Case #/ Name G.R. No.

L-33628 December 29, 1987

Parties Ebarle vs. Sucaldito

Topic/Point of Discussion Title

Facts
 Petitioner Bienvenido Ebarle was then provincial Governor of Zamboanga and a candidate for re-
election in the 1971 local elections
 Anti-Graft League of the Phils. filed different complainst with the City Fiscal against the
petitioner for violations of provisions of the Anti-Graft Law (RA 3019) as well as Arts. 171, 182,
183, 213 & 318 of the Revised Penal Code
o on the bidding for the supply of gravel and sand for the province of Zamboanga del Sur
in favour of Tabiliran Trucking Company
o on the collection of advances under the trucking contract of Tabiliran Trucking
Company, making it appear that it was collected by Teoson Trucking Company, who
held the subsisting contract
o on the bidding for the construction of the right wing portion of the Capitol Building of
the Province of Zamboanga del Sur, in favour of supposed winning bidder who is the
brother-in-law of Ebarle
o on petitioner’s testifying falsely under oath that he acquired a certain lot by purchase
but the lot was in fact owned by the provincial government of Zamboanga del Sur
(where the provincial jail is located)
o on the simulated bidding in favour of Tabiliran Trucking Company
o on appointments of people related to Ebarle to different positions in the government
 petitioner filed for prohibition and certiorari in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur
but the case was dismissed
 in the petition filed before the SC, petitioner claims that the respondents City Fiscal and the Anti-
Graft League failed to comply with the provisions of EO 264 preliminary to their criminal
recourses
o OUTLINING THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH COMPLAINANTS CHARGING THE GOV’T
OFFICIALS AND EPLOYEES WITH THE COMMISSION OF IRREGULARITIES SHOULD BE
GUIDED
 petitioner assails the standing of respondent Anti-Graft League to commence the series of
prosecutions
 petitioner contends that the respondent Fiscal (in G.R. No. 34162) in giving due course to the
complaints notwithstanding the order the SC had issued (in G. R. 33628) which he claims
applies as well thereto, committed a grave abuse of discretion
 petitioner claims that the prosecutions were politically motivated, initiated by his rivals

Issue Whether or not EO 264 is exclusively applicable to administrative charges and not to criminal complaints

Held/Ruling
Petition dismissed.

Ratio: The title of the EO 264 is of “Commission of Irregularities”. It speaks of commission of irregularities
and not criminal offenses. Had the order intended to make it applicable thereto, it could have been
referred to the more specific terms like “accused,” “convicted,” and the like.

Executive Order No. 264, "OUTLINING THE PROCEDUE BY WHICH COMPLAINANTS CHARGING
Supplemental Notes GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES WITH COMMISSION OF IRREGULARITIES SHOULD BE GUIDED,"