SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243725. January 28, 2019.]
CELSO OLIVIER TIAMSON DATOR, petitioner,vs. SANDIGANBAYAN [4TH DIVISION] AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 28 January 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243725 (Celso Olivier Tiamson Dator v. Sandiganbayan [4th Division] and the People of the Philippines)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 for failure of petitioner Celso Olivier Tiamson Dator (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the Sandiganbayan (SB) committed grave abuse of discretion in, inter alia, not ordering the dismissal of the criminal case against him for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019. 2
As correctly ruled by the SB, the downgrading of petitioner's administrative liability from grave misconduct to only simple misconduct in Dator v. Carpio-Morales3 will not necessarily result in the outright dismissal of the criminal case against him, 4 especially considering that the elements of administrative misconduct (whether grave or simple) and violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 are separate and distinct from one another. If at all, the legal effects of the disposition of petitioner's administrative case are matters of defense in the criminal case which are better ventilated during a full-blown trial on the merits.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-22.
2. Otherwise known as the "ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT," approved on August 17, 1960.
3. See G.R. No. 237742, October 8, 2018.
4. See People v. SB (637 Phil. 147, 162 [2010]), where the Court held that: "Indeed, the dismissal of an administrative case does not bar the filing of a criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts subject of the administrative complaint. Neither does the disposition in one case inevitably govern the resolution of the other case/s and vice versa. Administrative liability is one thing; criminal liability for the same act is another. The distinct and independent nature of one proceeding from the other can be attributed to the following: first, the difference in the quantum of evidence required and, correlatively, the procedure observed and sanctions imposed; and second, the principle that a single act may offend against two or more distinct and related provisions of law, or that the same act may give rise to criminal as well as administrative liability." See also Catacutan v. People, 672 Phil. 178, 186, 187 (2011).