sandiganbayan seventh division presentsb.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions/2017/f_crim_sb-16-crm... ·...

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SANDIGANBAYAN

Quezon City

Seventh Division

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Crim. Case No. SB-16-CRM-0120

Plaintiff,Present:

Gesmundo, J., Chairperson-versus- Gomez-Estoesta, J. and

TERESA PEPITO ALEGADO, Promulgated:Accused.

X X

Trespeses, J.

lulgated: a f)

DECISION

GOMEZ-ESTOESTA, J.;

The appointment of Engineer Danilo A. Capangpangan to the positionof General Services Officer of the Municipality of Consolacion, Cebu led tothe filing of the present charge against accused Teresa Pepito Alegado["accused"], incumbent Municipal Mayor of Consolacion, Cebu, for thecrime of Unlawful Appointment punishable under Article 244 of the RevisedPenal Code. ThQ accusatory portion of the Information dated December 9,2014' is quoted below:

That on 1 August 2011 or sometime prior to subsequent thereto, inthe [Mjunicipality of Consolacion, Province of Cebu, Philippines, andwithin the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accusedTERESA P. ALEGADO, a high-ranking public officer, being the MunicipalMayor of Consolacion, Cebu (SO 27), and as such is the appointingauthority of the said office in such capacity and committing the offense inrelation to office, taking advantage of her public position, with deliberateintent, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously make anunlawful appointment by appointing DANILO A. CAPANGPANGAN asGeneral Services Officer of the Municipality of Consolacion[,] Cebu,accused TERESA P. ALEGADO knowing fully well at the time she madethe appointment that DANILO A. CAPANGPANGAN lacks thequalification as he failed to meet the educational requirement and of theexperience required of the position under the Local Government Code for aperson to be appointed as General Services Officer, hence is ineligible for

Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1-2

/L

/■

People V. Teresa Pepito Alegado 2 | P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0120

DECISION

appointment as General Services Officer, to the damage and prejudice ofthe government and of public interest.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

A Hold Departure Order was issued by this Court on March 21,2016.^

Upon arraignment held on April 29,2016, accused, assisted by counsel,pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.^

Following the conclusion of the preliminary conference, pre-trial wasconducted on August 9, 2016 wherein the Court issued a Pre-Trial Order"^containing the following stipulations entered into by the parties:^

I

ADMITTED FACTS

1) The identity of accused Teresa Pepito Alegado (Alegado);

2) That at the time material to this case, or on August 1,2011, accused Alegadowas a public officer, being the Municipal Mayor of Consolacion, Cebu;

3) That at the time material to this case, or on August 1,2011, accused Alegadowas the appointing authority of the Local Government of Consolacion,Cebu; and

4) The appointment of Engr. Danilo Capangpangan needed the validation ofthe Civil Service Commission.

The parties further stipulated that the lone issue to be resolved iswhether or not accused violated Art. 244 of the Revised Penal Code on

Unlawful Appointment.^

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

As this case is covered by the Judicial Affidavit Rule {A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, effective January 1,2013), judicial affidavits of witnesses were submittedwhich took the place of their direct testimonies.

The Prosecution presented the following witnesses, whose testimoniesare summed in this wise:

1. Ma. Victoria R. Gabud ["Gabud"], then Director II of the CivilService Commission Cebu North Field Office (CSC-CNFO) from October2011 until November 30, 2015, was responsible for the processing, review,and evaluation of post-audit appointments issued by accredited agencies. Shemade the verification that all the supporting documents pertaining toappointments were complete.^

Gabud alleged in her Judicial Affidavit that she processed, reviewed, orevaluated the appointment of Engineer Danilo A. Capangpangan ["Engr.Capangpangan''] as General Services Officer (GSO) of the local government

- Id at 49

^ Id. at 61

Id. at 232-240

^ Id. at. 232; The same admitted facts are incorporated in the parties' Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues.^ Records, Vol. 1, p. 239' Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Victoria R. Gabud (Records, Vol. 1, pp. 79-80)

i i /

People V. Teresa Pepito Alegado

Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0120

DECISION

3 I P a g e

unit (LGU) of Consolacion, Cebu, an accredited agency, including all itssupporting documents, viz'}

Exhibits Documents

"D" to

«D-1"

Position Description Form

"E" to

"E-3-a"

Personal Data Sheet (PDS) of Engr. Capangpangan

«F»» Certification of Availability of Funds dated July 28, 2011issued by the municipal accountant

"G" to

"G-1"

Appointment Paper of Engr. Capangpangan as GSO

"K» to

"K-1"

Report on Appointments Issued for the month of August 2011

Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 282, Series of 2011

Gabud particularly evaluated the qualifications of Engr. Capangpanganas indicated in his PDS^ vis-a-vis the qualification standards'® for the positionof GSO pursuant to Section 490, par. (a) of Republic Act No. 7160,^^ otherwiseknown as the Local Government Code of 1991, to wit:

Qualifications Requiredby Section 490 of the

Local Government Code

Qualifications as stated in

the PDS of Engr.Capangpangan

Education A holder of a collegedegree on publicadministration, businessadministration and

management from arecognized college oruniversity.

Bachelor of Science in Civil

Engineering

^Id. at 81

' Exhibit "E". See also Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Victoria R. Gabud (Records, Vol. 1, p. 83)'® Exhibit "M"

'' The cited section provides:

SECTION 490. Qualifications, Powers and Duties. — (a) No person shall be appointedgeneral services officer unless he is a citizen of the Philippines, a resident of the local governmentunit concerned, of good moral character, a holder of a college.degree on (sic) public administration,business administration and management from a recognized college or university, and a first gradecivil service eligible or its equivalent. He must have acquired experience in general services,including management of supply, property, solid waste disposal, and general sanitation for at leastfive (5) years in the case of the provincial or city general services officer, and at least three (3) yearsin the case of the municipal general services officer.

XXX

f V

People V. Teresa Peplto AlegadoCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0120

DECISION

4 I P a g e

Experience Experience in generalservices, includingmanagement of supply,property, solid wastedisposal, and generalsanitation for at least three

(3) years in the case of themunicipal general servicesofficer.

Project DevelopmentOfficer I from 1991 to 2011.

Designated as GSO onOctober 4, 2010.

Designated as MunicipalEnvironment and Natural

Resources Officer on

November 23, 2010.

Gabud invalidated the appointment by issuing a letter of invalidation'^and releasing an RAI (Report on Appointments Issued)'^ to the Municipalityof Consolacion stating that the appointment of Engr. Capangpangan wasinvalidated on ground that he failed to meet the education and experiencerequirements for the position under the Local Government Code of 1991 orRepublic Act No. 7160.

Subsequently, Gabud came to know that accused appealed theinvalidation before CSC Regional Office No. VII because she was furnisheda copy of the latter's Memorandum of Appeal. Eventually, however, she wasrequired to comment on the same. Her Comment'^ stated:

XXX

On March 26, 2012, this Office invalidated the above mentionedappointment on the ground that Engr. Capangpangan failed to meet theeducation and experience requirements for the proposed position.

Per record on file with this Office, Engr. Capangpangan was agraduate of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, a licensed CivilEngineer and presently holding the position of Project Development OfficerI (PDO I). The duties and responsibilities enumerated in his PositionDescription Form (PDF) for PDO I are the following: 1) Prepares ProjectDesigns and supporting documents; 2) Prepares feasibility study; 3)Drafting; and 4) Performs related jobs.

On the other hand, the qualification requirements for a GeneralService Officer provided in RA 7160 (Section 490, Article twenty. Chapterthree of the Local Government Code of 1991) are as follows:

Education - a holder of college degree on public administration,business administration and management from arecognized college or university;

Training - none required;

Experience - must have acquired three (3) years (sic) experiencein general services, including management of supply,property, solid waste disposal, and general sanitation;and

Exhibit "L"

Exhibit "M"

Exhibit "N" to "N-4'

Exhibit "O"

i V ■

People V. Teresa Pepito AlegadoCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0120

DECISION

5 I P a e 6

Eligibility - first grade civil service eligible or its equivalent.

Further, the general services officer shall take charge of the officeon general services and shall:

1) Formulate measures for the consideration of thesanggunian and provide technical assistance and support tothe X X X mayor, x x x, in carrying out measures to ensure thedelivery of basic services and provision of adequate facilitiespursuant to Section 17 of this Code and which rquire (sic)general services expertise and technical support services;

2) Develop plans and strategies and upon approval thereofby the X X X mayor, x x x, implement the same, particularlythose which have to do with the general services supportiveof the welfare of the inhabitants x x x;

3) In addition to the foregoing duties and functions, thegeneral services officer shall:

i) Take custody of and be accountable for allproperties, real or personal, owned by the localgovernment unit and those granted to it in the formof donation, reparation, assistance and counterpart ofjoint projects;

ii) X X X ;

iii) X X x;

iv) X X x;

v) Maintain and supervise janitorial, security,landscaping and other related services in all localgovernment public buildings and other real property,whether owned or leased by the local governmentunit;

vi) X X X ;

In her appeal. Mayor Alegado presented the following contentions:

1) The appointment of Engr. Danilo Capangpangan asGeneral Services Officer is urgent and necessary in order notto jeopardize the services of the municipality;

2) Due to the urgency, the municipality exerted its bestefforts to look/search for the most qualified public servantqualified to assume the position of General Services Officer;

3) X X X ;

4) Unfortunately, there was no available eligible andqualified personnel who possess (sic) the necessaryexperience and education who applied for the said position;

5) Appellant was then constrained to select from themunicipality's existing roster and chose Engr.Capangpangan as General Services Officer due to hisimpressive work and job performance including his longexposure and experience at the General Services Office;

6) X X x;

f v'


DECISION

7) In the interest of equity and compassion. Appellant isearnestly and humbly begging this honourable (sic) officethat the decision invalidating the appointment of Engr.Danilo Capangpangan as General Services Officer of theMunicipality of Consolacion be reconsidered and that thesaid appointment be approved.

Apparently, Engr. Capangpangan does not possess and failed tomeet the education and experience required of the position. The contentionsor justifications cited by Mayor Alegado in support of her appeal cannottake the place of the same.

This Office, therefore, respectfully recommends that the instantappeal be denied for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)

MA. VICTORIA R. GABUD

Director II

Gabud later learned that the appeal of accused was dismissed by theCSC Regional Office No. VII in its Decision No. 12-0101 dated November22, 2012.'^

On cross-examination, Gabud testified that the Personnel SelectionBoard was tasked to screen or evaluate the qualifications of the applicant.Additionally, a Sangguniang Bayan resolution was required if theappointment pertained to a department head, such as the position of GSO.*® Ifthe appointment was invalidated, the local government unit concerned has theoption to appeal the invalidation to the field office, and if the same was denied,an appeal may be made to the central office.'^

On re-direct examination, Gabud stated that as a general practice, if anagency endorsed a notice of vacancy to her office, it will be acted on pursuantto the request (i.e. if there is a request for publication, then the notice will bepublished). When she reviewed the subject appointment vis-a-vis the Noticeof Vacancy which was endorsed to her office, Gabud noticed that theeducational qualification as indicated in the Notice of Vacancy did not complywith the required standards as provided in the Local Government Code of1991?^

On re-cross examination, Gabud averred that a local government unithas fifteen (15) days from receipt of an invalidated appointment within whichto appeal the same. The Municipality of Consolacion was able to submit itsappeal within the said period.^'

Exhibit "P" to "P-3"

"TSN dated August 15,2016, p. 14Id. at 15

"W. at 16-172° id at 22-232' Id at 24-25

/


DECISION

7 I P a g e

2. Merlinda Flores-Quillano ["Quillano"], Director II of the CSC-CNFO since December 1, 2015.

Quillano stated in her Judicial Affidavit that upon receiving a subpoenafrom the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OS?) requiring her to submitoriginal/certified true copies of documents pertinent to the appointment ofEngr. Capangpangan as GSO, she submitted certified true copies of thefollowing documents, including those attached to the 201 Files of Engr.Capangpangan:^^

Exhibits Documents

"C" to

"C-2"

Qualification Standards Manual for the position of GeneralServices Officer (GSO), Consolacion, Cebu pursuant toSection 490 (a) of the Local Government Code of 1991.

"E" to

«E-3"

PDS of Engr. Capangpangan

"G" to

"G-1"

Appointment Paper dated August 1, 2011 of Engr.Capangpangan for the position of GSO of Consolacion, Cebu

"H" Oath of Office dated August 1, 2011 of Engr. Capangpanganfor the position of GSO administered by accused

Certificate of Assumption of Office dated August 1, 2011 ofEngr. Capangpangan as GSO

"K" Report on Appointments for the month of August 2011 ofConsolacion, Cebu

"M" Letter of invalidation dated March 26, 2012 of Gabudaddressed to accused

"N" to

"N-4"

Appeal Memorandum dated June 29, 2012 submitted byaccused

«0'< Comment dated August 31, 2012 of Gabud

«P" to

"P-3"

Decision No. 12-0101 dated November 22, 2012 issued byCSC Regional Office No. VII

M'J'M Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 282 Series of 2011 datedAugust 3, 2011

"U" Service Record of Engr. Capangpangan

Examination Record Card of Capangpangan

Quillano certified that these documents were true and authenticphotocopies of records on file within her custody, except for the Memorandumof Appeal filed by accused.^^

On cross-examination, Quillano disclosed that in case of an invalidatedappointment, the appointee should assume his old position if no appeal wasmade. If the CSC issued an order, and the local government unit did notcomply therewith, a sanction would be warranted.^"^

3. Philip Barnie B. Lampong ["Lampong"], Human ResourcesManagement Officer (HRMO) III of Consolacion, Cebu since December 10,2015. He asseverated in his Judicial Affidavit that he was required by the OS?

Judicial Affidavit of Merlinda Flores-Quillano (Records, Vol. 1, pp. 114-115)Id. at 119; TSN dated August 16,2016, p. 6TSN dated August 16, 2016, pp. 11-12

i


DECISION

8 I P 3 g e

to submit certified true copies of various documents in relation to theinvalidated appointment of Engr. Capangpangan. His office has the custodyof the original copies of the following:^^

Exhibits Documents

"A" Indorsement dated January 13, 2013«B" Notice of Vacancy dated January 13, 2011

"C" to

"C-2"

Qualification Standards Manual for the position of GeneralServices Officer (GSO), Consolacion, Cebu pursuant toSection 490 (a) of the Local Government Code of 1991,

"D" to

«D-1"

Position Description Form

"E" to

«E-3"

PDS of Engr. Capangpangan

«F" Certification dated July 28, 2011 of Municipal Accountant asto the availability of funds to support the appointment of Engr.Capangpangan


(tp* Certificate of Assumption of Office dated August 1, 2011 ofEngr. Capangpangan as GSO

«J" Certification of Personnel Selection Board (PSB) datedAugust 16,2011

«L" Letter dated March 26, 2012 of Gabud addressed to accused

"R" Certification dated May 16,2016 of Philip Bamie Lampong

"S" Letter dated September 5, 2011 of accused addressed toDirector Alice May S. Parcon, Officer-in-Charge, CSC-CNFO

When asked on cross-examination if he has in his possession theMemorandum dated December 26, 2012, in which accused ordered Engr.Capangpangan to assume his previous position as Project DevelopmentOfficer I due to the fact that his appointment as GSO was disapproved by theCSC Regional Office No. VII, Lampong answered in the affirmative.^^

4. Ma. Analee G. Gungob ["Gungob"], Municipal Councilor ofConsolacion, Cebu from June 30, 2010 up to June 30, 2016.

In her Judicial Affidavit, Gungob averred that in addition to her primaryduty to enact ordinances for the Municipality of Consolacion, she wasappointed by the Sangguniang Bayan as a member of the Personnel SelectionBoard (PSB) from 2010 up to early 2012.^^ As a member of the PSB, she wastasked with concurring in or confirming appointments of department headsand/or salary grade level 24 employees made by the mayor. Sometime in July2011, the PSB deliberated on the application of Engr. Capangpangan for theposition of GSO.^® This was accomplished by comparing Engr.Capangpangan's PDS^^ to the Notice of Vacancy issued by accused. It

Judicial Affidavit of Philip Bamie B. Lampong (Records, Vol. I, pp. 141-146)TSN dated September 7,2016, p. 41" Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Analee G. Gungob (Records, Vol. 1, p. 167)28 Ibid

2' Exhibit "E"


DECISION

9 I P a g e

appearing that Engr. Capangpangan's submitted documents complied with thequalification standards as stated in the Notice of Vacancy, the PSBrecommended his appointment to the position of GSO^' and issued aCertification stating that the appointment was deliberated using the saiddocuments.^^

Gungob further stated that the Sangguniang Bayan passed ResolutionNo. 282, Series of 2011, which concurred/confirmed the appointment madeby accused. Since the Sanggunian was not the appointing authority, it reliedon the Mayor's representations as to the applicant's qualifications.

On cross-examination, Gungob affirmed that the Municipal Mayorcould not endorse the appointment of Engr. Capangpangan without therecommendation and approval of the PSB.^"^ She likewise affirmed that theappointment of Engr. Capangpangan could not be forwarded to the CSC foraction without a resolution issued by the municipal council.^^

Following the presentation of its witnesses, the Prosecution formallyoffered its documentary exhibits listed below:

Exhibits Documents

«A" Indorsement dated January 13,2013

Notice of Vacancy dated January 13,2011

«C" Qualification Standards Manual for the position of GeneralSeryices Officer (GSO), Consolacion, Cebu pursuant toSection 490 (a) of the Local Government Code of 1991.

"D" Position Description Form

«E" PDS of Engr. Capangpangan

«F" Certification dated July 28, 2011 of Municipal Accountant as.to the availability of funds to support the appointment of Engr.Capangpangan

«G" Appointment Paper dated August 1, 2011 of Engr.Capangpangan for the position of GSO of Consolacion, Cebu


Certificate of Assumption of Office dated August 1, 2011 ofEngr. Capangpangan as GSO

«J" Certification of Personnel Selection Board (PSB) datedAugust 16,2011

"K" Report on Appointments for the month of August 2011 ofConsolacion, Cebu

Letter dated March 26,2012 of Gabud addressed to accused

"M" Letter of invalidation dated March 26, 2012 of Gabudaddressed to accused

"N" Memorandum of Appeal dated June 29, 2012 submitted byaccused

«0" Comment dated August 31, 2012 of Gabud

Exhibit "B"

Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Analee G. Gungob (Records, Vol. I, p. 168)Exhibit "J"

" Exhibit "T"

TSN dated September 7, 2016, p. 18at 19

1i


DECISION

10 I P a g e

Decision No. 12-0101 dated November 22, 2012 issued byCSC Regional Office No. VII

"Q" Letter-complaint and Complaint-affidavit dated February 13,2013

"R" Certification dated May 16, 2016 of Philip Bamie Lampong

"S" Letter dated September 5, 2011 of accused addressed toDirector Alice May S. Parcon, Officer-in-Charge, CSC-CNFO

tfj"" Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 282 Series of 2011 datedAugust 3,2011

"U" Service Record of Engr. Capangpangan

Examination Record Card of Capangpangan

In a Resolution dated October 4, 2016,^^ this Court admitted all theexhibits offered by the Prosecution.

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

For its part, the Defense presented witnesses Salome L. Palang, andaccused herself.

1. Salome L. Palang ["Palang"], then HRMO-Designate of theMunicipality of Consolacion from July 7, 2010 to December 9, 2015, and aformer member of the FSB. Her office was in-charge of the records of all ofthe municipality's employees.

In her Judicial Affidavit, Palang stated that around January 2011, theposition of GSO was vacant. Palang informed accused of such fact and shewas instructed by the latter to prepare a Notice of Vacancy, which the accusedlater signed for posting.^^ Palang then prepared an Indorsement dated January13, 2011^^ which was forwarded to the CSC. Palang thereafter posted copiesof the Notice of Vacancy^^ in designated areas in order to inform interestedparties who may wish to apply for the position. The Notice of Vacancy read:

NOTICE OF VACANCY

1. Region : VII

2. Local Government : Consolacion, CebuUnit

3. Position : General Services Officer

4. Item No. : 80 (New Item)5. Salary Grade/Level : 24/2

6. Education : College Degree Holder(preferably Engineering)

7. Experience : 3 years (sic) experience in general services8. Training : None

9. Eligibility : CSC Professional or its equivalent

(Sgd.)Teresa P. Alegado

Records, Vol. 2, pp. 22-23" Judicial Affidavit of Salome L. Palang (Records, Vol. 1, p. 189)

Exhibit "1"

Exhibit "2"

f


DECISION

111 P a g e

Municipal MayorDate: Jan. 13, 2011

As there was no eligible applicant at the time of the posting of theNotice of Vacancy, the Municipality was constrained, due to urgency, tochoose Engr. Capangpangan. Accused then called on the PSB to screen orevaluate his qualifications for the position of GSO. Thereafter, the PSBunanimously selected and recommended Engr. Capangpangan for the saidposition."*® Before his appointment was submitted to the CSC for review, theSangguniang Bay an passed Resolution No. 282, Series of 2011"** whichunanimously confirmed the same."*^ Palang prepared a Certification Letter"*^addressed to Alice May S. Parcon, the Director of the CSC-CNFO, andsubmitted all pertinent documents to the said Office for its review of theappointment. Palang eventually learned that the CSC-CNFO invalidated thesubject appointment, which ruling accused eventually appealed before theCSC Regional Office.

On cross-examination, Palang affirmed that she prepared the Notice ofVacancy for the position of GSO."*"* When asked if she was aware that Section490 of the Local Government Code of 1991 required that the GSO should bea holder of a degree in public administration, business administration andmanagement, Palang alluded that she could not recall."*^

When the Court confi-onted her with a clarificatory question as to whatis the basis of the qualification "preferably an engineer" in the Notice ofVacancy, Palang answered that there may have been an error in the preparationof said Notice."*^ She went on to say that her office submitted to the CSC theNotice of Vacancy for its comment and review, but that there was no commentor correction by the CSC on the documents submitted."*^

2. TERESA PEPITO ALEGADO, the incumbent Municipal Mayor ofConsolacion, Cebu since June 30, 2010.

In her Judicial Affidavit, accused alleged that, around January 2011, theMunicipality did not have a GSO. She instructed Palang, the municipalHRMO, to prepare a Notice of Vacancy and to post the same in designatedareas in order to inform the general public of such vacancy. Accused alsodirected Palang to make an Indorsement and forward it together with theNotice of Vacancy to the CSC."*®

As there was no eligible applicant for the position of GSO, Engr.Capangpangan was chosen from among the Municipality's roster, and accusedcalled on the PSB to convene and deliberate his selection and appointment.

Exhibit "3"; See also Judicial Affidavit of Salome L. Palang (Records, Vol. 1, p. 190)Exhibit "8"

Judicial Affidavit of Salome L. Palang (Records, Vol. 1, p. 191)Exhibit "6"

TSN dated February 6, 2017, p. 34Id. at 36

Id at 37-38

at38

Judicial Affidavit of Teresa P. Alegado (Records, Vol. 1, pp. 205-206)

f ly

People V. Teresa Pepito Alegado 12 | P ̂ g eCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0120

DECISION

After thorough deliberation and screening, the PSB issued a Certificationdated August 16, 2011 unanimously recommending Engr. Capangpangan'sappointment."^^ The PSB was comprised of the following: two (2)Sangguniang Bayan members (including Gungob), a second-levelrepresentative, HRMO-Designate Palang, and accused herself.

Subsequently, the Sangguniang Bayan passed Resolution No. 282,Series of 2011 which unanimously confirmed the appointment of Engr.Capangpangan as GSO.^® Thereafter, the HRMO prepared a certification letterand, together with all of the supporting documents pertinent to theappointment, were submitted to the CSC-CNFO.

Upon learning that the CSC-CNFO invalidated the appointment,accused appealed the ruling because of the sense of urgency in theappointment of a GSO so as not to hamper the delivery of basic services toher constituents. Also, there were no other qualified applicants for the saidposition despite the fact that the Notice of Vacancy had already been postedin public places.^' Nonetheless, accused's appeal was dismissed by CSCRegional Office No. VII in Decision No. 12-0101 dated November 22,2012.^^

After receiving the aforesaid ruling rendered by the CSC RegionalOffice No. VII, accused complied therewith by issuing a Memorandum datedDecember 26, 2012^^ addressed to Engr. Capangpangan informing him of thefact that his appointment was invalidated. Accordingly, accused ordered Engr.Capangpangan to return to his former position as Project Development OfficerI and to cease his functions as GSO.^"^

Accused clarified that the appointment of Engr. Capangpangan couldnot proceed without passing through the PSB.^^ In fact, accused, in hercapacity as Municipal Mayor, could not appoint on her own a person to theposition of GSO without a resolution issued by the Sangguniang Bayanconfirming the same.^^

On cross-examination, accused testified that, upon receiving notice thatthe CSC-CNFO invalidated the appointment, she did not immediately orderEngr. Capangpangan to revert back to his former position because she hadappealed the invalidation and believed that the same would be granted. Shereiterated that there were no other applicants available for the position ofGSO, and she emphasized the urgency in having the same filled as it played avital role in the business of the Municipality.^^ Accused further admitted thatshe was a first-time mayor and that she relied on the Human Resources Officer

Exhibit "3". See also Judicial Affidavit of Teresa P. Alegado (Records, Vol. 1, pp. 206-207)Exhibit "8". See also Judicial Affidavit of Teresa P. Alegado (Records, Vol. 1, p. 207)Judicial Affidavit of Teresa P. Alegado (Records, Vol. 1, pp. 207-208)" Exhibit "4"

Exhibit "7"

Judicial Affidavit of Teresa P. Alegado (Records, Vol. 1, pp. 208)«Ibid

" Id. at 209TSN dated February 6, 2017, pp. 20-21

1

People V. Teresa Pepito Ategado


DECISION

13 I P a g e

to see to it that Engr. Capangpangan met the qualifications under the law forthe position of GSO.^^

On clarificatory question by the Court whether she ordered Engr.Capangpangan to refund the salary he supposedly received from the time hewas appointed until the same was invalidated, accused answered that she haddiscussed the matter with Engr. Capangpangan and that he was willing torefund the same upon receipt of an order from the CSC.^^

After the presentation of its witnesses, the Defense formally offered thefollowing exhibits:

Exhibits Documents

Indorsement dated January 13,2013

"2" Notice of Vacancy dated January 13,2011

"3" Certification of the Personnel Selection Board (FSB) datedAugust 16, 2011

«4»» Decision No. 12-0101 dated November 22, 2012 issued byCSC Regional Office No. VII

«5" Certification dated May 16, 2016 issued by Philip BamieLampong

"6" Letter dated September 5, 2011 of Salome Palang addressedto Director Alice May Parcon, CSC-CNFO

Memorandum dated December 26,2012 of accused addressedto Engr. Capangpangan

«8" Sanggunians Bayan Resolution No. 282 Series of 2011

In its Resolution^® dated February 6, 2017, this Court admitted all theexhibits offered by the Defense.

Meantime, this Court issued a Resolution^' dated February 28, 2017ordering the suspension pendente lite of accused for a period of ninety (90)days. Accused moved for the reconsideration of the said ruling, but this Courtdenied the same in its Resolution dated April 11, 2017.

Following the filing of the parties' respective Memoranda, this casewas submitted for Decision.

Id. at 24-26

at 26-27

Records, Voi. 2, pp. 155-157Records, Vol. 2, pp. 176-178Memorandum for the Accused (Records, Vol. 2, pp. 181-197); Memorandum for the Prosecution (Records,

Vol.2, pp. 201-215)

/ /


DECISION

THE COURTIS RULING

In People v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division) and Villapando,^^ theSupreme Court, quoting the challenged ruling rendered by the Fourth Divisionof this Court, significantly echoed:

XXX

In ascertaining the legal qualifications of a particular appointee to apublic office, "there must be a law providing for the qualifications of aperson to be nominated or appointed" therein. To illuminate further. JusticeRodolfo Palattao succinctly discussed in his book that the qualification of apublic officer to hold a particular position in the government is provided forby law, which may refer to educational attainment, civil service eligibilityor experience:

As the title suggests, the offender in this article is a

public officer who nominates or appoints a person to a publicoffice. The person nominated or appointed is not qualifiedand his lack of qualification is known to the party making

the nomination or appointment. The qualification of a publicofficer to hold a particular position in the government isprovided by law. The purpose of the law is to ensure that the

person appointed is competent to perform the duties of theoffice, thereby promoting efficiency in rendering publicservice.

The qualification to hold public office may refer toeducational attainment, civil service eligibility orexperience. For instance, for one to be appointed as judge,he must be a lawyer. So if the Judicial and Bar Councilnominates a person for appointment as Judge knowing himto be not a member of the Philippine Bar, such act constitutesa violation of the law under consideration.

XXX

The law providing the qualifications for the position of GSO (GeneralServices Officer) is found in the Local Government Code of 1991, specificallySection 490 (a) thereof, which is quoted as follows:

SECTION 490. Qualifications, Powers and Duties. — (a) Noperson shall be appointed general services officer unless he is a citizen of

the Philippines, a resident of the local government unit concerned, of goodmoral character, a holder of a college degree on (sic) publicadministration, business administration and management from a

recognized college or university, and a first grade civil service eligible orits equivalent. He must have acquired experience in general services,including management of supply, property, solid waste disposal, andgeneral sanitation for at least five (5) years in the case of the provincial or

" G.R. No. 164185, July 23, 2008, which cited the Decision dated May 20, 2004 of the Sandiganbayan,Fourth Division, in Criminal Case No. 27465

/


DECISION

city general services officer, and at least three (3) years in the case of themunicipal general services officer. (Emphasis supplied)

XXX

In this case, it is the appointment by the accused of Engr. Capangpanganas GSO of the Municipality of Consolacion, Cebu, which led to her indictmentfor the crime of Unlawful Appointment penalized under Article 244 of theRevised Penal Code, viz:

ART. 244. Unlawful appointments. - Any public officer who shallknowingly nominate or appoint to any public office any person lacking thelegal qualifications therefor, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and afine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

To warrant a conviction under this provision, the following elementsmust be established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution:^'^

1. That the offender is a public officer.

2. That he [or she] nominates or appoints a person to a public office.

3. That such person lacks the legal qualifications therefor.

4. That the offender knows that his nominee or appointee lacks thequalifications at the time he [or she] made the nomination or appointment.

While it is highly perceptible that Engr. Capangpangan lacked the legalqualification to be appointed to the position of GSO, it is found that such factalone is not enough to impose upon the accused liability for the crime charged.

An assessment of the existence of the elements will show, as follows:

Accused who is the Municipal

Mayor of Consolacion. Cebu is a

PUBLIC OFFICER.

It was the subject of stipulation by the parties that "at the time materialto this case, or on August 1,2011, accused Alegado was a public officer, beingthe Municipal Mayor of Consolacion, Cebu".^^

Accused appointed Engr.

Capangpangan as GSO of

Consolacion. Cebu.

On August 1, 2011, accused appointed Engr. Capangpangan as GSO,^^which position heads the office on general services under the executive armof the Municipality of Consolacion, Cebu. The Sangguniang Bayansubsequently concurred in or confirmed the appointment by unanimous voteas evidenced by Resolution No. 282, Series of 2011.^^

" Luis B. Reyes, Revised Penal Code (Book Two) 452 (2002)" Records, Vol. I, p. 232^ Appointment Paper of Engr. Capangpangan (Exhibit "G" for the Prosecution); Report on AppointmentsIssued (Exhibit "K" for the Prosecution)

Exhibit "T" for the Prosecution

1 7

People V. Teresa Pepito Alegado


DECISION

16 I P a g e

Engr. Capangpangan lacks the

LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE

POSITION OF GSO.

The following matrix illustrates the education and experiencequalification standards for the position of GSO as required by Section 490 (a)of the Local Government Code of 1991 vis-d-vis Engr. Capangpangan'scredentials as stated in his PDS:^^

Qualifications Requiredby Section 490 of the

Local Government Code

Qualifications as stated inthe PDS of Engr.Capangpangan

Education A holder of a collegedegree in publicadministration, businessadministration and

management from arecognized college oruniversity.

Bachelor of Science in Civil

Engineering

Experience Experience in generalservices, includingmanagement of supply,property, solid wastedisposal, and generalsanitation for at least three

(3) years in the case of themunicipal general servicesofficer.

Project DevelopmentOfficer I from 1991 to 2011.

Designated as GSO onOctober 4, 2010.

Designated as MunicipalEnvironment and Natural

Resources Officer on

November 23,2010.

Gabud, the former Director of the CSC-CNFO, reviewed theappointment of Engr. Capangpangan in conjunction with the supportingdocuments submitted. However, she decided to invalidate the same for non-compliance with the law. In her Judicial Affidavit, Gabud stated:^^

XXX

18. Q. What was the result of your evaluation/review and post-audit withrespect to the appointment of Engr. Capangpangan as GSO?

A. I invalidated the said appointment, Sir.

19. Q. When you said you invalidated the appointment, what do you meanby that madam?

A. For accredited agencies, the term we use is invalidated, meaningthey are non-compliance (sic) with the requirements under the law. For non-accredited it means disapproved.

20. Q. Why did you invalidate the appointment of Engr. Capangpangan asGSO?

Exhibit "E" for the Prosecution. See also Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Victoria R. Gabud (Records, Vol. 1, p83)

Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Victoria R. Gabud (Records, Vol. 1, pp. 82-83)

1 7


DECISION

A. Because the appointee failed to meet the education and experiencerequirements under the Local Government Code for the position, Sir.

21. Q. Based on the documents that you have evaluated/reviewed and post-audited, what are the qualifications of Engr. Capangpangan with respect toeducation and experience, as stated in his PDS?

A. With respect to education, Engr. Capangpangan is [a holder of a]Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering and not a holder of college degree(sic) on public administration, business administration and managementfrom a recognize (sic) college or university.

With respect to his experience, and prior to his appointment onAugust 1,2011, Engr. Capangpangan was occupying the position of ProjectDevelopment Officer I from 1991 to 2011, he was also designated as GSOon October 4, 2010 and Municipal Environment and Natural ResourcesOfficer on November 23, 2010. Thus, Engr. Capangpangan failed to meetthe three (3) years (sic) experience in general services, includingmanagement of supply, property, solid waste disposal and generalsanitation.

XXX

Records show, unfortunately, that Engr. Capangpangan's credentials,particularly those with respect to his education and experience, fall short ofthe qualification standards required by the Local Government Code of 1991for the position of GSO.

Engr. Capangpangan's educational attainment, or his degree in civilengineering, is vastly different from the required degree in publicadministration or business administration and management as specified by theLocal Government Code. Civil engineering is defined as the rendering of"services in the form of consultation, design, preparation of plans,specifications, estimates, erection, installation and supervision of theconstruction of streets, bridges, highways, railroads, airports and hangars,portworks, canals, river and shore improvements, lighthouses, and dry docks;buildings, fixed structures for irrigation, flood protection, drainage, watersupply and sewerage works; demolition of permanent structures; andtunnels."^° In contrast, public administration refers to "[t]he management orperformance of the executive duties of a government, institution, or business.In public law, the practical management and direction of the executivedepartment and its agencies."^' Business administration means "a program ofstudies in a college or university providing general knowledge of businessprinciples and practices".

Additionally, Engr. Capangpangan's work experience did not meet therequired minimum of at least three (3) years' experience in general services.Although Engr. Capangpangan was designated as GSO on October 4, 2010,and presumably began to work as such in an interim or acting capacity, it

Taken from Section 4 of Republic Act No. 544 or An Act to Regulate the Practice of Civil Engineering inthe Philippines [Civil Engineering Law], as amended by Republic Act No. 1582" Black's Law Dictionary 46 (Bryan A. Gamer ed., 2004)

Definition of Business Administration, available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionarv/business%20administration (last accessed March 31, 2017)

f /


DECISION

cannot be said that he had garnered the requisite minimum of at least three (3)years' experience in general services by the time of his appointment becausehe held such position for less than a year until he was appointed as GSO onAugust 1, 2011. It also bears noting that the other positions held by Engr.Capangpangan, i.e. Project Development Officer and Environment andNatural Resources Officer, pertain to work unrelated to general services,management of supply, property, solid waste disposal, and general sanitation.The functions of a project development officer pertain to project management,implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.^^ Incidentally, an environmentand natural resources officer is tasked to develop and implement environmentand natural resource projects - i.e. projects involving forest development,mining and utilization of mineral resources, and measures to control pollution,among others.^"^

While the existence of the firsts second, and third elements obtain inthis case, a loophole is found in the fourth element.

The Prosecution failed to prove

THAT ACCUSED KNEW THAT Engr.

Capangpangan LACKED THE

QUALIFICATIONS AT THE TIME SHE

MADE THE APPOINTMENT.

Essentially, it is the stance of the Prosecution that accused knew thatEngr. Capangpangan did not have the legal qualifications for GSO at the timeshe made the appointment on August 1, 2011. The grounds cited by theProsecution are:^^ (1) the Notice of Vacancy dated January 13, 2011 wasapproved by accused, and the same was "tailor-fitted" for Engr.Capangpangan as it replaced or altered the legal qualifications under the LocalGovernment Code of 1991 for his specific benefit; (2) accused cannot denythe ineligibility of Engr. Capangpangan as GSO because she was thechairperson of the PSB and his application was deliberated by the PSB priorto his appointment; (3) accused testified in court that she appointed Engr.Capangpangan as an incentive for his service to the Municipality, but whenasked about his qualifications as GSO, accused evaded the issue and passedblame to the PSB and the HRMO, both of which are under her direct controland supervision in her capacity as the chief executive of Consolacion, Cebu;(4) the final action on appointments belongs to accused, and thus, she cannotblame the CSC for the invalidation of the appointment of Engr.Capangpangan; and (5) after the appointment was invalidated, accused did notrefund the salaries received by her appointee.

A judicious scrutiny of the evidence presented, however, raisesreasonable doubt on whether the accused knew that her appointee, Engr.

Vide Re: Request for Approval of the Revised Qualification Standard for Project Development Officer Vand Human Resource Management Officer III in the Program Management Office, A.M. No. 06-3-07-SC,January 21,2010Taken from Section 37 of Republic Act No. 8749 or An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Air Pollution

Control Policy and For Other Purposes [Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999]Memorandum for the Prosecution (Records, Vol. 2, pp. 208-214)

/


DECISION

Capangpangan, lacked the legal qualifications at the time she made theappointment.

First At the time accused made the appointment, it cannot be said thatshe was motivated by ill will in that she purposely selected an unqualifiedapplicant; rather, it was by necessity and practicality that the PSB consideredEngr. Capangpangan for the position of GSO. Accused was convinced, albeitmistakenly, that Engr. Capangpangan was "very qualified"^^ as GSO based onhis prior experience. Accused focused on the fact that Engr. Capangpanganwas designated as GSO as early as October 4, 2010, and that the quality ofservice he had been delivering was satisfactory.^' Moreover, accused divulgedthat she chose Engr. Capangpangan as GSO because he was the lone applicantfor the position,'^ and considering that the office on general services was a"very vital department", there was an urgency in finding a suitable person tohead the same.

As testified by accused:'^

XXX

PROSEC. DELA TORRE

Q Despite the fact that the Letter of Invalidation clearly stated theineligibilities of Engr. Capangpangan?

A Yes, but I was discounting the possibility that it couldn't be deniedbecause as far as the urgency and the necessity of the particular office isconcerned in my municipality is very vital at that time. So, what I appealedto the Civil Service Commission is first and foremost, there was no otherapplicant when the office was opened for that position. And then secondly,the urgency.

Q Can you specify what do you mean by "urgency"?

A My town is highly urbanizing, GSO is a very vital departmentwhereby I really have to place somebody who has the passion and theinterest and I find that in his personality, aside from having been a designate.So, I tried my very best for that particular office to be filled so that all thenecessary services for the highly urbanizing municipality would be served.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COURT

AJ ESTOESTA

Q Is there no other person who can act as officer-in-charge [of the]General Services Office?

A For a longer time before my stint, because this happened in2010, this particular office has been always placed with a designate officer.So that I find it very vital that since the municipality was.already having aninflux of so much migrations [sic]. General Services is very vital to appointsomebody.

76TSN dated February 6, 2017, pp. 25-26" Ibid

'"W. at 25Id. at 21-22

y


DECISION

Second, While municipal mayors are empowered by the LocalGovernment Code of 1991 to appoint heads of departments and offices in theirrespective local government units, the same law requires that the sangguniangbayan concur in appointments made by them. Section 443 of the LocalGovernment Code of 1991 provides:

SECTION 443. Officials of the Municipal Government. —(a) There shall be in each municipality a municipal mayor, a municipal vice-mayor, sangguniang bayan members, a secretary to the sangguniang bayan,a municipal treasurer, a municipal assessor, a municipal accountant, amunicipal budget officer, a municipal planning and developmentcoordinator, a municipal engineer/building official, a municipal healthofficer and a municipal civil registrar.

XXX

(d) Unless otherwise provided herein, heads of departmentsand offices shall be appointed by the municipal mayor with theconcurrence of the majority of all the sangguniang bayan members,subject to civil service law, rules and regulations. The sangguniang bayanshall act on the appointment within fifteen (15) days from the date of itssubmission; otherwise, the same shall be deemed confirmed. (Emphasissupplied)

XXX

The Local Government Code of 1991 further states that mayors are tobe assisted by the PSB in the selection of personnel for employment, viz:

SECTION 80. Public Notice of Vacancy; Personnel SelectionBoard. — (a) Whenever a local executive decides to fill a vacant career

position, there shall be posted notices of the vacancy in at least three (3)conspicuous public places in the local government unit concemed for aperiod of not less than fifteen (15) days.

(b) There shall be established in every province, city ormunicipality a personnel selection board to assist the local chiefexecutive in the judicious and objective selection of personnel foremployment as well as for promotion, and in the formulation of suchpolicies as would contribute to employee welfare. (Emphasis supplied)

XXX

It would appear, therefore, that the appointment made by the accuseddid not border on her discretion alone. There were two (2) independent bodiesto complete the appointment process - the recommendation to be made by thePSB and the confirmation to be made by the Sangguniang Bayan.

Although accused appointed Engr. Capangpangan as GSO ofConsolacion, Cebu, it is difficult to conclude, as the Prosecution does, that shedid so with the knowledge that he lacked the legal qualifications at the timethe appointment was made on August 1, 2011. Several weeks prior to hisappointment, or on July 8, 2011, the PSB convened, screened, and deliberatedthoroughly on the application of Engr. Capangpangan as GSO, and, as a result

/

People V. Teresa Pepito Alegado 211 P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0120

DECISION

thereof, the said body recommended his appointment to the position.^® Two(2) days after Engr. Capangpangan was appointed as GSO by accused, theSangguniang Bay an duly confirmed the same, unanimously, as evidenced byResolution No. 282, Series of 2011.®'

If accused came to know that Engr. Capangpangan was not qualifiedfor the position, she could not have known of such fact at the time theappointment was issued because the PSB, and eventually the SangguniangBayan, did not make any findings, after due evaluation, that infirmities werepresent with respect to Engr. Capangpangan's credentials which would renderhim ineligible for the position of GSO. Stated differently, when accusedappointed Engr. Capangpangan as GSO, there were no clear indications whichwould have proved that she was aware of her appointee's unfitness for theposition and that she nonetheless made the appointment notwithstanding suchfact.

What was insinuated as a scheme to railroad the appointment in orderto "tailor-fit" the qualifications of the position for Engr. Capangpanganremains speculative. Not a single member of the PSB or the SangguniangBayan attempted to spill the beans, if any was to be made, on how Engr.Capangpangan was appointed as GSO. Apparently, even the testimony offeredby Municipal Councilor Ma. Analee G. Gungob, who also acted as PSBmember, confirmed the regularity in the appointment procedure followed forEngr. Capangpangan.

Third. The Notice of Vacancy®^ dated January 13, 2011 was posted inconspicuous, public places in Consolacion, Cebu for the purpose of informinginterested parties who may wish to apply for the vacant position concerned.The contents of the said Notice of Vacancy read:

NOTICE OF VACANCY

1. Region : VII

2. Local Government : Consolacion, CebuUnit

3. Position : General Services Officer

4. Item No. : 80 (New Item)5. Salary Grade/Level :24/2

6. Education : College Degree Holder(preferably Engineering)

7. Experience : 3 years (sic) experience in general services8. Training : None

9. Eligibility : CSC Professional or its equivalent

Date: Jan. 13, 2011

(Sgd.)Teresa P. AlegadoMunicipal Mayor

Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Analee G. Gungob (Records, Vol. 1 pp. 168-169). See also Certification datedAugust 16,2011 issued by the Personnel Selection Board (Exhibit "J" for the Prosecution)

Exhibit "T" for the Prosecution

Exhibit "B" for the Prosecution

f 1^;


DECISION

Obviously, this Notice was defective on its face. Item no. 6 thereofparticularly highlighted that the applicant be a holder of a college degree"preferably Engineering", but this did not comply with the education standardset in the Local Government Code of 1991 which instead required a holder ofa college degree in public administration, business administration andmanagement.^^

The Prosecution would have this Court subscribe to the notion that the

aforementioned defect was intentionally made by accused to supplant the lawby "tailor-fitting" the position for Engr. Capangpangan. However, theProsecution did not present any concrete proof in support of its theory. It isnoteworthy that no evidence, documentary or testimonial, was given by theProsecution proving that accused herself was the author of the Notice ofVacancy or that she gave instructions to her subordinates to change theeducational qualification from "public administration, businessadministration and management" to "engineering". Accusations are not proof;there must be corroborative evidence.^"*

What is apparent is that it was Palang, not accused, who authored theNotice of Vacancy, which fact she herself admitted in her Judicial Affidavit.^^That Palang prepared the Notice of Vacancy is vital in the resolution of thecase because the same document would go on to become the criterion, albeiterroneously, by which accused and the PSB evaluated, screened, ordetermined Engr. Capangpangan's fitness for the position of GSO. Duringtrial, accused testified that:®^

XXX

PROSEC. DELA TORRE

Q Madame Witness, you mentioned awhile ago that while Engr.Capangpangan was the officer-in-charge prior to his appointment as GSO,one of your basis is to give him incentive?

A No, not necessarily. Maybe the terminology is like that but in ourreal and actual situation, sometimes, we give due credence where credenceis due. And then, I find him very qualified in as much (sic) as he was alreadyrendering service.

PROSEC. DELA TORRE

Q What do you mean "qualified", Madame Witness?

A Qualified in terms of delivery of service.

Q How about the statutory provision of the Local Government Code?

A As far as the statutory provision is concerned, I relied it to (sic) myMR. Precisely, when the body was convened, I immediately open to (sic)

An Act Providing for a Local Government Code of 1991 [Local Government Code of 1991], Republic ActNo. 7160, §490(1991)People V. Ruiz, Jr., G.R. Nos. 135679 & 137375, October 10, 2001Judicial Affidavit of Salome L. Palang (Records, Vol. 1, p. 189). See also Judicial Affidavit of Teresa P.

Alegado (Records, Vol. 1, p. 205)TSN dated February 6, 2017, pp. 25-26

/


DECISION

the members of the PSB with all the necessary orientations andrequirements to all the members present.

XXX

Similarly, Gungob, who was appointed to the PSB from 2010 to 2012,disclosed that the PSB assessed or evaluated Engr. Capangpangan'squalifications as GSO using as basis the Notice of Vacancy, which wasprepared by Palang:®^

XXX

12. Q: How did the PSB deliberate on the application and/or appointmentof Engr. Capangpangan as GSO?

A: We just compared Engr. Capangpangan's Personal Data Sheet to the"Notice of Vacancy" issued by accused Alegado. Appearing that Engr.Capangpangan's submitted documents to be compliant with the "Notice ofVacancy" given by accused, we acceded to the same.

XXX

17. Q: Madam witness, what Qualification Standards did the PSB applywhen it deliberated the application of Engr. Capangpangan?

A: The qualification standards we relied upon are those stated by theaccused Alegado in her "Notice of Vacancy."

XXX

As can be gleaned from these circumstances, the palpable blundercommitted by Palang in the preparation of the Notice of Vacancy, particularlythe erroneous item as to education, created a domino effect which impactedthe entire process involved in Engr. Capangpangan's appointment. Theevaluation of Engr. Capangpangan by the PSB and its subsequentrecommendation was arrived at by applying the qualification standardscontained in the Notice of Vacancy. In making the appointment, accused reliedon the PSB's recommendation; and in confirming the appointment made byaccused, the Sangguniang Bayan presumably deliberated Engr.Capangpangan's credentials by comparing his PDS with the qualificationstandards specified in the Notice of Vacancy.

Absent a factual presentation that the blunder was in fact motivated byill will, the prosecution's conclusion that the appointment was "tailor-fitted"to accommodate the qualifications of Engr. Capangpangan cannot besustained. In this case, it simply remains that the qualifications for a GSOposted in the Notice of Vacancy was made with no one in mind, having beenopen to the public. It was only after no applicant came forward that theaccused thought of Engr. Capangpangan to fill the position from among theplantilla.

Fourth. That the criminal mind of accused is wanting is furtherbolstered by the verity that, after she was furnished a copy of the Decisiondated November 22, 2012 rendered by the CSC Regional Office No. VII,

" Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Analee G. Gungob (Records, Vol. 1, p. 168)

/ c


DECISION

which dismissed her appeal, accused wasted no time in issuing aMemorandum^^ dated December 26, 2012 instructing Engr. Capangpangan tocease his functions as GSO and to assume his previous position as projectdevelopment officer:

MEMORANDUM

TO : ENGR. DANILO A. CAPANGPANGAN

FROM : TERESA P. ALEGADO

Municipal Mayor

SUBJECT : APPOINTMENT AS GSO

DATE DECEMBER 26, 2012

You are hereby notified that your Appointment as General ServicesOfficer (Govemment Department Head) has been disapproved by the CivilService Commission Region VII per Order No. 12-0101 dated November22, 2012 received by this office on December 19, 2012 copy heretoattached.

In view of this you are hereby ordered to assume to (sic) yourprevious position as Project Development Officer I effective January 1,2013.

For your information.

(Sgd.)

Teresa P. AlegadoMunicipal Mayor

Verily, accused only employed the legal process available in the hopeof filling the position to better serve her constituents. But when the CivilService Commission handed dovm its Decision disapproving the appointment,accused yielded and ordered Engr. Capangpangan to assume his old position.

Fifth. In itself, the mere fact that accused did not refund the salariesreceived by her appointee after the appointment had been invalidated does notipso facto establish criminal intent on her part. It bears stressing that accusedhad stated in open court that she and Engr. Capangpangan were "very muchwilling" to refund the salaries concerned upon receipt of an order to do so.^®

Exhibit "P" for the Prosecution

Exhibit "7" for the Defense

In answer to clarificatory questions propounded by the Court, accused testified that (TSN dated February6, 2017, p. 27);

XXX

Q But you did not order a refund of the salaries he received, which I understand, has ahigher salary classification compared to his previous position?

A Yes, we discussed about it. He said: "Ma'am I'm very much willing to refund if everI will be compelled to refund". And I said: "We will wait for the - because I delegated my HR alsoto ask more opinions from the Civil Service so that as I would implement the refund, it should alsohave the imprimatur of the agency that has given me the order already as a reinforcement evidenceof me requiring him to refund. But he voluntarily said: "I am very much willing to refund", xxx

/ 7

People V. Teresa Peplto Alegado 25 | P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0120

DECISION

However, the Prosecution did not submit any evidence to the effect thataccused or Engr. Capangpangan had been duly furnished a notice ofdisallowance directing either or both of them to refund the said salaries, andthat they failed to comply therewith.

In fine, absent sufficient evidence showing that accused knew that theappointee lacked the legal qualifications at the time the appointment wasmade, the Prosecution was not able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, thatthe fourth element of the crime of Unlawful Appointment was present. Indubilis reus est absolvendus — all doubts must be resolved in favor of the

accused.^'

Enshrined in the Constitution is the right of the accused to be presumedinnocent in all criminal prosecutions until the contrary is proved.^^ An accusedis entitled to an acquittal unless his or her guilt is shown beyond reasonabledoubt. It is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its side withclarity and persuasion, so that conviction becomes the only logical andinevitable conclusion, with moral certainty.^^ Having found that theProsecution dismally failed in this respect, the acquittal of accused iswarranted.

WHEREFORE, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt ofaccused TERESA P. ALEGADO beyond reasonable doubt, she isACQUITTED of the crime of Unlawful Appointment punishable underArticle 244 of the Revised Penal Code,

The Hold Departure Order issued by this Court on March 21, 2016 isset aside and the Order issued by the Bureau of Immigration incorporating thename of the accused in the Hold Departure List is ordered recalled andcancelled.^'*

SO ORDERED.

MA. THERESA DOIWRES C. GOMEZ-ESTOESTA

Associate Justice

Magsumbol v. People, G.R. No. 207175, November 26,2014Phil. Const., art. Ill, § 14, H 2

93 AmanquUon v. People, G.R. No. 186080, August 14, 2009Per Resolution dated March 31,2016, this Court noted that the Office of the Ombudsman has recommended

that no bail was required in this case (Records, Vol. 1, p. 53)

)/•

People V. Teresa Pepito AlegadoCriminal Case No. SB-1&-CRM-0120

DECISION

WE CONCUR:

26 I P a g e

' A^90ciate JusticeChairperson

:SPESES

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in

consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of theCourt's Division.

G. GESMUNDO

ypirson, Seventh Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and theDivision Chairman's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions inthe above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assignedto the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

ing Justice

{