Scribd
Upload
60 views7 pages

Ambil Vs Sandiganbayan

(1) Petitioners Ambil Jr. and Apelado Sr. were charged with violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for transferring a detained mayor accused of murder from prison to Governor Ambil Jr.'s residence. (2) The Sandiganbayan found them guilty, ruling that they displayed partiality and bad faith. (3) The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the petitioners gave unwarranted benefits to the detained mayor by releasing him from lawful detention without a court order.

Uploaded by

Melvynn Seno
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
60 views7 pages

Ambil Vs Sandiganbayan

(1) Petitioners Ambil Jr. and Apelado Sr. were charged with violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for transferring a detained mayor accused of murder from prison to Governor Ambil Jr.'s residence. (2) The Sandiganbayan found them guilty, ruling that they displayed partiality and bad faith. (3) The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the petitioners gave unwarranted benefits to the detained mayor by releasing him from lawful detention without a court order.

Uploaded by

Melvynn Seno
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

RUPERTO A. AMBIL, JR. VS.

SANDIGANBAYAN AND
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 175457 JULY 6, 2011

ALEXANDRINO R. APELADO, SR. VS. PEOPLE OF THE


PHILIPPINES,
G.R. NO. 175482
 FACTS:

A letter from Atty. David B. Loste was sent to the Office of the Ombudsman,
praying for an investigation into the alleged transfer of then Mayor Francisco
Adalim, an accused for the crime of murder, from the provincial jail of Eastern
Samar to the residence of petitioner, then Governor Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr.

In an Information, petitioners Ambil, Jr. and Alexandrino R. Apelado, Sr. were


charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. On arraignment,
petitioners pleaded not guilty and posted bail. At the pre-trial, petitioners
admitted the allegations in the Information. They reason, however, that Adalim’s
transfer was justified considering the imminent threats upon his person and the
dangers posed by his detention at the provincial jail. According to petitioners,
Adalim’s sister, Atty. Juliana A. Adalim-White, had sent numerous prisoners to
the same jail where Mayor Adalim was to be held.
The Sandiganbayan, First Division, found petitioners guilty of violating
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Petitioner Ambil, Jr. argues that Section 3(e), R.A.
No. 3019 does not apply to his case because the provision contemplates only
transactions of a pecuniary nature. Since the law punishes a public officer who
extends unwarranted benefits to a private person, petitioner avers that he cannot be
held liable for extending a favor to Mayor Adalim, a public officer.

 ISSUE:
Whether petitioners are guilty of violation of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019
HELD:
Yes. In order to hold a person liable under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act, the following elements must concur:
(1) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official
functions; (2) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence; and (3) 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.
The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over petitioner Ambil, Jr. is beyond question. As
regards petitioner Apelado, Sr., his position as Provincial Warden is classified as Salary Grade
22. Nonetheless, petitioner Apelado, Sr. was charged as a co-principal with Governor Ambil,
Jr., over whose position the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. Accordingly, he was correctly
tried jointly with said public officer in the proper court which had exclusive original
jurisdiction over them – the Sandiganbayan.
Petitioners displayed manifest partiality and evident bad faith in transferring the
detention of Mayor Adalim to petitioner Ambil, Jr.’s house. There is no merit to
petitioner Ambil, Jr.’s contention that he is authorized to transfer the detention of
prisoners by virtue of his power as the "Provincial Jailer" of Eastern Samar. The
power to order the release or transfer of a person under detention by legal process is
vested in the court, not in the provincial government, much less the governor.
Likewise amply established beyond reasonable doubt is the third element of the
crime. In the case at hand, the Information specifically accused petitioners of giving
unwarranted benefits and advantage to Mayor Adalim, a public officer charged with
murder, by causing his release from prison and detaining him instead at the house of
petitioner Ambil, Jr.
Petitioner Ambil, Jr. has obviously lost sight, if he is not altogether unaware,
of our ruling in Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan where we held that a prosecution for
violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft Law will lie regardless of whether or
not the accused public officer is "charged with the grant of licenses or permits or
other concessions." Section 3 refers to "any public officer" is without distinction
or qualification and it specifies the acts declared unlawful.
In drafting the Anti-Graft Law, the lawmakers opted to use "private party"
rather than "private person“ to describe the recipient of the unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference for a reason. Thus, a private person simply pertains to
one who is not a public officer. While a private party is more comprehensive in
scope to mean either a private person or a public officer acting in a private
capacity to protect his personal interest
In the present case, when petitioners transferred Mayor Adalim from the
provincial jail and detained him at petitioner Ambil, Jr.’s residence, they accorded
such privilege to Adalim, not in his official capacity as a mayor, but as a detainee
charged with murder. Thus, for purposes of applying the provisions of Section
3(e), R.A. No. 3019, Adalim was a private party.
As the Sandiganbayan ruled, petitioners were unable to establish the existence
of any risk on Adalim’s safety. More importantly, even if Adalim could have
proven the presence of an imminent peril on his person to petitioners, a court
order was still indispensable for his transfer.

You might also like