Case Summary (G.R. No. 216007-09)
Petitioner and Respondent
The Office of the Ombudsman charged Valdez with four counts of malversation of public funds through falsification of official documents (RPC Arts. 217 and 171) involving alleged overclaims of ₱274,306.75. The Ombudsman recommended “no bail” in Criminal Case Nos. SB-14-CRM-0321 to 0324. Valdez, still at large, filed motions to set aside the no-bail recommendation and to fix bail.
Key Dates
• COA post-audit of 2004 disbursements
• October 10 2014: Sandiganbayan Resolution grants bail, fixes bail at ₱200,000 per count
• December 8 2015: Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution Article III, Section 13 (bail rights)
• Rule 114, Sections 4 and 7, Rules of Criminal Procedure (bail of right; exceptions)
• RPC Articles 217 (malversation), 171 (falsification), 48 (complex crimes)
Factual Background
COA auditors verified that Valdez’s cash slips for reimbursement were falsified to claim ₱279,150 instead of ₱4,843.25, leading to an alleged overclaim of ₱274,306.75.
Lower Court Resolution
On October 10 2014, the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division granted Valdez’s motions, recalled the “no-bail” arrest order, and reissued it with bail set at ₱200,000 per count.
Issue Presented
Whether a person charged with the complex crime of malversation of public funds through falsification of documents involving over ₱22,000 is entitled to bail as a matter of right.
Procedural Objection
Although the People did not move for reconsideration before the Sandiganbayan, exceptions apply: the issue is purely legal, already passed upon below, and its immediate resolution is necessary to avoid conflicting rulings in pending cases.
Constitutional and Procedural Provisions on Bail
• Const. Art. III, Sec. 13: all persons except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua “when evidence of guilt is strong” are bailable of right
• Rule 114, Sec. 4: bail of right before conviction except for offenses punishable by death or reclusion perpetua
• Rule 114, Sec. 7: no bail for offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong
Prescribed vs. Imposable Penalty
• Prescribed penalty: range of punishment set by law for the offense charged
• Imposable penalty: penalty after considering aggravating or mitigating circumstances
Bail eligibility depends on the prescribed penalty, not the penalty that may ultimately be imposed.
Application to Complex Crime of Malversation through Falsification
• RPC Art. 217: malversation of public funds > ₱22,000 carries a prescribed penalty of reclusion temporal (maximum) to reclusion perpetua
• RPC Art. 48: in complex crimes, the penalty for the most serious component offense is imposed in its maximum period
• Article 48’s “shall be imposed” refers to sentencing after conviction, not to the determination of bail
Prematurity of Maximum Period Application
At the bail-setting stage, the prosecution has yet to prove all elements beyond reasonable doubt. Ap
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 216007-09)
Background and Parties
• The People of the Philippines (“petitioner”) filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 against Luzviminda S. Valdez (“private respondent”) and the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division (“public respondent”).
• The petition seeks to nullify and set aside the Sandiganbayan’s October 10, 2014 Resolution granting bail.
Factual Antecedents
• In a post-audit of Bacolod City Government disbursement vouchers, COA auditors found that ex-Mayor Valdez had submitted four vouchers totaling ₱279,150.00 for reimbursement.
• Verification showed legitimate expenses of only ₱4,843.25, yielding an alleged overclaim of ₱274,306.75.
• The Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office (PACPO), Office of the Ombudsman–Visayas, received a joint affidavit and resolved adverse to Valdez.
Charges and Indictment
• Valdez was charged with eight counts:
– SB-14-CRM-0317 to 0320 for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019;
– SB-14-CRM-0321 to 0324 for Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Official/Public Documents under RPC Arts. 217 & 171 in relation to Art. 48.
• The Office of the Ombudsman recommended “no bail” in cases 0321, 0322 and 0324.
Movements and Lower Court Resolution
• Valdez filed a Motion to Set Aside No Bail Recommendation and to Fix Bail, asserting bailability as a matter of right absent aggravating circumstances and under the ISL; she later filed a Supplemental Motion to recall the warrant of arrest.
• The Ombudsman opposed, arguing ISL inapplicable, penalty is reclusion perpetua, bail discretionary, and a summary hearing is required.
• On October 10, 2014, Sandiganbayan Fifth Division granted Valdez’s motions, recalled the arrest orders, and fixed bail at ₱200,000 per offense.
Issue on Certiorari
• Whether an accused charged with the complex crime of Malversation