FERRER V

FERRER V. SANDIGANB SAN DIGANBA AYAN  J. AUSTRIA-MART AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ  INEZ  Does a fnding o lack o administrative liability o a respondent respondent government ocial bar the fling o a criminal case against him or the same acts? FACTS: 1. On January 29, 2!, an "normation or violation o #ection $ %e& o 'epublic (ct %')()& *o) $!9 +as fled against petitioner a. DO"*(DO' -) ./''/', J'), being the (dministrator o the "ntramuros (dministration %"(&, anila, +hile in the perormance o his ocial and administrative administrative unctions as such, and acting +ith maniest partiality, evident bad aith and gross ine0cusable negligence, did then and there, +illully, unla+ully and criminally give un+arranted benefts to O1shore O1shore -onstruction and Development -ompany, by causing the a+ard o the ease -ontracts to said company, involving 3aluarte de #an (ndres, 'avellin de 'ecolletos, and 3aluarte de #an .rancisco de Dilao, "ntramuros, anila, +ithout conducting any public bidding as re4uired under Joint -ircular *o) ! dated #eptember $, !959 o the Department o 3udget and anagement, Department Department o /nvironment and *atural 'esources and Department o 6ublic 7orks and 8igh+ays, and by allo+ing the construction o ne+ structures in said leased areas +ithout any building permit or clearance re4uired under the "ntramuros -harter %6)D) !!& and the *ational 3uilding -ode, to the damage and pre:udice o public interest 2. On (pril ;, 2!, petitioner fled a otion or 'einvestigation, 'einvestigation, alleging that the Oce o the Ombudsman disregarded certain actual matters +hich, i considered, +ill negate the fnding o probable cause  D/*"/D  petitionerhe O6 revie+ed the administrative case fled against petitioner +ith the 6residential -ommission (gainst rat and -orruption %6-(-& %6-(-& and held that petitioner acted in good aith and +ithin the scope o his authority  the #andiganbayan denied this 7. 8ence, this petition 8. 6@# -O*>/*>"O*#A insists that the Sandiganbayan should Sandiganbayan should have dismissed the criminal case fled against him, since the alleged +rongul acts complained o in the case are the same as those alleged in the administrative case against him +hich have been dismissed 

















!)

2.

3.

;)

THE PETITION IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 6('/D/# B) #(*D"(*3(C(*A Bu !"# $%"& %' a()%"%'*a%+# ,%a-%,% . /u%# a"!$#* $%"& %' $# 0*%)%"a, ,%a-%,% !* $# 'a)# a0. Ou* (##*)%"a%!" !  $# a()%"%'*a%+# ,%a-%,% !* a,'%0a%!" ! u-,%0 (!0u)#"' %' %" "! a 0!"0,u'%+# ! $%' ,a0 ! 0*%)%"a, ,%a-%,%. (s +e have held in Tan v. Comelec, $# (%')%''a, ! a" a()%"%'*a%+# 0a'# (!#' "! "#0#''a*%, -a* $# ,%"& !  a 0*%)%"a, *!'#0u%!" !* $# 'a)# !* '%)%,a* a0' $%0$ #*# $# 'u-#0 ! $# a()%"%'*a%+# 0!),a%" "t is clear rom Paredes that the criminal case against petitioner, already fled and pending +ith the Sandiganbayan, may proceed despite the dismissal o the administrative case arising out o the same acts)  >(* B) -O//-A an investigation by the Ombudsman o the criminal case or alsifcation and violation o the (nti=rat and -orrupt 6ractices (ct and an in4uiry into the administrative charges by the -ommission on /lections %-O//-& are entirely independent proceedings, neither o +hich results in or concludes the other)  >he established rule is that an absolution rom a criminal charge is not a bar to an administrative prosecution, or vice versa) >he dismissal o an administrative case does not necessarily bar the fling o a criminal prosecution or the same or similar acts +hich +ere the sub:ect o the administrative complaint) P#%%!"#*' a*&u# $a $# (%')%''a, - $# O)-u(')a" ! $# a()%"%'*a%+# 0a'# a&a%"' $#) -a'#( !" $# 'a)# 'u-#0 )a#* '$!u,( !#*a# ! (%')%'' $# 0*%)%"a, 0a'# -#0au'# $# ua"u) ! *!! %" 0*%)%"a, 0a'#' %' *!! -#!"( *#a'!"a-,# (!u- $%,# $a %" a()%"%'*a%+# 0a'#' %' !", 'u-'a"%a, #+%(#"0# )7hile that may be true, % '$!u,( ,%#%'# -# '*#''#( $a $# -a'%' ! a()%"%'*a%+# ,%a-%,% (%9#*' *!) 0*%)%"a, ,%a-%,%. T$# u*!'# ! a()%"%'*a%+# *!0##(%"&' %' )a%", ! *!#0 $# u-,%0 '#*+%0# -a'#( !" $# %)#$!"!*#( *%"0%,# $a a u-,%0 !;0# %' a u-,%0 *u'. O" $# !$#* $a"( $# u*!'# !  $# 0*%)%"a, *!'#0u%!" %' $# u"%'$)#" ! 0*%)#.

) >o sustain petitionerhis +ill also amount to untold delays in criminal proceedings beore the Sandiganbayan and Ombudsman, as every criminal trial and investigation beore these bodies +ill be made to a+ait the results o pending administrative investigations) #uch is not the intent o the ramers o the -onstitution and the la+s governing public ocers) 6.  >he present case di1ers rom Larin because here, the administrative case +as fled independently o the criminal case) >he administrative case +as not fled on the basis o a criminal conviction, as in act, the administrative case +as dismissed +ithout regard or the results o the criminal case) >his is in contrast +ith Larin, +here the administrative case +as dismissed only ater its basis, the criminal conviction, +as overturned on appeal) E) >he independent nature o a criminal prosecution dictates that the Sandiganbayan must determine petitionerhe court is duty=bound to e0ercise its independent :udgment) $ "t is not ousted o its :urisdiction by the ruling in the

administrative proceeding) "t is a0iomatic that +hen the court obtains :urisdiction over a case, it continues to retain it until the case is terminated) 5) Fnder the 'ules o -ourt, petitioner