Case Digest (G.R. No. 175457)
Facts:
Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 175457 and 175482, July 06, 2011, Supreme Court First Division, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr. (then Governor of Eastern Samar) and Alexandrino R. Apelado, Sr. (then Provincial Jail Warden). The complaint began with a letter from Atty. David B. Loste (IBP, Eastern Samar) to the Office of the Ombudsman alleging that Mayor Francisco Adalim—an accused in an RTC murder case—was transferred from the provincial jail and placed in the custody of Governor Ambil at his residence. The NBI recommended criminal charges; despite a later IBP communication that it no longer wished to pursue the matter, the Ombudsman filed an Information (Jan. 31, 2000) charging Ambil and Apelado with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019; the Information was later amended to include Delivering Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC) against the remaining accused.
At arraignment the petitioners pleaded not guilty and posted bail. During pre-trial they admitted the factual allegations but asserted that the transfer was justified by security concerns for Adalim. The prosecution rested primarily on documentary evidence and did not present testimonial evidence. Petitioners’ motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence was denied. At trial petitioners presented three witnesses: Ambil, Atty. Juliana A. Adalim‑White (Adalim’s sister and a public attorney), and Mayor Francisco Adalim; Apelado also testified describing conditions at the provincial jail and recounting that he complied with the governor’s instruction to relinquish custody.
The Sandiganbayan, First Division, rendered its Decision on September 16, 2005 finding both petitioners guilty of violating Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 because they transferred and detained Adalim at Ambil’s residence without court order and thereby conferred unwarranted benefits; it rejected the safety justification and emphasized that transfers/releases of detainees require court order or bail under Rule 114, Sec. 3, Rules of Court. The Sandiganbayan sentenced Ambil to an indeterminate term of 9 years, 8 months and 1 day to 12 years, 4 months, and, initially, imposed a lighter sentence on Apelado by crediting an incomplete justifying circumstance. Both petitioners filed separate petitions for review on certiorari in the Supreme Court (consolidated), assailing the Sandiganbayan Decision and the subsequent Resolution (Nov. 8, 2006).
The Supreme Court resolved the consolidated Rule 45 petitions,...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction to try petitioners for violation of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019?
- Were petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 (i.e., did they act with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence and confer unwarranted benefits)?
- Did Governor Ambil have authority as “provincial jailer” to take custody of and detain Mayor Adalim outside the provincial jail?
- Were petitioners entitled to justifying circumstances — Ambil to fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of office (Art. 11(5), RPC), and Ape...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)