J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2019-0024: FREDERICK L. SURIAGA VS. COMMISSIONER ALICIA DELA ROSA-BALA AND ROBERT S. MARTINEZ (G.R. NO. 238191. AUGUST 28, 2019, REYES, A., JR., J.) (SUBJECT/S: IMMUNITY OF WITNESS FROM PROSECUTION)(BRIEF TITLE: SURIAGA VS COMMISSIONER BALA ET AL)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

SURIAGA SAID HE ASKED BAGUION, WORKING AT BUREAU OF FIRE PROTECTION,  TO SECURE FOR HIM A CIVIL SERVICE ELIGIBILITY AND PAID THE LATTER P25K. WHEN SURIAGA ASKED FOR COPY OF HIS CIVIL SERVICE LIABILITY CSC FOUND OUT THAT HE SUBMITTED FRAUDULENT APPLICATION. INVESTIGATION ENSUED. SURIAGA ADMITTED HIS INFRACTION BUT MOVED THAT HE BE GIVEN IMMUNITY AS HE IS WILLING TO TESTIFY AGAINST BAGUION. CSC DENIED HIS MOTION. IS HE ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY?

NO BECAUSE HE IS THE MOST GUILTY.

As the party that is clearly the most guilty, having been caught red-handed to have a fraudulent issue with his application, the Court is convinced that Suriaga is not entitled to a grant of immunity as he was unable to show beyond a mere recitation of the requisites that he was eligible for the same. Aside from his self-serving statements, he failed to substantiate his claim that he should be granted immunity and that the CSC erred in denying his claim.

SURIAGA SAID IT IS HIS RIGHT TO BE GRANTED IMMUNITY. IS HE CORRECT?

HE IS WRONG. THE GRANT OF IMMUNITY IS NOT A RIGHT, BUT AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OR THE PROSECUTION.

 As explained in Quarto v. Hon. Ombudsrnan !’vlarcelo, et al. :29 The decision to grant immunity from prosecution forms a constituent part of the prosecution process. It is essentially a tactical decision lo forego prosecution of a person for government to achieve a higher objective. It is a deliberate renunciation of the right of the State to prosecute all who appear to be guilty of having committed a crime. Its justification lies in the particular need of the State to obtain the conviction of the more guilty criminals who, otherwise. will probably elude the long arm of the law. Whether or not the delicate power should be exercised, who should be extended the privilege. the timing of its grant. arc questions addressed solely to the sound judgment or the prosecution. The power to prosecute includes the right to determine who shall be prosecuted and the corollary right to decide whom not to prosecute. In reviewing the exercise of prosccutorial discretion in these areas. the jurisdiction of the respondent court is limited. For the business of a court of justice is to be an impm1ial tribunal, and not to get involved with the success or failure of the prosecution to prosecute. Every now and then. the prosecution may err in the selection of its strategics, but such errors arc not fi1r neutral courts to rectify. any more than courts should correct the blunders of the dcfcnsc. (Citation omitted)

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2019-0024-Frederick L. Suriaga Vs. Commissioner Alicia Dela Rosa-Bala and Robert S. Martinez 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2019-0023: RE: REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED AT THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, CEBU CITY (A.M. NO. P-17-3746, AUGUST 28, 2019, PER CURIAM) (SUBJECT/S: DISHONESTY, MISCONDUCT)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds Alma Bella S. Macaldo, Records Officer II, and Josefina P. Veraque, Cashier I, both of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Cebu City, GUILTY of DISHONESTY AND GRAVE MISCONDUCT. They are DISMISSED from the service, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government, including government owned and controlled corporations. All their withheld salaries, allowances, and benefits, if any, excluding the monetary value of their earned leave credits, and whatever claims they may have with the Government Service Insurance System are FORFEITED in favor of the Judiciary Development Fund and the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund accounts. Macaldo  and Veraque are directed to restitute the remaining balance of accountabilities for the Judiciary Development Fund and Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund.

The Financial Management Office of the Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to compute the remaining balance to be paid by Alma Bella S. Macaldo and Josefina P. Veraque, if any, after the application of their earned leave credits, which is based on their service record, certificate of leave credits, notice of salary adjustment, and notice of step increment, if any, as well as withheld salaries and any other benefits that they may be entitled to receive.

The Office of the Court Administrator is ORDERED to file the appropriate criminal charges against Alma Bella S. Macaldo and Josefina P. Veraque.

Josephine R. Teves, Clerk of Court IV of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Cebu City, is likewise found GUILTY of SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY and is SUSPENDED from office for one (1) month and one (1) day. She is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RESTITUTE the shortage in the Fiduciary Fund amounting to P28,709.06. She is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT IS DISHONESTY?

Dishonesty is the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.

WHAT IS MISCONDUCT?

Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior.

WHEN IS MISCONDUCT GRAVE?

It is grave when it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard established rules.

CONCLUSION:

Tampering of official receipts and over withdrawals from court funds are considered grave misconduct and serious dishonesty.

 TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2019-0023-Re – Report on the financial audit conducted at the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Cebu City

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2019-0022: VICE MAYOR SHIRLYN L. BIÑAS-NOGRALES, ET AL. VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (G.R. NO. 246328. SEPTEMBER 10, 2019, CARANDANG, J.) (SUBJECT/S: ELECTIONS; SPECIAL LAW VS CONSTITUION) (BRIEF TITLE: BINAS=NOGRALES ET AL VS COMELEC)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. COMELEC Resolution No. 10524 is hereby declared NULL and VOID.The elections for the representative of the First Legislative District of South Cotabato, including General Santos City is UPHELD. COMELEC is hereby DIRECTED to CONVENE a Special Provincial Board of Canvassers to PROCLAIM petitioner Shirlyn L. Bafias-Nograles, the winning candidate, as Representative of the First Legislative District of South Cotabato, including General Santos City.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

“The 1987 Constitution is clear: Elections for Congress should be held on the 2nd Monday of May unless otherwise provided by law. The term “unless otherwise provided by law” contemplates two situations ( 1) when the law specifically states when the elections should be held on a date other than the second Monday of May; and (2) when the law delegates the setting of the date of the elections to COMELEC.

Section 1 of R.A. 11243 categorically states that the reapportionment of the 1st District shall “commence in the next national and local elections after the effectivity of this Act.” R.A. 11243 did not specifically provide for a different date. Neither did it delegate unto COMELEC the setting of a different date.

………..

Also, if We were to follow COMELEC’s interpretation, an incongruity would result as the winning candidate in COMELEC’s special elections34 would serve a term less than that provided for in Section 7, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Similar to Section 8, the only exception is when another term is “otherwise provided by law.” Again, R.A. 11243 did not provide for a term less than three years, as provided in the 1987 Constitution.

The elections for the First Legislative District of the Province of South Cotabato scheduled on May 13, 2019 should not have been suspended, and the candidate obtaining the most number of votes for the said position must be proclaimed. Consequently, the holdover provision under Section 2 of R.A. 11243 would be inapplicable since there would already be a newly elected and qualified Representative.”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2019-0022-Vice Mayor Shirlyn L. Biñas-Nograles, et al. Vs. Commission on Elections

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.