G.R. No. 171144; November 24, 2006
SANTOS L. NACAYTUNA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Santos L. Nacaytuna, then Municipal Mayor of San Miguel, Surigao del Sur, appointed his wife, Marydole V. Nacaytuna, as Municipal Health Officer in 1999. In April 2000, Marydole drafted a resignation letter but claimed she never tendered it to the petitioner. She continued performing her duties. In May 2001, she left their conjugal home. In April 2002, petitioner accepted the resignation, effective at the end of that month, purportedly based on the 2000 letter.
Marydole contested the acceptance before the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which declared it illegal and ordered her reinstatement with backwages. Concurrently, an Information was filed against petitioner for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft Act), alleging he acted with evident bad faith by causing her undue injury through removal from office using an untendered resignation.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner violated Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s conviction. The elements of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 are: (1) the accused is a public officer; (2) the act was done in the performance of official duties; (3) the act was through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (4) it caused undue injury or gave unwarranted benefit. All elements were proven.
First, petitioner, as Mayor, was a public officer acting in his official capacity in accepting a resignation. Second, the Court found evident bad faith. Resignation must be a voluntary act of relinquishment communicated to the employer. The prosecution established that Marydole never tendered the resignation letter; petitioner merely produced it from their conjugal home. His claim of receiving it in 2000 but delaying acceptance until 2002, allegedly to assess performance, was self-serving and indicative of a scheme to remove her, especially given their marital estrangement. His failure to simply verify her intent to resign demonstrated bad faith.
Third, his actions caused undue injury to Marydole, resulting in her unlawful removal and deprivation of salaries and benefits, notwithstanding subsequent CSC reinstatement. The injury occurred at the point of illegal dismissal. The penalty imposed under the Indeterminate Sentence Law—imprisonment of six years and one month to ten years, with perpetual disqualification from public office—was proper. Thus, guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.