaa, 1" :o$ 5&&3;, 4uly &;, .33&$WHICH IS MORE BURDENSOME LIFE IMPRISONMENT OF RECLUSION PERPETUA "eclusion perpetua has accessory penalties while life imprisonment does not$ @owever, life imprisonment does not have a fixed duration or extent while reclusion perpetua has a duration of from twenty years and one day to forty years$ life imprisonment may span the natural life of the convict$ +#eople *versus* "allaan, &/2 SC"7 =;2RECLUSIO RECLUSION N PERPETUA PERPETUA AND LIFE IMPRISO IMPRISONMEN NMENT T CANNOT CANNOT BE INTER-CHA INTER-CHANGE NGE WHEN IMPOSED AS PENALTY
8here the law violated provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua, impose the said penalty and not the penalty of life imprisonment$ 8here the law imposes the penalty of life imprisonment, do not impose reclusion perpetua$ +#eople *vs* "olando >adriaa, &.. SC"7 35THE REASON WHY RECLUSION PERPETUA HAS A RANGE DESPITE THE SAME BEING INDIVISIBLE %here we also said that “if reclusion perpetua was reclassified as a divisible penalty, then 7rticle ; of the "evised #enal Code would lose its reason and basis for existence$0 %he imputed duration of thirty +;'- years of reclusion perpetua, therefore, only serves as the basis for determinin the convict!s eliibility for pardon or for the application of the three*fold rule in the service of multiple penalties$ +#eople *vs* 7spolinar "aanas, et al$, 1" :o$ .'..55, ?ctober .&, .333RARE CASE OF APPLICATION OF RPC IN A SUPPLETORY CHARACTER DESPITE THE PENALTY BEING LIFE IMPRISONMENT 8here the accused committed 6ualified violation of #B 2'/ +fishin with the use of explosives-, the imposable penalty for which is life imprisonment to death$ If the accused is entitled to a mitiatin circumstance of voluntary surrender, the court should impose life imprisonment applyin, in a suppletory character, 7rticles .; and ; of the "evised #enal Code$ +#eople *vs* #riscilla Aalasa, 1" :o$ .';=2, September ;, .335ACCUSED WHO IS SENTENCED TO RECLUSION PERPETUA IS STILL ENTITLED TO EITHER FULL OR ¾ OF HIS PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT If, durin the trial, the accused was detained but, after trial, he was meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua, he is still entitled to the full credit of his preventive imprisonment because 7rticle &3 of the "evised #enal Code does not distinuish between divisible and indivisible penalties$ +#eople *vs* "olando Corpu, &;. SC"7 /5'QUALIFIED THEFT QUALIFIED THEFT IS PENALIZED BY RECLUSION PERPETUA IF AMOUNT INVOLVED IS OVER P22,! Under 7rticle ;'3 of the "evised #enal Code, the maximum of the penalty for 6ualified theft is prision mayor to reclusion temporal$ @owever, under 7rticle ;.' of the "evised #enal Code, the penalty for the crime shall be two +&derees hiher than the specified in 7rticle ;'3 of the Code$ Under 7rticle 2/ of the "evised #enal Code, the penalty hiher by one deree than another iven penalty, and if such hiher penalty is death, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua of forty +/'- years with the accessory penalties of death under 7rticle /' of the "evised #enal Code$ %he accused shall not be entitled to pardon before the lapse of forty +/'- years$ +#eople *vs* 9ernando Canales, &32 SC"7 2THE PROBATION LAW (P.D. 968) AND ITS AMENDMENTS
PROBATION, ITS MEANING 7 disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is sub
to prevent the commission of offenses$
SUBMISSION OF PETITION AND TIME OF FILING OFPETITION
%he petition or application for probation must be filed directly with the Court which sentenced the accused within .= days from date of promulation of the decision convictin the accused, or in short within the period to appeal otherwise the
cooperate with a proram of supervision( meet his family responsibilities(
;$ devote himself to a specific employment and not to chare said employment without prior written approval of the probation officer( /$
comply with a proram of payment of civil liability to the victim of his heirs(
=$ undero medical, psycholoical or psychiatric examination and treatment andFor enter and remain in a specific institution, when re6uired for that purposes(
$
pursue a prescribed secular study or vocational trainin(
2$
attend or reside in a facility established for instruction or recreation of persons on probation(
5$
refrain from visitin houses of ill*repute(
3$
abstain from drin)in intoxicatin beveraes to excess(
.'$
permit the probation officer or an authoried social wor)er to visit his home and place of wor)(
..$ reside at premises approved by the court and not to chane his residence wFo prior written approval( and .&$ satisfy any other condition related to the rehabilitation of the probationer and not unduly restrictive of his liberty or incompatible with his freedom of conscience$ RULES ON OUTSIDE TRAVEL OF PROBATIONER 7 probationer who desires to travel outside the
%hose convicted of any offense aainst the security of the state(
%hose who have been previously convicted by final
•
%hose who have been once on probation under the provisions of this decree$
•
%hose convicted of "7 3.=$
•
%hose convicted of violation of election laws$
PERIOD OF PROBATION • If the probationer has been sentenced to an imprisonment of not more than one year, the probation shall not exceed two years( • In all other cases, not to exceed six years( In case the penalty is fine, the probation shall not be less than the period of subsidiary imprisonment nor more than twice of the subsidiary imprisonment$ •
AMENDMENT TO SECTION # OF PD $%&E “Sec$ /$ 1rant of #robation$ Sub
Thus, a person who was sentenced to destierro cannot apply for probation. Reason: it does not involved imprisonment or fine. (PD 199! JURISPRUDENCE UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHY OF PROBATION %he underlyin philosophy of probation is indeed one of liberality towards the accused$ It is not served by a harsh and strinent interpretation of the statutory provisions$ #robation is a maorales, /F&5F5;PROBATION IS NOT A RIGHT BUT A PRIVILEGE #robation is a mere privilee and its rant rests solely upon the discretion of the court$ 7s aptly noted in U$S$ vs$ Bur)en, this discretion is to be exercised primarily for the benefit of oranied society and only incidentally for the benefit of the accused$ +%olentino v$ 7lconcel, 1$"$ :o$ ;/'', ;F.5F5;-$ Hven if a convicted person is not included in the list of offenders dis6ualified from the benefits of a decree, the rant of probation is nevertheless not automatic or ministerial, +#ablo Aernardo v$ Aalaot, &.= SC"7 =&- therefore a petition for probation may be denied by the Court$ MAIN CRITERION FOR DETERMINING WHO MAY BE GRANTED PROBATION$ %he main criterion laid down by the #robation law in determinin who may be ranted probation is based on the penalty imposed and not on the nature of the crime$ Ay the relative lihtness of the offense, as measured by the penalty imposed, more than by its nature, as the law so ordains the offender is not such a serious menace to society as to be wrested away therefrom, as the more danerous type of criminals should be$ @ence, in the case at bar, the
first reason iven by the respondent
miht call a ‘contained! crime whose conse6uences are limited to that crime alone, li)e swindlin and biamy$ Court and police records show that a sinificant number of murders, rapes, and similar offenses have been committed by persons under the influence of danerous drus, or while they are ‘hih$! 8hile spreadin such drus, the dru* pusher is also abettin, throuh his areed and irresponsibility, the commission of other crimes$0 %he imae of the $ Cuevas, 4r$!s dischare from probation without any infraction of the attendant conditions therefor and the various certifications attestin to his rihteous, peaceful and civic*oriented character prove that he has ta)en decisive steps to pure himself of his deficiency in moral character and atone for the unfortunate death of "aul I$ Camalian$ %he Court is prepared to ive him the benefit of the doubt, ta)in r$ 4ustice #adilla!s comment in the sister case of "eE #etition of 7l 7rosino %o %a)e %he Lawyer!s ?ath, Aar >atter :o$ 2.&, >arch .3, .332, “Kthe Court sincerely hopes that0 >r$ Cuevas, 4r$, “will continue with the assistance he has been ivin to his community$ 7s a lawyer he will now be in a better position to render leal and other services to the more unfortunate members of society0$ +In "eE Cuevas, 4r$( .F&2F35EXPIRATION OF PERIOD OF PROBATION IS NOT TERMINATION, ORDER OF COURT REQUIRED %he mere expiration of the period for probation does not, ipso facto, terminate the probation$ #robation is not co* terminus with its period, there must be an order from the Court of final dischare, terminatin the probation$ If the accused violates the condition of the probation before the issuance of said order, the probation may be revo)ed by the Court +>anuel Aala v$ >artine, .5. SC"7 /=3-$ ANTI-FENCING LAW OF )$*$ (PD NO. 1612) DEFINITION 9encin as defined in Sec$ & of #B :o$ ..& +7nti*9encin Law- is “the act of any person who, with intent to ain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, )eep, ac6uire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any article, item, obarcos$ %he law too) effect on >arch &, .323$ %he Implementin "ules and "eulations of the 7nti*9encin Law were subse6uently formulated and it too) effect on 4une .=, .323$ THE PURPOSE OF ENACTING PD )%)2 %he 7nti*9encin Law was made to curtail and put an end to the rampant robbery of overnment and private properties$ 8ith the existence of “ready buyers0, the “business0 of robbin and stealin have become profitable$ @ence, a law was enacted to also punish those who buy stolen properties$ 9or if there are no buyers then the malefactors could not profit from their wron doins$
WHAT IS FENCING LAW AND HOW IT CAN BE COMMITTED “9encin0 is the act of any person who, with intent to ain for himself or for another, shall buy receive, possess, )eep, ac6uire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, ob
complete inventory of such articles includin the names and addresses from whom the articles were ac6uired$
b. 9ull list of articles to be sold or offered for sale includin the time and place of sale c. #lace where the articles are presently deposited$ %he Station Commander may, re6uire the submission of an affidavit accompanied by other documents showin proof of leitimacy of ac6uisition$ 2. %hose who wish to secure the permitFclearance, shall file an application with the Station Commander concerned, which statesE a. name, address and other pertinent circumstances b. article to be sold or offered for sale to the public and the name and address of the unlicensed dealer or supplier from whom such article was ac6uired$ c. Include the receipt or document showin proof of leitimacy of ac6uisition$ 3. %he Station Commander shall examine the documents attached to the application and may re6uire the presentation of other additional documents, if necessary, to show satisfactory proof of the leitimacy of ac6uisition of the article, sub
articles ac6uired from unlicensed dealer or supplier
•
the names and addresses of the persons from whom they were ac6uired
•
that such articles are to be sold or offered for sale to the public at the address of the store, establishment or other entity see)in the clearanceFpermit$
4. If there are no newspapers in eneral circulation, the party see)in the clearanceFpermit shall, post a notice daily for one wee) on the bulletin board of the municipal buildin of the town where the store, firm, establishment or entity is located or, in the case of an individual, where the articles in his possession are to be sold or offered for sale$
5. If after .= days, upon expiration of the period of publication or of the notice, no claim is made to any of the articles enumerated in the notice, the Station Commander shall issue the clearance or permit souht$ 6. If before expiration of the same period for the publication of the notice or its postin, it shall appear that any of the articles in 6uestion is stolen property, the Station Commander shall hold the article in restraint as evidence in any appropriate case to be filed$ 7rticles held in restraint shall )ept and disposed of as the circumstances of each case permit$ In any case it shall be the duty of the Station Commander concerned to adviseFnotify the Commission on 7udit of the case and comply with such procedure as may be proper under applicable existin laws, rules and reulations$ 7. %he Station Commander shall, within seventy*two +2&- hours from receipt of the application, act thereon by either issuin the clearanceFpermit re6uested or denyin the same$ Benial of an application shall be in writin and shall state in brief the reasonFs thereof$ 8. 7ny party not satisfied with the decision of the Station Commander may appeal the same within .' days to the proper I:# +now #:#- Bistrict Superintendent and further to the I:# +now #:#- Birector$ %he decision of the Birector can still be appealed top the Birector*1eneral, within .' days, whose decision may be appealed with the >inister +now Secretary- of :ational Befense, within .= days, which decision is final$ PRESUMPTION >ere possession of any ood, article, item, obrs$ >aripa Aernard "amolete was snatch in the public mar)et of Carbon, Cebu City, where she lost a Chinese 1old :ec)lace and pendant worth some #/,'''$'' to snatchers >anuel Hlardo and Macarias #ateras$ %he snatchers sold the items to >anuel Lucero$ Conse6uently, Lucero was chared with violation of the 7nti*9encin Law$ @owever, in this case, no eyewitness pointed to Lucero as the perpetrator and the evidence of the prosecution was not stron enouh to convict him$ %he second element spea)s of the overt act of )eepin, buyin, receivin, possessin, ac6uirin, concealin, sellin or disposin or in any manner deals with stolen items$ It is thus illustrated in the case of Lim vs$ Court of 7ppeals, where the accused, 4uanito Lim stored and )ept in his bodea and subse6uently bouht or disposed of the nine +3pieces of stolen tires with rims owned by Loui 7nton Aond$ %he accused )nown or should have )nown that the oods were stolen$ 7s pointed out in the case of #eople vs$ 7driatico, the court in convictin :orma 7driatico, stated that it was impossible for her to )now that the
stolen because of the fact that Crisilita was willin to part with a considerable number of uere$ %he store is enaed in buyin and sellin of second hand merchandise located at #asay "oad, >a)ati$ %he said stereo was bouht from 8ynn!s 7udio, an existin establishment$ %he court held that there is no proof that the spouses >uere, had )nowlede of the fact that the stereo was stolen$ %he spouses >uere purchased the stereo from a )nown merchant and the unit is displayed for sale in their store$ %hese actions are not indicative of a conduct of a uilty person$ ?n the same vein, the third element did not exist in the case of D.M. Consunji !nc. +Consun$ ConsunC Industrial Sales and Seato tradin Company, owned respectively by Hduardo Chin and the spouses Sy$ "espondents presented sales receipts coverin their purchase of the items from #aramount Industrial, which is a )nown hardware store in Caloocan, thus they had no reason to suspect that the said items were products of theft$ %he last element is that there is intent to ain for himself or for another$ @owever, intent to ain need not be proven in crimes punishable by a special law such as the 7nti*9encin Law$ %he crimes punishable by special laws are called “acts mala pro$ibita“$ %he rule on the sub
%he law on fencin does not re6uire the accused to have participation in the criminal desin to commit or to have been in any wise involved in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft$ :either is the crime of robbery or theft made to depend on an act of fencin in order that it can be consummated$ +#eople v Be 1uman, 1" 22;5-$ "obbery is the ta)in of personal property belonin to another, with intent to ain, by means of violence aainst or intimidation of any person, or usin force upon anythin$ ?n the other hand, fencin is the act of any person who, with intent to ain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, )eep, ac6uire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, obHLHC '2F'=F3>oral turpitude can be derived from the third element accused )nows or should have )nown that the items were stolen$ #articipation of each felon, one bein the robber or the thief or the actual perpetrators, and the other as the fence, differs in point in time and deree but both invaded one!s peaceful dominion for ain$ +Supra- Aoth crimes neated the principle of each person!s duty to his fellowmen not to appropriate thins that they do not own or return somethin ac6uired by mista)e or with malice$ %his sinifies moral turpitude with moral unfitness$ In the case of Bela %orre, he was declared dis6ualified from runnin the position of >ayor in Cavinti, Launa in the last >ay 5, .33= elections because of the fact of the dis6ualification under Sec$ /' of the Local 1overnment Code, of persons runnin for elective position *“Sec$ /' Bis6ualifications +a- %hose sentenced by final
2. 7ny person who havin sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee ban) when he ma)es or draws and issues a chec), shall fail to )eep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the chec) if presented within a period of ninety days from date appearin thereon, for which reason, it is dishonored by the drawee ban)$ HOW TO ESTABLISH GUILT OF ACCUSED IN BP 22 %o establish her uilt, it is indispensable that the chec)s she issued for which she was subse6uently chared, be offered in evidence because the ravamen of the offense chared is the act of )nowinly issuin a chec) with insufficient funds$ Clearly, it was error to convict complainant on the basis of her letter alone$ :evertheless, despite this incorrect interpretation of a rule on evidence, we do not find the same as sufficiently constitutive of the chares of ross inorance of the law and of )nowinly renderin an un
In the case of Ma#no vs C&, when accused issued a chec) as warranty deposit for lease of certain e6uipment, even )nowin that he has no funds or insufficient funds in the ban) is not liable, if the lessor of the e6uipment pulled out the loaned e6uipment$ %he drawer has no obliation to ma)e ood the chec) because there is no more deposit to uaranty$ ISSUANCE OF GUARANTEE CHECS WHICH WAS DISHONORED IN VIOLATION AND PURPOSE OF THE LAW %he intention of the framers of A# && is to ma)e a mere act of issuin a worthless chec) malum prohibitum$ In prosecutions for violation of A# &&, therefore, preere errors in the appreciation of evidence, unless so ross and patent as to produce an inference of inorance or bad faith, or of )nowin rendition of an unatter P"%4*3=*.;&, 4uly 5, .335DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ESTAFA AND VIOLATION OF BP 22 In the crime of estafa, deceit and damae are essential elements of the offense and have to be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction$ 9or violation of the Aouncin Chec)s Law, on the other hand, the elements of deceit and damae are neither essential nor re6uired$ "ather, the elements of A$#$ Al$ && are +a- the ma)in, drawin and issuance of any chec) to apply to account or for value( +b- the ma)er, drawer or issuer )nows at the time of issuance that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee ban) for the payment of such chec) in full upon its presentment( and, +c- the chec) is subse6uently dishonored by the drawee ban) for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without valid reason, ordered the ban) to stop payment$ +Uy v Court of 7ppeals, 1" ..3''', 4uly &5, .332'URISDICTION IN BP 22 CASES In respect of the Aouncin chec)s case, the offense also appears to be continuin in nature$ It is true that the offense is committed by the very fact of its performance +Colmenares vs$ Gillar, :o$ L*&2.&, >ay &3, .32', ;; SC"7 .5-( and that the Aouncin Chec)s Law penalies not only the fact of dishonor of a chec) but also the act of ma)in or drawin and issuance of a bouncin chec) +#eople vs$ @on$ Geridiano, II, :o$ L*&&/;, .;& SC"7 =&;-$ %he case, therefore, could have been filed also in Aulacan$ 7s held in Que vs$ #eople of the #hilippines, 1$"$ :os$ 2=&.2*.5, September .., .352 “the determinative factor +in determinin venue- is the place of the issuance of the chec)0$ @owever, it is li)ewise true that )nowlede on the part of the ma)er or drawer of the chec) of the insufficiency of his
funds, which is an essential inredient of the offense is by itself a continuin eventuality, whether the accused be within one territory or another +#eople vs$ @on$ >ananilla, 1$"$ :os$ '';*'/, Becember .., .352-$ 7ccordinly, ananilla case, oreover, we ruled in the same case of #eople v$ @on$ >ananilla, reiterated in People vs. Grospe, supra, that
LAC OF ADEQUATE NOTICE OF DISHONOR, A DEFENSE %here can be no prima facie evidence of )nowlede of insufficiency of funds in the instant case because no notice of dishonor was actually sent to or received by the petitioner$ %he notice of dishonor may be sent by the offended party or the drawee ban)$ %he trial court itself found absent a personal notice of dishonor to #etitioner Lina Lim Lao by the drawee ban) based on the unrebutted testimony of ?campo “+t-hat the chec)s bounced when presented with the drawee ban) but she did not inform anymore the Ainondo branch and Lina Lim Lao as there was no need to inform them as the corporation was in distress$0 %he Court of 7ppeals affirmed this factual findin$ #ursuant to prevailin
approval, even if he votes aainst the same or does not participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or roup$ Interest for personal ain shall be presumed aainst those public officers responsible for the approval of manifestly unlawful, ine6uitable, or irreular transaction or acts by the board, panel or roup to which they belon$ + <- Nnowinly approvin or rantin any license, permit, privilee or benefit in favor of any person not 6ualified for or not leally entitled to such license, permit, privilee or advantae, or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so 6ualified or entitled$ +)- Bivulin valuable information of a confidential character, ac6uired by his office or by him on account of his official position to unauthoried persons, or releasin such information in advance of its authoried release date$ UNEXPLAINED WEALTH, MEANING #rima facie evidence of and dismissal due to unexplained wealth$ If in accordance with the provisions of "7 .;23, a public official has been found to have ac6uired durin his incumbency, whether in his name or in the name of other persons, an amount of property andFor money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income, that fact shall be a round for dismissal or removal$ %oteE Unsolicited ifts or presents of small or insinificant value shall be offered or iven as a mere ordinary to)en of ratitude or friendship accordin to local customs or usae shall be exempted from the provision of this act$ MEANING OF /CAUSING UNDUE IN'URY0 %he act of ivin any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantae or preference is not an indispensable element of causin any undue in
the offender is a public officer( the said officer has nelected or has refused to act without sufficient
reasonable time has elapsed from such demand or re6uest without the public officer havin acted on the matter pendin before him( •
such failure to so act is for the purpose of obtainin directly or indirectly from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantae in favor of an interested party or discriminatin aainst another$ Coronado v Sandianbayan$ •
PUBLIC OFFICER ACTED WITH MANIFEST PARTIALITY, EVIDENT BAD FAITH, OR INEXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE Sec$ ;$ Corrupt practices of public officers$ In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalied by existin law, the followin shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawfulE
+e-$ Causin any undue in
the accused is a public officer discharin administrative or official functions or private persons chared in conspiracy with them( • the public officer committed the prohibited act durin the performance of his official duty or in relation to his public position( •
the public officer acted with manifest partiality evident bad faith or ross, inexcusable nelience(
and his action caused undue in
CAUSING UNDUE IN'URY UNDER SEC! 1, LETTER 43 OF RA 1)$! MEANING$ Section ; enumerates in eleven subsections the corrupt practices of any public officer declared unlawful$ Its reference to any public officer is without distinction or 6ualification and it specifies the acts declared unlawful$ 8e aree with the view adopted by the Solicitor 1eneral that the last inclusion of officers and employees of offices or overnment corporations which, under the ordinary concept of “public officer0 may not come within the term$ It is a strained construction of the provision to read it as applyin exclusively to public officers chared with the duty of rantin license or permits or other concessions$ +>eonon( 7$>$ :o$ >%4*35* ../2, 4uly &, .335PUBLIC OFFICER MAY BE SUSPENDED FROM HIS PRESENT POSITION EVEN IF THE CRIME WHICH HE IS BEING CHARGED WAS COMMITTED DURING HIS PREVIOUS TERM 4ude >onon!s contention denyin complainant!s >otion for Suspension because “offenses committed durin the previous term +is- not a cause for removal durin the present term0 is untenable$ In the case of "odolfo H$ 7uinaldo vs$ @on$ Luis Santos and >elvin Garas, &.& SC"7 25, the Court held that “the rule is that a public official cannot be removed for administrative misconduct committed durin a prior term since his re*election to office operates as a condonation of the officer!s previous misconduct committed durin a prior term, to the extent of cuttin off the riht to remove him therefor$ %he foreoin rule, however, finds no application to criminal cases $ $ $0 Li)ewise, it was specifically declared in the case of !n#co vs. *anc$e( , 1$"$ :o$ L*&;&&', .5 Becember .32, &. SC"7 .&3&, that “%he rulin, therefore, that ‘when the people have elected a man to office it must be assumed that they did this with )nowlede of his life and character and that they disrearded or forave his faults or misconduct if he had been uilty of any! refers only to an action for removal from office and does not apply to a criminal case0
Clearly, even if the alleed unlawful appointment was committed durin >ahiran!s first term as baranay chairman and the >otion for his suspension was only filed in .33= durin his second term, his re*election is not a bar to his suspension as the suspension souht for is in connection with a criminal case$ +Conducto v$ >onon( 7$>$ :o$ >%4* 35*../2, 4uly &, .335RE-ELECTION IN PUBLIC OFFICE EXTINGUISHING ONLY HIS ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY BUT NOT HIS CRIMINAL LIABILITY 7s early as .5 Becember .32 in !n#co v. *anc$e( , .2 this Court explicitly ruled that the re*election of a public official extinuishes only the administrative, but not the criminal, liability incurred by him durin his previous term of office, thusE %he rulin, therefore, that — “when the people have elected a man to his office it must be assumed that they did this with )nowlede of his life and character and that they disrearded or forave his faults or misconduct if he had been uilty of any0 — refers only to an action for removal from office and does not apply to criminal case, because a crime is a public wron more atrocious in character than mere misfeasance or malfeasance committed by a public officer in the dischare of his duties, and is inonon( 7$>$ :o$ >%4*35*../2, 4uly &, .335PRE-CONDITION OF SUSPENSION PREVENTIVE3 UNDER SEC! )1, RA 1)$ It is mandatory for the court to place under preventive suspension a public officer accused before it$ Imposition of suspension, however, is not automatic or self*operative$ 7 pre*condition thereof is the existence of a valid information, determined at a pre*suspension hearin$ Such a hearin is in accord with the spirit of the law, considerin the serious and far*reachin conse6uences of a suspension of a public official even before his conviction, and the demands of public interest for a speedy determination of the issues involved in the case$ %he purpose of the pre*suspension hearin is basically to determine the validity of the information and thereby furnish the court with a basis to either suspend the accused and proceed with the trial on the merits of the case, or refuse suspension of the latter and dismiss the case, or correct any part of the proceedin which impairs its validity$ %he accused should be iven ade6uate opportunity to challene the validity or reularity of the criminal proceedins aainst him( e$$ that he has not been afforded the riht to due preliminary investiation( that the acts imputed to him do not constitute a specific crime +under "$7$ ;'.3 or the "evised #enal Code- warrantin his mandatory suspension from office under Section .; of the 7ct( or that the information is subar$ &2, .335GUIDELINES TO BE FOLLOWED IN PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION CASES “In the leadin case of Luciano et al. vs. Mariano, et al$ +L*;&3=', 4uly ;', .32., /' SC"7 .52-, we have set out the uidelines to be followed by the lower courts in the exercise of the power of suspension under Section .; of the law, to witE +c- Ay way of broad uidelines for the lower courts in the exercise of the power of suspension from office of public officers chared under a valid information under the provisions of "epublic 7ct :o$ ;'.3 or under the provisions of the "evised #enal Code on bribery, pursuant to section .; of said 7ct, it may be briefly stated that upon the filin of such information, the trial court should issue an order with proper notice re6uirin the accused officer to show cause at a specific date of hearin why he should not be ordered suspended from office pursuant to the cited mandatory provisions of the 7ct$ 8here either the prosecution seasonably files a motion for an order of suspension or the accused in turn files a motion to 6uash the information or challenes the validity thereof, such show*cause order of the trial court would no loner be necessary$ 8hat is indispensable is that the trial court duly hear the parties at a hearin held for determinin the validity of the information, and thereafter hand down its rulin, issuin the correspondin order of suspension should it uphold the validity of the information or withhold such suspension in the contrary case$
+d- :o specific rules need be laid down for such pre*suspension hearin$ Suffice it to state that the accused should be iven a fair and ade6uate opportunity to challene the validity of the criminal proceedins aainst him, e$$, that he has not been afforded the riht of due preliminary investiation, the act for which he stands chared do not constitute a violation of the provisions of "epublic 7ct :o$ ;'.3 or of the bribery provisions of the "evised #enal Code which would warrant his mandatory suspension from office under Section .; of the 7ct, or he may present a motion to 6uash the information on any of the rounds provided in "ule ..2 of the "ules of Court$ %he mandatory suspension decreed by the act upon determination of the pendency in court or a criminal prosecution for violation of the 7nti*1raft 7ct or for bribery under a valid information re6uires at the same time that the hearin be expeditious, and not unduly protracted such as to thwart the prompt suspension envisioned by the 7ct$ @ence, if the trial court, say, finds the round alleed in the 6uashal motion not to be indubitable, then it shall be called upon to issue the suspension order upon its upholdin the validity of the information and settin the same for trial on the merits$! +Seovia v$ SandianbayanWHEN MAY A PUBLIC OFFICER BE LIABLE FOR CAUSING UNDUE IN'URY UNDER SEC! 143 56 RA 1)$ Causin any undue inar$ .., .335MEANING OF BAD FAITH UNDER SECTION 143 OF RA 1)$ “+ad fait$ does not simply connote bad
“+f- :electin or refusin, after due demand or re6uest, without sufficient
7lthouh its oriins seem lost in obscurity, the imposition of death as punishment for violation of law or custom, reliious or secular, is an ancient practice$ 8e do )now that our forefathers )illed to avene themselves and their )in and that initially, the criminal law was used to compensate for a wron done to a private party or his family, not to punish in the name of the state$ %he dawnin of civiliation brouht with it both the increasin sensitiation throuhout the later enerations aainst past barbarity and the institutionaliation of state power under the rule of law$ %oday every man or woman is both an individual person with inherent human rihts reconied and protected by the state and a citien with the duty to serve the common weal and defend and preserve society$ ?ne of the indispensable powers of the state is the power to secure society aainst threatened and actual evil$ #ursuant to this, the leislative arm of overnment enacts criminal laws that define and punish illeal acts that may be committed by its own sub
