August 31, 2011
Ponente: Del Castillo, J.
FACTS:
·
Georgito Posesano was an Instructor II with
Salary Grade 13 while Magdalena Divinagracia was an Education Program
Specialist II with Salary Grade 16, both at the Surigao del Norte School of
Arts and Trades (SNSAT).
·
In June 1997, Posesano and Divinagracia were
appointed and promoted as Vocational Instruction Supervisor III with Salary
Grade 18 at SNSAT by the CHED Caraga Administrative Region. These promotional
appointments were duly approved and attested as permanent by the Civil Service
Commission (CSC).
·
The appointment papers were transmitted to
Jose Catacutan, who was the OIC of SNSAT at the time. Catacutan sat on the
appointment papers, such that Posesano and Divinagracia were not able to assume
their new position. Catacutan made known that he strongly opposed their
appointments and that he would not implement them despite written orders from
CHED and the CSC
·
Poseano and Divinagracia initiated two actions
against Catacutan: (a) first, an administrative complaint before the Office of
the Ombudsman for Mindanao for grave abuse of authority and disrespect of
lawful orders; and (b) a criminal action before the RTC of Surigao City for
violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 or
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
·
Administrative complaint: Dismissed. Affirmed
by the CA. (There was no discussion on the merits of the admin case.)
·
Criminal action: Catacutan guilty of the crime
charged. In defying the orders of the CHED and the CSC to implement the subject
promotional appointments despite the rejection of his opposition, Catacutan
demonstrated his palpable and patent fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do
moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will.
As such, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years
and one (1) month and perpetual disqualification from public office.
·
Sandiganbayan: Affirmed the RTC's ruling in
toto.
·
In his petition before the SC, Catacutan was
contending that the RTC's decision was flawed and grossly violative of his
right to be heard and to present evidence. He argued that he was not able to
controvert the findings of the RTC since he was not able to present the CA
decision in the admin case which dismissed the complaint against him and
declared that his intention in refusing to implement the promotions of Poseano
and Divinagracia fell short of malice or wrongful intent.
RULING:
Whether
Catacutan's constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law were violated
when he was denied the opportunity to present in evidence the CA decision in a
separate administrative complaint? – NO.
·
Due process simply demands an opportunity to
be heard. It is satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable
opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy. Where an
opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is
accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.
·
As applied in this case, Catacutan was able to
confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, argue his case
vigorously, and explain the merits of his defense. As such, it is obvious he was given the opportunity to
defend his interests in due course. Therefore, he cannot be said to have been
denied due process of law.
·
There is also no denial of due process when
the RTC did not allow Catacutan to introduce as evidence the CA decision in the
admin case. It is well within the
court's discretion to reject the presentation of evidence which it judiciously
believes irrelevant and impertinent to the proceeding on hand. This is
specially true when the evidence sought to be presented in a criminal
proceeding as in this case, concerns an administrative matter.
·
Administrative cases are independent from
criminal actions for the same act or omission. Thus, the findings in
administrative cases are not binding upon the court trying a criminal case,
even if the criminal proceedings are based on the same facts and incidents
which gave rise to the administrative matter.
·
Due process of law is not denied by the
exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent evidence, or testimony of
an incompetent witness. It is not an error to refuse evidence which although
admissible for certain purposes, is not admissible for the purpose which
counsel states as the ground for offering it.
·
But even if for the sake of argument, the RTC erred
in rejecting the introduction in evidence of the CA decision, Catacutan was
still not left without legal recourse. He could have availed of the remedy
provided in Section 40, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which provides:
Section
40. Tender of excluded evidence. If documents or things offered in evidence are
excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made part
of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the
record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the
substance of the proposed testimony.
·
If Catacutan was keen on having the RTC admit
the CA's decision for whatever it may be worth, he could have included the same
in his offer of exhibits. If an exhibit sought to be presented in evidence is
rejected, the party producing it should ask the courts permission to have the
exhibit attached to the record. Catacutan did not avail of this remedy, though.
·
As such, the CA's decision does not form part
of the records of the case, thus it has no probative weight. Any evidence that
a party desires to submit for the consideration of the court must be formally
offered by him otherwise it is excluded and rejected and cannot even be taken
cognizance of on appeal. The rules of procedure and jurisprudence do not
sanction the grant of evidentiary value to evidence which was not formally
offered.
Whether
the elements of the crime for which Catacutan was charged were satisfied to
warrant a conviction. – YES.
·
Section 3(e) of RA 3019, as amended, provides:
Section 3.
Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of
public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall
constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to
be unlawful.
x x x x
(e)
Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government or giving any
private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This
provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions.
·
Under said provision of law, three essential
elements must thus be satisfied, viz:
o
The accused must be a public officer
discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;
o
He must
have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable
negligence; and
o
His
action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government or gave
any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his functions.
·
All the above enumerated elements of the
offense charged have been successfully proven by the prosecution.
·
First, Catacutan could not have committed the
acts imputed against him during the time material to this case were it not for
his being a public officer, that is, as the OIC of SNSAT.
·
Second, Catacutan acted with evident bad faith
in refusing to implement the appointments of the two instructors.
·
Third, undue injury to Posesano and
Divinagracia was duly proven to the point of moral certainty. Despite their
appointments having been made in June 1997, they were only able to assume their
new position in November of the same year. Not only were they not able to enjoy
the benefits of an increased salary corresponding to their newly appointed
positions, they also suffered from mental anguish, sleepless nights, and
serious anxiety.