G.R. No. 226167 - Marzan vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 226167)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner is Dominador G. Marzan; respondent is the People of the Philippines, prosecuted before the Sandiganbayan and reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Key Dates and Procedural History

October 19, 2005 — Information filed in Sandiganbayan, Criminal Case No. 28391.
December 19, 2005 — Order of Arrest and Hold Departure Order issued; accused surrendered and posted cash bonds.
July 23, 2010 — Atty. Rupisan filed Demurrer to Evidence (denied June 29, 2011).
January 25, 2016 — Sandiganbayan Decision convicting Marzan and Rupisan for violation of Section 3(a) of RA 3019.
July 21, 2016 — Sandiganbayan Resolution denying Motions for Reconsideration.
Supreme Court Decision on appeal: October 11, 2021 (reviewing and affirming with modification).

Applicable Law

Primary statute: Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Section 3(a).
Procedural and subsidiary authorities cited: Section 15 and 16, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure; Section 2(d), Article 13, BJMP Manual on the Release of Detention Prisoners; Section 9 of RA 3019 as amended by B.P. Blg. 195; Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225). Precedents and authorities referenced in the decision include Agdeppa v. Office of the Ombudsman and Ampil v. Office of the Ombudsman, and Rural Bank of Mabitac, Laguna, Inc. v. Canicon.

Charged Offense and Accusatory Allegations

Marzan and Atty. Rupisan were charged under Section 3(a) of RA 3019 for persuading, inducing, influencing, or allowing oneself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit a violation of rules and regulations: specifically, the release without a court order and in violation of BJMP rules of detainees Cyrus Dulay and Wendell Pascua on or about May 21, 2001, despite their lawful detention pending preliminary investigation for the offense alleged by Butic.

Facts Established at Trial

On May 19–21, 2001, Cyrus, Pascua, and others were apprehended following an altercation in which Butic was injured. A complaint-affidavit was filed by Butic and a criminal complaint for Frustrated Homicide was filed with the MTC of Bayombong. An Acting MTC Judge issued a Commitment Order; custody was received by BJMP personnel. On May 21, 2001, Cyrus and Pascua were released from detention at approximately 4:00 p.m. pursuant to a Recognizance issued and signed by Atty. Rupisan and with the consent of Marzan; no court-issued release order accompanied that recognizance. They were subsequently re-arrested after discovery of the unauthorized release.

Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution established the following by testimony and documents: the apprehension and detention of Cyrus and Pascua pursuant to a commitment order; the issuance of a Recognizance by Atty. Rupisan that was not a court document; the entry in the prison logbook showing release on recognizance with Atty. Rupisan as custodian and with Marzan’s consent; and orders from Jail Chief Inspector Alberto Tapiru, Jr. to re-arrest the detainees after the release was discovered. Administrative and criminal complaints were filed with the Office of the Ombudsman following these events.

Defense Evidence and Claims

Marzan testified that he released the detainees pursuant to instructions from his superior Renato Goyo, and that a Recognizance and an unsigned Commitment Order were shown to him by Goyo. Atty. Rupisan claimed he interceded after a request by Ciriaco Dulay and signed a computerized Recognizance presented by Ciriaco, believing it appropriate to secure release. Marzan also acknowledged knowledge of BJMP rules requiring written court orders for release but admitted he did not ask for a court order when instructed.

Elements of Section 3(a), RA 3019

Section 3(a) requires: (i) the offender is a public officer; (ii) the offender persuades, induces, or influences another public officer to perform an act, or allows himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit an act; and (iii) the act constitutes a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with official duties. The statute covers two modes: active persuasion/inducement by the offender or the offender’s passive allowance of persuasion/inducement.

Sandiganbayan Ruling

The Sandiganbayan found both Marzan and Atty. Rupisan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3(a) of RA 3019. It concluded that Atty. Rupisan unlawfully intervened in processing the detainees’ release by issuing the Recognizance despite the pending preliminary investigation (first mode), and that Marzan allowed himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to release the detainees in contravention of BJMP rules (second mode). The Sandiganbayan initially sentenced each accused to an indeterminate penalty of six years and one month to ten years and perpetual disqualification from public office.

Supreme Court Ruling and Rationale

The Supreme Court denied Marzan’s Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, affirming the Sandiganbayan’s findings that all elements of Section 3(a) were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized: (1) undisputed public-officer status of the accused; (2) the detainees were still subject to preliminary investigation when released, making the release unlawful; (3) Atty. Rupisan’s issuance of a non-court Recognizance demonstrated persuasion/i

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 226167)

Procedural Posture

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 (G.R. No. 226167) filed by petitioner Dominador G. Marzan (Marzan) challenging the Sandiganbayan’s January 25, 2016 Decision and July 21, 2016 Resolution in Criminal Case No. 28391.
The Sandiganbayan convicted Marzan and Atty. Basilio Pascual Rupisan (Atty. Rupisan) of violating Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) in its January 25, 2016 Decision and denied their Motions for Reconsideration in its July 21, 2016 Resolution.
The Supreme Court (Second Division) issued its decision on October 11, 2021 (penalty modified), penned by Justice Hernando, with Justices Inting, Gaerlan, and Dimaampao concurring; Senior Associate Justice Perlas‑Bernabe was on official leave. Acting Chairperson was indicated per Special Order No. 2846 dated October 6, 2021.
Petitioner's sole assignment of error: whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in convicting him despite alleged failure of the prosecution to prove all elements of Section 3(a) of RA 3019 beyond reasonable doubt.

Parties

Petitioner: Dominador Gatab Marzan — then Senior Jail Officer 3 (SJO3) of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), Solano, Nueva Vizcaya.
Co-accused: Basilio Pascual Rupisan — then Provincial Legal Officer (Provincial Department Head), Nueva Vizcaya, salary grade 27.
Private complainant/affidavit victim: Dennis F. Butic.
Detainees involved: Cyrus Dulay (Cyrus) and Wendell Pascua (Pascua).
Other relevant persons: Senior Police Officer 2 Bernard Tapiru (SPO2 Tapiru); Jail Officer Mando Liwliw (Liwliw); Jail Chief Inspector Alberto Tapiru, Jr. (Alberto); superior Renato Goyo (Goyo); Ciriaco Dulay (father of Cyrus); Acting MTC Judge Alexander S. Balut.

Charged Offense (Accusatory Portion)

Accused charged under Section 3(a) of RA 3019 for, on or about May 21, 2001 (or sometime prior or subsequent thereto), willfully, unlawfully and criminally persuading, inducing or influencing Marzan to release without Court Order and in violation of existing rules and regulations Cyrus Dulay and Wendell Pascua when they were legally detained (arrested in flagrante delicto and by virtue of a commitment and detention order issued by Acting MTC Judge Alexander S. Balut).
The Information alleges Atty. Rupisan made representations that the commitment and detention were unlawful for lack of warrants, issued a recognizance document not in proper form and without Court approval stating he was taking custody of Cyrus and Pascua, which was shown to Marzan who then allowed himself to be persuaded and released the detainees, to the damage and prejudice of Butic and the government.

Antecedent Facts (Events of May 19–23, 2001)

May 19, 2001: During night duty, SPO2 Tapiru and team observed a commotion near a provincial videoke bar; bottles of Red Horse Beer were being thrown; Dennis F. Butic was attacked and suffered a broken tooth after being hit with a bottle.
Pascua was apprehended while appearing to attack someone; Cyrus and Maximino Pascua were also apprehended; information from bystanders led to the conclusion that Cyrus and Pascua attacked Butic.
May 21, 2001: Butic submitted his Complaint‑Affidavit to SPO2 Tapiru; SPO2 Tapiru prepared a criminal complaint for Frustrated Homicide and filed it before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Bayombong; MTC Utility Worker Cirila Labrador received it.
SPO2 Tapiru requested issuance of a Commitment Order for turnover to the proper custodian; Acting MTC Judge Alexander S. Balut issued a Commitment Order; around noontime Jail Officer Mando Liwliw received custody of Cyrus and Pascua.
Around 8:00 p.m. on May 21, 2001, SPO2 Tapiru returned to the station and later discovered that Cyrus and Pascua had been released.
Morning of May 22, 2001: SPO2 Tapiru confirmed from the Solano District Jail logbook that Cyrus and Pascua were released at 4:00 p.m. on May 21, 2001 on recognizance under the custody of Atty. Rupisan and with the consent of Marzan.
SPO2 Tapiru was shown a copy of the Recognizance and noted it was issued by Atty. Rupisan and not by a court.
Jail Chief Inspector Alberto was informed that the release occurred without any court order; he instructed Marzan to re‑arrest Cyrus and Pascua, who were thereafter re‑arrested.
As a result, administrative and criminal complaints were filed against Marzan and Atty. Rupisan with the Office of the Ombudsman, leading to preliminary investigation and the Information for violation of Section 3(a) of RA 3019.

Pre‑trial Stipulations

Prosecution and defense stipulated at pre‑trial that:
- Atty. Rupisan issued a Recognizance for the release of Cyrus and Pascua;
- Marzan released Cyrus and Pascua by virtue of the Recognizance signed by Atty. Rupisan;
- Cyrus and Pascua were returned to Solano District Jail on May 23, 2001.

Evidence of the Prosecution (Key Points)

Testimony and police report recounting apprehension of Cyrus and Pascua for attack on Butic and filing of frustrated homicide complaint.
Production of Commitment Order issued by Acting MTC Judge Alexander S. Balut; custody initially received by BJMP personnel.
Jail logbook entries showing release at 4:00 p.m. on May 21, 2001, on recognizance under custody of Atty. Rupisan with Marzan’s consent.
The Recognizance copy was shown to SPO2 Tapiru and observed to be issued by Atty. Rupisan, not by a court.
Administrative and criminal complaints; subsequent preliminary investigation findings reported circumstances of influence and involvement of relatives and political connections.

Evidence of the Defense (Key Points)

Marzan’s testimony: a document entitled “Recognizance” and an unsigned Commitment Order were shown to him by his superior Renato Goyo; Goyo instructed him to release Cyrus and Pascua and he complied.
Atty. Rupisan’s account: Ciriaco Dulay (father of Cyrus) requested his intercession; Atty. Rupisan wrote a letter asking any officer to release Cyrus if no case was filed, later signed a computerized document designated as Recognizance when Ciriaco returned with it; thereafter learned of the detainees’ release.
Marzan asserted he acted on instruction of superior Goyo and alternatively alleged the influence came from private individual Ciriaco, a relative of the town’s Vice Mayor.

Sandiganbayan Proceedings and Rulings

Atty. Rupisan filed a Demurrer to Evidence on July 23, 2010; the Sandiganbayan denied the demurrer in its June 29, 2011 Resolution.
The Sandiganbayan, in its January 25, 2016 Decision, found both Marzan and Atty. Rupisan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(a) of RA 3019.
Dispositive portion of Sandiganbayan Decision sentenced each accused to an indeterminat