CASE 2013-0029: HADJI HASHIM ABDUL, PETITIONER, -VERSUS- HONORABLESANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. NO. 184496, 02 DECEMBER 2013, DEL CASTILLO, J.) SUBJECT: SUSPENSION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS. (BRIEF TITLE: ABDUL VS. SANDIGANBAYAN).

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE,  the  Petition  1s  DISMISSED  for  being  moot  and academic.

 No pronouncement as to costs.

 SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

SANDIGANBAYAN ORDERED SUSPENSION OF PETITIONER ABDUL PENDING RESOLUTION OF HIS CASE. PETITIONER WAS ABLE TO SECURE A TRO FROM THE SC. THEN SANDIGANBAYAN ISSUED A DECISION ACQUITTING PETITIONER. WHAT WILL THE SUPREME COURT DO WITH HIS PETITION QUESTIONING THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION?

 

THE CASE MUST BE DISMISSED FOR BEING MOOT AND ACADEMIC.

 

FOR A COURT TO EXERCISE ITS POWER OF ADJUDICATION, THERE MUST BE AN ACTUAL CASE  OR  CONTROVERSY.   

 

“Thus,  in  Mattel,  Inc.  v.  Francisco   we  have  ruled  that where  the  issue  has  become  moot  and  academic,  there  is  no  justiciable controversy, and an adjudication thereof would be of no practical use or value as courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest however intellectually challenging. In the present case, the acquittal of herein petitioner operates as a supervening event that mooted the present Petition.  Any resolution on the validity or invalidity of the issuance of the order of suspension  could no longer affect his rights as a ranking public officer, for legally speaking he did not commit the offense charged.”

 

WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR SUSPENDING A PUBLIC OFFICER PENDING RESOLUTION OF HIS CASE AT SANDIGANBAYAN?

 

TO WARRANT THE SUSPENSION  OF  A  PUBLIC  OFFICER  UNDER  THE  SAID SECTION 13, HE MUST BE CHARGED WITH AN OFFENSE

 

(1) UNDER RA 3019, OR

 

(2) UNDER TITLE SEVEN, BOOK II OF THE RPC, OR

 

(3) INVOLVING FRAUD UPON GOVERNMENT OR PUBLIC  FUNDS  OR  PROPERTY.   

 

CAN FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS BE CONSIDERED FRAUD UPON GOVERNMENT OR PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY?

 

YES.

 

IN BUSTILLO  V.  SANDIGANBAYAN, FALSIFICATION OF VOUCHERS WAS CONSIDERED FRAUD UPON GOVERNMENT FUNDS BECAUSE VOUCHERS ARE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS SIGNIFYING A CASH OUTFLOW FROM GOVERNMENT COFFERS

 

IN BARTOLO VS. DANDIGANBAYAN THE ALLEGATION OF FALSIFICATION OF THE THREE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS BY MAKING IT APPEAR THAT THE FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT WAS 100% COMPLETE [WHEN IN FACT IT WAS NOT,] CONSTITUTES FRAUD UPON PUBLIC FUNDS.”

 

HOW DO THESE CASES APPLY TO THE CASE OF ABDUL?

 

THE ACT OF PETITIONER ALSO CONSTITUTES FRAUD UPON GOVERNMENT  OR  PUBLIC  FUNDS.  

 

“. . . This  was  aptly  explained  by  respondent  in  its Resolution  dated October 9, 2003, viz:

 

x  x x  The  existence  of fraud  in the  commission  of the  offense  charged  can be easily ascertained from the nature of the acts of herein accused when they made it appear  that  Engr.  Zubair  F.  Murad  was  then  the  Municipal  Engineer  who prepared  and  signed  Local  Budget  Preparation  Forms  No.  152,  153  and  154, when  in truth  and  in fact,  said  Engr.  Murad  was  not  even  an  employee  of the Municipality of Mulondo, Lanao  del  Sur.  As a consequence of this act,  several projects, their costs and extent, were authorized without the careful assessment of [the]  legitimate municipal engineer.  This alone is sufficient to justify the Court’s conclusion  that,  indeed,  the  alleged  act  of accused  constitutes  fraud  upon  the government.”


TO READ THE DECISION, JUST DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2013-0029-DEC 2013 – HASHIM