GR 161067; (March, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 161067 ; March 14, 2008
DOMINADOR C. FERRER, JR., Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, HON. EDILBERTO G. SANDOVAL, HON. FRANCISCO H. VILLARUZ, JR., and HON. RODOLFO G. PALATTAO, as Members of the Sandiganbayan, Second Division, ANNA MARIA L. HARPER, ESPERANZA G. GATBONTON, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Dominador C. Ferrer, Jr., then Administrator of the Intramuros Administration, was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Information alleged that he gave unwarranted benefits to a private company by awarding lease contracts for certain Intramuros properties without public bidding and by allowing construction without the required permits. Prior to the criminal charge, an administrative complaint based on the same acts was filed against him with the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption. The Office of the President, reviewing the case, absolved petitioner of administrative liability, finding he acted in good faith and within his authority.
Before his arraignment, petitioner filed a Motion for Re-determination of Probable Cause with the Sandiganbayan, arguing that the finding of no administrative liability by the Office of the President should bar the criminal prosecution. The Sandiganbayan denied this motion and a subsequent Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Quash. It ruled that the dismissal of the administrative case does not negate the criminal case, as these are separate proceedings with different standards. Petitioner then filed this Petition for Certiorari, alleging the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Does the dismissal of an administrative case against a public officer, based on a finding of good faith and lack of administrative liability, preclude the filing or necessitate the dismissal of a criminal case for the same acts?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions. The legal logic is clear: administrative and criminal liabilities are distinct and independent from each other. An administrative case concerns the fitness of a public officer to remain in office and involves a lower quantum of proof (substantial evidence). A criminal prosecution, for violations like those under R.A. No. 3019 , determines penal responsibility and requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. The standards, procedures, and objectives differ fundamentally.
Consequently, an exoneration in an administrative proceeding does not operate as res judicata or double jeopardy in a criminal case. The finding of good faith by the Office of the President is not binding on the criminal court, which must make its own independent assessment based on the evidence presented during trial. The elements to be proven in a criminal case for graft—such as manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefit—are matters of defense best evaluated in a full-blown trial. The Court also noted the petitioner’s use of dilatory tactics and admonished him and his counsel accordingly, ordering the Sandiganbayan to proceed with the arraignment and trial.