Title
Anacta, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 5th Division
Case
G.R. No. 219352
Decision Date
Nov 14, 2018
A mayor appointed a losing election candidate to a public board within a one-year prohibition period, knowingly violating legal disqualifications, resulting in criminal liability.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 219352)

The Facts

On January 10, 2005, while serving as the Municipal Mayor of Borongan, Eastern Samar, Anacta appointed Atty. Reynaldo A. Alconaba to the Board of Directors of the Borongan Water District. However, the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) later voided this appointment, citing a prohibition against appointing Alconaba due to his loss in the May 2004 municipal elections. The case against Anacta was based on accusations of unlawful appointments as delineated under Article 244 of the RPC, Article IX-B of the Constitution, and R.A. No. 7160.

Allegations and Charges

The information filed against Anacta detailed the illegal nature of the appointment, asserting that he, as a public officer, knowingly appointed Alconaba despite his ineligibility due to the one-year prohibition following a failed electoral candidacy. Anacta's arraignment occurred on August 5, 2008, where he entered a plea of not guilty.

The Sandiganbayan's Ruling

The Sandiganbayan found Anacta guilty of the unlawful appointment under Article 244 of the RPC. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a period ranging from two months and one day to four months and a fine of P1,000. The court established that Anacta was aware of Alconaba’s disqualification, which was reinforced by Anacta's own admission regarding his knowledge of the one-year prohibition against appointing losing candidates.

Legal Framework and Violations

The relevant laws define the crime of unlawful appointments, stipulating that a public officer who knowingly appoints an individual lacking qualifications incurs penalties. The court cited the specific provisions which mandate that no losing candidate may be appointed to any office within one year post-election, particularly referencing Alconaba's candidacy and subsequent loss in the 2004 elections.

Anacta's Defense and Court's Findings

Anacta contended that he relied on recommendations from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and claimed ignorance of Alconaba’s disqualification. However, the court determined that Anacta’s position as the appointing authority endowed him with the discretion to reject such recommendations, thereby asserting that he could not escape liability based on the assertions of good faith. His awareness of the laws surrounding the disqualification for appointment negated his defense.

Application of Relevant Precedents

The Sandiganbayan’s ruling was further supported by precedents which confirmed that the leg

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.