3.Baviera v. Zoleta

7/24/2019 3.Baviera v. Zoleta

1/13

G.R. No. 169098 October 12, 2006

MANUEL BAVIERA, petitioner,vs.ROLANDO B. ZOLETA, i !i" c#$#cit% #" Gr#&t I'e"ti(#tio #) *ro"ec+tio O&&icer II MAR-

UAN . GUILLERMO, i !er c#$#cit% #" Director, *re/ii#r% I'e"ti(#tio #)A)ii"tr#ti'e A)+)ic#tio B+re#+B *ELAGIO . A*OTOL, i !i" c#$#cit% #" A""i"t#tOb+)"#, *AMO ORLANDO 3. 3AIMIRO, i !i" c#$#cit% #" A""i"t#t Ob+)"# &ort!e Mi/it#r% #) Ot!er L#4 E&orceet O&&ice" #) MA. MER3EDITA N. GUTIERREZ 5T!eU)er"ecret#r%, De$#rtet o& 7+"tice,respondents.

D E C I S I O N

3ALLE7O, R., J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorariof the Resolution1of the Court of Appeals (CAin CA!".R. S# No. $%&%' disissin) the petition for certiorarifiled *+ anuel -. Baviera, assailin)the resolution of the Offie of the O*udsan in OB!C!C!/0!/1'!2, and the resolution of the CAden+in) the otion for reonsideration.

T!e Atece)et"

anuel -. Baviera filed several oplaints'a)ainst offiers or diretors of the Standard Chartered

Ban3 (SCB, #hilippine Branh, inludin) Sridhar Raan, an Indian national who was the Chief4inane Offier of the *an3, as respondents with the Seurities and E5han)e Coission(SEC, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas(BS#, Anti!one+ 6aunderin) Counil (A6C, National 6a*orRelations Coission (N6RC, and the Departent of 2ustie (DO2, to wit7

CASE 4I6ED DOC8E9 N:BER 6A; AND


2/13

Re)ulations of the SEC

AN9I!ONE?6A:NDERIN"CO:NCI6

one+6aunderin)

Reeived *+ Offieof the E5eutiveDiretor

-iolation of Anti!one+ 6aunderin)At as Aended

NA9IONA6 6ABORRE6A9IONSCOISSION

Ille)alDisissal

N6RC!NCR CaseNo. //!/!/%&0&!'//0

6a*or Code of the #hilippines

DE#AR9EN9 O42:S9ICE

S+ndiatedEstafa

I.S. No. '//0!1/@ #.D. 1$ in onnetion with Artile01@ of the Revised #enal Code

B:REA: O4IN9ERNA6RE-EN:E

9a5 4raud andNon!delarationof Inoe

Reeived *+CoissionersOffie

National Internal Revenue Code

Baviera laied that he was a forer eplo+ee of the *an3, and at the sae tie, an investor whowas vitiied *+ the offiers or diretors of SCB, all of who onspired with one another indefraudin) hi as well as the investin) pu*li *+ soliitin) funds in unre)istered and unauthoriedforei)n sto3s and seurities.

On Septe*er 1$, '//0, Baviera, throu)h ounsel, reuested the Seretar+ of 2ustie for the

issuane of a >old Departure Order (>DO a)ainst soe of the offiers and diretors of SCB,inludin) Raan.0

On Septe*er ', '//0, then Seretar+ of 2ustie Sieon Datuanon) issued an Order&)rantin)the reuest of Baviera. >e issued >DO No. /10. A op+ of the order was served on the Bureau ofIi)ration (BI for ipleentation. On the sae da+, the BI issued an Order@ipleentin) that ofthe Seretar+ of 2ustie.

eanwhile, Seretar+ Datuanon) went to -ienna, Austria, to attend a onferene. :nderseretar+ereditas Navarro!"utierre was desi)nated as Atin) Seretar+ of the DO2.

On Septe*er '$, '//0, a Sunda+, Raan arrived at the Nino+ Auino International Airport (NAIA

for his trip to Sin)apore *ut was apprehended *+ BI a)ents and NAIA offiials *ased on the >DO ofthe Seretar+ of 2ustie. >owever, the ne5t da+, Septe*er ', '//0, Raan was a*le to leave theountr+ via Sin)apore Airlines!S!%1 at an $71@ a.. fli)ht. >e was to attend a onferene inSin)apore and to return to the #hilippines on Oto*er ', '//0.

It turned out that Atin) Seretar+ of 2ustie ereditas N. "utierre had ver*all+ allowed thedeparture of Raan. On the sae da+, Raan, throu)h ounsel, wrote Seretar+ Datuanon) forthe liftin) of the >DO insofar as his lient was onerned.%Atin) Seretar+ "utierre issued an
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt7


3/13

Order$allowin) Raan to leave the ountr+. In said Order, she stated that the Chief State #roseutorhad indiated that he interposed no o*Fetion to the travel of Raan to Sin)apore.

On Oto*er 0, '//0, Baviera filed a Coplaint!Affidavit with the Offie of the O*udsan har)in):nderseretar+ a. ereditas N. "utierre for violation of Setion 0(a, (e, and (F of Repu*li At(RA No. 0/1, as aended.

9he oplainant alle)ed, inter alia, in his oplaint that upon ver*al instrution of respondent"utierre to the BI a)ents and NAIA offiials, Raan was allowed to leave the ountr+ despite the>DO issued *+ Seretar+ Sieon Datuanon). >e averred that the atuations of respondent"utierre were ille)al, hi)hl+ irre)ular and uestiona*le for the followin) reasons7

a DO2 Se. Datuanon) issued a >old Departure Order (>DO a)ainst three forei)nnationals, inludin) Raan, on Septe*er ', '//0G

* Also on Septe*er ', '//0, BID Coissioner Danilo Cueto issued the neessar+ orderand notifiation to all airports, seaports and e5it points for the ipleentation of theaforesaid >DOG

Raan went to the NAIA for departure out of the #hilippines on Sunda+, Septe*er '$,'//0G

d Raan was stopped *+ Ii)ration offiials fro leavin) the ountr+ on Sunda+ on thestren)th of the >DOG

e :se. "utierre aditted havin) intereded on *ehalf of the Indian national, thus allowin)hi to leave the ountr+ for Sin)apore at a*out $71@ a.. of onda+, Septe*er ', '//0G

f O*viousl+, the appeal of Raan to *e allowed to leave the ountr+ was ade ver*all+either *+ hi or thru ounselG

) 9here is no written appliation for teporar+ sta+ of the >DO in respet to RaansdepartureG

h 9here is li3ewise no written order *+ :se. "utierre allowin) Raan to leaveG

i :se. "utierre lais that she leared the atter with DO2 Se. Datuanon) who was in-ienna, AustriaG

F If she did so, then she ould have ade the onsultation onl+ either *+ telephone or e!ail

i If she onsulted Se. Datuanon) *+ telephone, then she ust have )one out of

her wa+ to )o to the Departent of 2ustie on a Sunda+ to use the DO2 telephoneG

ii If she did not )o to the DO2 on a Sunda+, then she ust have used her owntelephone and shouldered the e5pense to all Se. Datuanon) on *ehalf of her*eloved Indian national or the latters ounselG

iii If she leared the atter with Se. Datuanon) *+ e!ail, then the *urden is onher to prove that she did so *+ that eansG
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt8


4/13

3 It is o*vious that :se. "utierre went out of her wa+ to aoodate an Indian nationalor the latters law+er on a Sunda+ (ver*all+, seretl+, and when no*od+ was loo3in) to allowthe Indian national to leave the ountr+ Hdespite an e5istin) >DO! thus )ivin) the Indiannational unwarranted, undue preferene, *enefit and advanta)e, to the daa)e andpreFudie of oplainant.

l 9here are indiations that :se. "utierre will also allow the other Indian national (AFa+8anwal to leave for peranent postin) outside the #hilippines despite the e5istin) >DO. Butthats another stor+. Surel+, another riinal har)e.

Baviera further alle)ed that the ver*al speial perission )ranted to Raan *+ respondent "utierrewas ille)al as there is no speifi law or DO2 rule allowin) the )rant of speial perission ore5eption to an >DO. ;orse, the oplainant alle)ed, respondent "utierre ade her ver*al orderon a wee3end, on the *asis of alle)edl+ stron) representations ade *+ Raan. Respondent"utierre thus displa+ed arro)ane of power and insolene of offie, there*+ e5tendin) unwarrantedpreferene, *enefits and advanta)e to Raan.

In her Counter!Affidavit, respondent "utierre denied the alle)ations a)ainst her. She averred that

she did not violate an+ law or rule, in allowin) Raan to leave the ountr+. She erel+ upheld hisri)hts to travel as )uaranteed under the Constitution. oreover, the DO2 a+ allow persons overed*+ >DOs to travel a*road, for a speifi purpose and for a speifi period of tie. She furtheraverred that7

11. I allowed r. Raan to leave the #hilippines on Septe*er ', '//0 in + apait+ asAtin) Seretar+, not as :nderseretar+ as alle)ed in the Coplaint!Affidavit. An Atin)Seretar+ has the power and authorit+ to perfor all offiial ats that a DepartentSeretar+, if personall+ present, ould lawfull+ do and to e5erise sound disretion underertain irustanes. In the ase of an Atin) Seretar+ of 2ustie, the authorit+ e5tends toallowin) the travel of a person su*Fet of an >DO, li3e r. Raan, whose attendane in anoffiial *usiness a*road was ur)ent and neessar+. Althou)h I ould have lifted the >DO onthe )round that there was no )round for its ontinued enforeent, I did not do so in

deferene to the Seretar+ who issued it *ut, instead, allowed r. Raan to travel for aspeifi purpose and period. Seretar+ Datuanon) eventuall+ lifted the >DO and,therefore, ratified + at.

1'. An individual su*Fet of an >DO issued *+ the Departent a+ *e allowed to travela*road. Even the ourt that issued an >DO a+ authorie the su*Fet person to travel for aspeifi purpose and for a ertain period. If the person alread+ har)ed in ourt a+ *eauthoried to travel, there is ore reason to allow the person, li3e r. Raan, who was stillsu*Fet of a preliinar+ investi)ation *+ a proseutor, to travel a*road. >e ontinues to enFo+the onstitutional presuption of innoene. 9hus, his ri)hts under the law should not *eunreasona*l+ urtailed.

10. I allowed r. Raan to travel to Sin)apore *eause he, as Chief 4inane Offier ofStandard Chartered Ban3 (an international *an3 with )ood reputation, was invited andreuired to attend the ;holesale Ban3 International Aountin) Standards Conferene froSepte*er ' to Oto*er ', '//0. 9he travel was not eant to have hi transferred toanother *ranh of the *an3 a*road and frustrate the results of the investi)ations, whih werethe ited reasons for the >DO appliation. Indeed, he returned to the #hilippines on Oto*er', '//0.


5/13

1&. Allowin) r. Raan to travel a*road under the irustanes would send a positiveessa)e to forei)ners en)a)ed in *an3in) and *usiness ativities in the #hilippines that the"overnent onsistentl+ upholds the rule of law and respets huan ri)hts, there*+*oostin) investors onfidene in the #hilippines.

1@. In allowin) r. Raan to travel a*road, I relied on + oath as a law+er and as a

)overnent offiial to support and defend the Constitution. I also relied on the first ;hereasClause of the a*ove!entioned Departent Cirular No. 1% dated arh 1, 1$, whihites Setion , Artile III of the present Constitution that, in part, reads7 555

Neither shall the ri)ht to travel *e ipaired e5ept in the interest of national seurit+, pu*lisafet+, or pu*li health, as a+ *e provided *+ law. Relevantl+, in Kant Kwong v.Presidential Commission on Good Government, the Supree Court En Bancheld7

555. 9he ri)ht to travel and to freedo of oveent is a fundaental ri)ht)uaranteed *+ the 1$% Constitution and the :niversal Delaration of >uan Ri)htsto whih the #hilippines is a si)nator+.T!e ri(!t ete)" to #// re"i)et"re(#r)/e"" o& #tio#/it%. And ever+one has the ri)ht to an effetive reed+ *+ the

opetent national tri*unals for ats violatin) the fundaental ri)hts )ranted hi *+the Constitution or *+ law. (Ephasis ours1/

Respondent "utierre reuested the Offie of the O*udsan to disiss the oplaint a)ainst her,thus7

(a 9here is no *asis for the oplaint for violation of Setion 0(a of RA No. 0/1, asaended, *eause I never persuaded, indued nor influene an+ pu*li offier to violate therules and re)ulations dul+ proul)ated *+ opetent authorit+. ;hen I allowed r. Raanto travel, I relied on Departent Cirular No. 1% (1$, partiularl+ the first ;hereas Clausethereof, reo)niin) ever+ persons ri)ht to travel, a*sent the )rounds for ipairent of theri)ht under the Constitution.

(* 9he oplaint for violation of Setion 0(e of RA No. 0/1 is *aseless. 9he oplainanthas not sustained an+ inFur+ *+ reason of the travel order, as r. Raan iediatel+returned to the #hilippines after his offiial *usiness. I authoried r. Raan to travel inreo)nition of his ri)ht thereto under the Constitution and e5istin) international huan ri)htslaw instruents. In so doin), I did not )ive hi unwarranted *enefit, advanta)e or preferenein the dishar)e of + offiial funtions throu)h anifest partialit+, evident *ad faith or )rossine5usa*le ne)li)ene. Indeed, had I denied hi the ri)ht, I would *e held lia*le under suhprovision, in addition to other lia*ilities under the Civil Code.

( Neither is there an+ *asis for the oplaint for violation of Setion 0(F of RA No. 0/1, asaended. I peritted r. Raan to leave the ountr+ on Septe*er ', '//0 *eause hehad an iportant offiial *usiness a*road and he was le)all+ entitled to the ri)ht to travel and

the )rounds entioned in the Constitution for the ipairent of the ri)ht did not e5ist.

1%. 9he propriet+ of the travel authorit+ has *eoe oot and aadei with the return ofr. Raan to the #hilippines on Oto*er ', '//0 and the issuane of the Order datedOto*er 1%, '//0 *+ 2ustie Seretar+ Datuanon), liftin) the >DO on the )round thatthere is no )round for the ontinued enforeent of the >DO.

1$. I a e5eutin) this Counter!Affidavit to attest to the truth of the fore)oin) fats and to*elie the inriinatin) alle)ations a)ainst e in the Coplaint!Affidavit.11
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt11


6/13

In his Repl+!Affidavit, Baviera alle)ed that7

'. Althou)h it is aditted that the Constitution )uarantees the ri)ht to travel of an+ individualand the DO2 has wide and disretionar+ powers in allowin) individuals su*Fet of an >DO totravel on ertain oasions, still this does not in an+ wa+ help in her defense. 9he ain issuea)ainst her is NO9 an individuals onstitutional ri)ht to travel nor the wide disretionar+

powers of the DO2 to )rant speial perits to travel to individuals su*Fet of >DO B:9 hera*use of suh disretionar+ powers.

0. ;hen she allowed the Indian National to leave the ountr+ on a ere ver*al plea *+Raan or his well!onneted law+er on a Sunda+ and without a proper otion forReonsideration +et *ein) filed *+ Raan or his law+er, she undou*tedl+ )ave the latterunwarranted *enefit, advanta)e or preferene in the dishar)e of her offiial dut+ as Atin)Seretar+. 9he undisputa*le fat, whih respondent herself aditted proudl+, was *oth pleaand the Order were done ver*all+.

&. It was onl+ uh later that her Order dated ' Septe*er '//0 was *elatedl+ releasedlon) after Raan had left the ountr+ on an earl+ ornin) fli)ht to Sin)apore. It is

unista3a*le then that her deision to allow Raan to travel was ver*all+ transated withRaans well!onneted law+er on a Sunda+, '$ Septe*er '//0 when Raan wassupposed to leave for Sin)apore *ut was denied *+ Ii)ration and NAIA offiials due to thestandin) >DO a)ainst hi. In short, respondent went out of her wa+ to aoodate aforei)n national *+ hurriedl+ allowin) the latter to leave without )oin) throu)h properproedures. #ara)raph - of DO2 Cirular No. 1% provides the followin) proedure inappealin) or liftin) an >DO, to wit7

A op+ of the >DO ipleented *+ the Coissioner shall *e sent to the personsu*Fet of the order, if his postal address is 3nown, so that he a+, if he so desires,file a O9ION 4OR RECONSIDERA9ION with the Seretar+. (:ndersorin)supplied.

@. 9he Rules ited *+ respondent herself provide proper proedures and avenues for theliftin), teporar+ or otherwise, of an >DO. O*viousl+, *+ swiftl+ allowin) Raan to leave theountr+ on a ere ver*al appeal *+ his well!onneted ounsel,respondent disre)arded proper proedures and *etra+ed her intentions of )ivin) speialtreatent to the Indian national.

. Respondent tried to Fustif+ her indisretion *+ attahin) as Anne5 & of her Counter!Affidavit a letter fro Raans law+er dated ' Septe*er '//0 reuestin) that Raan *eallowed to travel. Conspiuousl+, the letter was staped reeived *+ respondents offie andalle)edl+ si)ned and reeived *+ her staff on onda+, ' Septe*er '//0 at 71@a.. O*viousl+, respondent is tr+in) to over up her ations, al*eit to no avail. ;ho ouldpossi*l+ *elieve that respondents offie would *e open at 71@ in the ornin) of a onda+

when the noral offie hours is at $ a..J ;orse, assuin) arguendothat the letter!reuestwas reeived at a.., how oe Raan was a*le to *oard Sin)apore Airlines 4li)ht No.S!%1 whih left at a*out $71@ a.. or *arel+ two (' hours upon the reeipt of the reuestJ

%. Res Ipsa Loquitor. It is either respondent "utierre, Seretar+ Datuanon) or the ChiefState #roseutor (who she laied to have onsulted *efore )ivin) the order reports totheir offies at a.. and *u3le down to wor3 iediatel+ or that respondent "utierresalle)ations in her defense are all onoted lies. or evidence to !e !elieved" it must notonl# proceed $rom t%e mout% o$ a credi!le witness !ut must !e credi!le in itsel$ suc% as t%e


7/13

common e&perience and o!servation o$ mankind can approve as pro!a!le under t%ecircumstances. (Cosep vs. People" '() SCR* +,-.

$. 9he *elated douentation of respondents ation was further proven *+ reords showin)that the otion for Reonsideration and the Suppleent thereof were dated @ Oto*er and %Oto*er '//0, respetivel+, or si5 ( da+s after Raan was allowed *+ respondent to leave

the ountr+.

. Even a*sent an+ evidene of *elated douentation, still, respondent annot den+ thefat that she aditted in a hurriedl+!alled press onferene later on ' Septe*er '//0*efore the DO2 press that she was the one who ver*all+ )ave instrutions to ii)rationand NAIA offiials to allow Raan to leave the ountr+. In her own words, she proudl+aditted that she *ased her order on stron) representations ade *+ Raans ounsel. B+suh adission, respondent unwittin)l+ aditted havin) violated the provisions of the Anti!"raft and Corrupt #raties At.

1/. B+ persuadin) or influenin) Ii)ration Offiials to allow Raan to leave the ountr+without an+ otion for reonsideration or an+ written otion to that effet as reuired *+ DO2

Cirular No. 1%, respondent oitted Setion 0 (a of RA 0/1. And further *+ doin) suhat, respondent ated with anifest partialit+, evident *ad faith or )ross ine5usa*lene)li)ene in )ivin) Raan unwarranted *enefit, advanta)e or preferene in the dishar)eof her offiial funtion as Atin) Seretar+ of the DO2 in violation of Setion 0 (e of RA 0/1.

11. Even her lais that she has not *enefited fro her ations annot *e ade as adefense *eause the provisions of the Anti!"raft law har)ed a)ainst her do not reuire as apre!ondition that the pu*li offier reeive (si an+ )ift, present, or *enefit.

1'. >er deision to )rant speial perission to Raan (whih she proudl+ adits is irre)ularand ille)al *eause there is no speifi law or rules of the DO2 )rantin) speial perission ore5eption to the >DO.1'

On Oto*er @, '//0, the offiers and offiials of SCB, inludin) Raan, throu)h ounsel, filed aotion for the reonsideration of >DO No. /10 and filed a Suppleental to the said otion datedOto*er @, '//0 pra+in) that the >DO *e lifted. On Oto*er 1%, '//0, 2ustie Seretar+ SieonDatuanon) issued an Order liftin) the >DO and ordered the BI to delete the naes of the offiialsof the *an3, inludin) Raan, fro its ;athlist.10

On 2une '', '//&, "raft Investi)ation and #roseutor Offier Rolando Koleta si)ned a Resolutionreoendin) that the riinal oplaint a)ainst respondent "utierre for violation of RA No. 0/1*e disissed for insuffiien+ of evidene. Koletas findin)s are as follows7

After a areful evaluation of the fats and piees of evidene on reord, this Offie resolves that7

a ;ith respet to the har)e of violation of Setion 0(a of Repu*li At 0/1, there is noevidene, douentar+ or testionial, to show that respondent ":9IERREK has reeivedaterial reuneration as a onsideration for her alle)ed use of influene on her deision toallow r. RAAN to travel a*road.

It is worth+ to note the followin) Senate deli*erations on the aforeentioned provision ofRepu*li At 0/1, to wit7
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt13


8/13

Senate deli*erations (2ul+ 10, 1/

Senator ARCOS. I see. Now, I oe to the seond ost iportant point. Is it trueas har)ed that this *ill does not punish influene peddlin) whih does not result inreuneration, or rather in whih reuneration annot *e provedJ I refer to Setion 0,su*setion (a, lines 1/ to 10 on pa)e ' of the *ill. It is to *e noted that this setion

reads, as the first orrupt pratie or at of a pu*li offiial7

5555 55555 55555

Now, suppose the influene that is e5tended to influene another pu*li offiial is forthe perforane of an at that is not a rie li3e the issuane of liense *+ theonetar+ Board (p. ''

Senator 9O6EN9INO. I see. (p. ''

Senator ARCOS. It is laied and har)ed *+ o*servers that this *ill is deli*eratel+watered down in order to save influene peddlers who peddle their influene in the

onetar+ Board, in the Reparations Coission, in )overnent *an3s and the li3e. Iwould li3e the author to e5plain the situation. (p. ''

Senator 9E6EN9INO (SIC. In the first plae, I annot oneive of an influenepeddler who ats )ratis. 9he ver+ ter influene peddler iplies that there issoethin) *ein) sold, that is, the influene. So that when we sa+ influene peddlerwho does not reeive an+ advanta)e, that is inonsisten+ in ters *eause thatwould appl+ to an+ on)ressan, for instane, and preisel+ it was ade leardurin) the de*ates that if a on)ressan or senator tries to use influene in the atof another *+, let us sa+, tr+in) to o*tain a liense for his onstituent, if he does not)et paid for that he does not use an+ influene. (p. ''

55555 55555 55555

Senator ARCOS. So, it is aditted *+ the author that the lendin) or utiliation ofinfluene 5 5 5 provided that there is no proof that he has *een )iven aterialreuneration is not punished *+ this At. (pp. ''!''%

Senator 9O6EN9INO. No, the ere fat of havin) used ones influene so lon) as itis not to indue the oission of a riinal at would not *e punished if there is noonsideration. It would not *e )raft. (p. ''%

Senator ARCOS. 9here is no proof of onsideration *eause that is one thin)diffiult to prove. (p. ''%

Senator 9O6EN9INO. If +ou sa+ there is no proof of onsideration, as far as the *ill isonerned, there is no offense. So, so lon) as there is no proof of the onsiderationin the use of the influene, the offense is not oitted under the *ill *eause thatwould not *e )raft.

Senator ARCOS. But we all adit that it is an ioral at for a pu*li offiial li3ethe #resident, the -ie!#resident, e*ers of the Senate to undul+ influene thee*ers of the onetar+ Board even without reuneration and sa+, ?ou *etter


9/13

approve this liense, this appliation of a illion dollars of + )ood friend andopadre r. Chen) Chen) #o or whatever he a+ *e. But he does not reeivean+ reward, pa+ent or reuneration for it. :nder the *ill, he an )et awa+ with thisat.

Senator 9O6EN9INO. If ?our >onor onsiders it in that li)ht, I dont thin3 that would

onstitute )raft and I dont thin3 that would *e inluded.

Senator ARCOS. But it is ioral.

Senator 9O6EN9INO. It a+ *e so, *ut it depends on the irustanes. But ouridea, the ain idea of the *ill is to punish )raft and orrupt praties. Not ever+ ata+*e, that is iproper would fall under the provision of the *ill. (p. ''%

>eneforth, followin) the lo)i and intention of the sponsor (Senator 9O6EN9INO of theaforeited provision, respondent ":9IERREK did not oit a violation of the sae asthere is no proof that she reeived onsideration in e5han)e for her deision to allow r.Raan to travel a*road.

* As to the har)e of violation of Setion 0(e of Repu*li At 0/1, no atual or realdaa)e was suffered *+ an+ part+, inludin) the )overnent as r. Raan iediatel+returned to the #hilippines, the truth of whih was not re*utted *+ the herein oplainant inhis Repl+!Affidavit. 9hus, the herein oplainant also did not suffer undue inFur+ as aneleent reuired *+ the law. B+ the sae to3en, the essential in)redient of anifestpartialit+, evident *ad faith or )ross ine5usa*le ne)li)ene reuired for the oission ofsuh offense has not *een proven in the instant ase. 9he respondent has satisfatoril+e5pliated that as Atin) Seretar+ of 2ustie, she has the power and authorit+ to perforsuh at. In fat, she ould have even lifted the >old Departure Order sine there is no)round for its ontinued enforeent *ut did not do so in deferene to Seretar+DA9:ANON" who onseuentl+ lifted suh order. As orretl+ pointed out *+ therespondent, it was as if the Seretar+ ratified her at of allowin) r. RAAN to travel a*roaddespite the >old Departure Order a)ainst the latter and there is no uestion that she an door perfor suh at *ein) the Atin) Seretar+ at that tie.

At an+ rate, it an not *e denied that even the ourt (or the Sandi)an*a+an in the ase ofIE6DA ARCOS that reuested or issued a >old Departure Order on a person alread+har)ed in ourt allows under ertain onditions the aused to travel for a speifi purposeand for a ertain period. 9here is no reason wh+ r. RAAN, who is Fust a su*Fet of apreliinar+ investi)ation *+ a proseutor, should not *e )ranted the sae *enefit as heontinues to enFo+ not onl+ the onstitutional presuption of innoene *ut the onstitutionalri)ht to travel or li*ert+ of a*odeG and,

;ith re)ard to the har)e of -iolation of Setion 0(F of Repu*li At 0/1, as a*ove

disussed, the respondent, as Atin) Seretar+ of 2ustie, is authoried or epowered notonl+ to allow the travel a*road of r. RAAN under speifi onditions *ut also to order theliftin) of suh >old Departure Order. In the sae wa+, respondent ":9IERREK has not)ranted an+ privile)e or *enefit in favor of an+ person (or r. RAAN for that atter notualified or not le)all+ entitled to suh privile)e or *enefit when she allowed the forer totravel a*road under speifi ondition and for ertain period of tie as r. RAAN stillenFo+s the onstitutionall+ )uaranteed ri)ht to travel or li*ert+ of a*ode even if a preliinar+investi)ation involvin) hi is still pendin) at the offie of the onerned DO2 #roseutor.1&


10/13

9he Assistant O*udsan reoended that the resolution *e approved. 9he Deput+ O*udsanfor the ilitar+, Orlando C. Casiiro, who was authoried *+ the O*udsan to at on thereoendation, approved the sae.1@

Baviera reeived a op+ of the Resolution on 2ul+ ', '//& and filed a otion for reonsideration ofthe resolution on Au)ust ', '//& (2ul+ 01, '//& was a Saturda+.1Atin) on the otion, Koleta

issued a Resolution on Au)ust 1/, '//0, reoendin) its denial for la3 of erit. Deput+O*udsan Orlando Casiiro a)ain approved the reoendation.1%Baviera reeived a op+ ofthe resolution on Septe*er 1&, '//&.

On Nove*er 1, '//&, Baviera filed a petition for certiorariunder Rule @ of the Rules of Civil#roedure in the CA, assailin) the resolutions of the O*udsan. >e relied on the followin)ar)uents7

i

9>E O44ICE O4 9>E OB:DSAN C6EAR6? AC9ED ;I9> "RA-E AB:SE O4DISCRE9ION AO:N9IN" 9O 6AC8 OR E=CESS O4 2:RISDIC9ION ;>EN I9 R:6ED

9>A9 RES#ONDEN9 ":9IERREK CANNO9 BE >E6D 6IAB6E :NDER SEC9ION 0(a O4RA 0/1 A66E"ED6? BECA:SE 9>ERE ;AS NO E-IDENCE, DOC:EN9AR? OR9ES9IONIA6, 9O S>O; 9>A9 S>E >AS RECEI-ED A9ERIA6 RE:NERA9ION AS ACONSIDERA9ION 4OR >ER :SE O4 IN46:ENCE ON >ER DECISION 9O A66O; R.RAAN 9O 9RA-E6 ABROAD.

ii

9>E O44ICE O4 9>E OB:DSAN C6EAR6? AC9ED ;I9> "RA-E AB:SE O4DISCRE9ION AO:N9IN" 9O 6AC8 OR E=CESS O4 2:RISDIC9ION ;>EN I9 R:6ED9>A9 RES#ONDEN9 ":9IERREK CANNO9 BE >E6D 6IAB6E :NDER SEC9IONS 0(e

AND 0(F O4 RA 0/1 A66E"ED6? BECA:SE 9>ERE ;AS NO AC9:A6 OR REA6

DAA"E S:44ERED B? AN? #AR9? INC6:DIN" 9>E "O-ERNEN9 AND 9>A9RES#ONDEN9 DID NO9 "RAN9 AN? #RI-I6E"E OR BENE4I9 IN 4A-OR O4 AN?#ERSON.

iii

9>E O44ICE O4 9>E OB:DSAN C6EAR6? AC9ED ;I9> "RA-E AB:SE O4DISCRE9ION AO:N9IN" 9O 6AC8 OR E=CESS O4 2:RISDIC9ION ;>EN I9DISISSED 9>E INS9AN9 CRIINA6 CO#6AIN9 4OR -IO6A9ION O4 9>E AN9I!"RA49 AND CORR:#9 #RAC9ICES AC9 (RA 0/1 A66E"ED6? ON 9>E "RO:ND O4INS:44ICIENC? O4 E-IDENCE.1$

>owever, on 2anuar+ %, '//@, the CA issued a Resolution disissin) the petition on the )round thatthe proper reed+ was to file a petition for certiorariwith the Supree Court under Rule @ of theRules of Court, onfora*l+ with the rulin) of this Court in Enemecio v. $$ice o$ t%em!udsman.1#etitioner filed a otion for reonsideration, insistin) that his petition for certiorariinthe CA under Rule @ was in aordane with the rulin) in a!ian v. /esierto.'/>e insisted that theOffie of the O*udsan is a uasi!Fudiial a)en+ of the )overnent, and under Batas Pam!ansaBilang1', the CA has onurrent Furisdition with the Supree Court over a petitionfor certiorariunder Rule @ of the Rules of Court. >e asserted that the filin) of his petitionforcertiorariwith the CA onfored to the esta*lished Fudiial poli+ of hierarh+ of ourts ase5plained *+ this Court in People v. Cuaresma.'1
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt21


11/13

On 2ul+ '/, '//@, CA issued a Resolution den+in) the otion, holdin) that the rulin) in a!ian v./esierto''is not applia*le, as it applies onl+ in appeals fro resolutions of the O*udsan inadinistrative disiplinar+ ases. 9he reed+ of the a))rieved part+ fro resolutions of theO*udsan in riinal ases is to file a petition forcertiorariin this Court, and not in the CA. 9heapplia*le rule is that enuniated in Enemecio v. m!udsman,'0later reiterated in Pere0 v. $$ice o$t%e m!udsman'&and Estrada v. /esierto.'@

On Au)ust 1$, '//@, Baviera filed with this Court the instant petition for review on certiorariunderRule &@, assailin) the CA resolutions on the followin) )rounds7

I.

9>E CO:R9 O4 A##EA6S SERIO:S6? ERRED IN RE4:SIN" 9O 9A8E CO"NIKANCEO4 9>E INS9AN9 #E9I9ION 4OR CER9IORARI DES#I9E 9>E C6EAR R:6IN" O4 9>ES:#REE CO:R9 IN 9>E CASE O4 *BI*1 2S. /ESIER3" '(4 SCR* 5,)6SEP3E7BER 89" 8((-:.

II.

9>E CO:R9 O4 A##EA6S SERIO:S6? ERRED IN RE4:SIN" 9O RESO6-E 9>EINS9AN9 #E9I9ION ON 9>E ERI9S AND 9O 4IND 9>E O44ICE O4 9>E OB:DSAN9O >A-E "RA-E6? AB:SED I9S DISCRE9ION AO:N9IN" 9O 6AC8 OR E=CESS O42:RISDIC9ION ;>EN I9 R:6ED 9>A9 RES#ONDEN9 ":9IERREK CAN NO9 BE >E6D6IAB6E :NDER SEC9ION 0(a O4 RA 0/1 A66E"ED6? BECA:SE 9>ERE ;AS NOE-IDENCE, DOC:EN9AR? OR 9ES9IONIA6, 9O S>O; 9>A9 S>E >AS RECEI-EDA9ERIA6 RE:NERA9ION AS A CONSIDERA9ION 4OR >ER :SE O4 IN46:ENCE ON>ER DECISION 9O A66O; R. RAAN 9O 9RA-E6.

III.

9>E CO:R9 O4 A##EA6S SERIO:S6? ERRED IN RE4:SIN" 9O RESO6-E 9>EINS9AN9 #E9I9ION ON 9>E ERI9S AND 9O 4IND 9>E O44ICE O4 9>E OB:DSAN9O >A-E "RA-E6? AB:SED I9S DISCRE9ION AO:N9IN" 9O 6AC8 OR E=CESS O42:RISDIC9ION ;>EN I9 R:6ED 9>A9 RES#ONDEN9 ":9IERREK CANNO9 BE >E6D6IAB6E :NDER SEC9IONS 0(e AND 0(F O4 RA 0/1 A66E"ED6? BECA:SE 9>ERE;AS NO AC9:A6 OR REA6 DAA"E S:44ERED B? AN? #AR9? INC6:DIN" 9>E"O-ERNEN9 AND 9>A9 RES#ONDEN9 DID NO9 "RAN9 AN? #RI-I6E"E ORBENE4I9 IN 4A-OR O4 AN? #ERSON.

I-.

9>E CO:R9 O4 A##EA6S SERIO:S6? ERRED IN RE4:SIN" 9O RESO6-E 9>EINS9AN9 #E9I9ION ON 9>E ERI9S AND 9O 4IND 9>E O44ICE O4 9>E OB:DSAN9O >A-E "RA-E6? AB:SED I9S DISCRE9ION AO:N9IN" 9O 6AC8 OR E=CESS O42:RISDIC9ION ;>EN I9 DISISSED 9>E CRIINA6 CO#6AIN9 4OR -IO6A9ION O49>E AN9I!"RA49 AND CORR:#9 #RAC9ICES AC9 (RA 0/1 A66E"ED6? ON 9>E"RO:ND O4 INS:44ICIENC? O4 E-IDENCE.'

#etitioner insists that his petition for certiorariin the CA assailin) the resolutions of the O*udsanunder Rule @ of the Rules of Court is proper, in the li)ht of a!ian v. /esierto.'%:nder B.#. No. 1',
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt27


12/13

the CA and the Supree Court have onurrent Furisdition to issue writs of certiorariunder froresolutions of the O*udsan in his investi)ation of riinal ases.

In her oent on the petition, respondent "utierre aintained that instead of filin) his petition inthe CA, petitioner should have filed his petition for certiorariunder Rule @ with this Court alle)in))rave a*use of disretion aountin) to la3 of Furisdition oitted *+ the respondents Offie of

the O*udsan offiials.

9he other respondents, for their part, insist that the rulin) of this Court in a!ianapplies onl+ toresolutions of the Offie of the O*udsan in adinistrative ases and not in riinal ases.

9he threshold issues in this ase are (1 whether the petition for certiorarifiled *+ petitioner in the CAwas the proper reed+ to assail the resolution of the Offie of the O*udsanG and (' whetherrespondent offiials oitted )rave a*use of disretion aountin) to e5ess or la3 of Furisditionin disissin) the riinal oplaint of petitioner a)ainst respondent Atin) Seretar+ of 2ustie"utierre for la3 of pro*a*le ause.

On the first issue, respondent "utierre ontends that the proper reed+ of petitioner to assail the

Resolutions of the O*udsan findin) no pro*a*le ause for violation of R.A. No. 0/1, Setion0(a, (e and (F was to file a petition for certiorariwith this Court, not with the CA. In 1, this Courtruled in 3irol" ;r. v. /el Rosario'$that the reed+ of the a))rieved part+ fro a resolution of theOffie of the O*udsan findin) the presene or a*sene of pro*a*le ause in riinal ases wasto file a petition for certiorariunder Rule @ i t!i" 3o+rt. 9he Court reiterated its rulin) in Kui0on v./esierto'and 3irol" ;r. v. /el Rosario.0/And on 4e*ruar+ '', '//, in Ponte


13/13

8uion and the su*seuent ase of 7endo0a=*rce v. $$ice o$ t%e m!udsman62isa#as:drove hoe the point that the reed+ of a))rieved parties fro resolutions of theOffie of the O*udsan findin) pro*a*le ause in riinal ases or non!adinistrativeases, when tainted with )rave a*use of disretion, is to file an ori)inal ationfor certiorariwith this Court and not with the Court of Appeals. In ases when the a))rievedpart+ is uestionin) the Offie of the O*udsans findin) of lackof pro*a*le ause, as in

this ase, there is li3ewise the reed+ of certiorariunder Rule @ to *e filed with this Courtand not with the Court of Appeals followin) our rulin) in Pere0 v. $$ice o$ t%e m!udsman.

As this Court had alread+ resolved said issue of Furisdition in the a*ove!ited ases, it is asalutar+ and neessar+ Fudiial pratie to appl+ the rulin)s therein to the su*Fetpetition. Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand *+ the deisions and distur* not what issettled. :ndaunted, petitioner now harps on the validit+ of Setion 1& of Rep. At No. %%/laiin) it to *e unonstitutional. 9he Court of Appeals, it ust *e realled, relied uiteheavil+ on Setion 1& of Rep. At No. %%/ in relation to a!ian v. /esiertoin rulin) that ithad no Furisdition to entertain the petition filed thereat.00

On the erits of the petition, the Court finds that petitioner failed to esta*lish that the respondent

offiials oitted )rave a*use of disretion aountin) to e5ess or la3 of Furisdition. "ravea*use of disretion iplies a apriious and whisial e5erise of Fud)ent tantaount to la3 ofFurisdition. 9he O*udsans e5erise of power ust have *een done in an ar*itrar+ or despotianner whih ust *e so patent and )ross as to aount to an evasion of positive dut+ or a virtualrefusal to perfor the dut+ enFoined or to at at all in onteplation of law.0&

9he Court has reviewed the assailed resolutions of the Offie of the O*udsan, and finds thatpetitioner li3ewise failed to esta*lish pro*a*le ause for violation of Setions 0(a, (e and (F of RANo. 0/1. Indeed, in the a*sene of a lear ase of a*use of disretion, this Court will not interferewith the e5erise of the O*udsans disretion, who, *ased on his own findin)s and deli*erateonsideration of the ase, either disisses a oplaint or proeeds with it.0@

:ERE;ORE, preises onsidered, the instant petition is here*+ DENIEDfor la3 of erit. 9he

assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are here*+ A;;IRMED. Costs a)ainst the petitioner.

O ORDERED.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_169098_2006.html#fnt35

Documents

3.Baviera v. Zoleta