G.R. Nos. 209099-100. July 25, 2022.
Gil A. Valera, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Gil A. Valera was charged before the Sandiganbayan with Falsification of Public Document and three counts of Violation of Section 8 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) for not declaring certain assets in his Sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN). After trial, he was acquitted of falsification and one count of violation of RA 6713 but was convicted in Criminal Case Nos. SB-11-CRM-0013 and SB-11-CRM-0015. The Sandiganbayan found that he failed to include his wife’s stockholding in Buy Pinoy Marketing, Inc. (worth P12,500.00) in his 2001 SALN and his minor daughter’s stockholding in MJ Valera Realty (worth P27,000.00, which he held in trust) in his 2003 SALN. He was sentenced to pay a fine of P5,000.00 with disqualification to hold public office for each case. His Motion for Partial Reconsideration was denied by the Sandiganbayan for being a mere scrap of paper due to his failure to set it for hearing. Petitioner appealed, arguing that a violation of RA 6713 is malum in se requiring criminal intent, which he lacked, and that the penalty of disqualification was too harsh.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether petitioner’s defective motion for reconsideration warrants a liberal application of procedural rules; (2) Whether a violation of Section 8 of RA 6713 is malum prohibitum or malum in se; and (3) Whether the penalty of disqualification from holding public office was properly imposed.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. First, the Court relaxed the strict application of procedural rules, holding that while petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was defective for lack of a hearing notice, technicalities should not hinder substantial justice, especially since the lapse did not prejudice the adverse party or deprive the court of its authority. Second, the Court did not explicitly reclassify the offense but focused on the mandatory review and compliance procedure under Section 10 of RA 6713 and its Implementing Rules. The Court held that the State cannot hastily prosecute a public officer for SALN violations without first affording them an opportunity to correct perceived inaccuracies through the prescribed review process. The designated authorities must inform the reporting individual and direct corrective action. Since this procedure was not followed in petitioner’s case, his right to due process was violated. Third, due to the failure to observe the mandatory review and compliance procedure, the Court reversed the Sandiganbayan’s Decision and Resolution, acquitting petitioner of the charges in Criminal Case Nos. SB-11-CRM-0013 and SB-11-CRM-0015.