Cabrera v. People
G.R. No. 191611-14
July 29, 2019
FACTS:
Librado
and Leonor, in their capacity as then Municipal Mayor and Municipal Councilor,
respectively, of Taal, Batangas, through manifest partiality, evident bad faith
and gross inexcusable negligence, made several direct purchases of medicines
from Diamond Laboratories, Inc. (DLI), a corporation owned by the relatives by
consanguinity of Librado. The purchases were made without the benefit of public
bidding or canvass giving DLI unwanted benefit and depriving the Municipality
of Taal the opportunity to avail of a better price of the same quality of
supplies. The total costs of the purchases amounted to ₱503,920.35. Leonor,
despite being the Municipal Councilor, acted as the authorized representative
of DLI as he was the one who received all payments due and signed all pertinent
documents of the transactions.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the accused is guilty of violating Sec 3 (e) RA 3019
HELD:
Yes.
Petitioners' second act constituting violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No.
3019 is the alleged illegal reimbursements made by petitioners of the amount
representing their expenses for their alleged unauthorized travels. Two acts
are involved here: the unauthorized travels and the illegal
reimbursements.Petitioners claim that their travels to Manila in 1998-1999 were
authorized by the Governor. To prove this fact, petitioners adduce as evidence
the testimony of then incumbent Governor Mandanas who testified that he signed
petitioners' permit to travel on December 14, 2000. He also admitted that it is
his policy to allow all travels and sign any documents when presented to him -
whether before or after the travel dates.
Under
the LGC of 1991, SEC. 96. Permission to Leave Station. - (a) Provincial, city, municipal, and barangay appointive officials
going on official travel shall apply and secure written permission from their
respective local chief executives before departure. The application shall
specify the reasons for such travel, and the permission shall be given or
withheld based on considerations of public interest, financial capability of
the local government unit concerned and urgency of the travel. Should the local
chief executive concerned fail to act upon such application within four (4)
working days from receipt thereof, it shall be deemed approved. (b) Mayors of
component cities and municipalities shall secure the permission of the governor
concerned for any travel outside the province. (c) Local government officials
traveling abroad shall notify their respective sanggunian: Provided, That when
the period of travel extends to more than three (3) months, during periods of
emergency or crisis or when the travel involves the use of public funds, permission
from the Office of the President shall be secured. (d) Field officers of
national agencies or offices assigned in provinces, cities, and municipalities
shall not leave their official stations without giving prior written notice to
the local chief executive concerned. Such notice shall state the duration of
travel and the name of the officer whom he shall designate to act for and in
his behalf during his absence.
Paragraph (a) speaks of the
term "permission" as one that is "written" and secured
"before departure." While the words "written" and
"before departure" are not repeated in paragraph (b) of the aforesaid
provision, we take into consideration the general rule of statutory
construction that a word used in a statute in a given sense is presumed to be
used in the same sense throughout the law. While this rule is not, by some
authorities, regarded as so rigid and peremptory as some other of the rules of
construction, nevertheless it is particularly applicable in the case at bar,
where in the statute the words appear so near to each other physically, and
particularly where the word has a technical meaning and that meaning has been
defined in the statute.
As the Sandiganbayan observed, the term permission was
defined in terms of form, time and content in paragraph (a). Following the
above-mentioned rule of statutory construction, the Sandiganbayan was therefore
correct when it concluded that the word "permission" in paragraph (b)
should carry the same meaning attached to the word permission in paragraph (a)
as one that was written and issued before the departure/travel. Strictly
speaking, when the permission is not written and is not obtained before
departure, the travel is unauthorized.
No comments:
Post a Comment