SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE VS SB

The prosecution cannot appeal from a ruling granting the demurrer to evidence of the accused
as it is equivalent to an acquittal, unless the prosecution can sufficiently prove that the courts action is
attended ith grave a!use of discretion" Otherise, the constitutional right of the accused against
dou!le #eopardy ill !e violated"
This is a petition for revie on certiorari under $ule %& of the '(() $ules of *ourt filed !y the
People of the Philippines, represented !y the Office of the Om!udsman, assailing the +uly ,-, ,..%
$esolution
'
/'0 of the Sandigan!ayan granting the accuseds respective demurrers to evidence filed ith
prior leave of court"
THE FACTS:
On 1ovem!er ,-, '(((, private respondents Victorino 2" Basco, $omeo S" 3avid and $ogelio
L" Luis ere charged ith having violated Section -4e5 of $epu!lic 2ct 1o" -.'(,
,
/,0 as amended,
42nti67raft and *orrupt Practices 2ct5 !efore the Sandigan!ayan"
-
/-0 The 8nformation, doc9eted as
*riminal *ase 1o" ,&)&,, alleged:
That between November 15, 1996 to May 7, 1998 or some time prior
or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Mabalacat, ampan!a,
hilippines, an" within the #uris"iction of this $onorable %ourt, accuse"
&ictorino '( )asco, *omeo +( ,avi" an" *o!elio -( -uis, all hi!h ran.in!
public officers, bein! then %hairman an" resi"ent/resi"ents an" %hief
01ecutive 2fficers of the )ases %onversion ,evelopment 'uthority 3)%,'4,
%lar. ,evelopment %orporation/%lar. 5nternational 'irport, 3%,% /%5'%4
an" hilippine National %onstruction %orporation 3N%%4, respectively,
while in the performance of their official functions, ta.in! a"vanta!e of their
positions an" committin! the offenses in relation to their office,
confe"eratin! an" conspirin! with one another, with manifest partiality an"
evi"ent ba" faith, "i" then an" there, willfully, unlawfully an" criminally
enter into contracts/transactions for the construction of the Mabalacat6%lar.
+pur *oa" an" the %lar. erimeter *oa", without the benefit of public
bi""in! an" at the price hi!her by 67 to 1678 than the typical roa"way
construction cost, thus, "eprivin! the !overnment of the opportunity of
obtainin! the most a"vanta!eous construction cost, causin! un"ue in#ury to
the same an" !ivin! unwarrante" benefits, a"vanta!e an" preference to their
preferre" private contractors(
'
,
-
Before the arraignment, the accused filed a ;otion for Leave of *ourt to <ile ;otion for
$econsideration=$e6investigation" 2cting thereon, the Sandigan!ayan required the Office of the
Special Prosecutor to comment and su!mit the final action ta9en !y the Office of Om!udsman"
8n a ;emorandum, dated ;arch ,>, ,..., Special Prosecution Officer $o!erto T" 2gagon
recommended the ithdraal of the information ithout pre#udice to the conduct of further
preliminary investigation to resolve the issue on overpricing !y referring the matter to the *ommission
on 2udit 4*O25 ?hose report shall serve as legal !asis for indictment against the accused"@
%
/%0 Then
Om!udsman 2niano 3esierto, hoever, disapproved the recommendation and directed the prosecutor
to ?proceed ith the trial"@
Apon arraignment, the three 4-5 respondents pleaded not guilty"
On 2ugust ,-, ,..,, the Sandigan!ayan issued a Pre6trial Order identifying the issues as
follos: 4i5 hether or not the construction pro#ects involved should have !een su!#ected to a pu!lic
!idding as mandated !y P"3" '&(%,
&
/&0 as amendedB
>
/>0 4ii5 hether or not there as overpricing in the
construction costs of the pro#ectsB 4iii5 hether or not the government suffered undue in#ury or damage
as a consequenceB 4iv5 hether or not the accused acted ith evident !ad faith and=or manifest
partialityB and 4v5 hether or not the accused conspired ith each other in committing the offense
charged"

3uring the trial, the prosecution presented its lone itness, 2tty" Emora *" Pagunuran, Legal
*ounsel, Office of the Legal 2ffairs, Office of the Om!udsman" Thereafter, the prosecution filed its
<ormal Offer of Evidence" 2fter the evidence ere admitted, the prosecution rested its case"
8nstead of presenting their evidence, the respondents filed their respective motions for leave to file
their demurrer to evidence !ased su!stantially on the folloing grounds: 4i5 that 2tty" Pagunuran had
no personal 9noledge of the transactions involved and so her testimony as hearsayB 4ii5 that the
prosecution failed to prove that the questioned contracts ere indeed overpriced as 2tty" Pagunuran
merely relied on the 3epartment of Pu!lic Cor9s and Dighays 43PCD5 ta!le of ?Typical
*onstruction *osts, '(((@ ithout moreB and 4iii5 that the ruling of the *ourt of 2ppeals in an
administrative case 4*"2" 7"$" SP 1o" >,.E%5, hich upheld the validity of the direct negotiated
contracts, even in the a!sence of a pu!lic !idding, as already the la of the case"
The motions ere granted and the Sandigan!ayan directed the prosecution to file its opposition"
8t appears that accused $ogelio L" Luis and Victorino 2" Basco 4and several other B*32
officers5 ere also charged administratively in the Office of the Om!udsman, doc9eted as O;B623;6
%
&
>
.6(E6.%-. and entitled +oseph ;" Ocol==<<8B vs" Victorino 2" Basco et" al", !ased on the same act
su!#ect of the criminal indictment" The Office of the Om!udsman found one of the respondents therein
48saac Puno 8885 administratively lia!le for simple misconduct" 8n the case of Basco and Luis, hoever,
the complaint against them as dismissed for lac9 of #urisdiction"
)
/)0
8saac Puno 888 then filed a petition for revie ith the *ourt of 2ppeals 4*25" 2fter a study
of his case, the *2 eFonerated him on the ground that the failure to conduct a pu!lic !idding as
legally #ustified as ?time as of the essence"@ 8t li9eise considered the a!sence of a prior ritten
approval from then President $amos as merely confirmatory rather than curative in nature and, as a
consequence, did not render the negotiated contracts
E
/E0 invalid"
On 2pril '&, ,..%, Sandigan!ayan issued a $esolution
(
/(0 denying the demurrers to evidence" 8t
opined that the prosecutions evidence su!stantiated the essential elements charged in the 8nformation"
<or said reason, it as incum!ent on the respondents to present controverting evidence" On the
eFoneration in the administrative case, Sandigan!ayan as of the vie that there as disparity in the
nature of the to proceedings and in the quantum of evidence required, and so it did not necessarily !ar
a successful criminal prosecution involving the same or similar acts"
The private respondents filed their motion for reconsideration hich as granted in a
$esolution dated +uly ,-, ,..%" The fallo of the resolution reads:
9$0*0:2*0, in view of the fore!oin!, this %ourt is constraine" to ;*'NT, as it hereby
;*'NT+, the Motions for *econsi"eration of accuse" &ictorino '( )asco, *omeo +( ,avi"
an" *o!elio -( -uis, as the evi"ence of the prosecution faile" to sufficiently establish the
essential elements of the offense char!e" an" to overcome the presumption of innocence in
favor of the sai" accuse"( 'ccor"in!ly, the cases a!ainst accuse" &ictorino '( )asco, *omeo +(
,avi" an" *o!elio -( -uis are hereby ,5+M5++0,(
8n ma9ing such a turnaround, the Sandigan!ayan too9 into account the decision of the *ourt
of 2ppeals in the administrative case, hich upheld the legality and validity of the su!#ect contracts, as
a ?persuasive ruling@ considering that it involved the same issues, su!#ect matter and parties" 8t
reasoned out that since the !ases for the to 4,5 separate and distinct proceedings pertain to the same
evidence, then the principle that the dismissal of an administrative case does not necessarily !ar the
filing of a criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts su!#ect of the administrative complaint, on
hich its previous resolution as anchored, no longer applies" 8t, thus, concluded that there !eing ant
of su!stantial evidence to support an administrative charge, there could !e no sufficient evidence to
arrant a conclusion that there is pro!a!le cause for a violation of Section -4e5 of $"2" 1o" -.'("
)
E
(
The Sandigan!ayan further stated that the prosecution failed to esta!lish the fact of
overpricing" The prosecution itness as una!le to #ustify her sole reliance on 3PCD ta!le of
?Typical *onstruction *osts, '(((@ vis6G6vis the roaday construction cost of the pro#ects involved to
prove overpricing" 8t noted that the Office of the Om!udsman itself as not firmly convinced of
respondents culpa!ility as shon !y 4i5 its issuance of to conflicting memoranda, viH: one in the
administrative case dated +une ,E, ,... 4O;B623;6.6(E6.%-.5 here it found that there as no
overpricingB and the other, in the criminal case 4this case5 dated +une '(, ,... 4O;B6.6(E6'>,( and
O;B6.6((6.->E5, here it found evidence that the pro#ect as overpricedB and 4ii5 the
recommendation of Special Prosecutor $o!erto 2gagon that the contracts !e revieed !y the *O2, at
a time hen the 8nformation as already filed in court"
Dence, this petition"
8n the petition, the Office of the Om!udsman raises the folloing:
ISSUES

I. WHETHER THE ACT OF THE RESPONDENTS IN ENTERING INTO
NEGOTIATED CONTRACTS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
MABALACAT-CLARK SPUR ROAD AND CLARK PERIMETER ROAD
PROJECTS WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
P.D. 1594

II. WHETHER THE SANDIGANBAAN CAN ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF
FACTS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS CONSIDERING THAT THE CASE
BEFORE THE FORMER COURT IS CRIMINAL IN NATURE! WHILE IN
THE LATTER IT IS ADMINISTRATIVE
8n their respective comments on the petition, the respondents are one in questioning the
propriety of resorting to this present petition for revie on certiorari under $ule %& on the
ground that it places them in dou!le #eopardy"
8n its $eply, petitioner argued that the right of the accused against dou!le #eopardy cannot !e
invo9ed !ecause the issues presented for resolution are purely legal"
'.
/'.0 8n resolving the legal issues,
there is no need to reevaluate the evidence already adduced !efore the Sandigan!ayan" Petitioners also
lament the fact that the Sandigan!ayan ignored the legal dictum that the dismissal of the administrative
case does not !ar the filing of a criminal prosecution for the same or similar act=s su!#ect of the
criminal case" Ander that doctrine, a criminal case already filed must proceed in the normal course of
litigation"
THE COURT"S RULING

The petition fails"
'.
Procedurally, the petitioner resorted to a rong remedy" Section ' of $ule ',,
allos ?any party@ to appeal from a #udgment or final order, unless the right of the accused against
dou!le #eopardy ill !e violated" 8t is aFiomatic that an appeal in criminal cases thros the hole case
ide open for revie !y an appellate court" 2s a consequence, an appeal !y the prosecution from a
#udgment of acquittal necessarily places the accused in dou!le #eopardy"
''
/''0
The rule !arring an appeal from a #udgment of acquittal is, hoever, not a!solute" The folloing are
the recogniHed eFceptions thereto: 4i5 hen the prosecution is denied due process of laB
',
/',0 and 4ii5
hen the trial court commits grave a!use of discretion amounting to lac9 or eFcess of #urisdiction in
dismissing a criminal case !y granting the accused demurrer to evidence"
'-
/'-0
Such issues are !rought to the attention of a revieing court through the special civil action of
certiorari under $ule >& on the ground of grave a!use of discretion, amounting to lac9 or eFcess of
#urisdiction" 8n assailing the resolution of the Sandigan!ayan, the petitioner resorted to this petition for
revie on certiorari under $ule %&, purportedly raising pure questions of la" This is erroneous for
hich reason this petition is dismissi!le outright" 8n People v. Laguio,
'%
/'%0 the same procedural
misstep as addressed !y the *ourt in this ise:
)y this time, it is settle" that the appellate court may review "ismissal
or"ers of trial courts !rantin! an accuse"< "emurrer to evi"ence( This may be
"one via the special civil action of certiorari un"er *ule 65 base" on the
!roun" of !rave abuse of "iscretion, amountin! to lac. or e1cess of
#uris"iction( +uch "ismissal or"er, bein! consi"ere" voi" #u"!ment, "oes not
result in #eopar"y( Thus, when the or"er of "ismissal is annulle" or set asi"e
by an appellate court in an ori!inal special civil action via certiorari, the ri!ht
of the accuse" a!ainst "ouble #eopar"y is not violate"(

=nfortunately, what petitioner eople of the hilippines, 111 file"
with the %ourt in the present case is an appeal by way of a petition for review
on certiorari un"er *ule >5 raisin! a pure question of law, which is "ifferent
from a petition for certiorari un"er *ule 65(

1 1 1

'lso, in Madrigal, we stresse" that the special civil action of
certiorari an" appeal are two "ifferent reme"ies mutually e1clusive? they are
neither alternative nor successive( 9here appeal is available, certiorari will
not prosper( 5n the "ismissal of a criminal case upon "emurrer to evi"ence,
appeal is not available as such an appeal will put the accuse" in "ouble
#eopar"y( %ertiorari, however, is allowe"(

:or bein! the wron! reme"y ta.en by petitioner eople of the
hilippines in this case, this petition is #$%&'()%*+ ,'-.'--'/*0( The %ourt
cannot reverse the assaile" "ismissal or"er of the trial court by appeal
without violatin! private respon"ent<s ri!ht a!ainst "ouble #eopar"y(
30mphasis +upplie"4
Stated differently, although the dismissal order consequent to a demurrer to evidence is not
su!#ect to appeal, it is still reviea!le !ut only !y certiorari under $ule >& of the $ules of *ourt" 8n
such a case, the factual findings of the trial court are conclusive upon the revieing court, and the only
legal !asis to reverse and set aside the order of dismissal upon demurrer to evidence is !y a clear
shoing that the trial court, in acquitting the accused, committed grave a!use of discretion amounting
''
',
'-
'%
to lac9 or eFcess of #urisdiction or a denial of due process, thus, rendering the assailed #udgment void"
'&
/'&0
Petitioner attempts to #ustify its position !y relying on our pronouncement in People v.
Villalon,
'>
/'>0 hich reads:
's a !eneral rule, the "ismissal or termination of the case after arrai!nment an" plea of the
"efen"ant to a vali" information shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense char!e",
or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which
necessarily inclu"es or is necessarily inclu"e" in the complaint or information( $owever, an
appeal by the prosecution from the or"er of "ismissal @of the criminal caseA by the trial court
shall not constitute "ouble #eopar"y if @1A the "ismissal is ma"e upon motion, or with the
e1press consent, of the "efen"ant, and @BA the "ismissal is not an acquittal or base" upon
consi"eration of the evi"ence or of the merits of the case? and @CA the question to be passe"
upon by the appellate court is purely le!al so that shoul" the "ismissal be foun" incorrect, the
case woul" have to be reman"e" to the court of ori!in for further procee"in!s, to "etermine
the !uilt or innocence of the "efen"ant( @emphasis supplie"A
2 cursory reading of the a!ove #udicial pronouncement readily !etrays petitioners
posture on the matter" The use of the con#unctive ord ?and@ hich even originally
')
/')0
appeared italiciHed suggests the concurrence of those three requisites to prevent dou!le
#eopardy from attaching"
The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, such as the one at !ench, is ?filed after the
prosecution had rested its case"@ 2s such, it calls ?for an appreciation of the evidence adduced !y the
prosecution and its sufficiency to arrant conviction !eyond reasona!le dou!t, resulting in a dismissal
of the case on the merits, tantamount to an acquittal of the accused"@
'E
/'E0 +udicial action on a motion
to dismiss or demurrer to evidence is !est left to the eFercise of sound #udicial discretion" 2ccordingly,
unless the Sandigan!ayan acted ithout #urisdiction or ith grave a!use of discretion, its decision to
grant or deny the demurrer may not !e distur!ed"
'(
/'(0
1ot surprisingly, petitioner has not attri!uted any commission of grave a!use of discretion on the part
of Sandigan!ayan in issuing the questioned resolution, on the mista9en assumption that it can assail the
resolution on purely legal questions" 2s eFplained a!ove, it cannot do so" 2 #udgment of acquittal
cannot !e reopened or appealed !ecause of the doctrine that no!ody can !e put tice in #eopardy for
the same offense"
7ranting arguendo that petitioners recourse under $ule %& as proper, nevertheless,
petitioner failed to raise pure questions of la" <or a question to !e one of la, the same must not
involve an eFamination of the pro!ative value of the evidence presented" There is a question of la in
a given case hen the dou!t or difference arises as to hat the la is on certain state of facts"
,.
/,.0
*ontrary to petitioners contention, the determination of hether the esta!lished facts fall
squarely ithin the provisions of the la, that is, Section - 4e5 of $"2" 1o" -.'(, ould require us to
reassess and reeFamine the evidence, and essentially to supplant the loer courts finding" This is
!eyond the province of $ule %&" +udicial revie under $ule %& does not envisage a re6evaluation of the
'&
'>
')
'E
'(
,.
sufficiency of the evidence upon hich respondent courts action as predicated" 8t !ears reiterating
that a #udgment of acquittal, ?even if seemingly erroneous,@ is the final verdict"
,'
/,'0
Similarly, the second issue posed !y petitioner is a question of fact disguised as a question of
la" 2n affirmative ruling thereon ould also require us to revie the factual !ases of the ruling of the
*2 in the administrative case" 8n fact, as noted !y respondent court, the same issue of legality or
validity of the su!#ect contracts had already !een passed upon !y the *2, and the Om!udsman did not
even attempt to question the *2 ruling, hich could only mean its adherence thereto"
Petitioner ould also ma9e much of the principle in la that the dismissal of the
administrative case does not necessarily prevent a criminal prosecution from proceeding" 8ndeed, the
dismissal of an administrative case does not !ar the filing of a criminal prosecution for the same or
similar acts su!#ect of the administrative complaint" 1either does the disposition in one case inevita!ly
govern the resolution of the other case=s and vice versa" 2dministrative lia!ility is one thingB criminal
lia!ility for the same act is another"
,,
/,,0 The distinct and independent nature of one proceeding from
the other can !e attri!uted to the folloing: first, the difference in the quantum of evidence required
and, correlatively, the procedure o!served and sanctions imposedB and second, the principle that a
single act may offend against to or more distinct and related provisions of la, or that the same act
may give rise to criminal as ell as administrative lia!ility"
,-
/,-0
2lthough the dismissal of the criminal case cannot !e pleaded to a!ate the administrative
proceedings primarily on the ground that the quantum of proof required to sustain administrative
charges is significantly loer than that necessary for criminal actions, the same does not hold true if it
ere the other ay around, that is, the dismissal of the administrative case is !eing invo9ed to a!ate the
criminal case" The reason is that the evidence presented in the administrative case may not necessarily
!e the same evidence to !e presented in the criminal case" The prosecution is certainly not precluded
from adducing additional evidence to discharge the !urden of proof required in the criminal cases"
,%
/,%0
Doever, if the criminal case ill !e prosecuted !ased on the same facts and evidence as that in the
administrative case, and the court trying the latter already squarely ruled on the a!sence of facts and=or
circumstances sufficient to negate the !asis of the criminal indictment,
,&
/,&0 then to still !urden the
accused to present controverting evidence despite the failure of the prosecution to present sufficient and
competent evidence, ill !e a futile and useless eFercise"
Petitioners claim that the respondent court should not have adopted the *ourt of 2ppeals
findings and instead made its on separate finding on the matter deserves scant consideration"
WHEREFORE, petition is DISMISSED.
P#*'%'12* L23
PUBLIC OFFICERS
,'
,,
,-
,%
,&
Q Calixto Cataquiz, then General Manager of the Laguna Lake Development Authority wa
!harge" with violation of the Anti#Graft Law$ %he !ae wa "imie"$ &n the meantime an
a"minitrative !ae wa file" eeking hi removal$ 'e !onten"e" that (e!aue of the "imial of the
!riminal !ae, there wa no more (ai to hol" him a"minitratively lia(le$ & hi !ontention !orre!t)
*hy)
2nser: 1o" 8t is a !asic rule in administrative la that pu!lic officials are under a three6fold
responsi!ility for a violation of their duty or for a rongful act or omission, such that they may !e held
civilly, criminally and administratively lia!le for the same act" 4Tecson v" SB, -)> Phil" '(' 4'(((55"
O!viously, administrative lia!ility is separate and distinct from penal and civil lia!ility" 4Veloso v" SB,
'E) S*$2 &.%, 4'((.55"
The distinct and independent nature of one proceeding from the other can !e attri!uted to the
folloing: first, the difference in the quantum of evidence required and, correlatively, the procedure
o!served and sanctions imposedB and second, the principle that a single act may offend against to or
more distinct and related provisions of la, or that the same act may give rise to criminal as ell as
administrative lia!ility" 4People v" SB, 7"$" 1o" '>%&)), +uly &, ,.'., >,- S*$2 '%), citing People v"
Paredes, 7"$" 1o" '>(&-%, +uly -., ,..), &,E S*$2 &))B Office of the Pres" v" *aliFto *ataquiH, 7"$"
1o" 'E-%%&, Septem!er '%, ,.''5"
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
D#1%&'40 #5 6&'.2&+ 7$&'-,'1%'#4.
Q 8 A &0-#*$%'#4 32- '--$0, /+ S2.2& II E*01%&'1 C##60&2%'90! I41. :SAMELCO II; B#2&, #5 D'&01%#&-
&0.#9'4( 2 10&%2'4 S0%$,#! J&. 2- 2 .0./0& #5 %)0 B#2&, #5 D'&01%#&-. A 60%'%'#4 5#& 6&#)'/'%'#4 32- 5'*0, 3'%)
%)0 RTC. I- %)0 60%'%'#4 6&#60&< W)+<
2nser: 1o, !ecause the 1ational Electrification 2dministration has #urisdiction, under the doctrine of primary
#urisdiction" The 1E2 has the poer of supervision and control over electric cooperatives under Secs" & I )" P3 1o"
'>%&, hence, the resolution removing the 3irector ithin the poer of 1E2 to revie" The $T* has no #urisdiction
4Samar 88 Electric *ooperative, 8nc" v" Setudo, +r", 7"$" 1o" ')-E%., 2pril ,&, ,.',, Peralta, +5"
The doctrine of primary #urisdiction applies here a claim is originally cogniHa!le in the courts and comes into play
henever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues hich, under a regulatory scheme, has !een
placed ithin the special competence of an administrative agency" 4Baguna v" Sps" 2gga!ao, et al", 7"$" 1o" 'E%E),
2ugust '&, ,.''5" 8n such a case, the court in hich the claim is sought to !e enforced may suspend the #udicial
process pending referral of such issues to the administrative !ody for its vie or, if the parties ould not !e
unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss the case ithout pre#udice" 4Baguna v" Sps" 2gga!ao, et al",
supra"5"
A1%'#4 5#& ,2.2(0- 2(2'4-% 2 -1)##* 5#& &05$-2* %# &0*02-0 %&24-1&'6% #5 &01#&,- '- 3'%)'4 %)0
7$&'-,'1%'#4 #5 %)0 &0($*2& 1#$&%-. E=)2$-%'#4 #5 2,.'4'-%&2%'90 &0.0,+ %# CHED! 4#% 4010--2&+.
Q A !hool refue" to releae the tran!ript of re!or" of a tu"ent$ %he !hool !onten"e" that the
tu"ent faile" to enroll "uring the e!on" emeter of the !hool year +,,,#+,,-, hen!e, the !hool
!onten"e" that the !omplaint faile" to tate a !aue of no a!tion, hen!e, a motion to "imi wa
file"$ &t wa further !onten"e" that there wa failure to exhaut a"minitrative reme"y to C'.D$
/ule on the !ontention$
2nser: The contention is not correct as the action essentially is one for mandamus and damages" The
doctrine of eFhaustion of administrative remedies requires that here a remedy !efore an
administrative agency is provided, the administrative agency concerned must !e given the opportunity
to decide a matter ithin its #urisdiction !efore an action is !rought !efore the courts" <ailure to
eFhaust administrative remedies is a ground for dismissal of the action"
The doctrine of eFhaustion of administrative remedies admits of numerous eFceptions, one of hich is
here the issues are purely legal and ell ithin the #urisdiction of the trial court" Petitioners lia!ility
J if any J for damages ill have to !e decided !y the courts, since any #udgment inevita!ly calls for the
application and the interpretation of the *ivil *ode" 2s such, eFhaustion of administrative remedies
may !e dispensed ith" 2s held in Regino v. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology:
F F F eFhaustion of administrative remedies is applica!le hen there is competence on the part of the
administrative !ody to act upon the matter complained of" 2dministrative agencies are not courtsB F F
F neither are they part of the #udicial system, or deemed #udicial tri!unals"
Specifically, the *DE3 does not have the poer to aard damages" Dence, petitioner could not have
commenced her case !efore the *ommission" 4%E& Phil" %%> 4,..%5B AST, et al" v" 3anes SancheH,
7"$" 1o" '>&&>(, +uly ,(, ,.'.5"
$epu!lic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
;anila
TD8$3 38V8S8O1
G.R. NO. 1>1?>@ M2&1) 14! A??B
DOMINADOR C. FERRER! JR.! Petitioner,
vs"
SANDIGANBAAN! HON. EDILBERTO G. SANDOVAL! HON. FRANCISCO H. VILLARUC!
JR.! 24, HON. RODOLFO G. PALATTAO! 2- M0./0&- #5 %)0 S24,'(24/2+24! S01#4, D'9'-'#4!
ANNA MARIA L. HARPER! ESPERANCA G. GATBONTON! 24, PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES! $espondents"
3 E * 8 S 8 O 1
AUSTRIA-MARTINEC! 0$1
3oes a finding of lac9 of administrative lia!ility of a respondent government official !ar the filing of a
criminal case against him for the same actsK
Before the *ourt is a Petition for Certiorari under $ule >& of the $ules of *ourt, see9ing to annul the
$esolutions of the Sandiganbayan, Second 3ivision 4pu!lic respondent5 dated +uly ,, ,..-
'
and
Octo!er ,,, ,..-
,
in *riminal *ase 1o" ,>&%>" The $esolution of +uly ,, ,..- denied the ;otion for
$e6determination of Pro!a!le *ause filed !y accused 3ominador 7" <errer 4petitioner5, hile the
$esolution of Octo!er ,,, ,..- denied petitionerLs ;otion for $econsideration and=or ;otion to
Muash"
The folloing are the factual antecedents:
On +anuary ,(, ,..', an 8nformation
-
for violation of Section - 4e5 of $epu!lic 2ct 4$"2"5 1o" -.'(
as filed against petitioner, as follos:
That on or a!out 2ugust ,., '((E or for sometime prior or su!sequent thereto, in ;anila, Philippines,
and ithin the #urisdiction of this Donora!le *ourt, 3O;8123O$ *" <E$$E$, +$", !eing the
2dministrator of the 8ntramuros 2dministration 4825, ;anila, hile in the performance of his official
and administrative functions as such, and acting ith manifest partiality, evident !ad faith and gross
ineFcusa!le negligence, did then and there, illfully, unlafully and criminally give unarranted
!enefits to Offshore *onstruction and 3evelopment *ompany, !y causing the aard of the Lease
*ontracts to said company, involving Baluarte de San 2ndres, $avellin de $ecolletos, and Baluarte de
San <rancisco de 3ilao, 8ntramuros, ;anila, ithout conducting any pu!lic !idding as required under
+oint *ircular 1o" ' dated Septem!er -., '(E( of the 3epartment of Budget and ;anagement,
3epartment of Environment and 1atural $esources and 3epartment of Pu!lic Cor9s and Dighays,
and !y alloing the construction of ne structures in said leased areas ithout any !uilding permit or
clearance required under the 8ntramuros *harter 4P"3" '>'>5 and the 1ational Building *ode, to the
damage and pre#udice of pu!lic interest"
*O1T$2$N TO L2C"
;anila, Philippines, +anuary ,(, ,..'"
%
and assigned to the SandiganbayanLs Second 3ivision"
On 2pril %, ,..', petitioner filed a ;otion for $einvestigation, alleging that the Office of the
Om!udsman disregarded certain factual matters hich, if considered, ill negate the finding of
pro!a!le cause"
&
On +uly '-, ,..', pu!lic respondent issued a $esolution denying petitionerLs ;otion for
$einvestigation"
>
8t held that petitionerLs contentions are all evidentiary in nature and may !e properly
considered only in a full6!lon trial"
On Septem!er ',, ,..', petitioner filed a ;otion for $econsideration"
)
Shortly thereafter, he filed a
Supplemental ;otion for $econsideration, asserting that the complainants ere guilty of forum
shopping, due to the earlier dismissal of the administrative case against him"
E
On 3ecem!er '', ,..', pu!lic respondent issued a $esolution denying the ;otion for
$econsideration"
(
Petitioner filed a ;otion for Leave to <ile a Second ;otion for $econsideration"
'.
2gain, he cited as
his ground the alleged forum shopping of the private complainants"
On 2pril ,(, ,..,, pu!lic respondent issued a $esolution denying the ;otion for Leave to <ile a
Second ;otion for $econsideration"
''
8t held that there as no forum shopping since the administrative
and criminal cases are to different actions, so neither resolution on the same ould have the effect of
res judicata on the other" The pu!lic respondent dismissed the second motion for reconsideration as a
pro forma and prohi!ited motion.
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari ith this *ourt, doc9eted as 7"$" 1o" '&-&(,, hich
assailed the $esolution of pu!lic respondent dated 2pril ,(, ,.., as having !een issued ith grave
a!use of discretion amounting to lac9 of #urisdiction" On +uly ', ,..,, the *ourt dismissed the petition
for having !een filed out of time and for failure to pay the required doc9et fees"
',
Petitioner filed a ;otion for $econsideration
'-
hich the *ourt denied ith finality in its $esolution
dated Septem!er %, ,..,"
'%
On ;ay '(, ,..-, !efore he can !e arraigned, petitioner filed yet another motion ith pu!lic
respondent, this time a ;otion for $e6determination of Pro!a!le *ause,
'&
invo9ing the ruling of the
Office of the President 4OP5, dated <e!ruary ,(, ,...,
'>
hich a!solved petitioner of administrative
lia!ility" The OP revieed the administrative case filed against petitioner ith the Presidential
*ommission 2gainst 7raft and *orruption 4P*27*5 and held that petitioner acted in good faith and
ithin the scope of his authority"
On +uly ,, ,..-, the Sandiganbayan issued herein assailed $esolution denying the ;otion for $e6
determination of Pro!a!le *ause, stating as follos:
The *ourt resolves to deny the motion for re6determination of pro!a!le cause, the argument advanced
therein having !een passed upon and resolved !y this *ourt in accusedLs motion to dismiss as ell as
motion for reconsideration and here the resolution of this *ourt as sustained !y the Supreme
*ourt"
')
On 2ugust %, ,..-, upon his receipt of the $esolution, petitioner filed a ;otion for $econsideration
and=or to Muash 8nformation,
'E
arguing that the Supreme *ourtLs dismissal of his petition for certiorari
as !ased on a mere technicality"1avvphi1 De reiterated his argument that since he has !een cleared of
administrative lia!ility, the criminal case that as pending against him should li9eise !e dismissed"
The pu!lic respondent denied the motion in the other assailed $esolution dated Octo!er ,,, ,..-,
stating as follos:
<inding no merit in the accused /sic0 ;otion for $econsideration and=or ;otion to Muash dated 2ugust
%, ,..- and considering the Opposition of the prosecution, the same is 3E18E3"
8ndeed, the dismissal of the administrative complaint does not negate the eFisting criminal case
pending !efore the *ourt" ;oreover the grounds and arguments raised thereat could !e considered
matter of defense that is more and properly to !e considered during a full !lon trial"
CDE$E<O$E, the ;otion for $econsideration and=or ;otion to Muash !y the accused is denied for
lac9 of merit"
F F F F
SO O$3E$E3"
'(
Dence, the present Petition for Certiorari, see9ing to annul the $esolutions of the Sandiganbayan for
having !een issued ith grave a!use of discretion and in eFcess of and=or ithout #urisdiction"
Petitioner insists that the Sandiganbayan should have dismissed the criminal case filed against him,
since the alleged rongful acts complained of in the case are the same as those alleged in the
administrative case against him hich have !een dismissed"
Both the pu!lic and private prosecutors contend that the issues raised !y petitioner have already !een
raised and passed uponB and that the assailed $esolutions of the Sandiganbayan merely reiterate its
earlier $esolutions denying petitionerLs motion for reinvestigation and various motions for
reconsideration questioning the Om!udsmanLs finding of pro!a!le cause"
,.
They claim that the issue
!ecame settled and final as early as the 3ecem!er '', ,..' $esolution of the pu!lic respondent, hich
denied petitionerLs motions for reinvestigation"
,'
They further argue that this *ourtLs denial of
petitionerLs earlier petition for certiorari 47"$" 1o" '&-&(,5 !arred petitioner from filing the present
petition"
The respondents cite #urisprudence, hich states that the dismissal of an administrative case does not
necessarily !ar the filing of a criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts"
,,
The petition is devoid of merit"
8n Paredes !r. v. Sandiganbayan
,-
the *ourt denied a similar petition to dismiss a pending criminal
case ith the Sandiganbayan on the !asis of the dismissal of the administrative case against the
accused" The *ourt ratiocinated, thus:
P0%'%'#40&- 12** 2%%04%'#4 %# %)0 521% %)2% %)0 2,.'4'-%&2%'90 1#.6*2'4% 2(2'4-% 60%'%'#40& H#4&2,2
32- ,'-.'--0,. They invo9e our ruling in "aceda v. Vas#ue$ that only this *ourt has the poer to
oversee court personnelLs compliance ith las and ta9e the appropriate administrative action against
them for their failure to do so and that no other !ranch of the government may eFercise this poer
ithout running afoul of the principle of separation of poers"
B$% #40 %)'4( '- 2,.'4'-%&2%'90 *'2/'*'%+. Q$'%0 24#%)0& %)'4( '- %)0 1&'.'42* *'2/'*'%+ 5#& %)0 -2.0
21%. O$& ,0%0&.'42%'#4 #5 %)0 2,.'4'-%&2%'90 *'2/'*'%+ 5#& 52*-'5'12%'#4 #5 6$/*'1 ,#1$.04%- '- '4 4#
32+ 1#41*$-'90 #5 )'- *21D #5 1&'.'42* *'2/'*'%+. 2s e have held in Tan v. Comelec, %)0 ,'-.'--2* #5
24 2,.'4'-%&2%'90 12-0 ,#0- 4#% 4010--2&'*+ /2& %)0 5'*'4( #5 2 1&'.'42* 6&#-01$%'#4 5#& %)0 -2.0
#& -'.'*2& 21%- 3)'1) 30&0 %)0 -$/701% #5 %)0 2,.'4'-%&2%'90 1#.6*2'4%.
,%
4Emphasis supplied"5
8t is clear from Paredes that the criminal case against petitioner, already filed and pending ith the
Sandiganbayan, may proceed despite the dismissal of the administrative case arising out of the same
acts"
The same rule applies even to those cases that have yet to !e filed in court" 8n Tan v. Commission on
%lections
,&
it as held that an investigation !y the Om!udsman of the criminal case for falsification
and violation of the 2nti67raft and *orrupt Practices 2ct and an inquiry into the administrative charges
!y the *ommission on Elections 4*O;ELE*5 are entirely independent proceedings, neither of hich
results in or concludes the other" The esta!lished rule is that an a!solution from a criminal charge is not
a !ar
to an administrative prosecution, or vice versa"
,>
The dismissal of an administrative case does not
necessarily !ar the filing of a criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts hich ere the su!#ect
of the administrative complaint"
,)
The *ourt finds no cogent reason to depart from these rules"
Petitioner argues that the criminal case against him requires a higher quantum of proof for conviction 66
that is, proof !eyond reasona!le dou!t 66 than the administrative case, hich needs only su!stantial
evidence" De claims that from this circumstance, it follos that the dismissal of the administrative case
should carry ith it the dismissal of the criminal case"
This argument, hoever, has !een addressed in #urisprudence" 8n Valencia v. Sandiganbayan
,E
the
administrative case against the accused as dismissed !y the Om!udsman on a finding that the contract
of loan entered into as in pursuance of the police poer of the accused as local chief eFecutive,
,(
and
that the accused had !een re6elected to office"
-.
The Om!udsman, hoever, still found pro!a!le cause
to criminally charge the accused in court"
-'
Chen the accused filed a petition ith the Supreme *ourt
to dismiss the criminal case !efore the Sandiganbayan, the *ourt denied the petition, thus:
8n the final analysis, the conflicting findings of the Om!udsman !oil don to issues of fact hich,
hoever, are not ithin our province to resolve" 2s has !een oft6repeated, this *ourt is not a trier of
facts" This is a matter !est left to the Sandigan!ayan"
P0%'%'#40&- 2&($0 %)2% %)0 ,'-.'--2* /+ %)0 O./$,-.24 #5 %)0 2,.'4'-%&2%'90 12-0 2(2'4-% %)0.
/2-0, #4 %)0 -2.0 -$/701% .2%%0& -)#$*, #60&2%0 %# ,'-.'-- %)0 1&'.'42* 12-0 /012$-0 %)0
E$24%$. #5 6&##5 '4 1&'.'42* 12-0- '- 6&##5 /0+#4, &02-#42/*0 ,#$/%! 3)'*0 %)2%
'4 2,.'4'-%&2%'90 12-0- '- #4*+ -$/-%24%'2* 09',0410. Chile that may !e true, '% -)#$*, *'D03'-0 /0
-%&0--0, %)2% %)0 /2-'- #5 2,.'4'-%&2%'90 *'2/'*'%+ ,'550&- 5&#. 1&'.'42* *'2/'*'%+. T)0 6$&6#-0 #5
2,.'4'-%&2%'90 6&#100,'4(- '- .2'4*+ %# 6&#%01% %)0 6$/*'1 -0&9'10! /2-0, #4 %)0 %'.0-)#4#&0,
6&'41'6*0 %)2% 2 6$/*'1 #55'10 '- 2 6$/*'1 %&$-%. O4 %)0 #%)0& )24,! %)0 6$&6#-0 #5 %)0 1&'.'42*
6&#-01$%'#4 '- %)0 6$4'-).04% #5 1&'.0.
;oreover, one of the grounds for the dismissal of the administrative case against petitioners is the fact
that they ere re6elected to office" 8ndeed, a re6elected local official may not !e held administratively
accounta!le for misconduct committed during his prior term of office" The rationale for this holding is
that hen the electorate put him !ac9 into office, it is presumed that it did so ith full 9noledge of his
life and character, including his past misconduct" 8f, armed ith such 9noledge, it still re6elects him,
then such re6election is considered a condonation of his past misdeeds"
Doever, the re6election of a pu!lic official eFtinguishes only the administrative, !ut not the criminal,
lia!ility incurred !y him during his previous term of office F F F"
F F F F
T)0&0 '-! %)$-! 4# &02-#4 5#& %)0 S24,'(24/2+24 %# E$2-) %)0 I45#&.2%'#4 2(2'4-% 60%'%'#40&- #4
%)0 /2-'- -#*0*+ #5 %)0 ,'-.'--2* #5 %)0 2,.'4'-%&2%'90 1#.6*2'4% 2(2'4-% %)0..
-,
To sustain petitionerLs arguments ill !e to require the Sandiganbayan and the Om!udsman to merely
adopt the results of administrative investigations hich ould not only diminish the poers and duties
of these
constitutional offices, !ut also violate the independent nature of criminal and administrative cases
against pu!lic officials" This ill also amount to untold delays in criminal proceedings !efore the
Sandiganbayan and Om!udsman, as every criminal trial and investigation !efore these !odies ill !e
made to aait the results of pending administrative investigations" Such is not the intent of the framers
of the *onstitution and the las governing pu!lic officers"
Petitioner cites Larin v. %&ecutive Secretary
--
to support his arguments" That case, hoever, is not on
all fours ith the present case"
8n Larin, the accused as first convicted !y the Sandiganbayan for violation of the 1ational 8nternal
$evenue *ode and Section - 4e5 of $epu!lic 2ct 1o" -.'(" On the !asis of this conviction, an
administrative case as filed against him" On appeal of the criminal conviction to the Supreme *ourt,
hoever, he as acquitted upon a finding that the acts he had committed ere neither illegal nor
irregular" Chen the accused sought a similar dismissal of the administrative case, the Supreme *ourt
sustained him and ruled that since the same acts for hich he as administratively charged had !een
found neither illegal nor irregular, his acquittal in the criminal case should entail the dismissal of the
administrative case"
The present case differs from Larin !ecause here the administrative case as filed independently of
the criminal case" The administrative case as not filed on the !asis of a criminal conviction, as in fact,
the administrative case as dismissed ithout regard for the results of the criminal case" This is in
contrast ith Larin here the administrative case as dismissed only after its !asis, the criminal
conviction, as overturned on appeal"
Ce cannot reverse Larin !y ruling that petitionerLs discharge from the administrative action should
result in the dismissal of the criminal case" The argument cannot !e sustained ithout violating settled
principles"la'phi1 The rule is that administrative lia!ility is separate and distinct from penal and civil
lia!ilities"
-%
8n Larin no less than the Supreme *ourt acquitted the accused of charges of rongdoingB
in the case at !ar, no court of #ustice has yet declared petitioner not guilty of committing illegal or
irregular acts"
The independent nature of a criminal prosecution dictates that the Sandiganbayan must determine
petitionerLs criminal lia!ility ithout its hands !eing tied !y hat transpired in the administrative case"
The court is duty6!ound to eFercise its independent #udgment"
-&
8t is not ousted of its #urisdiction !y the
ruling in the administrative proceeding" 8t is aFiomatic that hen the court o!tains #urisdiction over a
case, it continues to retain it until the case is terminated"
->
Ander the $ules of *ourt, petitionerLs a!solution from administrative lia!ility is not even one of the
grounds for a ;otion to Muash"
-)
;oreover, petitioner lac9ed the right to file the instant petition"1avvphi1 Petitioner already raised the
issue of his discharge from administrative lia!ility in his supplemental motion for reconsideration of
the SandiganbayanLs $esolution dated +uly '-, ,..'"
-E
Chen the motion as denied, he again alleged
such fact in his motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration"
-(
Both motions have
already !een denied !y the Sandiganbayan in its $esolutions dated 3ecem!er '', ,..'
%.
and 2pril ,(,
,..,"
%'
PetitionerLs argument on private respondentsL alleged forum shopping as not sustained !y the
Sandiganbayan, since administrative and criminal cases are to independent actions" 8t correctly held
that neither action !arred the filing of the other, and that !oth cases did not pray for a common relief or
share the same parties"
%,
Thus, the question on the effect of the administrative case on the criminal case !efore the
Sandiganbayan as settled as early as the $esolution dated 3ecem!er '', ,..'" Chen petitioner
questioned this ruling !efore the Supreme *ourt in 7"$" 1o" '&-&(,, he again raised the issue of
forum6shopping, !ut his efforts failed !ecause he filed his petition out of time" Cith the dismissal of
7"$" 1o" '&-&(,, the $esolution of the Sandiganbayan dated 3ecem!er '', ,..' has !ecome final"
Such finality as evident in the pu!lic respondentLs $esolution dated +uly ,, ,..-,
%-
hich denied
petitionerLs ;otion for the $e6determination of Pro!a!le *ause" 8n it, the pu!lic respondent aptly
stated:
The *ourt resolves to deny the motion for re6determination of pro!a!le cause, the 2&($.04% 2,92410,
%)0&0'4 )29'4( /004 62--0, $6#4 24, &0-#*90, /+ %)'- C#$&% '4 211$-0,F- .#%'#4 %# ,'-.'-- 2-
30** 2- .#%'#4 5#& &01#4-',0&2%'#4 24, 3)0&0 %)0 &0-#*$%'#4 #5 %)'- C#$&% 32- -$-%2'40, /+ %)0
S$6&0.0 C#$&%"
%%
4Emphasis supplied5
Thus, the petition no !efore the *ourt, hich raises the same issues, must necessarily fail"
PetitionerLs tactics to delay his arraignment and trial cannot !e countenanced" 8n utter contempt of the
*ourtLs efforts to eFpedite all #udicial
proceedings, he has filed a petition hich merely raises issues that have long !een resolved ith
finality" By so doing, petitioner has gone !eyond merely
eFhausting his availa!le remedies and trodden in the realm of a!using legal processes"
CDE$E<O$E, premises considered, the petition is 3E18E3" The Sandiganbayan is ordered to
proceed ith the arraignment and trial of *riminal *ase 1o" ,>&%>" Petitioner and his counsel are
23;O18SDE3 not to engage further in delaying tactics"
*osts against petitioner"
SO O$3E$E3"
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEC