Amurao vs. People of the Philippines

Section 13 of R.A. 3019 authorizes preventive suspension pendente lite for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property, including a violation of Section 7(d) of R.A. 6713 where the solicited money and gifts were intended to fund government tourism activities; the rule is not limited to violations of R.A. 3019 or Title 7, Book II of the RPC.

Petitioner Aileen Cynthia M. Amurao was the City Tourism Officer and Head of the City Tourism Department of the City Government of Puerto Princesa, Palawan. The case concerns the scope of preventive suspension under Section 13 of R.A. 3019, which applies to any incumbent public officer against whom a criminal prosecution under a valid information under that Act, Title 7, Book II of the RPC, or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property is pending in court. Section 7(d) of R.A. 6713, the offense charged against petitioner, prohibits public officials and employees from soliciting or accepting, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan, or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by, the functions of their office. The Sandiganbayan’s 2018 Revised Internal Rules, Section 4, Rule VIII, governs the issuance of an order to show cause why preventive suspension should not be imposed.

Petitioner Aileen Cynthia M. Amurao was the City Tourism Officer and Head of the City Tourism Department of the City Government of Puerto Princesa, Palawan. Her co-accused were Joyce C. Enriquez, Tourism Operations Assistant; Michie H. Meneses, Tourism Operations Officer I; and Michael Angelo M. Meneses and Lucero Aquino, Jr., contractual Tourism Operations Assistant, all of the City Tourism Department. Doris Suelo, Sheryl Lynn Lebante, and Engilbert Alvarez, the private complainants in Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-1385, executed an Affidavit alleging that petitioner and her co-accused, as tourism officers, solicited money and other gifts from private individuals and entities for tourism activities, and that the money and gifts solicited went to the personal and individual accounts of petitioner and her co-accused. In an Information dated March 5, 2015, petitioner and several others were charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 7(d) of R.A. 6713. The Information alleged that between February 2014 and April 2014, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, the accused public officers, while in the performance of their functions, taking advantage of their positions, committing the offense in relation to their office, and conspiring and confederating with each other, did willfully, unlawfully, and criminally solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan, or anything of monetary value from tourism-oriented and private entities or individuals by sending them solicitation letters for sponsorship of the City Government of Puerto Princesa’s tourism activities and related projects supervised by the accused.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution dated July 23, 2019 pursuant to Section 4, Rule VIII of the 2018 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan. The Order directed petitioner to show cause why she should not be suspended pendente lite in accordance with Section 13 of R.A. 3019. In her Compliance and Manifestation, petitioner claimed that she should not be suspended because Section 13 of R.A. 3019 only applies to those charged with violation under the same law and the provisions under the Revised Penal Code on bribery, and not to violations of R.A. 6713 of which she was charged.

On September 5, 2019, the Sandiganbayan issued the assailed Resolution ordering petitioner suspended pendente lite for a period of ninety (90) days as Head of the Office of the City Tourism of Puerto Princesa City, or any other public position she may now or thereafter be holding, and to cease and desist from further performing and/or exercising the functions, duties, and privileges of her position upon implementation of the Order, with the suspension automatically lifted upon expiration of the 90-day period. The Sandiganbayan found that the money received from solicitations was deposited in petitioner’s personal bank account and allegedly used for her personal consumption, and that the amounts of money solicited from private individuals and entities were intended for the tourism activities of the City Government of Puerto Princesa.

Petitioner did not move for reconsideration of the assailed Resolution. Instead, she filed the instant petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, seeking the nullification and setting aside of the September 5, 2019 Resolution and imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan.

• Coverage of Section 13: Petitioner maintained that violation of Section 7(d) of R.A. 6713 is not among the offenses covered by the preventive suspension rule under Section 13 of R.A. 3019, as there is yet to be a categorical pronouncement on such inclusion.
• Nature of Solicitation: Petitioner asserted that the letters which became the basis of her indictment refer to the term “sponsorship” and not solicitation.
• Fraud and Deceit: Petitioner argued that she did not commit fraud and that deceit was not proven in relation to the offense charged against her.
• Use of Funds: Petitioner claimed that evidence for the defense in Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-1385 would show that the cash, gift checks, and other forms of awards went directly to the participants and winners of contests, pageants, and other activities.
• Public Funds: Petitioner contended that the money that came from tourism stakeholders was not in the nature of public funds because it was still in the possession of the one in charge or assigned to collect and keep the same for distribution during an awards night.
• Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioner submitted that she did not file a motion for reconsideration because the preventive suspension contemplated in Section 13 of R.A. 3019 is mandatory and ministerial on the part of the Sandiganbayan, and that the petition falls under the exceptions to the necessity of filing a motion for reconsideration, citing exceptions (c), (d), (e), and (i) without explaining how such circumstances applied to her case.

• Coverage of Section 13: The People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Ombudsman through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, argued that Section 7(d) of R.A. 6713 is included among the offenses covered by Section 13 of R.A. 3019.
• Basis of Suspension: Respondent maintained that the assailed Resolution was issued on the basis of compliance with Section 13 of R.A. 3019, as amended.
• Fraud: Respondent reiterated that the fraudulent act of petitioner was established through evidence before the Sandiganbayan when money and gifts were solicited from private individuals and deposited in petitioner’s and her co-accused’s personal accounts.
• Public Funds: Respondent echoed the ruling of the Sandiganbayan that the sums of money subject of the criminal case, having been collected for the purpose of tourism activities, are public funds.

• Motion for Reconsideration: Whether the petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus may be entertained despite petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the assailed Sandiganbayan Resolution.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the Sandiganbayan Sixth Division committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering petitioner’s suspension pendente lite under Section 13 of R.A. 3019 for an offense charged under Section 7(d) of R.A. 6713.
• Coverage of Section 13 / Fraud upon Government or Public Funds: Whether a violation of Section 7(d) of R.A. 6713, as charged, is an offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property within the coverage of Section 13 of R.A. 3019.

• Motion for Reconsideration: Yes. The petition was entertained despite the absence of a motion for reconsideration because the question raised had been duly raised before and passed upon by the Sandiganbayan, falling under an exception to the rule.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion; Section 13 of R.A. 3019 covers any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property, and the charge under Section 7(d) of R.A. 6713 fell within that coverage.
• Coverage of Section 13 / Fraud upon Government or Public Funds: Yes. The offense charged involved fraud upon public funds because the money and gifts solicited were collected to fund the City Government’s tourism activities, and fraud is understood in its generic sense as trickery or deceit involving misrepresentation.

• Motion for Reconsideration: A motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari, designed to give the lower court or tribunal the opportunity to correct any actual or perceived error. Exceptions exist, including where the question raised in the certiorari proceeding has been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court. Petitioner cited exceptions (c), (d), (e), and (i) without explaining their application, but the second exception was relevant because the question she raised in her Verified Petition had been duly raised before and was already passed upon by the Sandiganbayan. The procedural misstep was therefore excused, although the petition still failed on the merits.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Grave abuse of discretion exists when there has been an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty prescribed by law or to act in accordance with law, such as when a judgment was rendered not on the basis of law and evidence but on caprice, whim, and despotism. No grave abuse could be attributed to the Sandiganbayan because the assailed Resolution was issued on cogent legal grounds. Section 13 of R.A. 3019 provides that any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under that Act, Title 7, Book II of the RPC, or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property is pending in court shall be suspended from office. The rule is not limited to violations of R.A. 3019 or Title 7, Book II of the RPC; it also applies to any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property.
• Coverage of Section 13 / Fraud upon Government or Public Funds: In Bustillo vs. Sandiganbayan, the term “fraud” in Section 13 of R.A. 3019 is understood in its generic sense, referring to an instance or act of trickery or deceit especially when involving misrepresentation. The Information charged petitioner and her co-accused with violation of Section 7(d) of R.A. 6713 by soliciting money and gifts from private individuals and entities for supposed tourism activities and projects of the City Government of Puerto Princesa while in the performance of their functions and taking advantage of their positions as tourism officers. The act involved fraud upon public funds because the money and gifts solicited were collected for the purpose of funding the tourism activities of the City Government. Petitioner did not assail the validity of the Information and, in her Manifestation and Compliance before the Sandiganbayan, admitted that suspension pendente lite should be imposed on her under a valid information. Under Bolastig vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), Section 13 makes it mandatory for the Sandiganbayan to suspend any public officer against whom a valid information charging violation of R.A. 3019, Title 7, Book II of the RPC, or any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property is filed; the court has neither discretion nor duty to determine whether preventive suspension is required to prevent the accused from using his office to intimidate witnesses or frustrate his prosecution or continue committing malfeasance in office. Since petitioner was charged with an offense clearly falling under Section 13, her suspension pendente lite was justified, and the Sandiganbayan had no other option but to order her suspension when convinced that the Information charged acts of fraud involving government funds.

• Preventive Suspension Pendente Lite under Section 13, R.A. 3019 — It is mandatory for the Sandiganbayan to suspend any incumbent public officer against whom a valid information is filed for violation of R.A. 3019, Title 7, Book II of the RPC, or any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property. The rule is not limited to violations of R.A. 3019 and Title 7, Book II of the RPC. The court has neither discretion nor duty to determine whether suspension is necessary to prevent the accused from intimidating witnesses or frustrating prosecution. Applied: petitioner was charged with violation of Section 7(d) of R.A. 6713 for soliciting funds for city tourism activities, which the Court treated as an offense involving fraud upon public funds, so suspension was mandatory.
• Fraud in Section 13, R.A. 3019 — The term “fraud” is understood in its generic sense, referring to an instance or act of trickery or deceit especially when involving misrepresentation. Applied: the Information alleged solicitation of money and gifts for supposed tourism activities while in the performance of functions and taking advantage of positions, and the funds were collected for the City Government’s tourism activities, so the charge involved fraud upon public funds.
• Exception to Motion for Reconsideration Requirement — A motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for certiorari, but exceptions include where the question raised in the certiorari proceeding has been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court. Applied: petitioner’s question had been raised before and passed upon by the Sandiganbayan, so the petition was entertained despite no motion for reconsideration.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Grave abuse of discretion exists when there is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty prescribed by law or to act in accordance with law, such as when a judgment is rendered not on the basis of law and evidence but on caprice, whim, and despotism. Applied: none, because the Sandiganbayan issued the Resolution on cogent legal grounds.

• "Verily, and contrary to petitioner's contention, the rule on preventive suspension is not limited to cases where there has been a violation of R.A. 3019 or Title 7, Book II of the RPC. The same Rule applies for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property." — This passage states the ratio decidendi that Section 13’s coverage is not limited to R.A. 3019 and Title 7, Book II of the RPC.
• "In Bustillo v. Sandiganbayan, this Court has settled that the term "fraud," as used in Section 13 of R.A. 3019, is understood in its generic sense, that is, referring to "an instance or an act of trickery or deceit especially when involving misrepresentation."" — This passage defines the term “fraud” for purposes of Section 13 of R.A. 3019 and is the Court’s canonical formulation in this case.
• "[S]ec. 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 makes it mandatory for the Sandiganbayan to suspend any public officer against whom a valid information charging violation of that law, Book II, Title 7 of the Revised Penal Code, or any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property is filed." — This passage underscores the mandatory nature of preventive suspension once a valid information falls under Section 13.
• "It has long been settled that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari." — This passage states the general procedural rule, which the Court then relaxed under a recognized exception.

• Siok Ping Tan vs. Subic Bay Distribution, Inc., 653 Phil. 124 (2010) — Cited for the exceptions to the rule requiring a motion for reconsideration before certiorari; the Court used the exception where the question had been raised and passed upon by the lower court.
• Bustillo vs. Sandiganbayan, 521 Phil. 43 (2006) — Cited for the rule that “fraud” in Section 13 of R.A. 3019 is understood in its generic sense as trickery or deceit involving misrepresentation.
• Bolastig vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), 305 Phil. 110 (1994) — Cited for the mandatory nature of preventive suspension under Section 13 of R.A. 3019; the court trying the case has neither discretion nor duty to determine whether preventive suspension is required.
• Flores vs. Hon. Layosa, 479 Phil. 1020 (2004) — Cited to support that the Sandiganbayan has no other option but to order suspension when convinced the information charges acts of fraud involving government funds.
• Galvante vs. Hon. Casimiro, 575 Phil. 324 (2008) — Cited for the definition of grave abuse of discretion.

• Section 13, Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — Provides that any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under R.A. 3019, Title 7, Book II of the RPC, or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property is pending in court shall be suspended from office. The Court applied it to petitioner because the offense charged involved fraud upon public funds.
• Section 7(d), Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) — Prohibits public officials and employees from soliciting or accepting, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan, or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by, the functions of their office. Petitioner was charged under this provision, and the Court held the charge fell within Section 13 of R.A. 3019 because it involved fraud upon public funds.
• Section 4, Rule VIII, 2018 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan — Basis for the Sandiganbayan’s July 23, 2019 Resolution directing petitioner to show cause why she should not be suspended pendente lite.

Justice Leonen (Chairperson), Justice Hernando, Justice Inting, and Justice Delos Santos concurred.