Atty. Julius Gregory Delgado

PEOPLE VS. HENRY M. GELACIO, G.R. NOS. 250951 AND 250958 (AUGUST 10, 2022): 

CAN A PUBLIC OFFICIAL BE PROSECUTED UNDER BOTH RA 6713 AND RA 3019 OVER SAME ACTS?

Accused-appellant Henry M. Gelacio was the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Region XII, Kidapawan City. Accused-appellant Gelacio was tried by the Sandiganbayan under two (2) separate Informations for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and for violation of Section 7 (d) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Accused-appellant Gelacio was accused of allegedly soliciting and accepting, on separate occasions, the aggregate amount of Php120,000.00 and a whole Tuna fish in consideration for his issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) relative to DARAB Case No. XII-990-SC-2007 entitled “Miguel Egagamao, et al. vs. DARBC, et al.”

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of accused-appellant Gelacio under Section 3 (e) of RA 3019. His acts constitute manifest partiality and evident bad faith which caused undue injury to the private complainant. The Court held that there was manifest partiality and evident bad faith when accused-appellant, instead of issuing the TRO based on merits, expedited the issuance of the TRO in consideration of monetary and non-monetary gifts. The Court upheld the findings of the Sandiganbayan that accused-appellant inappropriately met with private complainant several times for purposes of discussing the latter’s case, facilitated the immediate release of TRO for several considerations, and released a copy of the TRO to a private person instead of issuing the same in due course of a proper proceeding. 

With respect to “causing undue injury or damage, the Supreme Court held that the undue injury was brought about when accused-appellant solicited and accepted money and a Tuna fish from private complainant in exchange for a TRO. This forced the farmers to sell their farm animals, tools and materials to raise funds demanded by accused-appellant which led to more difficult farming conditions. The private complainant’s lawyer, Atty. Johnny Landero, also testified that every time that there would be a meeting between private complainant and accused-appellant, the farmers in the DARAB case would also conduct a meeting to contribute money to be brought to accused-appellant. 

The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the Information for violation of Section 7 (d) of RA 6713, which prohibits public officials and employees from soliciting or accepting, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person on the court of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions, of their office, should have been dismissed outright. Section 11 of RA 6713 provides that if the violation is punishable by a heavier penalty under another law, he shall be prosecuted under the latter statute. The Court cited the Senate deliberations of the bill which eventually became RA 6713 and held that an accused may not be prosecuted twice for violation of RA 6713 and other laws, especially if the violation of other laws imposes a higher penalty. 

The Court held that a comparison of the two Informations readily shows that both violations consist of the same acts, i.e., the extortion or solicitation from private complainant of the total amount of Php120,000.00 and a whole Tuna fish in exchange for the TRO in favor of the private complainant in the DARAB case. The Court held that the same acts of the offender were used as basis to prosecute accused-appellant for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 and Section 7 (d) of RA 6713. Considering that violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 imposes a heavier penalty, i.e., imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) month nor more than fifteen (15) years, compared to the penalty for violation of Section 7 (d) of RA 6713, i.e., imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years or a fine not exceeding P5,000.00, or both, the Information for Section 7 (d) of RA 6713 should have been dismissed and accused-appellant acquitted under the said charge.