Bautista vs. Sandiganbayan

A respondent who voluntarily submits a counter-affidavit during a preliminary investigation waives any later objection to the non-compliance with the requirement that the complainant’s affidavits be filed first. Additionally, an information under Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 that alleges the accused caused undue injury to the government and gave unwarranted benefits to private parties does not charge two offenses; those phrases describe alternative modes of committing the same offense, either or both of which may be alleged in a single information.

An anonymous, unsigned and unverified letter-complaint dated 20 November 1996, purportedly from the Contractors Association of Davao del Sur and the Good Government Employees of Davao del Sur, was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao. It charged petitioner Franklin P. Bautista, the incumbent Mayor of Malita, Davao del Sur, with causing the hiring of one hundred ninety-two (192) casual employees for political considerations and paying their honoraria and salaries from the peace and order fund despite meager municipal savings. Acting on the letter-complaint, Graft Investigation Officer II Corazon A. Arancon directed Bautista to submit a counter-affidavit without first requiring the complainants to reduce their allegations into sworn affidavits. Bautista complied and filed his counter-affidavit, attaching exculpatory statements from various local officials who disclaimed knowledge of the complaint. The Ombudsman approved a finding of probable cause, and an information was filed with the Sandiganbayan.

• The Complaint: An anonymous, unverified and unsigned letter-complaint dated 20 November 1996, allegedly prepared by the Contractors Association of Davao del Sur and the Good Government Employees of Davao del Sur, was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao. It accused Franklin P. Bautista, the incumbent Mayor of Malita, Davao del Sur, of violating Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019, as amended, by causing the hiring of 192 casual employees for political considerations and by charging their honoraria and salaries to the peace and order fund, despite the municipality’s meager savings. The letter also alleged illegal disbursements and fictitious and overpriced payments for supplies and spare parts.

• Preliminary Investigation: On 16 January 1997, Graft Investigation Officer II Corazon A. Arancon issued an Order directing petitioner Bautista to submit his counter-affidavit. The Order was not accompanied by any affidavit from the supposed complainants. Petitioner filed his counter-affidavit on 26 February 1997. He claimed the complaint was fictitious and fabricated, attaching affidavits from Enrique Ponce De Leon (President of the Contractor’s Association of Davao del Sur), Rogelio E. Llanos (Governor of Davao del Sur), Eduardo M. Masiwel (Vice Mayor of Malita), and several other local and provincial officials, all of whom disclaimed any knowledge of the complaint or its filing. He also argued that the hiring and payment of casuals did not warrant criminal prosecution.

• Finding of Probable Cause: GIO II Arancon, in a Resolution dated 27 May 1997, found a prima facie case for violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 against petitioner and forwarded the resolution to the Ombudsman for approval. The Ombudsman approved the resolution on 3 October 1997.

• The Information: An Information for violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 was filed with the Sandiganbayan, docketed as Crim. Case No. 24276. It alleged that petitioner, “a high ranking public officer, being the Mayor, Municipality of Malita, Davao del Sur, while in the performance of his official functions, taking advantage of his position and committing the offense in relation to his office, with manifest partiality, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally caused the hiring of some one hundred ninety-two (192) casual employees in flagrant disregard of Secs. 288 and 289 of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual (GAAM), the honoraria and salaries of whom were charged to the peace and order fund and to the project component and other services activity fund, respectively and which represented 72.5% of the total personnel services expenditures, thereby giving unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference to the said casuals, causing undue injury to the Municipality of Malita.”

• Invalid Preliminary Investigation: Petitioner contended that the Ombudsman had no legal basis to conduct the preliminary investigation or to file the Information because it failed to first require the complainants to submit their affidavits before directing him to file a counter-affidavit, in violation of Sec. 4, Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Ombudsman. He invoked Olivas v. Office of the Ombudsman, arguing that the absence of complainants’ affidavits rendered the preliminary investigation void and deprived the Information of a valid cause of action.

• Duplicity of Offenses: Petitioner argued that the Information charged at least two distinct offenses: (a) giving unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference to the casual employees, and (b) causing undue injury to the Municipality of Malita. Citing Santiago v. Garchitorena, he maintained that Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 provides two separate modes of violation, each constituting a distinct offense that should have been charged in separate informations. The joinder of both offenses in a single information violated the rule against duplicity and warranted its quashal.

• Casual Employees Not “Private Parties”: Petitioner asserted that the hired casuals, being municipal employees, were public officers within the meaning of Sec. 2(b) of R.A. 3019 and not “private parties.” Since one of the elements of Sec. 3(e) requires that a private party receive the unwarranted benefits, the absence of this element meant the Information failed to charge an offense. He cited Philnabank Employees Association v. Auditor General for the proposition that employees of a government entity are government employees and not private parties.

• Sufficiency of the Information: Respondent People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Ombudsman, opposed the Motion to Quash, maintaining that all the essential elements of the crime charged were sufficiently alleged in the Information. The allegation of both “giving unwarranted benefits” and “causing undue injury” did not charge two distinct offenses but merely described the consequences or alternative modes of committing the single violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019.

• Preliminary Investigation Validity: Whether the Ombudsman’s failure to require the complainants to execute and submit affidavits before directing the petitioner to file a counter-affidavit invalidated the preliminary investigation and justified the quashal of the information.

• Duplicity of Offenses: Whether the Information charged two distinct offenses by alleging both the giving of unwarranted benefits to the casual employees and the causing of undue injury to the municipality, in violation of the rule against duplicity of charges.

• Private Party Element: Whether the casual employees hired by the municipality are “private parties” within the contemplation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019, or whether their status as government employees after appointment negates an essential element of the offense.

• Preliminary Investigation Validity: The issue was rendered moot and academic, and petitioner was deemed to have waived any defect. Despite the Ombudsman’s non-compliance with the affidavit requirement, petitioner voluntarily filed his counter-affidavit on 26 February 1997 and answered the charges against him. By submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and allowing the preliminary investigation to proceed to its conclusion without objection, petitioner waived whatever right he may have had to assail the manner in which the investigation was conducted. He was consequently estopped from questioning the validity of the Information. The ruling in Olivas v. Office of the Ombudsman was distinguished: in that case, the respondent refused to file a counter-affidavit precisely because of the absence of the complainant’s affidavits; here, petitioner filed his counter-affidavit without protest.

• Duplicity of Offenses: The Information did not charge two offenses. Section 3(e) uses the disjunctive term “or” — causing undue injury “or” giving unwarranted benefits — indicating two different modes of committing the offense, not two distinct offenses. The Court, citing Santiago v. Garchitorena and Uy v. Sandiganbayan, clarified that the act of giving unwarranted benefits is not an indispensable element of the offense of causing undue injury, although both elements may concur in a single case. The Information’s use of the phrase “causing undue injury” could be read either as a second mode of violating the statute or as a consequence of the act of giving unwarranted benefits. In either interpretation, only one offense under Sec. 3(e) was charged. By analogy to Gallego v. Sandiganbayan, the allegation of multiple modes (manifest partiality, evident bad faith, etc.) does not multiply the offenses. The Information sufficiently charged petitioner with a single violation of Sec. 3(e), with both modes of commission alleged to have concurred.

• Private Party Element: The casual employees were private parties at the relevant time. The term “private party” refers to persons other than those holding public office. The Information charged petitioner with causing the hiring of the 192 casuals and the consequent award of their honoraria and salaries. At the moment of hiring and the granting of benefits—the acts complained of—the individuals were not yet incumbent public officers; they were private individuals. Their subsequent employment as casual municipal employees did not retroactively alter their status at the time the unwarranted benefits were conferred. The element of giving unwarranted benefits to a “private party” was therefore properly alleged.

• Waiver of Objections to Preliminary Investigation — When a respondent in a preliminary investigation voluntarily submits a counter-affidavit and participates in the proceedings without raising any objection to the non-submission of the complainants’ affidavits, the respondent waives the right to subsequently challenge the validity of the preliminary investigation and is estopped from questioning the resulting information. The defect is rendered moot and academic by the respondent’s active participation.

• Alternative Modes of Violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 — Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act provides two alternative modes of commission: (a) causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or (b) giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference. These are not separate offenses but different ways of committing the same crime. An information may charge an accused under either mode or under both without being duplicitous. Where both elements are alleged to have concurred, the phrase “causing undue injury” may be treated either as an additional mode of commission or as the prejudicial consequence of the act of giving unwarranted benefits. The requisites for a valid charge under this provision are: (i) the offender is a public officer; (ii) the act was performed in the discharge of official, administrative, or judicial functions; (iii) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (iv) the public officer caused undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference.

• Temporal Determination of “Private Party” Status — For purposes of determining whether a person is a “private party” under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, the material time is the moment when the unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference is conferred, not the person’s subsequent status. Individuals who are not yet holding public office at the time they receive the alleged unwarranted benefit are considered private parties, even if they become government employees as a direct result of the transaction under scrutiny.

• “Having submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and having allowed the proceedings to go on until the preliminary investigation was terminated and the Information filed at the Sandiganbayan, petitioner is deemed to have waived whatever right he may otherwise have to assail the manner in which the preliminary investigation was conducted. Consequently, petitioner is likewise estopped from questioning the validity of the Information filed before the Sandiganbayan.”

• “The use of the disjunctive term ‘or’ connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Sec. 3, par. (e), or as aptly held in Santiago, as two (2) different modes of committing the offense. This does not however indicate that each mode constitutes a distinct offense, but rather, that an accused may be charged under either mode or under both.”

• “The reckoning period is before the casual employees’ incumbency when they were still private individuals, and hence, their current positions do not affect the sufficiency of the Information.”

• Olivas v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 102420, 20 December 1994 — Distinguished. The respondent there refused to file a counter-affidavit because of the lack of complainants’ affidavits; here, petitioner voluntarily filed his counter-affidavit, thereby waiving the objection.

• Santiago v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 109266, 2 December 1993 — Followed. Established that Sec. 3(e) provides two different modes of committing the offense, not two distinct offenses, and that an accused may be charged under either or both.

• Uy v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 100334, 5 December 1991 — Cited approvingly. Clarified that the act of giving unwarranted benefits is not an indispensable element of the distinct act of causing undue injury, yet both elements may concur.

• Gallego v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 57841, 30 July 1982 — Applied by analogy. The inclusion of multiple phrases describing modes of commission (manifest partiality, evident bad faith, gross inexcusable negligence) does not multiply the offenses charged.

• Philnabank Employees Association v. Auditor General, G.R. No. 30137, 25 June 1973 — Distinguished. That case involved the general classification of government corporate employees as public officers; it did not govern the temporal determination of “private party” status at the moment the benefit was conferred.

• Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — Defines the offense. The Court interpreted the disjunctive “or” as establishing alternative modes of commission, not distinct offenses, and confirmed that both modes may be alleged in a single information. The elements were recited: public officer; act done in the discharge of official functions; act done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and the causing of undue injury or the giving of unwarranted benefits to a private party.

• Section 4, Rule II, Rules of Procedure of the Ombudsman — Mandates the procedure for preliminary investigations, requiring that if the complaint is not under oath or is based only on official reports, the investigating officer shall cause the complainant or supporting witnesses to execute affidavits before requiring the respondent to submit a counter-affidavit. The Court held that petitioner waived enforcement of this procedural safeguard by filing his counter-affidavit without objection.

Justices Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena concurred. Justice De Leon, Jr., was on leave.