Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3Republic of tbe
~upreme
Qtottrt
jflllantla
FIRST DIVISION
EFREN L. ALVAREZ,
Petitioner,
Present:
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.,*
Acting Chairperson,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
VILLARAMA, JR., and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
-versus-
Promulgated:
x- - - - - - - - - - - - -
RESOLUTION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
**
Designated Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 1226 dated May 30, 2012.
Designated Actipg Member ofthe First Dtvision per Special Order No. 1227 dated May 30,2012.
Resolution
THE
Resolution
WOULD
PREJUDICE
CONSTITUENTS.1
3
THE
AND
HIS
The
Resolution
Cruz v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 134493, August 16, 2005, 467 SCRA 52, 67.
Id.
Resolution
satisfied as in fact they were sidestepped to favor the lone bidder, API.
4
Resolution
Resolution
Petitioner further points out that our Decision failed to consider that
the Sandiganbayan disregarded his right to the equal protection of the laws
when he alone among the numerous persons who approved APIs proposal
and implemented the project was charged, tried and convicted.
It bears stressing that the manner in which the prosecution of the case
is handled is within the sound discretion of the prosecutor, and the noninclusion of other guilty persons is irrelevant to the case against the
accused.6 But more important, petitioner failed to demonstrate a
discriminatory purpose in prosecuting him alone despite the finding of the
Sandiganbayan that the Sangguniang Bayan has conspired if not abetted all
the actions of the Accused in all his dealings with API to the damage and
prejudice of the municipality and said courts declaration that [t]his is one
case where the Ombudsman should have included the entire Municipal
Council of Muoz in the information.7
As this Court explained in Santos v. People8:
The prosecution of one guilty person while others equally
guilty are not prosecuted, however, is not, by itself, a denial of the
equal protection of the laws. Where the official action purports to be in
conformity to the statutory classification, an erroneous or mistaken
performance of the statutory duty, although a violation of the statute, is not
without more a denial of the equal protection of the laws. The unlawful
administration by officers of a statute fair on its face, resulting in its
unequal application to those who are entitled to be treated alike, is not a
denial of equal protection unless there is shown to be present in it an
element of intentional or purposeful discrimination. This may appear on
the face of the action taken with respect to a particular class or person, or
it may only be shown by extrinsic evidence showing a discriminatory
design over another not to be inferred from the action itself. But a
discriminatory purpose is not presumed, there must be a showing of
clear and intentional discrimination. Appellant has failed to show
that, in charging appellant in court, that there was a clear and intentional
discrimination on the part of the prosecuting officials.
5
6
7
8
Rollo, p. 308.
People v. Dumlao, G.R. No. 168918, March 2, 2009, 580 SCRA 409, 433, citing People v. Nazareno,
329 Phil. 16, 20-23 (1996).
Rollo, p. 82.
G.R. No. 173176, August 26, 2008, 563 SCRA 341, 370-371, citing People v. Dela Piedra, 403 Phil.
31, 54-56 (2001).
Resolution
Finally, the Court need not delve into the merits of petitioners
assertion that as a local executive official well-recognized for his
achievements and public service, he is not the kind of person who would
enter into a contract that would prejudice the government. A non-sequitur, it
has no bearing at all to the factual and legal issues in this case.
WHEREFORE, the present motion for reconsideration is hereby
DENIED with FINALITY.
No further pleadings shall be entertained in this case.
Let entry of judgment be made in due course.
Resolution
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
~~k~
Associate Justice
MKvJ--
EsTELA M. fERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AT T.E STAT I 0 N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court's Division.
~~dv~
Resolution
10
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Acting Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.