REYNALDO A. JACINTO, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN OF THE PHILIPPINES AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

On June 23, 1984, Dr. Reynaldo Jacinto was assigned as the
Officer-In-Charge of the Eulogio Rodriguez Sr. Memorial Hospital (ERMH). He was instructed by the Minister of Health
to clean it up and get rid of its bad image. Correctly indeed, he found out that most of the medical staff were
rendering services outside of the hospital at government time and collecting full government pay. He gathered the so-called moonlighting
doctors including Dr. Veneracion Pacis-Munar and asked them to make their
choice between government service and private practice. He tried to dissuade Dr. Munar from this
practice as she was drawing full pay as a fulltime member of the medical staff
while teaching in several medical schools but she remarked that she had been
doing this since 1972 while working at the San Lazaro Hospital and that she had
the authority to teach.

After some time, Dr. Munar protested the promotion of Dr. Tica to
the position of Medical Specialist II which she believed should
have been given to her. This caused a
misunderstanding between her and Dr. Jacinto who recommended said promotion.

On May 13, 1985, after the medical staff meeting at the hospital,
Dr. Munar submitted to a medical examination by Dr. Evelyn Padre of the same hospital as she was allegedly suffering
from intermittent diarrhea. Dr. Padre
issued a medical certificate that she was sick of gastro enteritis and amoebic
colic.^[1]
She then filed an emergency sick leave application attaching the medical
certificate.^[2]
Dr. Jacinto did not believe the findings of Dr. Padre and disapproved the
application. He instructed Dr. Munar to
file an application for vacation leave. She left her vacation leave papers in the office of the hospital’s
personnel officer without retaining a copy. The period covered by her vacation leave was from May 13 to 19, 1985.

A few days later, Dr. Munar received a telegram dated May 17,
1985^[3]
from Dr. Jacinto asking her to report for duty on May 20, 1985. She went to the hospital on said day and
learned that it was the birthday of Dr. Jacinto. He asked her to report for work and he tried to persuade her to
withdraw her protest against the promotion of Dr. Tica as a birthday gift. Dr.
Munar did not agree. Apparently,
Dr. Jacinto resented this as he told her she would never be promoted. Thereafter, Dr. Munar received a letter from
Dr. Jacinto reiterating the disapproval of her application for sick leave for
the period from May 13 to 19, 1985 as she was not sick.

On May 30, 1985 Dr. Munar reported for duty at the hospital. She could not get her salary as her name was
deleted from the hospital payroll. She
again went on leave on June 4 to 20, 1985 upon the advise of another physician.

On July 5, 1985, she was detailed at the Quirino Memorial
Hospital upon order of the Minister of Health,^[4]
a copy of which was furnished Dr. Jacinto. Although detailed at another hospital, Dr. Munar was to continue to
receive her salary from the ERMH.

While still working at the ERMH, she presented her daily time
record for the month of May to Dr. Jacinto but the latter refused to sign the
same. She then approached Dr. Flores,
the Chief of Clinic, but he remarked that Dr. Jacinto instructed him not to
sign.

At the Quirino Memorial Hospital, Dr. Munar had her daily time
record signed by her superior officer thereat which she submitted to her former place of assignment for the
purpose of collecting her salary. Nonetheless, she still could not get her salary from the ERMH so she
sought the assistance of Director Ibañez of the Regional Health Office in Quezon
City who sent a letter ordering Dr. Jacinto to pay her salary. She got a similar directive from the
Minister of Health.^[5]
Dr. Jacinto released her salary.

Meanwhile, Dr. Munar’s name was not included in the proposed
plantilla of the ERMH. Upon learning
about this, she wrote the Placement Committee of Region IV, Ministry of Health,
about the deletion of her name and she received a reply that her name was
reincluded in the final plantilla.

During the period covered by this incident, Dr. Munar had a part time
teaching job at the Philippine-Muslim Medical School and at the Ocampo Memorial
School. She taught in the former from
7:00 to 12:00 noon only during Saturdays while in the latter institution her
class schedule was variable but the same did not prejudice her office hours in
the hospital. She also handled summer
classes in Micro-Biology at the Ocampo Memorial School. She claims she was authorized to teach by
way of a teaching permit issued by the Minister of Health but said permit
prohibited her from teaching earlier than 6:00 in the evening.^[6]
However, she was able to hold classes after 1:00 P.M. allegedly upon verbal
permission of Dr. Jacinto provided she should render service either on
Saturdays or Sundays to compensate for the lost hours in the hospital. The latter denies this.

It is on the basis of the foregoing set of facts that in due
course an information was filed in the Sandiganbayan against Dr. Jacinto by the
special prosecutor of the Tanodbayan charging him with violation of Section
3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, allegedly committed as follows:

“That on or about May 17, 1985, in Marikina, Metro Manila and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a
public officer, being the duly appointed officer-in-charge of the Eulogio
Rodriguez Sr. Memorial Hospital, acting with evident bad faith, did then and there,
wilfully and unlawfully order the indefinite withholding of the salary of his
subordinate, Dr. Veneracion Pacis-Munar and removal of her name in the plantilla,
thereby causing undue injury to the latter.”

After arraignment wherein the accused
entered a plea of not guilty and a trial on the merits a decision was rendered
on May 12, 1988 finding him guilty of the offense charged with the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender and sentencing him to imprisonment of six
(6) years and one (1) month, to suffer perpetual disqualification and to pay
the costs.

Hence, the herein petition for certiorari filed by the
accused based on the following assigned errors:

“FIRST
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE ACTS ALLEGEDLY
COMMITTED BY THE ACCUSED AS CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION DID NOT REALLY
CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF SECTION 3, PARAGRAPH (E) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019, AS
AMENDED, AND, THEREFORE, ACCUSED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ARRAIGNED NOR TRIED UNDER
SUCH INFORMATION.

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

ASSUMING AD ARGUENDUM THAT THE INFORMATION CHALLENGED COULD BE THE
VALID BASIS FOR ARRAIGNMENT AND TRIAL, THE DECISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN
SENTENCING THE ACCUSED TO SUFFER THE PENALTY OF SIX YEARS AND ONE (1) MONTH
IMPRISONMENT, TO SUFFER PERPETUAL DISQUALIFICATION, AND TO PAY THE COSTS’ FOR
THE MERE ACTS OF ALLEGEDLY WITHHOLDING SALARY AND REMOVAL OF NAME FROM THE
PLANTILLA (WHEN IN TRUTH AND IN FACT SHE RECEIVED HER PAY IN FULL AND HER NAME
WAS IN THE
FINAL PLANTILLA) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND, THEREFORE, VOID (ART. III, SEC.
19-(1), 1987 CONSTITUTION) PROVIDING THAT;

“Sec.
19. (1)
Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. x x x.”

THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

REGARDLESS OF THE ABOVE ERRORS, THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN NOT
RULING THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION UPON WHICH IT RENDERED A
SENTENCE OF CONVICTION WERE NOT PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, AND, HENCE
ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED.”

The petition is impressed with merit. Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise
known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, penalizes any public officer
as follows:

“SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts or omissions of
public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall
constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to
be unlawful.

x x x

“(c) Causing any undue injury to any party,
including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable
negligence. This provision shall apply
to officers and employees of offices or
government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions.”

The elements of this offense are:

1.  The accused must be a public officer
discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;

2.  He must have acted with manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence; and

3.  That his action caused any undue injury to any
party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his functions.

In this case, it is not denied that the salary of the
complainant, Dr. Munar, was withheld for sometime upon instruction of
petitioner. But his explanation
therewith is that complainant
failed to submit her daily time records duly approved. Indeed her daily time records for May, June,
July and August, 1985 were submitted by her only on September 24, 1985. It is a well-known fact that in the
government service an employee must submit his daily time record duly
accomplished and approved before he can collect his salary.

Furthermore, petitioner asserted that he withheld the salary of
the complainant from May 13 to May 19, 1985, which was the period when she applied for sick leave because he
disapproved her application for sick leave. He found out she was not
sick from Dr. Padre who confided to him that she was merely persuaded by the
complainant to issue said medical certificate.

At any rate, while there was indeed some inconvenience in the
failure of complainant to immediately get her salary for the aforesaid period,
upon receiving the handwritten note of the Minister of Health, the petitioner
nevertheless authorized the payment of the salary of the complainant.

The petitioner also admits that he caused the removal of the name
of the complainant from the plantilla but obviously his action was the net
result of his dissatisfaction with the services of complainant. The complainant was undeniably moonlighting
even during her office hours in the ERMH. She also refused to yield to the advice of petitioner not to further
protest the promotion of Dr. Tica. When
her salary was withheld, instead of appealing to petitioner who was her
immediate superior, she went directly to
higher authorities for assistance. When
her name was omitted in the plantilla, she again by-passed petitioner.

Nevertheless, no real or actual damage was suffered by her. She got her withheld salary released. Her name was restored in the plantilla. Thus, the complainant did not suffer undue
injury as an element required by the law. Such an injury must be more than necessary, excessive, improper
or illegal.^[7]
The injury suffered by complainant in this instance, if at all, is negligible.

By the same token, the essential ingredient of manifest
partiality and evident bad faith required for the commission of the offense has
not been successfully established in this case. As above discussed, the actions taken by petitioner aforestated
were not entirely without rhyme or reason. They were measures taken by a superior against an erring employee who
studiously ignored if not defied his authority.

Moreover, assuming the aforesaid actions which were taken by
petitioner are erroneous or excessive, they are certainly not criminal in
nature. If at all, the liability of
petitioner may be civil if not administrative. Indeed, because of this prosecution, the petitioner was purged from the
government service after the EDSA revolution. The nominal injury to the
complainant had been more than adequately vindicated. A conviction under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is
certainly out of the question.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Sandiganbayan dated May
12, 1988 is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE and another judgment is hereby
rendered ACQUITTING the petitioner, with costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz,
Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Exhibit “H”.

^[2]
Exhibit “C”.

^[3]
Exhibit “F”.

^[4]
Exhibit “CC”.

^[5]
Exhibits “V” and
“V-1”.

^[6]
Exhibit “11”.

^[7]
Morris v. Morris, 192 Miss. 518, 6 So.Ld 311, 312; page
1370 Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition.