Case Summary (G.R. No. 175457)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Complaint initiated by an IBP letter (September 11, 1998) and an NBI report (January 4, 1999). Information filed (January 31, 2000); Amended Information charging violation of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 (Anti‑Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). Sandiganbayan promulgated its decision (September 16, 2005); Sandiganbayan resolution (November 8, 2006). Consolidated petitions for certiorari filed in the Supreme Court, which rendered the challenged judgment.
Applicable Law and Legal Authorities
Primary: Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence). Related authorities cited and applied: Section 3, Rule 114, Rules of Court (no release or transfer except on court order or bail); Article 11, paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Revised Penal Code (justifying circumstances: fulfillment of duty; obedience to superior order); Section 61, Chapter V, R.A. No. 6975 (powers and functions regarding provincial jail supervision); Administrative Code provisions on provincial jails (e.g., Sec. 1731, 1737); Section 4, P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 8249 (Sandiganbayan jurisdiction).
Factual Background
Mayor Francisco Adalim was arrested on September 6, 1998, in connection with a murder case. Alleging threats to his safety while detained in the provincial jail, Adalim (through counsel and his sister Atty. Juliana Adalim‑White) was transferred from the provincial jail and kept at Governor Ambil’s private residence for approximately eighty‑five days without a court order. The transfer reportedly occurred upon instruction by Governor Ambil and with the cooperation of Warden Apelado; SPO3 Balano was initially charged but the Ombudsman recommended dismissal as to him.
Charges and Amended Information
Petitioners were charged under Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019, accused of conspiring to cause the release of Mayor Adalim from provincial jail and of placing him under Governor Ambil’s custody without court authority, thereby giving unwarranted benefits and advantage to the detainee to the prejudice of the government. Bail was recommended and posted.
Trial Evidence and Defenses
Prosecution rested largely on documentary evidence and did not present testimonial evidence after admission of exhibits. Petitioners admitted the facts at pretrial but asserted justifications: Governor Ambil claimed he acted to protect Adalim’s life, relying on counsel’s advice and citing poor jail security; Apelado asserted he followed the governor’s order and that jail conditions were dilapidated and understaffed. Witnesses included the petitioners, Atty. Juliana Adalim‑White, and Mayor Adalim, who corroborated concerns about jail security and his stay at the governor’s residence.
Sandiganbayan’s Findings and Rationale
The Sandiganbayan found petitioners guilty of violating Section 3(e). It held that moving Adalim to a private residence conferred unwarranted benefits (comfortable quarters, freedom of movement, access to television and privileges not available to other detainees). The court rejected the safety defense because Governor Ambil did not personally verify an actual threat and relied on counsel’s representations; the existence of an isolation cell and onsite nipa huts were cited as alternative measures; refusal to return Adalim despite advice from DILG Assistant Secretary Ingeniero also evidenced bad faith.
Issues Presented on Appeal
Petitioners raised multiple issues: (1) applicability of Section 3(e) to their conduct and whether it requires pecuniary transactions; (2) whether a public officer can be considered a “private party” under Section 3(e); (3) whether petitioners acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; (4) whether the provincial governor has authority as “provincial jailer” to take custody of a detainee; (5) entitlement to justifying circumstances (fulfillment of duty for Ambil; obedience to superior order for Apelado); and (6) insufficiency of evidence to support conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Legal Standard for Section 3(e) Liability
The Court reiterated the elements of Section 3(e): (1) accused is a public officer discharging official, administrative or judicial functions; (2) accused acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and (3) the action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference. Definitions of “partiality,” “bad faith,” and “gross negligence” as established in jurisprudence were applied.
Jurisdictional and Status Findings
The Court confirmed Sandiganbayan jurisdiction: Ambil’s position as provincial governor falls within positions under Section 4, P.D. No. 1606 (as amended). Although Apelado’s salary grade was lower, he was properly tried before the Sandiganbayan as co‑accused with Ambil.
Analysis on Governor’s Authority Over Jails
The Court rejected Governor Ambil’s claim that he was entitled to transfer and personally custody the detainee by virtue of being “provincial jailer.” The Court distinguished powers of supervision and control under R.A. No. 6975 and the Administrative Code: supervision/control do not permit acts beyond legal parameters nor supplant court authority. Section 1731 of the Administrative Code imposes administrative responsibilities (keeping and administration), but does not authorize the governor to take personal custody of detainees. The Court emphasized Rule 114, Section 3 of the Rules of Court: no person under detention by legal process shall be released or transferred except upon court order or upon admission to bail. The DILG Assistant Secretary’s communication enjoining immediate delivery to the provincial jail underscored the unlawfulness of the transfer.
Application of Section 3(e) to the Facts
The Court concluded petitioners acted with manifest partiality and evident bad faith. They conferred unwarranted benefits upon Adalim by transferring him without court order and detaining him at a private residence, where he enjoyed more comfortable conditions and privileges relative to ordinary detainees. The Court held that the term “private party” in Section 3(e) includes a public officer acting in a private capacity; here, Adalim received the benefit as a detainee (private party for purposes of the provision), not in his official capacity as mayor. The lack of an adequate justification for the transfer (availability of alternatives
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 175457)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari were filed by Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr. (G.R. No. 175457) and Alexandrino R. Apelado, Sr. (G.R. No. 175482) assailing the Sandiganbayan Decision dated September 16, 2005 and Resolution dated November 8, 2006 in Criminal Case No. 25892.
- The controversy began with a letter from Atty. David B. Loste (IBP, Eastern Samar Chapter) to the Office of the Ombudsman requesting investigation into the alleged transfer of Mayor Francisco Adalim from the Eastern Samar provincial jail to the residence of Governor Ambil.
- The NBI, in a Report dated January 4, 1999, recommended filing criminal charges against Ambil for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
- The IBP later informed the Ombudsman on September 22, 1999 that it was no longer pursuing the case and recommended dismissal; nevertheless, an Information dated January 31, 2000 charged Ambil and Apelado (and SPO3 Balano initially) with violation of Section 3(e).
- Upon reinvestigation, the Ombudsman recommended dismissal of the complaint as to Balano and amendment of the Information to include Article 156 (Delivering Prisoners from Jail) against the remaining accused; an Amended Information was filed charging Ambil and Apelado under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 for giving unwarranted benefits to Mayor Francisco Adalim by ordering his removal from provincial jail and placing him in Ambil’s custody for about eighty-five (85) days without court order.
- On arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty and posted bail; at pre-trial petitioners admitted allegations in the Information but advanced defenses; the prosecution ultimately rested after admission of documentary exhibits; petitioners’ Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence was denied.
- The Sandiganbayan convicted petitioners; they appealed to the Supreme Court via the consolidated petitions for review on certiorari.
Material Facts
- Mayor Francisco Adalim was arrested on September 6, 1998 in connection with Criminal Case No. 10963 (murder) and thereafter detained at the provincial jail of Eastern Samar.
- Atty. Juliana A. Adalim-White (District Public Attorney of Eastern Samar and sister of Mayor Adalim) communicated concern about the safety of Mayor Adalim and sought alternative custody with Governor Ambil after the provincial warden allegedly failed to guarantee safety.
- Mayor Adalim allegedly observed inmates at the provincial jail who served as bodyguards for or were associated with his political rivals; he said a prisoner, Roman Akyatan, made a threatening gesture (raised clenched fist).
- Ambil ordered and caused Adalim’s transfer from the provincial jail to Ambil’s residence, where Adalim stayed for approximately eighty-five (85) days before posting bail after the charge was downgraded to homicide.
- Apelado, as Provincial Jail Warden, fetched Adalim and relinquished custody to Governor Ambil after being informed by Atty. White that Adalim was under the governor’s custody.
- Description of jail conditions at trial: dilapidated facility, undermanned (two guards for fifty inmates), two cells (25 inmates each), an isolation cell of 10 square meters that was unserviceable at the time, and several nipa huts within the jail perimeter used for conjugal visits.
- Assistant Secretary Jesus Ingeniero of the Department of Interior and Local Government advised Ambil (in a communication dated October 6, 1996 cited in the case) that taking custody of a detainee was not in accord with Section 3, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court and that Section 61 of RA 6975 does not include power to take custody of any person in detention; Ambil was enjoined to immediately deliver Mayor Adalim to the provincial jail to avoid legal complications.
Amended Information — Allegations and Legal Basis
- The Amended Information charged that on or about September 6, 1998, Ambil (then Provincial Governor) and Apelado (then Provincial Warden), public officers, connived to willfully, unlawfully and criminally order and cause the release of Mayor Adalim from Provincial Jail and placed him under Ambil’s custody at Ambil’s residence for about eighty-five (85) days without court order, thereby giving unwarranted benefits to the detainee contrary to Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
- Bail bond recommended in the Amended Information was P30,000.00 each.
Trial Proceedings and Evidence
- The prosecution admitted documentary exhibits and then rested without offering testimonial evidence.
- Petitioners presented three witnesses: petitioner Ambil, Jr.; Atty. Juliana Adalim-White; and Mayor Francisco C. Adalim.
- Petitioner Ambil testified that his order to transfer was upon advice of Adalim’s lawyers and motivated by concerns over poor security and dangers posed to Adalim in provincial jail.
- Atty. White testified to her role as District Public Attorney and sister of Adalim; she related the arrest and her request for the governor to assume custody after perceiving inadequate safety assurances by the warden.
- Mayor Adalim testified that he was arrested on September 6, 1998, confirmed the presence of inmates linked to his political rivals inside the jail, described a threatening gesture by Roman Akyatan, and stated he stayed at Ambil’s residence for almost three months.
- Petitioner Apelado testified that he was Provincial Jail Warden, that SPO3 Balano fetched him to assist in the arrest, that Atty. White informed him that Mayor Adalim was under the governor’s custody, and that he submitted to the governor’s order to relinquish custody; he also described the jail’s poor physical condition and understaffing.
Sandiganbayan Decision — Findings and Sentencing
- The Sandiganbayan, First Division, promulgated its Decision on September 16, 2005 finding petitioners guilty of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
- The Sandiganbayan found that moving Adalim to a private residence conferred unwarranted benefits and advantage—more comfortable quarters, access to television and privileges not available to other detainees—and that petitioners conspired in granting such benefits.
- The court emphasized the mandate in Section 3, Rule 114, Rules of Court: no person under detention by legal process shall be released or transferred except upon order of the court or when admitted to bail.
- The Sandiganbayan rejected petitioners’ safety defense, noting Ambil did not personally verify any particular threat and relied on lawyers’ advice; it also noted the availability of alternatives inside the jail (isolation cell, nipa huts) and Ambil’s failure to turn over Adalim despite Assistant Secretary Ingeniero’s instruction.
- Sentencing by the Sandiganbayan: Ambil was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of nine (9) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and four (4) months; Apelado was appreciated as having incomplete justifying circumstance of obedience to a superior order and was sentenced to imprisonment for six (6) years and one (1) month to nine (9) years and eight (8) months (as stated in the Sandiganbayan decision).
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Issues advanced by petitioner Ambil:
- Whether Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 applies to his case.
- Whether a public officer such as petitioner is a private party for purposes of Section 3(e).
- Whether petitioner acted with deliberate intent, manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
- Whether, as Provincial Governor and alleged “Provincial Jailer,” he had authority to take custody of a detention prisoner under provisions of the Administrative Code of 1917 and Section 61, Chapter V, RA 6975.
- Whether petitioner is entitled to the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty or lawful exercise of a right or office.
- Whether the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Issues advanced by petitioner Apelado:
- Misapprehension of facts and misapplication of law/jurisprudence in convicting him, either as principal or in conspiracy with Ambil.
- In the absence of competent proof of conspiracy, he should receive full credit for the justifying circumstance under Article 11(6) RPC (obedience to superior order).
- The Sandiganbayan’s basis for finding unwarranted benefits to the prejudice of the government is, at most, speculative.
- Court condensed issues:
- Whether petitioners are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019.
- Whether Ambil, as provincial governor, had authority to take personal custody of a detention prisoner