LIM, DANIELLE

Article III. Section 1. I. Procedural Due Process A. Judicial Proceedings 2. Aspects of the Proceedings
Catacutan v People 656 SCRA 524
FACTS: Georgito Posesano, an Instructor with Salary Grade 13, and Magdalena Divinagracia, an Education
Program Specialist II with Salary Grade 16, were promoted as Vocational Instruction Supervisor III with Salary
Grade 18 at Surigao del Norte School of Arts and Trades (SNSAT) by the Commission on Higher Education
(CHED) Caraga Administrative Region. These promotions were attested and made permanent by the Civil Service
Commission (CSC). These appointments were then transmitted to Jose Catacutan, OIC Principal of SNSAT.
However, Posesano and Divinagracia were not able to assume their new position because of Catacutans refusal to
promote them despite orders from CHED and the CSC. Hence, a complaint was issued against petitioner for grave
abuse of authority and disrespect of lawful orders.
The Regional Trial Court declared him guilty of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act for grave abuse of authority and evident bad faith. Catacutan pleaded not guilty. He said that he did
not implement the new appointments because of procedural lapses attending the preparation of the appointment
papers. The papers used blank forms bearing the letterhead of SNSAT, not of the CHED Regional Office who made
the appointments. He also said he only received duplicate copies of the appointments, which is unusual because the
original appointment papers and other documents should have also been returned to his office. Lastly, he noted that
the letters did not state the date of effectivity of the appointments. He claims that his refusal to implement the
promotions was not motivated by bad faith. He simply wanted to protect the interest of the government by ensuring
strict compliance in the preparation of appointment papers.
Sandiganbayan affirmed the RTCs decision. Hence, this petition.
Catacutan claims that the trial courts decision is flawed and violative of his right to be heard and to present
evidence. He said that he was not able to contradict the trial courts decision because he was not able to present the
Court of Appeals decision, which concluded that he fell short of malice or wrongful intent in his refusal to promote
complainants.
ISSUES/HELD:
1. W/N Catacutans right to due process and equal protection were violated when he was denied the opportunity to
present the Court of Appeals decision as evidence. NO.
Catacutan was not deprived of his right to due process.
Due process simply requires an opportunity to be heard and is satisfied when parties are given the opportunity to
explain their respective sides in a controversy. This opportunity to be heard may be done through oral arguments or
pleadings. Based on records, Catacutan was given the chance to confront and cross-examine witnesses, argue his
case, and explain the merits of his defense. The trial courts refusal to allow Catacutan to present the CA decision as
evidence is not a deprivation of due process because courts have the discretion to reject the presentation of evidence,
which they judge to be irrelevant to the case. This is specially true when the evidence sought to be presented in a
criminal proceeding concerns an administrative matter.
The Sandiganbayan ruled that findings in administrative cases are not binding upon the court trying a criminal case,
even if the criminal proceedings are based on the same facts and incidents which gave rise to the administrative
matter. According to Paredes v CA, Administrative cases are independent from criminal actions for the same act or
omission. There is no deprivation of due process when there is an exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, incompetent
evidence, or testimony of an incompetent witness.
2. W/N Catacutan is guilty of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. YES.
Catacutan is guilty of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
Section 3(e) is violated if the following three elements are satisfied: (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) His action caused any undue injury to any party, including the
government or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
functions.
These three elements were present in this.
(1) Public officer Requirement - Catacutan could not have committed the acts charged against him if he was not the
Officer in Charge or Principle of SNSAT
(2) Bad Faith Requirement Evidence showed that Catacutans refusal to implement the orders was due to a
personal dislike or ill feelings towards Posesano and Divinagracia. Also, when Catacutan was directed by the CHED
and CSC Regional Director to implement the promotions, he ignored them and even challenged the complainants to
file a case against him. The Court does not understand how Catacutan can claim good faith when the higher
authorities, themselves, already ensured him of the validity of the appointments.
(3) Undue Injury Requirement Complainants suffered injury when they were not able to assume their new position
and failed to enjoy their salary increase. They suffered from mental anguish, sleepless nights, and serious anxiety,
warranting the award of moral damages.