CASE 2019-0062: OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS. VENANCIO G. SANTIDAD/VENANCIO G. SANTIDAD VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. NO. 207154/G.R. NO. 222046. DECEMBER 5, 2019) (BRIEF TITLE: OMBUDSMAN VS SNTIDAD ET AL)
DISPOSITIVE:
DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?
SANTIDAD WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY CHARGED BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN FOR GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY AND DISHONESTY FOR SIGNING INVOICE RECEIPT FOR PROPERTY IN RELATION TO THE TRANSFER OF 21 VANS TO CONGRESSMAN ANDAYA WHEN IN FACT THERE WAS NO SUCH TRANSFER. THE COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT HE DID NOT COMMIT GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY BUT HE COMMITTED DISHONESTY.
HE WAS ALSO CRIMINALLY CHARGED BEFORE THE SANDIGANG BAYAN FOR FALSIFICATION OF THE INVOICE RECEIPT. HE WAS CONVICTED.
SUPREME COURT SAID SANTIDAD WAS GUILTY OF GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY. THERE WERE SEVERAL SIGNS WHICH SHOW THAT THE PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF THE VANS WERE ANOMALOUS. YET SANTIDAD DID NOT HEED THESE SIGNS.
SUPREME COURT EXONERATED HIM ON THE FALSIFICATION CHARGE. THERE WAS NO MALICIOUS INTENT PROVEN.
IN FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS BY MAKING UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS WHAT IS VITAL?
THERE MUST BE MALICIOUS INTENT.
ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE OF GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY SANTIDAD SAID THAT HE RELIED IN GOOD FAITH THAT HIS SUBORDINATES WOULD PERFORM THEIR FUNCTIONS REGULARLY. IS THIS ARGUMENT CORRECT?
WRONG. WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST WHICH WOULD HAVE ALERTED HIM TO EXERCISE MORE DILIGENCE AND HE FAILED TO DO SO, HE CANNOT RAISE SUCH DEFENSE.
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 