Title
Source: Supreme Court
People vs. Bello
Case
G.R. No. 166948-59
Decision Date
Aug 29, 2012
AFP-RSBS officials, including Legal Department Head Bello, faced charges for falsifying deeds of sale to inflate land prices and evade taxes. The Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction, as Bello qualified as a "manager" under R.A. 8249, and the offenses were tied to his public office.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 166948-59)

Applicable Law

The laws pertinent to this case include Republic Act No. 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and the Revised Penal Code (RPC), particularly Article 171 concerning falsification of public documents. These legislative frameworks set the basis for the charges filed against the respondents.

Background of the Case

In 1998, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee investigated the AFP-RSBS and uncovered irregularities in property acquisitions, which led to the recommendation that the Ombudsman prosecute the involved parties for violations of the RPC and R.A. 3019. Following this, the Ombudsman filed criminal informations against several respondents highlighting offenses related to graft and falsification.

Sandiganbayan's Initial Ruling

In a decision dated February 12, 2004, the Sandiganbayan dismissed motions by Satuito and Bello that contended the court's lack of jurisdiction. Initially, the Sandiganbayan ruled that AFP-RSBS did not qualify as a government-owned and controlled corporation due to its corporate structure. Consequently, it found that the legal department heads did not fall under the jurisdictional authority specified in R.A. 8249.

Change of Position by Sandiganbayan

Upon a motion for reconsideration, the Sandiganbayan revised its stance and acknowledged AFP-RSBS as a government-owned and controlled corporation, yet it maintained that Bello’s position as head of the legal department did not classify him within the scope of the law which delineated jurisdiction to higher positions like presidents or directors.

Definition of Manager

The Sandiganbayan explored the term "manager" as defined within Section 4(a)(1)(g) of the applicable law, indicating such an individual must exercise overall control of a corporation. It cited definitions from legal dictionaries to support its ruling which restricted the term's application to high-ranking officers with broad authority.

Precedents and Legislative Intent

The prosecution argued that the terms in the statutory language should be construed comprehensively to include various corporate officers who partake in managing divisions or departments, thus aligning Bello's role with the legislative intent of broadening the scope of "manager" to encompass those managing substantial corporate segments.

Court's Final Ruling

The higher court ultimately reversed the Sandiganbayan's earlier decisions, asserting that the evidence pointed

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.