Case Summary (G.R. No. 209099-100)
Factual Background and SALN Omissions
• Valera’s 2001 and 2003 SALNs omitted his wife’s share in Buy Pinoy Marketing, Inc. (P 12,500) and his minor daughter’s share in MJ Valera Realty (P 27,000), held in trust.
• Four Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan: one for falsification of public document (SB-11-CRM-0016) and three for Section 8 violations of RA 6713 (SB-11-CRM-0013, SB-11-CRM-0014, SB-11-CRM-0015).
Consolidation and Trial in Sandiganbayan
• The Sandiganbayan consolidated all four cases for joint trial.
• It acquitted Valera of falsification (SB-11-CRM-0016) and one Section 8 charge (SB-11-CRM-0014) due to reasonable doubt.
• It convicted him under Section 8 in SB-11-CRM-0013 and SB-11-CRM-0015 for failure to disclose spousal and minor child interests.
Sandiganbayan’s Conviction and Penalties
• Classified Section 8 violations as malum prohibitum, dispensing with proof of criminal intent.
• Imposed a fine of P 5,000 per count and disqualification from public office in the court’s discretion.
• Denied Valera’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration for failure to set it for hearing as required.
Issues on Appeal
• Petitioner’s Argument: Violation of RA 6713 is malum in se, so lack of intent and good faith must absolve him; disqualification is unduly harsh given the small undeclared amounts.
• OSP’s Position: The Sandiganbayan decision is final and executory; Section 8 violation is malum prohibitum; disqualification is properly imposed.
Procedural Lapse and Liberal Construction of Rules
• Valera failed to schedule his motion for hearing, breaching Rule 15, Section 4 of the Rules of Court.
• The Supreme Court acknowledges non-compliance is generally fatal but—with equity jurisdiction—permits liberal construction to avoid technical defeat of substantive rights.
Constitutional and Statutory SALN Disclosure Mandate
• Under the 1987 Constitution, public officers must file SALNs to secure transparency and deter unlawful enrichment.
• SALNs empower public scrutiny and accountability in government service.
Review and Compliance Mechanism under RA 6713
• Section 10 of RA 6713 and Section 1, Rule VIII of its Implementing Rules establish review procedures by congressional committees or designated authorities.
• These procedures require notification of filing defects and allow the officer to correct inaccuracies in good faith without sanction.
• The mechanism ensures fuller disclosure and prevents premature prosecution for inadvertent errors.
Penalty Hierarchy and Precedence of Falsification
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 209099-100)
Procedural History
- Four separate Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan:
- Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0016 for Falsification of Public Document.
- Criminal Case Nos. SB-11-CRM-0013, SB-11-CRM-0014, SB-11-CRM-0015 for violation of Section 8, RA No. 6713.
- The Sandiganbayan consolidated and tried all four cases jointly.
- After trial, petitioner was:
- Acquitted in SB-11-CRM-0014 and SB-11-CRM-0016 for lack of sufficient proof.
- Convicted in SB-11-CRM-0013 and SB-11-CRM-0015 for violation of Section 8, RA No. 6713.
- The Sandiganbayan’s Decision dated August 22, 2013 imposed a P5,000 fine and disqualification to hold public office.
- Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, which was denied by Resolution dated September 18, 2013 for failure to set the motion for hearing.
Facts
- Petitioner failed to declare:
- His wife’s P12,500 stockholding in Buy Pinoy Marketing, Inc.
- His minor daughter’s P27,000 stockholding in MJ Valera Realty (held in trust).
- Omissions appeared in his 2001 and 2003 Sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs).
- The undeclared interests amounted to less than P40,000 total.
Sandiganbayan’s Findings and Rationale
- Violation of Section 8, RA No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- The omission of spouse’s and child’s assets in the SALN constituted non‐compliance with the mandatory disclosure requirement.
- Characterized the offense as malum prohibitum; criminal intent was immaterial.
- Imposed only a fine (not imprisonment) due to the minimal value of unreported assets.
- Exercised discretion under Section 11, RA No. 6713 to disqualify petitioner from holding public office.
- Denied reconsideration for procedural non-compliance (failure to set hearing).
Issues on Appeal
- Whether a violation of RA No. 6713 is malum in se (requiring criminal intent) or malum prohibitum.
- Whether petitioner’s good faith and absence