This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-09-04 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It must be stressed that the basis of administrative liability differs from criminal liability. The purpose of administrative proceedings is mainly to protect the public service, based on the time-honored principle that a public office is a public trust. On the other hand, the purpose of criminal prosecution is the punishment of crime.[36] To state it simply, petitioner erroneously equated criminal liability to administrative liability. | |||||
|
2008-08-22 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Respondents are charged with violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of R.A. Act No. 3019. Under Section 3(e), the elements of the offense are: (1) that the accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; (2) that said public officers commit the prohibited acts during the performance of their official duties or in relation to their public positions; (3) that they cause undue injury to any party, whether the Government or a private party; (4) that such injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and (5) that the public officers have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. To determine the culpability of an accused in relation, in turn, to Section 3(g) of the law, it needs to be established (1) that the accused is a public officer; (2) that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and (3) that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government.[46] | |||||
|
2008-03-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| This argument, however, has been addressed in jurisprudence. In Valencia v. Sandiganbayan,[28] the administrative case against the accused was dismissed by the Ombudsman on a finding that the contract of loan entered into was in pursuance of the police power of the accused as local chief executive,[29] and that the accused had been re-elected to office.[30] The Ombudsman, however, still found probable cause to criminally charge the accused in court.[31] When the accused filed a petition with the Supreme Court to dismiss the criminal case before the Sandiganbayan, the Court denied the petition, thus:In the final analysis, the conflicting findings of the Ombudsman boil down to issues of fact which, however, are not within our province to resolve. As has been oft-repeated, this Court is not a trier of facts. This is a matter best left to the Sandiganbayan. | |||||
|
2007-09-13 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| It may be true that the basis of administrative liability differs from criminal liability as the purpose of administrative proceedings on the one hand is mainly to protect the public service, based on the time-honored principle that a public office is a public trust. On the other hand, the purpose of the criminal prosecution is the punishment of crime.[50] However, the dismissal by the Court of the administrative case against Constantino based on the same subject matter and after examining the same crucial evidence operates to dismiss the criminal case because of the precise finding that the act from which liability is anchored does not exist. | |||||