bearing the letterhead of SNSAT and not of the CHED

Regional Office were used.

o The appointment cited the entire plantilla instead of only
the particular page on which the vacant item occurs.
o He received only the duplicate copies of the appointments
contrary to the usual procedure where the original
appointments papers and other supporting documents are
returned to his office.
o The transmittal letter from CHED did not specify the date of
effectivity of the appointments.
Petitioner sought the attention of the CHED Regional Director as
regards the alleged infirmities but he was told that such
appointments were regular and valid. He alleges that he was not
motivated by bad faith but just wanted to protect the interest of
the government.
RTC ruled that petitioner is guilty of the crime charged and
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment (6 years and
1 month) and perpetual disqualification from public office.
Sandiganbayan affirmed petitioners conviction on appeal. Hence,
this petition.

ISSUES & RATIO.

1.
WON the petitioners constitutional rights to due process and equal
protection of the law were violated when he was denied the opportunity
to present in evidence the CA decision entitled Jose Catacutan v. Office
of the Ombudsman, et al. (a separate administrative case). NO.
[Petitioner argues that RTCs decision is flawed and is grossly violative of
his right to be heard and to present evidence. He contends that he was not
able to controvert its findings since he was not able to present the CA
decision which denied the administrative case filed against him and

(e) 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.

Catacutan vs People
G.R. No.175991 / Aug 31, 2011 / Del Castillo, J.

NATURE
PETITIONERS
RESPONDENTS

Petition for Certiorari, etc.

Jose Catacutan
People of the Philippines

SUMMARY. Petitioner, a school principal, refused to honor the promotional

appointments extended by CHED to private complainants. RTC and
Sandiganbayan found him guilty of Sec. 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. Petitioner raised as an issue that his failure to present the CA
decision (a separate administrative case) before the RTC absolving him
from liability violated his right to due process. SC said otherwise. Petitioner
should have availed of the remedy in Sec. 40, Rule 132 of the ROC.
DOCTRINE. Even assuming that the RTC erred in rejecting the introduction
of evidence of the CA decision, he is not left without legal recourse for he
could have availed of the remedy under Sec. 40, Rule 132 of the ROC.

FACTS.

Private complainant Georgito Posesano was an Instructor II while

private complainant Magdalena Divinagracia was an Education
Program Sepcialist II, both at the Surigao del Norte School of Arts
and Trades (SNSAT).

CHED CAR appointed and promoted both complainants as

Vocational
Instruction
Supervisor
III.
Such
promotional
appointments were duly approved and attested by the Civil Service
Commission. Their appointment letters were sent to and received
by petitioner as Officer-In-Charge/Principal of SNSAT. Complainants
were not able to assume their new position because petitioner
strongly opposed said appointments and refuse to implement
them. A complaint was filed against petitioner for grave abuse of
authority and disrespect of lawful orders [violation of Sec. 3(e) of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act]1 before the Office of the
Ombudsman in Mindanano.

Petitioner pleaded not guilty. His defenses were:

o Existence of procedural lapses or infirmities attending the
preparation of the appointment papers. Blank forms

1 Section 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:

ROC.2 But as things stand, the CA Decision does not form part of the
records of the case, thus it has no probative weight. Any evidence that
a party desires to submit for the consideration of the court must be
formally offered by him otherwise it is excluded and rejected and
cannot even be taken cognizance of on appeal. The rules of procedure
and jurisprudence do not sanction the grant of evidentiary value to
evidence which was not formally offered.

1.
2.

3.

All essential elements of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 have been successfully

proven:
Accused must be a public officer discharging administrative,
judicial, or official functions (petitioner was the Officer-inCharge/Principal of SNSAT)
He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or
inexcusable negligence (Catacutans refusal was no longer
anchored on any law or civil service rules after CHED Regional
Director already made it clear that the appointments were regular
and valid; he ignored a subsequent memorandum issued by the
CHED Regional Director, enjoining Catacutan from questioning the
appointments; failure to implement despite a letter from the CSC
Regional Director.)
His action cause any undue injury to any party (complainants were
not able to assume their official duties and failed to enjoy the
benefits of an increased salary corresponding to their newly
appointed positions; they suffered mental anguish, sleepless
nights, serious anxiety warranting the award of moral damages.)

declared that his intention in refusing to implement the promotions falls

short of malice or wrongful intent.]
Petitioner was not deprived of his right to due process

Due process simply demands an opportunity to be heard. It is

satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable
opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy.
Where an opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or
through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due
process.
As applied: Records show that petitioner was able to confront and
cross-examine the witnesses against him, argue his case
vigorously, and explain the merits of his defense. There is also no
denial of due process when the RTC did not allow petitioner to
introduce as evidence which it judiciously believes irrelevant,
impertinent, incompetent, or immaterial to the proceeding on
hand. This is especially true when the evidence sought to be
presented in a criminal proceeding concerns an administrative
matter. As the Sandiganbayan remarked, the 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.
Paredes v. CA: It is indeed a fundamental principle of
administrative law that administrative cases are independent from
criminal actions for the same act or omission. Thus, an absolution
from a criminal charge is not a bar to an administrative
prosecution, or vice versa.
Nicolas v. Sandiganbayan: The dismissal of an administrative case
does not bar the filing of a criminal prosecution for the same of
similar acts subject of the administrative complaint and that the
disposition in one case does not inevitably govern the resolution of
the other case and vice versa.

2 Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. If documents or things offered

in evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same
attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the
offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances
of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony.

[syllabus topic]

Even assuming that the RTC erred in rejecting the introduction of

evidence of the CA decision, he is not left without legal recourse for
he could have availed of the remedy under Sec. 40, Rule 132 of the