Lim Vs Comelec
FACTS:
On September 12, 2007, the Sandiganbayan
convicted former President Estrada, a former
President of the Republic of the Philippines, for the
crime of plunder and was sentenced to suffer the
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and the accessory
penalties of civil interdiction during the period of
sentence and perpetual absolute disqualification.
On October 25, 2007, however, former President
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo extended executive
clemency, by way of pardon, to former President
Estrada explicitly states that He is hereby restored
to his civil and political rights.
On November 30, 2009, former President Estrada
filed a Certificate of Candidacy[7] for the position of
President but was opposed by three petitions
seeking for his disqualification. None of the cases
prospered and MRs were denied by Comelec En
Banc. Estrada only managed to garner the second
highest number of votes on the May 10, 2010
synchronized elections.
On October 2, 2012, former President Estrada once
more ventured into the political arena, and filed a
Certificate of Candidacy,[10] this time vying for a local
elective post, that of the Mayor of the City of
Manila.
Petitioner Risos-Vidal filed a Petition for
Disqualification against former President Estrada
before the COMELEC because of Estradas Conviction
for Plunder by the Sandiganbayan Sentencing Him to
Suffer the Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with
Perpetual Absolute Disqualification. Petitioner relied
on Section 40 of the Local Government Code (LGC),
in relation to Section 12 of the Omnibus Election
Code (OEC)
In a Resolution dated April 1, 2013, the COMELEC,
Second Division, dismissed the petition for
disqualification holding that President Estradas right
to seek public office has been effectively restored by
the pardon vested upon him by former President
Gloria M. Arroyo.
Estrada won the mayoralty race in May 13, 2013
elections. Petitioner-intervenor Alfredo Lim
garnered the second highest votes intervene and
seek to disqualify Estrada for the same ground as the
contention of Risos-Vidal and praying that he be
proclaimed as Mayor of Manila.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in ruling that former President Estrada is
qualified to vote and be voted for in public office as
a result of the pardon granted to him by former
President Arroyo.
HELD:
No. The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Resolutions. The
arguments forwarded by Risos-Vidal fail to
adequately demonstrate any factual or legal bases to
prove that the assailed COMELEC Resolutions were
issued in a whimsical, arbitrary or capricious
exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or
refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law
or were so patent and gross as to constitute grave
abuse of discretion.
Former President Estrada was granted
an absolute pardon that fully restored allhis civil and
political rights, which naturally includes the right to
seek public elective office, the focal point of this
controversy. The wording of the pardon extended to
former President Estrada is complete, unambiguous,
and unqualified. It is likewise unfettered by Articles
36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code.
OP vs Cataquiz
Facts:
Respondent Cataquiz, then General Manager of the Laguna
Lake Development Authority, was being ousted in a petition by a
majority of the members of the Management Committee and
the rank and file employees of the LLDA, on the grounds of
corrupt and unprofessional behavior and management
incompetence. In an investigation into the allegations
against Cataquiz ordered by Secretary Gozun of the DENR, it was
determined that respondent may be found guilty for acts
prejudicial to the best interest of the government and for
violations of several pertinent laws and regulations. It was
recommended that the case be forwarded to the
Presidential Anti-Graft Commission. Later, a duly
organized employees union of the LLDA, CELLDA,
filed a complaint before the PAGC charging Cataquiz with
violations of RA 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act),
The Administrative Code and The Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees. The Office of the President adopted the findings
and recommendations of PAGC, and dismissed the respondent
from service. The decision was amended by the OP imposing
the penalties of disqualification from re-employment and
forfeiture of retirement benefits because the penalty of dismissal
was no longer available to him because of his replacement as
General Manager of LLDA. The Court of Appeals reversed the
decision. Meanwhile, the Office of the Ombudsman
recommended the dismissal of the charges against respondent
for violation of RA No. 3019.
Issue:
Whether the dismissal of the charges against respondent by the
Ombudsman serves as a bar to the finding
of administrative liability.
Held:
No. It is a basic rule in administrative law that public officials are
under a three-fold responsibility for a violation of their duty or for
a wrongful act or omission, such that they may be held civilly,
criminally and administratively liable for the same act. Obviously,
administrative liability is separate and distinct from penal and
civil liability. In the case of People v. Sandiganbayan, the Court
elaborated on the difference between administrative and
criminal liability: 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
Held : Court categorically ruled that the precipitate
resignation of a government employee charged with an
offense punishable by dismissal from the service does
not render moot the administrative case against
him. Resignation is not a way out to evade administrative
liability when facing administrative sanction. The
resignation of a public servant does not preclude the
finding of any administrative liability to which he or she
shall still be answerable. A case becomes moot and
academic only when there is no more actual controversy
between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in
passing upon the merits of the case.[22] The instant case is
not moot and academic, despite the petitioners separation
from government service. Even if the most severe of
administrative sanctions - that of separation from service -
may no longer be imposed on the petitioner, there are
other penalties which may be imposed on her if she is later
found guilty of administrative offenses charged against
her, namely, the disqualification to hold any government
office and the forfeiture of benefits.
Moreover, this Court views with suspicion the
precipitate act of a government employee in effecting his
or her separation from service, soon after an
administrative case has been initiated against him or
her. An employees act of tendering his or her resignation
immediately after the discovery of the anomalous

transaction is indicative of his or her guilt as flight in

Pagano vs Nazzaro criminal cases

Esther S. Pagano, Cashier IV of the Office of the Provincial

Public service requires utmost integrity and discipline. A
Treasurer of Benguet, it was discovered that in her
public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense
accountabilities she had incurred a shortage
of honesty and integrity for no less than the Constitution
of P1,424,289.99. On 12 January 1998, the Provincial
mandates the principle that a public office is a public trust
Treasurer wrote a letter directing petitioner to explain why
and all public officers and employees must at all times be
no administrative charge should be filed against her in
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
connection with the cash shortage and petitioner may still
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.[24] The
be held administratively liable for dishonesty, grave
Courts cannot overemphasize the need for honesty and
misconduct and malversation of public funds through
accountability in the acts of government officials.
falsification of official documents.

Petitioner was already deemed resigned when she filed

her Certificate of Candidacy on 16.

Issue

WHETHER OR NOT A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE WHO HAS

BEEN SEPARATED FROM THE CIVIL SERVICE BY OPERATION
OF LAW MAY STILL BE ADMINISTRATIVELY CHARGED
Beroa vs Sandiganbayan
Petitioners were public officers and employees of
the Provincial Health Office of Bangued, Abra
(Health Office) .Dr. Demetrio Beroa (Dr. Beroa)
was Provincial Health Officer II, Dr. Romulo
Gaerlan(Dr. Gaerlan) was Provincial Health Officer
I, Aurie Viado-Adriano (Viado-Adriano) was
resident auditor and Vida Labios (Labios) was an
accountant.Petitionerswere among the
seven3charged for violation of Section 3(e) of
Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act(RA 3019) before the
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 23521.The
accusatory portion of the Information reads in
part:chanroblesv irt ua1awli bra r
Section 13 reinforces the principle that a public
office is a public trust.Its purpose is to prevent
the accused public officer from hampering his
prosecution by intimidating or influencing
witnesses, tampering with documentary evidence,
or committing further acts of malfeasance while in
office.Petitioners last feeble argument that the
prosecution evidence is weak misses the
point.They lose sight of the fact that preventive
suspension is not a penalty.The accused public
officers whose culpability remains to be proven
are still entitled to the constitutional presumption
of innocence.12The presence or absence of the
elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature
which the court will pass on after a full-blown trial
on the merits.

Committing the crime herein charged in relation

to and taking advantage of their official functions,
and through bad faith, conspiring and
confederating with each other did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously release to
Alexander Siddayao, the total amount
of P99,987.77 representing payment for the
improvement of the Main Health Center in
Malibcong, Abra when in fact, said Alexander
Siddayao is not the labor contractor for the
project, resulting to the non-payment of the
salaries due the laborers who worked for the
completion of the above-said project, causing
them undue injury.

Issue:

Whether petitioners can still be held liable even if

they are no longer occupying the positions they
held when they were charged under RA 3019.

Held:

The petition is bereft of merit.

The Information charged petitioners under

Section 3(e) of RA 3019 forcausingundue injury to
any party, including the Government, or giving
any private party any unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his
official, administrative or judicial functions
through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
gross inexcusable negligence.

In the event that such convicted officer, who may

have already been separated from the service,
has already received such benefits he shall be
liable to restitute the same to the government.