GR 110220; (May, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 110220 May 18, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. RODOLFO V. TOLEDANO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 69 and ROLANDO BUNAO, accused in Criminal Case No. RTC-1274-1, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Rolando Bunao, a Sangguniang Bayan member and Committee on Bids and Awards member of Sta. Cruz, Zambales, entered into a lease contract with the municipality for two public market stalls on June 25, 1990. The Office of the Ombudsman, after dismissing related administrative cases, recommended his prosecution under Section 41(1) in relation to Section 221 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 (the 1983 Local Government Code), which prohibits local officials from engaging in business transactions with their own local government unit. An information was filed accordingly.
Before arraignment, Bunao moved to dismiss the information. The Regional Trial Court granted the motion, dismissing the case in its February 26, 1993 Order. The trial court cited several grounds, including that the contract was bilateral and thus the lessor-mayor should also be charged, the prior dismissal of an administrative case, Bunao’s subsequent re-election, and a desire to avoid being an instrument in a political dispute. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal information against Rolando Bunao.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the trial court’s orders. The dismissal constituted grave abuse of discretion as it was based on grounds not sanctioned by law or jurisprudence. The Court clarified that the bilateral nature of a contract does not negate the criminal liability of one party, here the public official, for violating a specific statutory prohibition. The dismissal of an administrative case is irrelevant to a criminal prosecution, which involves different procedures and standards. Furthermore, the doctrine in Aguinaldo vs. Santos, which holds that re-election extinguishes administrative liability, has no application to criminal cases. Finally, the repeal of B.P. Blg. 337 by the 1991 Local Government Code (R.A. 7160) did not extinguish the criminal liability. Section 89 of the new Code reenacted the prohibition, and Section 514 provided a penalty, thereby making the act a continuing crime. Prosecution must therefore proceed under the provisions of the new Code. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.