Case No. 6 HERNANDO, J.GR No. 226167 2021-10-11

 DOMINADOR G. MARZAN v. PEOPLE HERNANDO, J. 

Please visit "SUPPORT LINKS" to support our Pages! 

Note. For easy access, view this file via Google Drive app.

Download now!

Case No. 6 GR No. 226167 2021-10-11

 

The Revised Rules of Court Codal (Pocket-Size) 2022 by CBSI Editorial Staff [Hardcover]

In an lnformation dated October 19, 2005 filed before the Sandiganbayan, Marzan and one Atty. Basilio Pascual Rupisan (Atiy. Rupisan) were charged with violation of Section 3 ( a) of RA 3019, the accusatory portion of which reads: 

That on or about the 21 st of May 2001, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, Phiiippines, and within the juriscliction of this Honorable Comi, accused BASILJO PASCUAL RUPISAN, a public officer and a Provincial Department Head, being then. the Provincial Legal Officer of Nueva Vizcaya, with salary grade 27, cornmitting the offense in relation to [his] office, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally persuade, induce or influence accused DOMINADOR GAIAB MARZAN, a public officer, being then a Senior Jail Officer 3 (SJ03) of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, to release without Court Order and in violation of existing rules and regulations, from detention, Cyrus Dulay [Cyrus] and Wendell Pascua (Pascua] as they were legally detained when. they were arrested in flagrante delicto and by virtue of the commitment and detention order issued by the Hon. Municipal Trial Judge Alexander S. Balut on May 21, 2001 by making representation that the commitment and detention were unlawful since there were no warrants issued for their arrest and issuing recognizance document which was not in proper form and without Court approval stating, among others, that he is taking custody of Cyrus Dulay and Wendell Pascua, which was shown to accused DOMINADOR GATAB MARZAN who, then and there willfully and foloniously allowed himself to be persuaded, induced or influenced by accused BASILIO PASCUAL RUPISAN, by accepting and/or favorably acting on the said representation and releasing from detention Cyrus Dulay and Wendell Pascua, knowing fully well that the same was against existing laws, rules and regulations, to the damage and prejudice of private complainant Dennis F. Butic [Butic] and of the government office. 

CONTRARY TO LAW 

THE REVISED PENAL CODE, BOOK I & II estrada

Both Marzan and Atty, Rupisan were charged with Violation of Section 3(a) of RA 3019, in view of the Recognizance which was issued in violation of the Rules of Court. As a consequence thereof, detention prisoners Cyrus and Pascua were released in clear violation of the BJMP Manual. RA 3019, Section 3(a) provides: 

Section 3. Corrupt praclic:es 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: 

(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of ruJes and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense.

Riano CivPro Vol. 1 (2022) - Civil Procedure Rules 1-56 Volume I Bar Lecture Series by Dean Willard (+)

The elements of Section 3(a) of RA 3019 are: 

(i) The offonder is a public officer; 

(ii) The offender persuades, induces or influences another public officer to perform an act or the offender allows himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit an act; 

(iii) The act performed by the other public officer or committed by the offender constitutes a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duty of the latter.

Civil Procedure (The Bar Lecturer Series) VOL. II. (2022 Ed.) by Dean Willard (+)

The crime of violation of Section 3(a) of RA 3019 may be committed in either of the following modes: 

(I) when the offender persuades, induces or influences another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the public officer; or 

(2) when the public officer allowed himself to be persuaded, induced or influenced to perform said act which constitutes a violation of rules and regulations promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the public officer. 

EVIDENCE (2022 Ed.) by Dean Willard (+)

To recall, Cyrus and Pascua were arrested and detained on May 21 , 2001 pending their preliminary investigation for allegedly inflicting injury on Butic during a commotion on that day. 

In Rural Bank of Mabitac, Laguna, Inc. v. Canicon,  this Court held that: 

"A preliminary investigation is required before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four years, two months, and one day without regard to fine. x x x This investigation terminates with the determination by the public prosecutor of the  absence or presence of probable cause. In case of the latter, an information is filed with the proper court."

UP Law Complex. ANSWER TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTION IN REMEDIAL LAW 1997-2018

"The conduct of this preliminary investigation pertains to the public prosecutor, who directs and controls the prosecution of all criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information."

"A public prosecutor's determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing an information in court is essentially an executive function. The right to prosecute vests the prosecutor with a wide range of discretion—of what and whom to charge—which depends on a wide range of factors which are best appreciated by prosecutors. It generally lies beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny."

Thus, Cyrus and Pascua were unlawfully released when a preliminary investigation of their case was still being conducted.

WHEREFORE the assailed January 25, 2016 Decision and the July 21, 2016 Resoiutlonofthe Sondiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 28391 which found petitioner Dominador Gatab, Marzan liable for violation of Section 3 (a) of Republic Act No. 3019, otnerw1se known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, are AFFIRlRMED with the MODIFICATION that his penalty of imprisonment for six (6) years and one (l) month as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum is RUDUCED to six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum, to seven (7) years as maximum, with perpetual disqualification to hold public office. 

Questions & Answers of 2005-2021 Supreme Court Decisions in Remedial Law (2022 edition)

DOMINADOR G. MARZAN v. PEOPLE HERNANDO, J. 

Case No. 6 GR No. 226167 2021-10-11

Read full text

Note. For easy access, view this file via Google Drive app.

Download now

If you believe this Page has helped you with your legal studies and keeping up with current events, please consider supporting us by clicking advertisements (ads) once a day. 

This is how our Pages work and how we will continue to provide valuable content related to laws and jurisprudence.