People vs. Hagedorn to - Sandiganbayansb.judiciary.gov.ph/RESOLUTIONS/2017/J_Crim_SB-17-CRM-0498-05… · People vs. Hagedorn CRIMINAL CASE NO. SB-17-CRM-0498 to 0524 Accused Hagedorn

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSANDIGANBA YAN

QUEZON CITY

FIFTH DIVISION

***

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

SB-17-CRM-0498 to 0506For: Violation of Section 7of RA 3019

-versus- SB-17-CRM-0507 to 0515For: Violation of Section 8of RA 6713

EDWARD SOLON HAGEDORN,Accused.

SB-17-CRM-0516 to 0524For: Perjury

PresentLagos, b ChairpersonCruz,"Mendoza -Arcega, JJ.

Promulgated:

october 11. I 2.011 0x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

MENDOZA-ARCEGA, J.:

The Court resolves the Motionfor Reconsideration' (of the Resolutiondated 19 July 2017) filed by accused Edward Hagedorn, through counsel, on

• SIWo." Spedal membe, pe, Administrative Order No. 025·2017 dated February 1,2017 /l1 Record, page 443-448. ( (

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. HagedornCRIMINAL CASE NO. SB-17-CRM-0498 to 0524

11 August 2017; and the prosecution's Comment/Opposition' (to the Motionfor Reconsideration) filed on 25 August 2017.

Accused Hagedorn seeks the reconsideration of the said resolutiondenying his Urgent Omnibus Motion' and the dismissal of all the chargesand/or Informations filed against him. In support of his prayer, the accusedanchors his motion on the following grounds: (a) the unexplained andunjustified delay in the prosecution of Accused is a violation of hisconstitutional right to speedy disposition of his case; (b) the accused cannotbe charged simultaneously for the crimes of Perjury under Article 183 of theRevised Penal Code (RPC), Section 7 of Republic Act No. 30194 and Section8 of Republic Act No. 67135 because of the clear prohibition under Section116 of Republic Act No. 6713.

In support of the issue on unjustified delay, accused Hagedomreiterated the case of Almeda vs. Office of the Ombudsman and the People ofthe Philippines' where it was held that the accused cannot be faulted for notobjecting to the delay since it is the State's duty to expedite the resolution ofthe case.

The prosecution countered in its Comment/Opposition that the movantdid not point out any particular manner on how the conduct of theinvestigation has been prejudicial to him and merely relied on the case ofAlmeda. Thus, the prosecution prays that accused Hagedom's Motion forReconsideration be denied for lack of merit.

The allegations raised by the accused on unjustified delay are a mererehash of his earlier pleadings and did not raise any new matter. The accusedsimply restates the arguments already addressed and found unmeritorious bythis Court in its Resolution dated July 19,2017. Thus, the Court is notpersuaded that this issue requires any further discussion.

2 Records, pages 457-450.3Id., pages 207 to 217.4 Otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.S Otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officials and Employees.6 Section 11. Penalties. - (a) Any public official or employee, regardless of whether or not he holds officeor employment in a casual, temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity, committing any violationof this Act shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months' salary or suspensionnot exceeding one (1) year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearingby the appropriate body or agency. If the violation is punishable by a heavier penalty under another law,he shall be prosecuted under the latter statute. Violations of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall bepunishable with imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos(P5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold publicoffice.xxx7 G.R. No. 204267, July 25, 2016.

P:;q;o214

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. HagedornCRIMINAL CASE NO. SB-17-CRM-0498 to 0524

Accused Hagedorn likewise asserts that he cannot be indictedsimultaneously of all the crimes charged and thereby strongly depends onSection 11 of R.A. No. 6713. Relying on the case of Centeno vs. Villalon-Pornillos, et al.,8 the accused reiterates that if the statute is ambiguous andadmits of two reasonable but contradictory construction that which operatesin favour of a party accused under its provisions is to be preferred. Thisargument is bereft of merit. The provision under Section 11 is clear that if theviolation is punishable by a heavier penalty under another law, he shall beprosecuted under the latter statute. The penalty for Perjury under Article 183of the RPC is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correctional inits minimum period. Violation of Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019, on the otherhand, is punishable with a fine not exceeding one hundred pesos (P 100.00)nor more than one thousand (P 1,000.00), or by imprisonment not exceedingone year, or by both such fine and imprisonment in the court's discretion",while, violation of Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713 is punishable withimprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding fivethousand pesos (P5,000.00), or both in the court's discretion. Thus, thepenalty prescribed under R.A. No. 6713 is heavier; therefore, accused'scontention on the application of Section 11 is erroneous.

The Court upholds the present charges against accused Hagedom onthe basis of the Supreme Court ruling on Tecson vs. Sandiganbayan'r as citedin Flores, et al. vs. Montemayor+, thus:

"It is a basic principle of the law on public officers that apublic official or employee is under a three-fold responsibilityfor violation of duty or for a wrongful act or omission. Thissimply means that a public officer may be held civilly,criminally, and administratively liable for a wrongful doing.Thus, if such violation or wrongful act results in damages to anindividual, the public officer may be held civilly liable toreimburse the injured party. If the law violated attaches a penalsanction, the erring officer may be punished criminally. Finally,such violation may also lead to suspension, removal from office,or other administrative sanctions. This administrative liability isseparate and distinct from the penal and civil liabilities. "

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by accusedEdward Hagedom dated August 16,2017 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

8 G.R. No. 113092, September 1, 1994.9 Section 9, RA No. 301910 G.R. No. 123045, November 16, 1999.11 G.R. No. 170146, June 8,2011.

Page314

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. HagedornCRIMINAL CASENO. SB-17-CRM-0498 to 0524

WE CONCUR:

~~LAGOSChairperson

ZA-ARCEGA

R NAL P. CRUZAssociate Justice