People v. Perez

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 198303. May 3, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. HERNANDO B. PEREZ, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated May 3, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 198303 (People of the Philippines v. Hernando B. Perez). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Resolutions 2 dated June 15, 2011 and August 31, 2011 rendered by the Sandiganbayan (Third Division) in SB-08-CRM-0267-0268, which dismissed the charge of violation of Section 8 of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 6713, otherwise known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" in relation to Section 7 of R.A. 3019, or the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act" (collectively, the SALN laws), against Hernando B. Perez (Perez) in Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0268 for his failure to disclose an asset amounting to US$1,700,000.00 in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).

Facts of the Case

On January 25, 2008, the prosecution charged Perez with violation of Section 8 of R.A. 6713 in relation to Section 7 of R.A. 3019. The Information, docketed as SB-08-CRM-0268, accused Perez as follows:

That on 18 April 2002, and sometime prior or subsequent thereto in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused HERNANDO BENITO PEREZ, a high ranking government official, being then the Secretary of Justice (DOJ), taking advantage of his official position and committing the offense in relation to office, and being required by law to file a Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally fail to disclose his other asset, consisting of U.S. DOLLAR: ONE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND ($1,700,000.00), more or less, in his SALN, for the year ending December 31, 2001, in violation of the above-stated law, which required a public official, such as herein accused, to disclose under oath all his assets and liabilities, including a statement of the amount and sources of his income.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 3

On the same date, another Information for falsification of public document under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) was filed against Perez. Docketed as Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0267, the second Information reads:

That on or about 18 April 2002, and sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused HERNANDO BENITO PEREZ, a high ranking government official, being then the Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ), while in the performance of his official function, committing the offense in relation to office and taking advantage thereof, being required by law to file a sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify or cause to be falsified his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) for the year ending December 31, 2001, by deliberately failing to disclose his and/or his wife Rosario S. Perez' bank deposit of U.S. Dollars One Million Seven Hundred Thousand (US$1,700,000.00), more or less, in Bank Account Nos. 338 118 and 348 118 at EFG Private Bank SA, which amount he is legally bound to disclose in his said SALN thereby concealing his true assets, thus making untruthful statement in a narration of facts, to the damage and prejudice of public service.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

In Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0268, which is for violation of the SALN laws, Perez filed a Motion to Quash dated May 7, 2008 alleging that the Information against him does not constitute an offense and that the charge cannot stand alone without the allegations contained in Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0267 for falsification of public documents. According to Perez, admitting the two Informations would subject him to two penalties for a single offense. However, the Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division) denied his motion to quash on June 5, 2008. The Fourth Division held that the two cases are different — one is punished under the RPC, while the other is punished under a special penal law. 5 cSEDTC

Undeterred, Perez subsequently filed a motion to dismiss Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0268 but the Fourth Division also denied the same for it merely contains a rehash of the arguments raised in his motion to quash. Thus, the Fourth Division denied his motion to dismiss and the case went to trial. At the middle of trial, after the Fourth Division finished hearing four witnesses in SB-08-CRM-0268, the case was consolidated with SB-08-CRM-0267 in the Third Division. 6

Meanwhile, in Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0267 for falsification of public documents, Perez also filed several motions to quash, all of which were denied by the Third Division. Thereafter, when the two cases were consolidated, Perez filed before the Third Division a Motion for Clarificatory and/or for Dismissal of SB-08-CRM-0268 dated September 29, 2010, which was also denied on February 16, 2011. Still aggrieved, Perez filed a motion for reconsideration. 7

Ruling of the Sandiganbayan

On June 15, 2011, the Third Division granted the prayer of Perez and dismissed the Information in Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0268 for violation of the SALN laws. 8

In dismissing the Information in Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0268, the Third Division cited as basis R.A. 6713 in relation to R.A. 3019. The pertinent provisions of the said laws are the following:

xxx xxx xxx

Section 8. Statements and Disclosure. — Public officials and employees have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.

(A) Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure. — All public officials and employees, except those who serve in an honorary capacity, laborers and casual or temporary workers, shall file under oath their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and a Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections and those of their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.

The two documents shall contain information on the following:

(a) real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and current fair market value;

(b) personal property and acquisition cost;

(c) all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds, and the like;

(d) liabilities, and;

(e) all business interests and financial connections.

The documents must be filed:

(a) within thirty (30) days after assumption of office;

(b) on or before April 30, of every year thereafter; and

(c) within thirty (30) days after separation from the service.

All public officials and employees required under this section to file the aforestated documents shall also execute, within thirty (30) days from the date of their assumption of office, the necessary authority in favor of the Ombudsman to obtain from all appropriate government agencies, including the Bureau of Internal Revenue, such documents as may show their assets, liabilities, net worth, and also their business interests and financial connections in previous years, including, if possible, the year when they first assumed any office in the Government.

Husband and wife who are both public officials or employees may file the required statements jointly or separately.

The Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections shall be filed by:

(1) Constitutional and national elective officials, with the national office of the Ombudsman;

(2) Senators and Congressmen, with the Secretaries of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively; Justices, with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court; Judges, with the Court Administrator; and all national executive officials with the Office of the President.

(3) Regional and local officials and employees, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions;

(4) Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, with the Office of the President, and those below said ranks, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions; and

(5) All other public officials and employees, defined in Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, with the Civil Service Commission.

(B) Identification and disclosure of relatives. — It shall be the duty of every public official or employee to identify and disclose, to the best of his knowledge and information, his relatives in the Government in the form, manner and frequency prescribed by the Civil Service Commission.

(C) Accessibility of documents. — (1) Any and all statements filed under this Act, shall be made available for inspection at reasonable hours.

(2) Such statements shall be made available for copying or reproduction after ten (10) working days from the time they are filed as required by law.

(3) Any person requesting a copy of a statement shall be required to pay a reasonable fee to cover the cost of reproduction and mailing of such statement, as well as the cost of certification.

(4) Any statement filed under this Act shall be available to the public for a period of ten (10) years after receipt of the statement. After such period, the statement may be destroyed unless needed in an ongoing investigation.

(D) Prohibited acts. — It shall be unlawful for any person to obtain or use any statement filed under this Act for:

(a) any purpose contrary to morals or public policy; or

(b) any commercial purpose other than by news and communications media for dissemination to the general public.

xxx xxx xxx

Section 11. Penalties. — (a) Any public official or employee, regardless of whether or not he holds office or employment in a casual, temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity, committing any violation of this Act shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months' salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency. If the violation is punishable by a heavier penalty under another law, he shall be prosecuted under the latter statute. Violations of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold public office.

(b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him.

(c) Private individuals who participate in conspiracy as co-principals, accomplices or accessories, with public officials or employees, in violation of this Act, shall be subject to the same penal liabilities as the public officials or employees and shall be tried jointly with them.

(d) The official or employee concerned may bring an action against any person who obtains or uses a report for any purpose prohibited by Section 8 (D) of this Act. The Court in which such action is brought may assess against such person a penalty in any amount not to exceed twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000). If another sanction hereunder or under any other law is heavier, the latter shall apply. (Emphasis supplied)

The relevant provisions of R.A. 3019 on the other hand are enumerated below: SDAaTC

Section 7. Statement of assets and liabilities. — Every public officer, within thirty days after the approval of this Act or after assuming office, and within the month of January of every other year thereafter, as well as upon the expiration of his term of office, or upon his resignation or separation from office, shall prepare and file with the office of the corresponding Department Head, or in the case of a Head of Department or chief of an independent office, with the Office of the President, or in the case of members of the Congress and the officials and employees thereof, with the Office of the Secretary of the corresponding House, a true detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year: Provided, That public officers assuming office less than two months before the end of the calendar year, may file their first statements in the following months of January.

xxx xxx xxx

Section 9. Penalties for violations. — (a) Any public officer or private person committing any of the unlawful acts or omissions enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the Government of any prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income.

Any complaining party at whose complaint the criminal prosecution was initiated shall, in case of conviction of the accused, be entitled to recover in the criminal action with priority over the forfeiture in favor of the Government, the amount of money or the thing he may have given to the accused, or the value of such thing.

(b) Any public officer violating any of the provisions of Section 7 of this Act shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred pesos nor more than one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the Court.

The violation of said section proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public officer, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him. (Emphasis supplied)

According to the Third Division, dismissal of Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0268 is justified based on the second sentence of the first paragraph of Section 11 of R.A. 6713, which provides:

Section 11. Penalties. — (a) Any public official or employee, regardless of whether or not he holds office or employment in a casual, temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity, committing any violation of this Act shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months' salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency. If the violation is punishable by a heavier penalty under another law, he shall be prosecuted under the latter statute. Violations of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold public office.

xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)

The Third Division held that since falsification of documents under the RPC, to which Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0267 is based, carries a heavier penalty than Section 8, in relation to Section 11, of R.A. 6713, Perez may only be charged with falsification under the RPC pursuant to the second sentence of the first paragraph of Section 11 of R.A. 6713. The Third Division did not find merit in the prosecution's argument that the second sentence of Section 11 only pertains to the first part of Section 11, and does not include violations of Sections 7, 8, and 9 under the third sentence of the said section. 9

The Third Division added that the clear intent of Congress in proscribing two or more prosecutions for violations of R.A. No. 6713 and of the other laws with similar provisions, is evident from the Senate deliberations during the second reading of the then Senate Bill No. 139 (now R.A. 6713), as follows: acEHCD

SENATOR GONZALES — Mr. President, some of the acts or omissions which are punishable under this bill are somehow covered already by the provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and also the Revised Penal Code.

Is it my understanding then that a conviction or acquittal, and in a prosecution for violation of any of this provision would constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same offense punishable under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices or the Revised Penal Code?

SENATOR SAGUISAG. I believe that this is a fair statement of my own personal opinion. 10 (Emphasis supplied)

This time aggrieved, the People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) of the Ombudsman, filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari11 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. According to the OSP, the second sentence of Section 11 of R.A. 6713 refers only to the first sentence of the same section which talks about the administrative liability of public officials who violate the said law. Since the third sentence speaks of violations of R.A. 6713, which are criminal in nature, the second sentence making reference to a prosecution with a higher penalty does not apply. Thus, a criminal prosecution for violation of Section 8 of R.A. 6713 does not preclude another Information for falsification under the RPC. 12

In his Comment, 13 Perez questions the authority of the OSP to file the instant petition. According to him, it is the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) which has the authority to file the same. 14 Perez insists that the Third Division correctly dismissed Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0268 for violation of the SALN Laws, because its filing alongside Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0267 for falsification of public documents will expose him to double jeopardy. 15 Further, Perez asserts that the charges filed against him in the two Informations are composite crimes, such that falsification absorbs the violation of the SALN laws. 16

In its Comment, 17 the OSG counters that the OSP has the authority to appeal a decision of the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court. 18 To support this, the OSG cited provisions of R.A. 8249, or "An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, Amending for the Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes." 19 The OSG agrees with the OSP that the Sandiganbayan erroneously applied the second sentence of Section 11 of R.A. 6713 in dismissing Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0268. 20 Lastly, the OSG asserts that an Information for falsification of public documents under the RPC does not preclude a prosecution for violation of the SALN laws under R.A. 6713 in relation to R.A. 3019. 21

The OSP and Perez filed their respective Reply reiterating their earlier arguments.

Issue

The issue in this case is whether Sandiganbayan Third Division correctly dismissed Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0268 for violation of the SALN laws.

Ruling of the Court

After a perusal of the records of the case, this Court resolves to deny the petition for review on certiorari for failure of the OSP to show that the Sandiganbayan committed a reversible error in dismissing Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0268 for violation of the SALN laws.

The second sentence of Section 11 of R.A. 6713 provides that:

Section 11. Penalties. — (a) Any public official or employee, regardless of whether or not he holds office or employment in a casual, temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity, committing any violation of this Act shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months' salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency. If the violation is punishable by a heavier penalty under another law, he shall be prosecuted under the latter statute. Violations of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold public office.

xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)

The Court agrees with the Sandiganbayan that the second sentence which prescribes the prosecution of an accused under the statute imposing a heavier penalty not only pertains to the administrative liability under the first sentence but also to the criminal liability under the third sentence. This deduction is clear from the Senate deliberations cited by the Sandiganbayan during which the lawmakers agreed that an accused may not be prosecuted twice for violation of R.A. 6713 and the other laws including the RPC, especially if the violation of the RPC imposes a higher penalty, as in this case.

Further, Perez should have been given an opportunity to correct the entries written in his SALN. Section 10 of R.A. 6713 and Section 1, Rule VIII of the Rules Implementing R.A. 6713 provide that: SDHTEC

Section 10. Review and Compliance Procedure. — (a) The designated Committees of both Houses of the Congress shall establish procedures for the review of statements to determine whether said statements which have been submitted on time, are complete, and are in proper form. In the event a determination is made that a statement is not so filed, the appropriate Committee shall so inform the reporting individual and direct him to take the necessary corrective action.

(b) In order to carry out their responsibilities under this Act, the designated Committees of both Houses of Congress shall have the power within their respective jurisdictions, to render any opinion interpreting this Act, in writing, to persons covered by this Act, subject in each instance to the approval by affirmative vote of the majority of the particular House concerned.

The individual to whom an opinion is rendered, and any other individual involved in a similar factual situation, and who, after issuance of the opinion acts in good faith in accordance with it shall not be subject to any sanction provided in this Act.

(c) The heads of other offices shall perform the duties stated in subsections (a) and (b) hereof insofar as their respective offices are concerned, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice, in the case of the Executive Department and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in the case of the Judicial Department.

xxx xxx xxx

Section 1. The following shall have the authority to establish compliance procedures for the review of statements to determine whether said statements have been properly accomplished:

(a) In the case of Congress, the designated committees of both Houses of Congress subject to approval by the affirmative vote of the majority of the particular House concerned;

(b) In the case of the Executive Department, the heads of the departments, offices and agencies insofar as their respective departments, offices and agencies are concerned subject to approval of the Secretary of Justice;

(c) In the case of the Judicial Department, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; and

(d) In the case of the Constitutional Commissions and other Constitutional Offices, the respective Chairman and members thereof; in the case of the Office of the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman.

The above official shall likewise have the authority to render any opinion interpreting the provisions on the review and compliance procedures in the filing of statements of assets, liabilities, net worth and disclosure of information.

In the event said authorities determine that a statement is not properly filed, they shall inform the reporting individual and direct him to take the necessary corrective action.

The individual to whom an opinion is rendered, and any other individual involved in a similar factual situation, and who, after issuance of the opinion acts in good faith in accordance with it shall not be subject to any sanction provided in the Code. (Emphasis supplied)

In Navarro v. Office of the Ombudsman, 22 the Court stated that a public officer should have been given the opportunity to correct any possible errors in his SALNs in accordance with the guidelines at the time of their submission. This corrective action was not accorded to Perez.

Lastly, in a Decision dated May 16, 2014, the Sandiganbayan granted the demurrer to evidence and dismissed Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0267 for falsification of public documents against Perez. The dismissal of Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0267 which led to the acquittal of Perez for falsification was affirmed by the Court. Hence, even if Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0268 for violation of the SALN laws would continue, it will no longer have a leg to stand on considering that the principal charge, which is falsification of public documents, was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Resolutions dated June 15, 2011 and August 31, 2011 of the Sandiganbayan Third Division in SB-08-CRM-0267-0268 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 58-93.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr., Associate Justices Samuel R. Martires and Alex L. Quiroz; id. at 13-20, 38-45.

3.Id. at 62-63.

4.Id. at 63.

5.Id. at 64-65.

6.Id. at 67.

7.Id. at 68-69.

8.Id. at 20.

9.Id. at 18-19.

10.Id.

11.Id. at 58-93.

12.Id. at 75-76.

13.Id. at 142-165.

14.Id. at 143-145.

15.Id. at 147.

16.Id. at 149.

17.Id. at 202-226.

18.Id. at 210.

19.Id. at 211.

20.Id. at 213.

21.Id. at 220.

22. 793 Phil. 453 (2016).