Ebarle Vs Sucaldito
Ebarle Vs Sucaldito
Ebarle Vs Sucaldito
SECOND DIVISION
SARMIENTO, J.:
The petitioner, then provincial Governor of Zamboanga del Sur and a candidate
for reelection in the local elections of 1971, seeks injunctive relief in two separate
petitions, to enjoin further proceedings in Criminal Cases Nos. CCC XVI-4-ZDS,
CCC XVI-6-ZDS, and CCC XVI-8-ZDS of the then Circuit Criminal Court sitting in
Pagadian City, as well as I.S. Nos. 1-70, 2-71, 4-71, 5-71, 6-71, and 7-71 of the
respondent Fiscal's office of the said city, all in the nature of prosecutions for
violation of certain provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
(Republic Act No. 3019) and various provisions of the Revised Penal Code,
commenced by the respondent Anti-Graft League of the Philippines, Inc.
The petitions raise pure question of law. The facts are hence, undisputed.
SPECIFICATION NO. I
SPECIFICATION NO. II
That after the aforecited award and contract, Tabiliran Trucking Company,
represented by respondent Cesar Tabiliran, attempted to collect advances under
his trucking contract in the under his trucking contract in the amount of P4,823.95
under PTA No. 3654; that the same was not passed in audit by the Provincial
Auditor in view of the then subsisting contract with Tecson Trucking Company;
which was to expire on November 2, 1969; that nevertheless the said amount
was paid and it was made to appear that it was collected by Tecson Trucking
Company, although there was nothing due from tile latter and the voucher was
never indorsed or signed by the operator of Tecson Trucking; and that in
facilitating and consummating the aforecited collection, respondent officials,
hereinabove cited, conspired and connived to the great prejudice and damage of
the Provincial Government of Zamboanga del Sur. 1
On the same date, the private respondent commenced Criminal Case No. 2-71 of
the respondent City Fiscal, another proceeding for violation of Republic Act No.
3019 as well as Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The complaint reads as
follows:
xxx xxx xxx
That on or about April 8, 1970, a bidding was held for the construction of the right
wing portion of the Capitol Building of the Province of Zamboanga del Sur, by the
Bidding Committee composed of respondents cited hereinabove; that the said
building was maliciously manipulated so as to give wholly unwarranted
advantage and preference in favor of the, supposed winning bidder, Codeniera
Construction, allegedly owned and managed by Wenceslao Codeniera, brother-
in-law of the wife of respondent Bienvenido Ebarle; that respondent official is
interested for personal gain because he is responsible for the approval of the
manifestly irregular and unlawful award and contract aforecited; and that,
furthermore, respondent, being a Member of the Bidding Committee, also
violated Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, by making it appear in the very
abstract of bids that another interested bidder, was not interested in the bidding,
when in truth and in fact, it was not so. 2
On January 26, 1971, the private respondent instituted I.S. No. 4-71 of the
respondent Fiscal, a prosecution for violation of Articles 182, 183, and 318 of the
Revised Penal Code, as follows:
That on or about April 4, 1967, in Pagadian City, said respondent testified falsely
under oath in Cadastral Case No. N-17, LRC CAD REC. NO. N-468, for
registration of title to Lot No. 2545 in particular;
That respondent BIENVENIDO EBARLE testified falsely under oath during the
hearing and reception of evidence that he acquired said lot by purchase from a
certain Brigido Sanchez and that he is the owner, when in truth and in fact Lot
2545 had been previously acquired and is owned by the provincial Government
of Zamboanga del Sur, where the provincial jail building is now located.
On February 10, 1971, finally, the private respondent filed a complaint, docketed
as I.S. No. 5-71 of the respondent Fiscal, an action for violation of Republic Act
No. 3019 and Articles 171 and 213 of the Revised Penal Code, as follows:
On May 14, 1971, the respondent, Judge Sucaldito, handed down the first of the
two challenged orders, granting Anti-Graft League's motion and dismissing
Special Case No. 1000.
On June 11, 1971, the petitioner came to this Court on certiorari with prayer for a
temporary restraining order (G.R. No. 33628). As we said, we issued a temporary
restraining order on June 16, 1971.
Meanwhile, and in what would begin yet another series of criminal prosecutions,
the private respondent, on April 26, 1971, filed three complaints, subsequently
docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. CCC XVI-4-ZDS, CCC XVI-6-ZDS, and CCC
XVI-8-ZDS of the Circuit Criminal Court of Pagadian City for violation of various
provisions of the Anti-Graft Law as well as Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal
Code, as follows:
That on or about December 18, 1969, in Pagadian City, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE, Provincial Governor of
Zamboanga del Sur, did then and there unlawfully and feloniously extended and
gave ELIZABETH EBARLE MONTESCLAROS, daughter of his brother, his
relative by consanguinity within the third degree, and appointment as Private
Secretary in the Office of the Provincial Governor of Zamboanga del Sur,
although he well know that the latter is related with him within the third degree by
consanguinity.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
That on or about December 18, 1969, in Pagadian City, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE, then and there unlawfully
and feloniously made untruthful statements in a narration of facts by
accomplishing and issuing a certificate, to wit: ,
c. That the provisions of law and rules on promotion, seniority and nepotism have
been observed.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
That on or about December 18, 1969, in Pagadian City, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE, then and there unlawfully
and feloniously made untruthful statements in a narration of facts by
accomplishing and issuing a certificate, to wit:
c. That the provisions of law and rules on promotion, seniority and nepotism have
been observed.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Subsequently, on August 23, 1971, the private respondent brought I.S. No. 6-71
of the respondent Pagadian City Fiscal against the petitioner, still another
proceeding for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 and Article 171 (4) of the
Revised Penal Code, thus:
First Count.
Second Count.
Third Count:
Fourth Count.
Fifth Count.
First Count.
c. That the provisions of law and rules on promotion, seniority and nepotism have
been observed.
Second Count.
c. That the provisions of the law and rules on promotion, seniority and nepotism
have been observed.
First Count.
Second Count.
Third Count.
Please give due course to the above complaint and please set the case for
immediate preliminary investigation pursuant to the First Indorsement dated
August 27, 1971 of the Secretary of Justice, and in the paramount interest of
good government. 9
On October 6, 1971, the petitioner instituted G.R. No. 34162 of this Court, a
special civil action for certiorari with preliminary injunction. As earlier noted, we
on October 8, 1971, stayed the implementation of dismissal order.
Principally, the petitioner relies (in both petitions) on the failure of the
respondents City Fiscal and the Anti-Graft League to comply with the provisions
of Executive Order No. 264, "OUTLINING THE PROCEDUE BY WHICH
COMPLAINANTS CHARGING GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES
WITH COMMISSION OF IRREGULARITIES SHOULD BE GUIDED," 10
preliminary to their criminal recourses. At the same time, he assails the standing
of the respondent Anti-Graft League to commence the series of prosecutions
below (G.R. No. 33628). He likewise contends that the respondent Fiscal (in G.R.
No. 34162), in giving due course to the complaints notwithstanding the
restraining order we had issued (in G.R. No. 33628), which he claims applies as
well thereto, committed a grave abuse of discretion.
The petitioner's reliance upon the provisions of Executive Order No. 264 has no
merit. We reproduce the Order in toto:
MALACAANG
OF THE PHILIPPINES
MANILA
2. Complaints against presidential appointees shag be filed with the Office of the
President or the Department Head having direct supervision or control over the
official involved.
3. Those against subordinate officials and employees shall be lodged with the
proper department or agency head.
4. Those against elective local officials shall be filed with the Office of the
President in case of provincial and city officials, with the provincial governor or
board secretary in case of municipal officials, and with the municipal or city
mayor or secretary in case of barrio officials.
5. Those against members of police forces shall be filed with the corresponding
local board of investigators headed by the city or municipal treasurer, except in
the case of those appointed by the President which should be filed with the Office
of the President.
Done in the City of Manila, this 6th day of October, in the year of Our Lord,
nineteen hundred and seventy.
(Sgd.)
FERDINAND E.
MARCOS
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
P
h
i
l
i
p
p
i
n
e
s
By the President:
(Sgd.)
ALEJANDRO
MELCHOR
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
S
e
c
r
e
t
a
r
y
1
1
It is plain from the very wording of the Order that it has exclusive application to
administrative, not criminal complaints. The Order itself shows why.
The first perambulatory clause states the necessity for informing the public "of
the procedure provided by law and regulations by which complaints against
public officials and employees should be presented and prosecuted. 12 To our
mind, the "procedure provided by law and regulations" referred to pertains to
existing procedural rules with respect to the presentation of administrative
charges against erring government officials. And in fact, the aforequoted
paragraphs are but restatements thereof. That presidential appointees are
subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the President, for instance, is a reecho of
the long-standing doctrine that the President exercises the power of control over
his appointees. 13 Paragraph 3, on the other hand, regarding subordinate
officials, is a mere reiteration of Section 33 of Republic Act No. 2260, the Civil
Service Act (of 1959) then in force, placing jurisdiction upon "the proper Head of
Department, the chief of a bureau or office" 14 to investigate and decide on
matters involving disciplinary action.
Clearly, the Executive Order simply consolidates these existing rules and
streamlines the administrative apparatus in the matter of complaints against
public officials. Furthermore, the fact is that there is no reference therein to
judicial or prejudicial (like a preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal)
recourse, not because it makes such a resort a secondary measure, but because
it does not intend to serve as a condition precedent to, much less supplant, such
a court resort.
The challenge the petitioner presents against the personality of the Anti-Graft
League of the Philippines to bring suit is equally without merit. That the Anti-Graft
League is not an "offended party" within the meaning of Section 2, Rule 110, of
the Rules of Court (now Section 3 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure),
cannot abate the complaints in question.
It is noteworthy that the charges levelled against the petitioner whether in G.R.
No. 33628 or 34162 refer invariably to violations of the Anti-Graft Law or the
Revised Penal Code. That does not, however, make such charges Identical to
one another.
The complaints involved in G.R. No. 34162 are, in general, nepotism under
Sections 3(c) and (j) of Republic Act No. 3019; exerting influence upon the
presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur to award a
certain parcel of land in his favor, over which the provincial government itself lays
claims, contrary to the provisions of Section 4(b) of Republic Act No. 3019; and
making untruthful statements in the certificates of appointment of certain
employees in his office. On the other hand, the complaints subject matter of G.R.
No. 33628 involve charges of simulating bids for the supply of gravel and sand
for certain public works projects, in breach of Section 3 of the Anti-Graft statute;
manipulating bids with respect to the construction of the capitol building;
testifying falsely in connection with Cadastral Case No. N-17, LRC Cad. Rec. N-
468, in which the petitioner alleged that he was the owner of a piece of land, in
violation of Articles 182, 183, and 318 of the Revised Penal Code; and simulating
bids for the supply of gravel and sand in connection with another public works
project.
It is clear that the twin sets of complaints are characterized by major differences.
When, therefore, we restrained further proceedings in I.S. Nos. 1-71, 2-71, and
4-71, subject of G.R. No. 33628. we did not consequently stay the proceedings in
CCC-XVI-4-ZDS, CCC XVI-6-ZDS, CCC XVI-8-ZDS, and I.S. Nos. 6-71 and 7-
71, the same proceedings we did restrain in G.R. No. 34162.
This brings us to the last issue: whether or not the complaints in question are
tainted with a political color.
It is so ORDERED.
Footnotes
1 Rollo, G.R. No. 33628,40-41.
4 Id, 45-46.
8 Id, 32-35.
9 Id, 94-95.
11 Supra, 9394-9395.
12 Supra, 9394.
13 See supra, par. 2; Ang-Angco v. Castillo, No. L-17169, November 30,1963, 9 SCRA 619 (1963).
17 Supra, par. 6.
18 Supra, 19 Supra
20 Hernandez v. Albano, No. L-17081, May 31, 1961, 2 SCRA 607 (1961).
21 Supra.
22 Asutilla v. Philippine National Bank, No. L-51354, January 15; 1986, 141 SCRA 40 (1986); Guingona, Jr.
v. City Fiscal of Manila, No. L- 60033, April 4,1984,128 SCRA 577 (1984).
23 Supra.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation