G.R. Nos. 178701 and 178754, June 6, 2011
ZAFIRO L. RESPICIO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Zafiro L. Respicio, then Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID), along with Associate Commissioners Bayani Subido, Jr. and Manuel C. Roxas, issued BID Self-Deportation Order (SDO) No. 94-685 dated August 11, 1994. The order authorized the self-deportation of eleven Indian nationals who were facing criminal charges for drug trafficking (violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act) and were in the custody of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The order stated that the BID had not received any prior written request to hold the departure of the respondents and that there was no indication from the records that they were the subject of any written complaints before any government agency. Based on this order, the Indian nationals left the country on August 12, 1994.
The issuance of the order led to the filing of two criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan. In Criminal Case No. 21545, petitioner and his co-accused were charged with Falsification of Public Document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly falsifying the SDO by stating therein that there was no indication the Indian nationals were subjects of any written complaints, when in truth they knew a preliminary investigation was being conducted and an Information had already been filed against them in court. In Criminal Case No. 21546, petitioner and his co-accused, including NBI Deputy Director Arturo Figueras, were charged with violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for issuing the SDO with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, thereby giving unwarranted benefits to the Indian nationals and depriving the government of the right to prosecute them.
The records show that on July 5, 1994, the Indian nationals were charged before the Department of Justice (DOJ) and a preliminary investigation was conducted. On July 28, 1994, State Prosecutor Reynaldo J. Lugtu filed an Information against them with the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas. Prior to this, on July 13, 1994, the counsel for the Indians requested the Secretary of Justice for their deportation. This request was endorsed to the NBI and then to petitioner via a 3rd Indorsement dated July 28, 1994 from DOJ Undersecretary Ramon Esguerra, which informed petitioner that criminal cases against the Indians were under preliminary investigation. Petitioner, by a 4th Indorsement dated August 4, 1994, referred the deportation recommendation to Prosecutor Lugtu for appropriate action, citing a BID policy guideline that a deportation case shall be provisionally dismissed if a complaint charging a crime is referred to the proper Fiscal’s Office. This indorsement was received by Prosecutor Lugtu on August 16, 1994, four days after the Indians had already left. The Indians signed their requests for self-deportation on August 9, 1994, which were received by the BID on August 11, 1994, the same day the SDO was prepared and signed.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of Public Document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code for making a false statement in the Self-Deportation Order.
2. Whether petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 for issuing the Self-Deportation Order with evident bad faith and manifest partiality.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision finding petitioner guilty on both counts.
1. On the Falsification Charge: The Court found petitioner guilty of falsification under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code. The statement in the SDO that “there is no indication from the records that the respondents are the subject of any written complaints before any government agency” was false. Petitioner, as BID Commissioner, had a duty to disclose the true facts. He received the 3rd Indorsement dated July 28, 1994 from DOJ Undersecretary Esguerra, which explicitly informed him that criminal cases against the Indians were under preliminary investigation. This constituted a written complaint before a government agency. By issuing the SDO containing the contrary false statement, petitioner perpetrated a falsification. His defense that he referred the matter to Prosecutor Lugtu on August 4, 1994, did not absolve him, as he proceeded to issue the deportation order before any response was received and despite the pending criminal case. The falsity was material as it facilitated the departure of the accused Indians.
2. On the Anti-Graft Charge: The Court found petitioner guilty of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 . The elements of the offense were present: (a) petitioner is a public officer; (b) he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (c) his action caused undue injury to the government or gave unwarranted benefits to a private party. Petitioner acted with evident bad faith. He was aware of the pending drug charges against the Indians, as shown by the 3rd Indorsement he received. Despite this knowledge and contrary to BID policy guidelines which required provisional dismissal of a deportation case if a criminal complaint is filed, and in violation of DOJ Circular No. 38 which directed prosecutors to seek hold departure orders for drug charges, petitioner still issued the SDO. His act of referring the matter to Prosecutor Lugtu on August 4 was a mere pretext, as he executed the deportation order on August 11 without waiting for a reply, allowing the Indians to flee. This act gave unwarranted benefit to the Indians by enabling them to evade prosecution and caused undue injury to the government by depriving it of the right to prosecute them for a heinous crime. The Court rejected petitioner’s claim of good faith, finding his actions to be a conscious and deliberate intent to do wrong.