Atty. Julius Gregory Delgado
GIL VALERA VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NOS. 209099-100, JULY 25, 2022:
OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT POSSIBLE ERRORS IN THE SALN BEFORE PROSECUTION
Before the Sandiganbayan, petitioner Gil Valera faced four (4) Information, one (1) for Falsification of Public Document and three (3) cases for violation of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, which were consolidated later. It was alleged that petitioner failed to include in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) the stockholding of his wife in Buy Pinoy Marketing and his minor daughter’s stockholding in MJ Valera Realty in the 2001 and 2003 Sworn SALN. For the two (2) remaining cases, the Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner Valera but only imposed fine with perpetual disqualification to hold public office. Considering that petitioner Valera’s motion for reconsideration was denied, he filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
On the substantive aspect, the Supreme Court held that while disclosure in the SALN is a constitutional mandate, the State cannot hastily prosecute petitioner for his purported violation of RA 6713 without first giving him an opportunity to correct the alleged defects in his SALN:
“Infallibility is a fictional concept in human affairs. No person is exempt from error, not even a public servant who swore to exhibit a high level of transparency and integrity. At times, human error is simply due to an honest mistake-could be by sheer ignorance-and, consolingly, not spurred by any corrupt motive, evident bad faith, or malice.
Thus, the review and compliance procedure provided in RA No. 6713 is a realistic mechanism which affords the public officer or employee a final opportunity to comply with the requirements before any sanction is meted out. So, too, it allows for fuller and more accurate disclosure of the necessary information, breathing life into the very spirit of the law. While the SALN is an instrument that ensures accountability, the review and compliance procedure works as a buffer that prevents the haphazard filing of actions against public officials and employees.”
Citing Atty. Navarro vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 210128, August 17, 2016, the Court restated its earlier doctrine that public officers should be given an opportunity to correct any possible errors in their SALNs in accordance with the guidelines at the time of their submission. The Court also held that a similar review mechanism was also prescribed in Department of Finance -Revenue Integrity Protection Service vs. Yambao, G.R. No. 220632 and 220634, November 6, 2019, which was not availed of in the instant case.
Finally, the Supreme Court relied on the fact that the criminal case for Falsification of Public Document was dismissed due to Sandiganbayan’s grant of demurrer to evidence. Hence, with more reason that the consolidated Information for these cases in violation of Section 8, RA 6713 be given due course.