Amurao v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case originated from allegations that petitioner Aileen Cynthia M. Amurao, along with co-accused tourism officers of Puerto Princesa City, solicited money and gifts from private entities for tourism activities. These solicited funds were allegedly deposited into the personal accounts of the petitioner and her co-accused. Consequently, petitioner was charged with violation of Section 7(d) of Republic Act No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, for soliciting or accepting gifts, gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value in the course of their official duties or in connection with regulated operations or transactions affected by their office. Procedural History: Following the filing of an Information on March 5, 2015, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution on July 23, 2019, directing petitioner to show cause why she should not be suspended pendente lite under Section 13 of R.A. 3019. Petitioner argued against suspension, asserting that R.A. 3019's suspension provision only applies to violations of that law or the Revised Penal Code on bribery, not R.A. 6713. Despite this, the Sandiganbayan issued an assailed Resolution on September 5, 2019, ordering petitioner's suspension pendente lite for ninety (90) days, finding that the offense charged involved fraud upon the government and public funds. Petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration before filing the instant petition. The Petition: Petitioner Aileen Cynthia M. Amurao filed a Verified Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus seeking to nullify the Sandiganbayan's Resolution ordering her suspension. She contends that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion, arguing that her charge under R.A. 6713 is not covered by the mandatory suspension provision of R.A. 3019. Petitioner also disputes the findings of fraud and the characterization of the solicited money as public funds, asserting that the evidence would show the funds went to contest winners and were not public funds as they were still in the possession of the collector. The petition raises the sole issue of whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in ordering the suspension.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering the preventive suspension of the petitioner. Whether the offense charged against the petitioner, a violation of Section 7(d) of R.A. 6713, is covered by the mandatory preventive suspension provision under Section 13 of R.A. 3019.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated September 5, 2019, ordering the preventive suspension of petitioner Aileen Cynthia M. Amurao for 90 days.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan, as the assailed Resolution was issued on "cogent legal grounds." The Sandiganbayan correctly applied Section 13 of R.A. 3019 to the offense charged, which involved allegations of soliciting funds for government activities and depositing them into personal accounts, constituting fraud upon public funds. Therefore, the preventive suspension was a mandatory consequence of the valid information filed. The Court acknowledged the general rule that a motion for reconsideration is a sine qua non for filing a petition for certiorari. However, it noted that exceptions exist, and in this case, the second exception, where the issues raised in the petition were already passed upon by the lower court, was deemed relevant, thus excusing the petitioner's procedural misstep. On the substantive issue of whether the offense charged is covered by Section 13 of R.A. 3019: The Court reiterated that Section 13 of R.A. 3019 is not limited to violations of R.A. 3019 or Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal Code. It explicitly applies to "any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property." The Court found that the Information charging petitioner with soliciting money and gifts from private entities for supposed tourism activities, which were then deposited into personal accounts, clearly falls under "fraud upon government" and "public funds." The Court cited Bustillo v. Sandiganbayan for the generic definition of "fraud" as "an instance or an act of trickery or deceit especially when involving misrepresentation." The Court also emphasized the mandatory nature of preventive suspension in such cases, as underscored in Bolastig v. Sandiganbayan, stating that the Sandiganbayan has no discretion but to order the suspension when convinced that the information charges acts of fraud involving government funds.
Main Doctrine
The preventive suspension of a public officer, as mandated by Section 13 of R.A. 3019, is applicable not only to violations of R.A. 3019 and Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, but also to any offense involving fraud upon the government or public funds or property, which includes violations of Section 7(d) of R.A. 6713 when the acts alleged constitute such fraud.