NILO A. MALANYAON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. HON. ESTEBAN M. LISING, AS JUDGE OF THE CFI OF CAMARINES SUR, BR. VI, AND CESARIO GOLETA, AS MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF BULA, CAMARINES …

The question which is presented to Us for resolution in this
petition for review concerns the interpretation of Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act which stipulates:

“Sec. 13.  Suspension and loss of
benefits.  – Any public
officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under
this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is
pending in court, shall be suspended from office.  Should he be convicted by final judgment, he
shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is
acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and
benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime
administrative proceedings have been filed against him.”

The facts are stated in the Order dated October 3, 1980, of the respondent judge:

“The late Mayor S.B. Pontanal is one
of the accused in Criminal Case No. P-339 for Violation of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.  Upon the filing of the case against him in
court and after hearing, he was suspended from office and during his incumbency
he died.  Due to his
death the charge against him in Criminal Case No. P-339 was dismissed.  Petitioner now contends that any disbursement
of funds by the respondent, Cesario Goleta, in his
capacity as Municipal Treasurer in favor of the heirs of the late Mayor for
salaries corresponding to the period he was under suspension and other benefits
will be illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 13 because said late
Mayor S.B. Pontanal was not acquitted of the charge
against him.”

Nilo A. Malanyaon,
the petitioner, was formerly a member of the Sangguniang
Bayan of Bula, Camarines Sur.  He filed an action “to declare illegal
the disbursement made by Cesario Goleta as Municipal
Treasurer of the Municipality of Bula, Camarines Sur, to Venancia Pontanal, widow of the
late Mayor S.B. Pontanal, in the amount of P5,000.00
representing a portion of the salary of the late Mayor as such mayor of said
municipality during the period of his suspension from August 16, 1977 up to
November 28, 1979, and to restrain or prevent respondent Cesario
Goleta as such Municipal Treasurer of the aforementioned municipality from
further paying or disbursing the balance of the claim.” (Par. 1 of the
Order, supra.)  However, the
respondent judge dismissed the action on the ground that “the criminal
case against the late Mayor S.B. Pontanal due to his
death amounted to acquittal.”

We grant the petition and set aside the Order of the court a
quo.

It is obvious that when the statute speaks of the suspended
officer being “acquitted” it means that after due hearing and
consideration of the evidence against him the court is of the opinion that his
guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.  Dismissal of the case against the suspended
officer will not suffice because dismissal does not amount to acquittal.  As aptly stated in People v. Salico, 84 Phil. 722, 732-733[1949]:

“Acquittal is always based on the merits, that is, the
defendant is acquitted because the evidence does not show that defendant’s
guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt; but dismissal does not decide the case on
the merits or that the defendant is not guilty. 
Dismissal terminates the proceeding, either because the court is not a
court of competent jurisdiction, or the evidence does not show that the offense
was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or the
complaint or information is not valid or sufficient in form and substance,
etc.  The only case in which the word
dismissal is commonly but not correctly used, instead of the proper term
acquittal, is when, after the prosecution has presented all its evidence, the
defendant moves for the dismissal and the court dismisses the case on the
ground that the evidence fails to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant is guilty; for in such case the dismissal is in reality an acquittal
because the case is decided on the merits. 
If the prosecution fails to prove that the offense was committed within
the territorial jurisdiction of the court and the case is dismissed, the
dismissal is not an acquittal, inasmuch as if it were so the defendant could
not be again prosecuted before the court of competent jurisdiction; and it is
elemental that in such case the defendant may again be prosecuted for the same
offense before a court of competent jurisdiction.”

Respondents invoke Art. 81, No. 1 of the
Revised Penal Code which provides that “Death of the accused pending
appeal extinguishes his criminal and civil liability.” We do not
see the relevance of this provision to the case at bar.  For one thing the case against Mayor Pontanal was not on appeal but on trial.  For another thing the claim for back salaries
is neither a criminal nor a civil liability. 
It is in fact a right provided the conditions of the law are present.

WHEREFORE, finding the petition to be well-taken, the same
is hereby granted, the order of the court a quo is hereby set
aside and another one is entered declaring illegal the payment of municipal
funds for the salaries of the late Mayor S.B. Pontanal
during his sus­pension from office and ordering the respondent treasurer to
retrieve payments so far disbursed.  No
pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and De Castro, JJ., concur.