Case Digest (G.R. No. 168951)
Facts:
Dr. Roger R. Posadas and Dr. Rolando P. Dayco, G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000, July 17, 2013, First Division, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court. Dr. Posadas was Chancellor of the University of the Philippines Diliman (UP Diliman) for a three‑year term (Nov. 1, 1993–Oct. 31, 1996); Dr. Dayco was Vice‑Chancellor for Administrative Affairs and served as Officer‑in‑Charge (OIC) during Posadas’s official trip to China (Oct.–Nov. 1995). Pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated September 18, 1995, UP Diliman agreed to implement the foreign‑funded TMC Project (Institutionalization of Technology Management), to be financed by CIDA with NEDA and PIDS as implementing/liaison agencies.While the MOA was effective in September 1995, Dr. Dayco—acting as OIC—signed on November 7, 1995 an appointment making Dr. Posadas Project Director (retroactive to Sept. 18, 1995) and an undated Contract for Consultancy Services naming him Consultant; Posadas received monthly honoraria (P30,000) and consultancy fees (P100,000) until COA questioned the payments in 1996. COA Resident Auditor suspended payments in August 1996 but lifted the suspensions in September 1997 after UP’s Chief Legal Officer defended the arrangements as consultancy/exempt from certain civil‑service limits.
Separately, an administrative complaint by a TMC staff led UP President Javier to form a Fact‑Finding Committee and an Administrative Disciplinary Tribunal (ADT), which in August 1998 recommended dismissal for grave misconduct; the Board of Regents (BOR) modified the penalty to forced resignation with accessory penalties in November 1998, and the UP General Counsel endorsed the ADT findings to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman ordered indictment for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Section 7(b) (in relation to Sec. 11) of R.A. No. 6713, and Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan as Criminal Cases Nos. 25465–66; the petitioners were arraigned (Dayco June 15, 2000; Posadas May 28, 2001) and pleaded not guilty.
The Sandiganbayan rendered its Decision dated June 28, 2005, convicting both petitioners of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713, imposing imprisonment and accessory penalties and ordering indemnification of P336,000. Petitio...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on the ground that it lacked a notice of hearing?
- Did the Sandiganbayan err in convicting petitioners of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti‑Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)?
- Did the Sandiganbayan err in convicting petitioners of violating Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standard...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)