REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Sandiganbayan
QUEZON CITY

SEVENTH DIVTSTON

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Crim. Case No.SB-16-CRM-0508

I Plaintiff,

-versus- Present:

frAnklin d. maata, Gomez-Estoesta, J., Chairperson

Trespeses, J., and
Accused.
Hidalgo, J.

Promulgated:

DECISION

GOMEZ-ESTOESTA,J.:

Accused Franklin D. Maata, City Engineer of Iligan City, stands

ch^ged with violation ofSec. 3(e)ofR.A.3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, for refusing to sign the Daily Time Record of a reassigned
employee who resisted his reassignment. Claiming that his failure to timely
receive his salaries as a result of such refusal caused him undue injury, the
employee initiated this case, which resulted in the filing of the Information
which reads:

That sometime in August 2011, or prior or subsequent thereto, in

Iligan City,Philippines,and within thejurisdiction ofthis Honorable Court,
the above-named accused. Franklin D. Maata, being then the City
Engineer of Iligan City, while in the performance of his administrative
and/or official function to supervise employees ofthe Motorpool and Shop
Services Division, City Engineer's Office, taking advantage of his position
and committing the offense in relation to his duty to evaluate, approve
and/or sign the Daily Time Records(DTRs)of said employees, acting with
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and criminally refuse to acknowledge and/or sign the
duly accomplished August 2011 DTR of Robert L. Ong, which resulted in
the withholding of the latter's salary for the said month and rice allowance

//•
 People V. Franklin D. Maata 2I P a g e
Criminal Case No.SB-16-CRM-0S08
DECISION

in the amounts of Thirty Thousand Three Hundred Fifty-Two Pesos

0^30,352.00) and Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00), respectively, thereby
causing undue injury to said Robert L. Ong in the aforesaid amounts.
CONTRARY TO LAW.'

A Hold Departure Ordei^ was issued against accused Maata on August

16, 2016, followed by a Warrant of Arrest on September 13, 2016. On
October 14,2016,accused Maata posted cash bond"^ for his provisional liberty.
When arraigned, accused Maata pleaded not guilty.^
On September 8, 2017, accused Maata filed Motion to Quash^ the
Information on the ground oflack ofjurisdiction. He argued that under R.A.
10660, jurisdiction over cases involving transactions not exceeding
P1,000,000.00 has been vested in the RTCs,and since the Information alleges
undue injury ofonly P30,352.00,this Court has nojurisdiction over this case.
In di Resolution''dated September 14,2017,this Court denied outright accused
Maata's Motion, having been set for hearing beyond the ten-day period
required under Sec. 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, but likewise ruled that
this Court hadjurisdiction over the case,as R.A.No. 10660,which took effect
on May 5, 2015, only applies to cases arising from offenses committed after
its effectivity, while the offense subject ofthis case was allegedly committed
in August 2011.

During pre-trial, the parties made the following admissions and defined
the issue:^
I
ADMITTED FACTS

1. That at the time material to the case,accused Maata was a City Engineer
oflliganCity.
2. That whenever referred to orally or in writing in the course of the
proceedings, accused admits his identity as the same person charged in
the Information.

3. That the Honorable Court has jurisdiction over the case.

4. That private complainant, Robert L. Ong is an Engineer III ofthe City
Engineer's Office ofIligan City.

^ Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1-3

^ Id., p. 140
3 Id., p. 150
^/cf./PP. 185-194
5 Id., pp. 206-207
®/cf., pp. 250-256
''Id., pp. 258-259
® Joint Stipulation of Fact and Issue dated October 25, 2017,Id., pp. 291-299; Pre-Trial Order dated
October 27, 2017,Id., pp. 305-311

I
 People V. Franklin D. Maata 3I p a g e
Criminal Case No.SB-16-CRM-0508
DECISION

5. That accused Maata as a City Engineer had the duty to supervise the
I employees of the Motorpool and the Shop Services Division, City
Engineer's Office.

IV
ISSUE

Whether or not the accused is guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of

Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.

Trial ensued.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses, who testified through

Judicial Affidavits. Upon stipulation, the testimonies of four (4) other
witnesses were dispensed with. The prosecution's witnesses were:
1. Engr. Robert L. Ong ["Ong"],^ private complainant, has held
the position ofEngineer III at the City Government ofIligan jfi-om 1990 up to
the time he testified. As such, his functions were to supervise planning,
accomplish repair works on equipment and machinery,and assist the Engineer
IV in supervising the motorpool personnel.^®
Ong recalled that in 2010, while he was assigned at the Iligan City
Waterworks, he received a Memorandum^ ^ signed by then Mayor Lawrence
Cruz reassigning him to the City Veterinarian's Office. He reported at the
place of assignment but appealed such reassignment to the Civil Service
Commission. Said appeal was granted in a Decision^^ promulgated on
September 13,2011, but even prior thereto, or on July 13,2011, Mayor Cruz
had already assigned him back to his mother unit, the Motorpool and Shop
Services Division under the Office ofthe City Engineer.
Shortly after his return to the Motorpool and Shop Division, however,
or on July 21,2011,Ong received another Memorandum,^"* this time,fi*om his
inimediate supervisor and Chiefofthe Motorpool and Shop Services Division,
Gino Alejo, noted by accused Maata, reassigning him to the city dumpsite in
Brgy. Santiago. He signified his receipt of such Memorandum by signing it
under protest. Thereafter, he registered his attendance using the biometric
machine at the City Engineer's Office then proceeded to the dumpsite, but yet

® Judicial Affidavit dated November 19, 2017, Records, Vol. 1, pp. 383-W to 383-H®
"Judicial Affidavit of Robert Ong, Q8tA Nos. 1-6
"Exhibit "H"
"Decision dated September 13,2011, Exhibit "Y"
"Memorandum dated July 13,2011, Exhibit "X"; Judicial Affidavit of Robert Ong,Q&A Nos. 7-13
"Exhibit "1"

h-
\
 People V. Franklin D. Maata 4I p a g e
Criminal Case No.SB-1&-CRM-0508
DECmON

again appealed his reassignment with the CSC.^^ He visited the dumpsite for
a week to determine ifit was safe or hazardous,then continued to report at the
mother imit where the biometric machine was located. He did not continue
to report at the dumpsite as he found it a toxic place, unrelated to his work,
and it did not even have a biometric machine.^^ Insisting that Ong should have
reported for work at the open dumpsite in compliance with the Memorandum
dated July 21, 2011, accused Maata refused to sign his Daily Time Record
(E)TR)for August 2011,^® rendering him unable to receive his salary and rice
allowance for said month. His salary in August 2011 was more than
P30,000.00, with a rice allowance of fc,000.00.^® During this time, he
received financial support fi-om his siblings, who also answered for his three
children's education, as he and his wife were then already separated.^^
On April 23, 2014, the CSC rendered a favorable Decision^^ on his
appeal. He later clarified with the CSC his entitlement to backwages and other
benefits,^^ and got an affirmative answer.^"* 'Answering another request for
cMfication,^^ the CSC explained that its earlier opinion implied that Ong had
be^n constructively dismissed when reassigned to the dumpsite.^^
Aggrieved by the withholding ofhis salaries and benefits for the month
ofAugust 2011 because ofaccused Maata's unjustified and deliberate refusal
to sign his DTR while he was assigned at the dumpsite, Ong likewise filed a
complaint^^ with the City Prosecutor's Office of Iligan City, which was
initially dismissed, but ultimately prospered^^ into this case for Violation of
Se|c. 3(e)ofR.A.3019 on Ong's Petition for Review ofJudgment.^^ A similar
case has been filed against Alejo with the Regional Trial Court of Iligan
Ci^.30
In claiming his backwages and rice allowance for August 2011, Ong
presented his authenticated DTR^^ for said month signed by OlC-City
Engineer, Guideon Taban, along with the favorable CSC decision. He
received his backwages and rice allowance for August 2011 in the second
week of October 2014.^^ By this time, accused Maata had already retired.^^

"Judicial Affidavit of Robert Ong, Q&A Nos.4,14-20

^®TSN dated November 22,2017(p.m.), pp. 12-13,17
"/d.,p.20
Exhibit "Q", as authenticated -letter dated September 12,2011, Exhibit"W"(Request for
authentication)-Exhibit "P"
Judicial Affidavit of Robert Ong, Q&A No.59
tSN dated November 22,2017(p.m.), pp.8-9
"judicial Affidavit of Robert Ong, Q&A No.68;TSN dated November 22,2017(p.m.), p.9
« Exhibit "K"
^' Letter dated August 6,2014, Exhibit "L"
CSC Resolution dated September 9,2014, Exhibit"M"
25 Letter dated April 29,2015, Exhibit"N"
2® CSC Opinion No.225,s. 2015, Exhibit "0";Judicial Affidavit of Robert Ong,Q&A Nos. 21-36
22 \|vith cover letter. Exhibit"A"
2® Indorsement to the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao, Exhibit "D"
2' Exhibit "C";Judicial Affidavit of Robert Ong,Q&A Nos.38-51
2® TSN dated November 22, 2017(p.m.), pp.9-10
®2 Exhibit "E"
52 Judicial Affidavit of Robert Ong, Q&A Nos.60-68;TSN dated November 22,2017(p.m.), p. 18
55 TSN dated November 22,2017(p.m.), p. 19

//•
 People V. Franklin D. Maata 5I Pa ge
Criminal Case No.SB-16-CRM-0508
DECISION .

On cross-examination, Ong explained that he reported to the mother

umt instead of the dumpsite pending the CSC's ruling on his appeal, and
wanted the matter to be settled before reporting at the dumpsite, which was
npt even an office and did not have a biometric machine. He was the only
eipployee assigned to the dumpsite, which was not even under the Motorpool
Division, but under the supervision of the Barangay Captain of Brgy.
S^tiago. It was the Public Services Office, under the jurisdiction of the
Mayor, and not the City Engineer's Office, that was in charge of the
monitoring ofthe maintenance and proper upkeep ofthe dumpsite.^"^
Answering questions from the Court, Ong related that while his
cohiplaint covered only his salaries and benefits for August 2011, he did not
receive his salaiy for more than two years before the CSC ruled that he was
entitled to them.^^

2. Engr. Leonor T. Actub ["Actub"]^^ is the current Officer-in-

charge City Engineer of Iligan City. She signs the daily time records of the
employees of the City Engineer's Office. On subpoena, she produced and
identified the Organizational Chart of the City Engineer's Office marked as
E}^bit"T".3^
I
!

On cross-examination, she explained that the City Engineer's Office

consists of eight (8) divisions, each of which has its own division head.^®
Upder the present procedure, the division chief approves and affixes his
initials on the DTK,before the same is submitted to the City Engineer.^^

3. Glenmoore F. Longakit ["Longakit"],^^ current Human

Resource Management Officer IV, and concurrently the OIC-CHRMO ofthe
Ci^ Human Resource Management Office of Iligan City, testified that on
subpoena, his office submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman the
Organizational Chart ofthe City Engineer's Office."^^ He also mentioned that
DlRs are signed by both the employee and the department head, or in his/her
ab)sence, the OIC designate."^^

I 4. Ibarra B. Carampatan ["Carampatan"],"^^ has been the

Computer Programmer III of the City Human Resource Management Office
of Iligan City since October 16, 2009 up to the time he testified. As such.

pp. 13-17,26
Id., pp. 22-24
35 Judicial Affidavit dated November 18,2017, Records, Vol. 1, pp. 383-H to 383-N
3'Id., Q&A Nos. 1-9
3® TSN dated November 22,2017(a.m.), p. 11
39 Id., p. 13
^Judicial Affidavit dated November 18,2017, Records, Vol. 1, pp. 383-A to 383-G
Exhibit'T'
^3 Judicial Affidavit of Glenmoore Longakit, Q&A Nos.5-11
^3 Judicial Affidavit dated November 18,2017, Records, Vol. 1. pp. 383-N to 383-V
People V. Franklin D. Maata |
6 Page
Criminal Case No.SB-16-CRM-0508
DECISION

among his functions were to authenticate Daily Time Records upon the
request of employees, print employees' DTRs, administer databases, design
and develop biometric programs, and monitor and manage the operation of
biometrics,"^
Carampatan recalled that sometime in 2011,the City Human Resource
Management Office received a letter"^^ from Engr. Robert Ong,requesting for
verification, certification and authentication of his DTR for August 1-31,
2011, which was attached to said letter. Upon verification, their database
showed that the attached copy of Ong's DTR was an authentic copy of that
taken from their system. He was, however, unaware ofthe actual particulars
ofthe details in Ong's DTR. In a letter,"^' he advised Ong ofthe result of his
verification."*®

The testimonies ofthe following witnesses were dispensed with and in

fact stipulated upon:

5. Sheila C.Buque
a. That she is the Human Resource Management Officer 1 of the City
Human Resource Management Office of the City Government of Iligan
assigned at the Administrative Division, Records Section;
b. That one of her functions is to certify documents as true copies from
the original or photocopy from office file, and that she has custody of
documents pertaining to personnel matters;
c. That the Office of the City Human Resource Management Office of
Iligan received a subpoena from the Office ofthe Special Prosecutor requiring
the submission of the original or certified true copy from the original of the
following documents:
i. Daily Time Record of Robert Ong for August 1 to 31, 2011
(Exhibit"E");
j ii. Re-assignment Order dated August 31,2010(Exhibit"H");
iii. Memorandum to Robert Ong dated July 21,2011(Exhibit "I");
iv. Letter dated September 12, 2011 ofIbarra Carampatan (Exhibit
I «W");
V. Memorandum to Robert Ong dated July 13, 2011 (Exhibit"X")
and

vi. Position Description Form ofEngineer III.

^/d,Q&ANos.2-4
^ Exhibit "P"
Exhibit "Q"
^'Exhibit"W"
// ^
^Judicial Affidavit of Ibarra Carampatan,Q&A Nos.5-18; TSN dated November 22,2017(a.m.), p. 31 |
 People V. Franklin D. Maata 7I P a s e
Criminal Case No.SB-16-CRM-0508
DECISION

d. That aside from the Position Description Form of Engineer III, which
was the subject of a certification,^^ all the above documents were submitted
by the CHRMO to the Office of the Special Prosecutor, which the witness
certified as certified true copies from the originals or certified photocopies
from the office file.^®

6. Raymundo E. Clavano,Jr.
a. That he is the QIC-City Accountant ofIligan;
b. That in connection with this case, he issued the following:
i. Certification dated October 13, 2016 marked as Exhibits "F" to
"F-l" stating that:
This is to certify that as per record available in our payroll
system,Engr. Robert L. Ong,Engineer III ofthe Motorpool & Shop
! Services Division, City Engineer's Office, had already received his
salary for the whole month of August 2011 indicating the following
period as shown below:
Period Covered Date Processed

August 1-20, 2011 - July 30,2014

August21-31,2011 - October7,2014

ii. Certification dated October 13, 2016 marked as Exhibit "G",

stating that:
This is to certify that Engr. Robert L. Ong,Engineer III of
the Motorpool Division, City Engineer's Office, has fully received
all his back salaries and other benefits. And rice subsidies starting
July 1,2011 up to June 30,2013 including August 2011 [which] was
received / released to him on the 2"'' week of October 2014.

iii. Certification dated October 17, 2016, marked as Exhibit "V",

stating that the documents under the subpoena pertaining to the
payrolls for the salary and rice allowance for August 2011 have
been submitted to the COA of Iligan City for final custody and
safekeeping.^^

7. Atty. Lorenzo A.Reyes 11

a. ! That he is a State Counsel and designated as QIC,NFS Docket Section
ofthe National Prosecution Service, Department of Justice;

Exhibit "U"
™ tSN dated November 22, 2017(a.m.), pp. 36-40
//■
"Id., pp.47-49
 People V. Franklin D. Maata 8I P a g e
Criminal Case No.SB-16-CRM-0508
DECISION

b. That one of the functions of his office is that it is in custody of

documents like resolutions promulgated by the Department of Justice and
pleadings filed by a party;
c. That his office received a subpoena jfrom the Office of the Special
Prosecutor requiring the submission ofthe original or certified true copy from
the original of the Petition for Review of Judgment dated March 28, 2012,
fikd by Robert L. Ong with the Department of Justice(DOJ)and Resolution
pi;omulgated by the DOJ on September 13, 2013;
d. That in compliance with the said subpoena,a certified true copy ofthe
DOJ Resolution promulgated on September 13, 2013 and Indorsement dated
October 2, 2013 were submitted to the Office of the Special Prosecutor,
respectively marked as Exhibit"D" and Exhibits "C-2" and "C-3";
e. I That he can identify the DOJ Resolution promulgated on September 13,
2013 and Indorsement dated October 2,2013; and as proposed by the defense,
f. That the Indorsement includes the Petition for Review from the
Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan City in which the
complaint filed by Engr. Robert L. Ong against Franklin Maata and one co
respondent was dismissed.^^

8.1 Ariel G.RonquiHo^^

a. That he is presently the Assistant Commissioner employed at the Civil
Service Commission, Office ofLegal Affairs;
b. That his Office received a subpoena from the Office of the Special
Prosecutor requiring the submission ofthe following documents:
i. Request for Clarification and Issuance ofan Order,ifProper and
Necessary(Exhibit"L")
ii. Request for Opinion/Order dated April 29,2015 (Exhibit"N")
I iii. CSC OLA Opinion No.222 s. 2015(Exhibit"O")and
iv. Urgent Request for Legal Opinion Relative to the OMB's
Decision docketed as OMB-M-A-365-H dated June 10,2013;
c. I In compliance with the said subpoena,his office submitted to the Office
ofj the Special Prosecutor the certified true copies of the above-mentioned
ddcuments;
d. That his office has custody of said document and that he can identify
the said documents; and, as proposed by the defense;
.

e. That all the CSC memoranda were issued after the retirement of the
accused from government service;

"Order dated November 29, 2017, Records, Vol. 1, pp. 399-301

Who was not present in Court
//
 People V. Franklin D. Maata
9I P a g e
Criminal Case No.SB-16-CRM-0508
DECISION

f. That the Opinion was rendered after the accused's retirement on March
5,12013.5"

The Prosecution then proceeded to offer the following documentary

evidence:'^

Exhibit Document
"A" Cover Letter and Complaint-Affidavit of Engr. Robert L. Ong dated
September 27,2011
"B" Resolution of the City Prosecutor's Office in NPS Doc. No. X-08-
INV-09G-00726 dated January 12,2012
«c« Petition for Review ofJudgment dated March 28,2012
«C-2" Indorsement dated October 2,2013
«D" DOJ Resolution dated September 13,2013
"E" Daily Time Record ofRobert Ong for the month ofAugust 1-31,2011
«p»» Certification dated October 13,2016
«G" Certification dated October 13,2016
Reassignment Order dated August 31,2010
(CJ99
Memorandum to Robert Ong dated July 21,2011
«j«
Urgent Request for Legal Opinion relative to the OMB's Decision
docketed as OMB-M-A-11-365-H dated June 10, 2013
«K» CSC Decision No. 14-0308 dated April 23,2014
"L" Request for Clarification and Issuance of an Order, if proper and
necessary dated August 6,2014
"M" CSC Resolution No. 14-01315 dated September 9,2014
Request for Opinion/Order dated April 29,2015
"0" CSC Opinion dated May 25,2015
«tp»»
Letter-Request of Robert Ong dated September 9,2011
«Q«
Daily Time Record of Engr. Robert Ong for August 1-31, 2011
(unsigned by accused Maata)
Organizational Chart ofthe City Engineer's Office
«U" Certification dated September 1,2010
«V" Certification dated October 17,2016
Letter dated September 12,2011 ofIbarra Carampatan
"X" Memorandum to Robert Ong dated July 13,2011
«tY»>
CSC Decision dated September 13,2011

In a Resolutiorf^ dated March 5, 2018, this Court admittftH all the

exhibits offered by the Prdsecution. On April 17,2018, accused Maata filed
Motionfor Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence, which this Court denied for
having filed out oftime, and for not having raised a specific ground,contrary
to I what was required under Section 23 of Rule 119.5* Accused Maata's
Motionfor Reconsideratiotf^ was likewise denied,®® prompting him to instead
present evidence in his defense.

^ Order dated November 29,2017, Records, Vol. 1, pp. 399-301

Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence, Records, Vol. 1, pp.421-541
^ Records, Vol. 2, pp. 11-13.
"vyith attached Demurrer to Evidence,Id., pp. 23-30
Resolution dated April 25,2018, Id., pp. 36-39
f
Id., pp.43-16
Order dated May 11,2018, Id., p.49
\
 People V. Franklin 0. Maata 10
| Page
Criminal Case No.SB-16-CRM-0508
DECISION

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

Accused Maata proceeded to present the following witnesses, who

testified by Judicial Affidavits:

1. Engr. Franklin D. Maata ["accused Maata"], accused, was

the City Engineer of Iligan at the time relevant to this case, and retired from
government service on March 5,2013. He denied the accusations against him,
attributing them to malicious intent on the part of private complainant Ong.^^
Accused Maata recounted that the City Engineer's Office receipt ofthe
recall order from the Office of the Mayor assigning Ong back to the
Motorpool and Maintenance Division on July 21, 2011 coincided with a
request for heavy equipment at the city dumpsite, and a corresponding need
for an engineer to supervise said heavy equipment. The division head ofthe
Motorpool and Maintenance Division thus issued a Memorandum to Ong,
directing him to supervise said equipment, as part of his job description.
However, when Ong reported to the Motorpool and Maintenance Division on
July 25,2011,he received the Memorandum under protest, and never reported
at; his place of assignment until the heavy equipment was returned to the
Office ofthe Engineer. Still, Ong demanded that accused Maata sign his DTR
and payroll for July 21 and 22,2011, but he refused, as Ong reported for work
oiily on July 25,2011, as he himself admitted.^^
Further, since receiving the Memorandum under protest, Ong no
lohger reported for work, as attested by several witnesses, and shown by the
logbook, which did not show his signature. The division head did not sign his
DTR and payroll, which was a requisite before he affixed his signature as City
Engineer on these documents to be submitted to the Human Resource
Management ^d Accounting Offices.^ Without particular reference to
Ohg's August 2011 DTR, accused Maata pointed to some "admissions" by
Ong that he did not report for work in an affidavit before the Office of the
Ombudsman in a charge against him for falsification and dishonesty as well
as findings of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan^^ and the Office of
the Ombudsman.^^

On cross-examination, accused Maata confirmed that it was part ofhis

duty to sign duly-accomplished DTRs of employees in the City Engineer's

Judicial Affidavit dated May 5,2017, Records^ Vol. 2, pp.55-59

;
"Id., Q&A Nos. 2,5 ^
Id., Q&A Nos.5-9, Affidavit dated July 25,2011(unmarked) 7
Q&A Nos. 10-11 '
® Counter-Affidavit in Case Nos. OMBO-M-C-12-0122 and OMB-M-A-12-120-D, Exhibit "7" Y
Exhibit "4" '
„I
"Dated November 14,2014(unmarked)
 People V. Franklin D. Maata 111 P a g e
Criminal Case No.SB-16-CRM-0508
DECISION

Office.^® He insisted that Ong's assignment to the dumpsite to supervise

heavy equipment was not an assignment outside the City Engineer's Office.^^

2. £ngr. Gino LI. Alejo ["Alejo"],^® currently Engineer IV, has

been with the City Engineer's Office ofIligan since 19867^ In July 2011, he
whs assigned as Division Head ofthe Motorpool and Shop Services Division
ofthe City Engineer's Office, where his functions included supervising light
and heavy equipment, pre-repair inspection, assigning personnel and heavy
equipment to places wiA the conformity ofthe City Engineer, and inspection
of dispatched heavy equipment.^^
Alejo explained that the Public Services Division of Iligan City
requested that heavy equipment belonging to the City Engineer's Office be
brought to the dumpsite; dius, it was necessary that an engineer be assigned
to supervise the operation and maintenance of said heavy equipment, and to
report back to the office after inspection.^^ He corroborated accused Maata's
testimony on the need to send Ong to the dumpsite to supervise heavy
equipment, and his failure to report for work therein. He also testified that
Ong did not report for work particularly in August 2011, which was why they
did not sign his DTR for said month. Alejo maintained that he did not see
Ong report for work at the Motorpool and Shops Division for the whole month
of August 2011, and that he did not sign their logbook.^"^
On cross-examinaition, Alejo confirmed that Ong was assigned to the
dumpsite on July 21, 2011,the same day that their office received the Recall
Order from the Office of the Mayor. Alejo also confirmed that Mayor
Lawrence Cruz was his fourth-degree relative.^^
Answering questions fi-om the Court, Alejo testified that the heavy
equipment had been at the dumpsite even before July 21, 2011, or Ong's
assignment thereat. Prior to assigning Ong, he was the one who supervised
the heavy equipment at the dumpsite. When Ong returned to work, he was
the person that came to his mind to assign at the dumpsite as their office was
undermanned. There were only three of them at the office then, including
Engr. Dwight Balat, who was morejunior than Ong,but he was then assigned
to do repairs and should at all times be in the shop. When Ong did not report
for work at the dumpsite, he did not assign another engineer, but himself
performed Ong's supposed assignment.^^
Accused Maata then offered the following exhibits

®®TSN dated May 28,2018(a.m.), pp. 15-16

pp. 18-20
Judicial Affidavit dated May 21,2018, Records, Vol. 2, pp.51-54
/cf., Q&A Nos. 1,4 ■ J >
Id., Q8iA No.6 '
''/d.,Q&ANos.-7-10
Id., Q&A Nos. 11-12
"TSN dated May 28, 2018(a.m.), pp. 27-28
pp. 28-31
Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence of the Accused dated June 4,2018, Records, Vol. 2, pp. 71-117
 People V. Franklin D. Maata |
12 P a g e
Criminal Case No.SB-1&-CRM-0508
DECISION

Exhibit Document
Certification from the Office ofthe City Accountant ofIligan dated
March 22,2017
«2" Certification from the Office ofthe City Treasurer ofIligan
«3»
Certification from the Office of the City Accountant of Iligan dated
January 5,2017
Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan City dated
January 12,2012
"5" Decision ofthe Office ofthe Ombudsman dated June 13,2012
«6» Joint Resolution ofthe Office of the Ombudsman dated October 23,
2015
Counter-Affidavit of Robert Ong dated May 22,2012

This Court admitted only Exhibits "4","5","6", and "7" and excluded
E^diibits "1","2", and "3" for lack of authentication^^ With the filing ofthe
parties' respective Memoranda, this case was submitted for Decision.

THE COURTIS RULING

It is beyond dispute that accused Maata did not sign complainant Robert
Ong's DTK for August 2011. According to the prosecution and as alleged in
the Information, this was done with evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence, and caused undue injury to Ong amounting to his salary and rice
allowance for said month, in violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019, which
provides:
Section 3, Corrupt practices ofpublic officers, — In addition
I to acts or omissions ofpublic officers already penalized by existing law,the
following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are
hereby declared to be unlawful.

XXX

(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 ofoffices or government corporations charged with the grant of
licenses or permits or other concessions.

The following are the essential elements ofviolation ofSec. 3(e)ofRA

3019: y
I
/"
Resolution dated June 26,2018,Id., pp. 123-124 \
^ Memorandum for the Prosecution dated August 17,2018,Id., pp. 140-156; Memorandum for Accused 1
dated September 4,2018,Id., pp. 158-171
 People V.franklin D. Maata 13 I P a g e
Criminal Case No.SB-16-CRM-0508
DECISION

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
j inexcusable negligence; and
3. That his action caused any undue injury to any party, including
! the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge ofhis functions."*®

I That accused Maata was a public officer, being a City Engineer of

Iligan City, at the time material to this case, and as such had the duty to
supervise the employees ofthe Motorpool and the Shop Services Division,are
adinitted.^^ Moreover, it is undisputed that Ong was from the Office of the
Ci^ Engineer, and his DTK required the signature ofaccused Maata.
I
What is left to determine is the existence of the second and third
elements.

Accused Maata's refusal to sign Ong*s DTR

for August 2011 was attended with evident
b^dfaith.

The events leading to the filing ofthis case unfolded with the issuance
by Gino LI. Alejo, Chiefofthe Motorpool and Shop Services Division, ofthe
follovrag Memorandum dated July 21, 2011,^^ which was noted by accused
Maata:

This is in connection with the RECALL ORDER ofthe City Mayor

Honorable Lawrence LI. Cruz directing you to report back to the City
Engineer's office.
Please be inform[ed] that you are assigned effective upon receipt
hereof at the city dumpsite, Barangay Santiago for the Preventive
1 Maintenance Schedule (PMS) and maintain close supervision over field
operations of the heavy equipments (sic)(bulldozers & loaders) which are
being used,thereat.
i
You will report immediately to the undersigned any problem and
j defects of the heavy equipments (sic) under your jurisdiction, including
personnel manning.
Please be guided accordingly.

After receiving this Memorandum under protest and resolving that the
dumpsite was not an appropriate place to work,Ong concededly desisted from

Consigna v. People, eta!., G.R. Nos. 175750-51, April 2, 2014

Joint Stipulation of Fact and Issue dated October 25,2017, Records, Vol. 1, pp. 291-299; Pre-Trlal Order
dated October 27,2017,Id., pp. 305-311
/
Exhibit "I" /
People V. Franklin D. Maata |
14 P a g e
Criminal Case No.SB-16-CRM-0508
DECISION

reporting for work at the dumpsite, but came to the City Engineer's Office and
registered his attendance at the biometric machine.®^ For his obstinate
desistance from reporting for work as directed under the Memorandum, his
direct supervisor, Gino Alejo, and City Engineer, accused Maata, refused to
sign his Daily Time Record, particularly for August 2011.
j In his defense, accused Maata explained that the heavy equipment used
at! the dumpsite belonged to the City Engineer's Office, and had to be
supervised by an engineer from the Motorpool and Maintenance Division.
Ttius, the reassignment was in line with Ong'sjob description.
This Court need not belabor the validity ofAlejo's Memorandum which
has been settled with finality by the Civil Service Commission in its Decision
dated April 23,2014,^"^ where it found:

Neither the Chief, Motorpool and Shop Service Division Gino

LI. Alejo, vi'ho issued the subject reassignment memorandum to the
City Dumpsite nor the City Engineer Franklin D.Maata,who ^'noted"
said order, are agency heads or the appointing authority of Ong,who
is duly authorized to issue reassignment orders or memoranda. They
may validly recommend to the appointing authority -the City Mayor,the
reassignment of Ong, for the City Mayor to consider in issuing the
reassignment order. Thus, it should be the Mayor, who is the head of
agency or the appointing authority who should have issued the order or
memorandum. This being the case,the subject reassignment should be
struck down as invalid.

Even granting that the reassignment order was issued by the head
ofagency or the appointing authority,the reassignment ofpersonnel is not
absolute. The managerial prerogative to reassign personnel must be
exercised without grave abuse of discretion and should be in consonance
with the parameters laid down under pertinent law and rules in the civil
service.

Moreover, the aforequoted Revised Rules on Reassignment

likewise provides, as follows:
XXX

"Reassignment shall be governed by thefollowing rules:

XXX

7. Reassignment is presumed to be regular and made in the

interest of public service unless proven otherwise or if it constitutes
constructive dismissal xxx.

'a) Reassignment of an employee to perform duties and

responsibilities inconsistent with the duties and
responsibilities ofhis/her position such asfrom a position
ofdignity to a more servile or menialjob;
'b) Reassignment to an office not in the existing organizational
structure;

Judicial Affidavit of Robert Ong, Q&A No. 10, Records, Vol. 1, p. 383-Z
®^iExhibit "K" 9
 People V. Franklin D. Maata 15
| page
Criminal Case No.SB-16-CRM-0508
DECISION

'c) Reassignment to an existing office but the employee is not

given any definite duties and responsibilities;
'd) Reassignment that will cause significant financial
dislocation or will cause difficulty or hardship on the part
ofthe employee because ofgeographical location; and
'e) Reassignment that is done indiscriminately or whimsically
because the law is*not intended as a convenient shieldfor
the appointing/disciplining authority to harass or oppress
a subordinate on the pretext ofadvancing and promoting
interest."

A thorough evaluation of Ong's reassignment shows that the same

clearly violates Rule 7(a)ofthe aforementioned rules.
Ong is an Engineer III, not a mechanic. It is not difficult to
decipher that the maintenance ofthe two(2)units of heavy equipment
purportedly in the City Dumpsite, is not within his duties and
functions,and thus,there is a clear diminution in rank or status for an
Engineer III like Ong. Besides, the preventive maintenance is already
being done by the Public Services Division(PSD)[,]a group under the City
Mayor's Office, as pointed out by Ong in his Appeal Memorandum.
Further, the two (2) units of heavy equipment had already been
pulled out fi:om the dumpsite some time after his reassignment to the City
Dumpsite. Thus, the purpose for which Ong's reassignment to the City
Dumpsite is no longer existent leaving him without any definite duties and
responsibilities to perform, in violation of Section 7(c) ofthe above-cited
rules.

This is not to mention that in the first place, said Dumpsite is not
an existing office in the organizational structure of Iligan City
government, thus, in violation of Section 7(b) of the Revised Rules on
Reassignment.
XXX

For all the infirmities suffered by the assailed Memorandum

reassigning Ong to the City Dumpsite, the same should be strucked
(sic) down for having been issued in violation of the pertinent
provisions of the rules on reassignment,(emphases supplied)

The Civil Service Commission is the sole arbiter of controversies

relating to the civil service.^^ As held in Mantala vs. Salvador,^^ cases
involving personnel actions, reassignment included, affecting civil service
employees, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Service
Commission.®^ In Reyes v. Belisario, et a/.,®® the Supreme Court underscored
the primary jurisdiction of the CSC in determining the validity of
reassignments, which should be accorded due respect and recognition. In said
case, the Supreme Court ruled that in resolving a complaint for Oppression
and Harassment, the Ombudsman should have considered the CSC's

^ blanda v. Bugayong, etai, G. R. No. 140917, October 10,2003

88
G.R. No. 101646, February 13,1992
^ Corsiga v. Defensor, etai, G.R. No. 139302, October 28,2002
G.R. No. 154652, August 14, 2009
/
^,
People V. Franklin D. Maata 16
| Page
Criminal Case No.S6-16-CRM-0508
DEaSION

determination on the validity of such reassignments, and judged the alleged

actions mainly on the basis ofwhether they constituted acts ofharassment and
oppression.
Proceeding from the CSC's finding that Ong's reassignment to the
dumpsite was invalid, this Court is tasked to determine if evident bad faith
attended accused Maata's refusal to sign Ong's DTR for August 2011.
At the outset, the CSC, in its Resolution dated September 9, 2014^^
ruled that Ong was entitled to his back salaries, "provided that the Human
Resource Office of the Iligan City Government has evidence of his
attendance at work as borne out by his Daily Time Records(DTR)". Ong
has already received his backwages for August 2011, indicating that this
requirement has been complied with.
In any event,the prosecution sufficiently established that Ong reported
for work for the whole month of August 2011. Ong's August 2011 DTR,
which accused Ong did not sign, was authenticated by prosecution witness
Ibarra B. Carampatan, Computer Programmer III of the Iligan City Human
Resource Management Office,"based on [the office's] database record in the
biometric system."
The DTR reflects the official attendance ofthe employee in the absence
of proofthat the employee concerned has falsified his DTR.^® Moreover,the
entries in his DTR were verified from the Human Resource Management
Office's biometric system. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the
presumption ofregularity in the performance oftheir official functions must
be upheld.^^
I While accused Maata was silent as to Ong's attendance for the month
of August 2011, addressing only issues in his July 2011 DTR which is
extraneous to this case,^^ defense witness Gino Alejo testified that he did not
see Ong report for work at the Motorpool and Shops Division for the whole
month of August 2011, and that the logbook did not bear Ong's signature for
the month of August 2011.^^ This, however, is entirely unsubstantiated, as
neither the purported logbook or any other witness was presented to attest that
Ong was indeed absent from work in August 2011. More importantly, these
bare assertions barely match the probative value ofOng's DTR,the regularity
of which, as discussed, is presumed, and was never controverted.
I Neither does this Court find credence in accused Maata's assertion that
Ong admitted in his counter-affidavit that he did not report for work after his
reassignment to the dumpsite. A reading of said counter-affidavit^'* would
show that Ong was not particularly referring to his August 2011 attendance
when he stated that after his reassignment, he"[could not]just enter the Motor

Exhibit"M"
^Artuz V. CA, et ai, G.R. No. 142444,September 13, 2001
Ibid.
See Q&A Nos.9-11 of accused Maata's Judicial Affidavit, Records, Vol. 2, pp.56-57 y*
/^

Judicial Affidavit of Gino Alejo, Q&A No.12 / I

^''Exhibit"?" y
 People V. Franklin D. Maata |
17 P a g e
Criminal Case No.SB-16-CRM-0508
DECISION

Pool and Shops Division ofthe CEO and render supervision over the repairs
of equipment as [he could] always be held accountable for everything (sic)
untoward incident or accident diat may happen inside the worksite even
without [his] participation."
What appears clear is that the reason why Alejo and accused Maata
refused to sign Ong's DTR for August 2011 was his failure to report for work
af the dumpsite, as directed under the Memorandum dated July 21,2011.
I Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of
the accused to do wrong or cause damage. It connotes not only bad judgment
but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral
obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will.^^ This
Court finds it hard to believe that accused Maata earnestly relied on the touted
validity and fairness ofthe Memorandum dated July 21,2011,issued by Alejo
arid noted by him, in refusing to sign Ong's DTR for non-compliance
tihlerewith. In addition to the CSC's fmding that said Memorandum was
invalid,this Court also finds that it was issued and implemented by both Maata
and Alejo with utmost bad faith.
Ong was practically exiled to a garbage dumpsite indefinitely as his
place of work. His apparent task was to closely supervise heavy equipment
used at the dumpsite, since that was his only task, as specified in the
niemorandum. This speaks loudly of accused Maata's disregard not only of
Ong's position as Engineer III, but even more importantly, his health and self-
worth, which cannot be muted by the mere pretense that he was assigned to
supervise heavy equipment,as provided in hisjob description. As testified by
Alejo, even before Ong's very opportune reassignment to the dumpsite
promptly upon his return to the Motorpool and Maintenance Division, the
dumpsite had been operational, and the heavy equipment supervised, even
without a permanently-assigned engineer to do it. According to Alejo:
CHAIRPERSON

Q: Engr. Alejo, when was this heavy equipment placed in the

Dumpsite? Would you know?
WITNESS:

A: Medyo matagal na pa na kwan 'yun, na request.

Q The heavy equipment?
A Yes, your Honor.

Q It was already there before July 21?

A Yes, your Honor.
During that time, who was the engineer assigned by the
Engineering Office to supervise, monitor, check?
A: Ako rin po ang pumupunta sa lahat ng *yan,
Q: Personally?

95
M.A.Jimenez Enterprises, inc. v. Ombudsman,et al., G.R. No. 155307,June 6,2011
f
 People V. Franklin D. Maata 18 I P a g e
Criminal Case No.SB-16-CRM-0508
DECISION

A: Yes, your Honor.

Q: You have not assigned any member of the Engineering
Office to be there and supervise it?
A: Wala po.
Q: Why (Jid you think ofEngr. Ong to be assigned there on the
moment that you received the supposed recall order when he
should be reporting back to the City Engineer's Office, main
office?

A: Kasi po kulang 'yung personnel ko sa opisina kaya nung

bumalik sya, sya ang nilagay ko sa (inaudible)field ng mga
equipment na nasa operations.
Q: But you said you have not assigned anyone?
A: Ako po angpumupunta.
Q: You were the one?
A: Yes, your Honor. ,
Q: Why? How many members are there in the City
Engineering's Office?
A: Dalawa lang po kaming naiwan na engineer at the time,
your Honor.
There were only two ofus left during that time, your Honor.
Q: You and... can you mention the name ofthe other engineer?
A: Engr. Dwight Balat.
Q: Have you not thought of assigning Engr. Dwight to the
dumpsite?
A: I did not, your Honor.
Q: Why? Is he more senior orjunior in rank?
A: Junior, your Honor.
Q: Should it not be the one junior in rank [who] should be
assigned to a dumpsite?
A: Because I assigned him with repairs, your Honor, so he
should be the one left at the shop.^^(emphases supplied)

Accused Maata's refusal to sign the DTK, notwithstanding that Ong

had been reporting to the Motorpool and Maintenance Division,as established
by the prosecution, takes the form of punishment for Ong's refusal to work
under the extremely hostile conditions they laid for him.

f\

/■
96
tSN dated May 28, 2018, pp. 28-30
\
People V. Franklin D. Maata |
19 P a g e
Criminal Case No.SB-16-CRM-0508
DECISION

Undue injuty has not been established

There are two ways by which a public official violates Section 3(e)of
R.A. No. 3019 in the performance of his functions, namely:(1) by causing
undue injury to any party, including the Government; or (2) by giving ^y
private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. The accused
may be charged under either mode or both.The disjunctive term "or" connotes
thk either act qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. In
other words,the presence of one would suffice for conviction.^^
In this case, there is no allegation that accused Maata's refusal to sign
Ohg's DTR was done to give unwarranted benefits to any party. Thus, this
Court is left to determine ifsuch refusal to sign the DTR caused undue injury
tojOng,as alleged in the Information.
Undue injury in Sec. 3[e] ofthe law cannot be presumed even after a
wrong has been established. Llorente v. Sandiganhayar?^ is instructive:

In jurisprudence,"undue injury" is consistently interpreted as

"actual damage." Undue has been defined as "more than necessary, not
proper,[or] illegal;" and injury as "any wrong or damage done to another,
either in his person, rights, reputation or property [; that is, the] invasion of
any legally protected interest of another." Actual damage,in the context
of these definitions, is akin to that in civil law.

In tum, actual or compensatory damages is defined by Article 2199

ofthe Civil Code as follows:

"Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by

stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for
such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such
compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages."
Fundamental in the law on damages is that one injured by a breach
ofa contract, or by a wrongful or negligent act or.omission shall have a fair
andjust compensation commensurate to the loss sustained as a consequence
of the defendant's act. Actual pecuniary compensation is awarded as a
general rule,except where the circumstances warrant the allowance ofother
kinds of damages. Actual damages are primarily intended to simply
make good or replace the loss caused by the wrong.
Furthermore, damages must not only be capable of proof, but
must be actually proven with a reasonable degree of certainty. They
cannot be based on flimsy and non-substantial evidence or upon
speculation, conjecture or guesswork. They cannot include speculative
damages which are too remote to be included in an accurate estimate ofthe
loss or injury,(emphases supplied)

/
®^'Co/omo V. Sandiganbayan, etai, G.R. No. 205561,September 24,2014
®®;G.R. No. 122166, March 11,1998
1
People V. Franklin D. Maata |
20 P a g e
Criminal Case No.SB-16-CRM-050&
DECISION

While the Information alleges undue injury suffered by Ong in the

amount withheld from him in August 2011 when accused Maata refused to
sign his DTR,i.e., his salary amoimting to P30,352.00, and his rice allowance
arhoimting to P2,000.00, ironically, the only evidence presented by the
prosecution to establish Ong's monthly compensation was his payslip for said
month,^^ proving instead that he has already been paid. This much is not
disputed. In fact, among the evidence presented by the prosecution is the
following Certification from the Office of the City Accountant of Iligan
City:^o^

This is to certify that as per record available in our payroll system,

Engr. Robert L. Ong, Engineer.Ill of the Motorpool & Shop Services
Division, City Engineer's Office, had already received his salary for the
whole month of August 2011 indicating the following period as shown
below:

Period Covered Date Processed

August 1-20,2011 - July 30,2014

August 21-31,2011 - October 7,2014

As explained in Llorente, undue injury as contemplated under Sec. 3(e)

of R.A. 3019 is interpreted as actual damage, which, in turn, is intended to
make good or replace a loss. Actual damages are such compensation or
damages for an injury that will put the injured party in the position in which
he had been before he was injured.'®^
As prosecution evidence shows, Ong has already received his
backwages for August 2011 in 2014, and as of said date, there was nothing
more to compensate.

In Llorente v. Sandiganbayan cited above, the accused mayor was

charged with violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for refusing to sign and
approve the payrolls and vouchers representing the payments of the salaries
and other emoluments of the complainant, resulting in her failure to receive
her salaries. This Court held that the delay or withholding of her salaries
caused complainant undue injury. The Supreme Court, in reversing this
Court's Decision, found that complainant was not entirely blameless for the
delay in the approval of her claims. The Supreme Court went on to explain:
In this case, the complainant testified that her salary and allowance
for the period beginning July 1990 were withheld, and that her family
underwent financial difficulty which resulted from the delay in the
satisfaction of her claims. As regards her money claim, payment of her
salaries from January 1991 until November 19,1991 was evidenced by
the Sheriffs Return dated November 19, 1991 (Exh. D). She also

Exhibit "F-1"

//
Certifications dated October 13,2016 marked as Exhibits "F" and "G"
Metal(Corporation) v. Sps. Lomotan, etal., G.R. No. 170813, April 16,2008
 People V. Franklin D. Maata 211 P a g e
Criminal Case No.SB-16-CRM-0508
DECISION

admitted having been issued a check on January 4, 1994 to cover her

salary from June 1 to June 30, 1990; her salary differential from July
1,1989 to April 30,1990; her thirteenth-month pay; her cash gift; and
her clothing allowances.Respondent Courtfound that all her monetary
claims were satisfied. After she fully received her monetaiy claims,
there is no longer any basis for compensatory damages or undue injury,
there being nothing more to compensate.
Complainant's testimony regarding her family's financial stress was
inadequate and largely speculative. Without giving specific details, she
! made only vague references to the fact that her four children were all going
to school and that she was the breadwinner in the family. She, however,did
not say that she was unable to pay their tuition fees and the specific damage
I brought by such nonpayment. The fact that the "injury" to her family was
I unspecified or unquantified does not satisfy the element ofundue injury, as
akin to actual damages. As in civil cases, actual damages, if not supported
by evidence on record, cannot be considered.
Other than the amount ofthe withheld salaries and allowances which
I were eventually received,the prosecution failed to specify and to prove any
^ other loss or damage sustained by the complainant. Respondent Court
insists that complainant suffered by reason ofthe "long period oftime" that
her emoluments were withheld.

I This inconvenience,however,is not constitutive of undue injury.

In Jacinto^^^ this Court held that the injury suffered by the
complaining witness, whose salary was eventually released and whose
position was restored in the plantilla, was negligible; undue injury
entails damages that are more than necessary or are excessive,
improper or illegal. In Alejandro, the Court held that the hospital
employees were not caused undue injury,as they were in fact paid their
salaries,(emphases supplied)

In Jacinto v. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court ruled that no real or

actual damage was suffered by a complainant whose salary was withheld,
since she eventually got such salary released, and her name restored in the
plantilla. In Alejandro v. People where the petitioner incurred over-
expenditures at the expense ofthe hospital's employees'salaries,the Supreme
Court held that there was no undue injury caused to them as they were in fact
later paid their salaries.
I The prosecution has the duty to prove each and every element of the
crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for the said
crime or for any other crime necessarily included therein.^^^ However,in the
case at bar, the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of undue
injury to Robert Ong,there being proof, instead, that he has already received
his August 2011 salaries and rice allowance.

Jacinto vs. Sandiganbayan, 178 SCRA 254,259, October 2,1989

Alejandro v. People, 170 SCRA 400,405, February 20,1989.
10^ 178 SCRA 254,259, October 2,1989
170 SCRA 400,405, February 20,1989.
^°^ Andaya v. People, G.R. No. 168486,June 27, 2006

\
People V. Franklin D. Maata 22 I P a g e
ICrimlnal Case No.SB-16-CRM-0508
DECISION

In the absence ofthe third element, no criminal liability can be imputed

against accused Maata. !
WHEREFORE, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of
iaccused FRANKLIN D. MAATA beyond reasonable doubt, he is
ACQUITTED ofthe crime charged.
i

The cash bond posted by accused Maata is ordered released subject to

the usual accounting procedures. The Hold Departure Order issued by thisj
Court on August 16, 2016 is set aside and the Order issued by the Bureau ofi
Immigration incorporating the name ofthe accused in the Hold Departure List
is ordered recalled and cancelled. i

SO ORDERED.

9^
MA.THERESA DCmQRES C. GGMEZ-ESTGESTA
Associaw Justice, Chairperson

WE CONCUR:

i/
:SPESES GEGRGBVA D.HTOALGG
Associ(M Justice Associa \e Justice

ATTESTATION
j
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer ofthe opinion of the
Court's Division.

MA.THERESA Ij^LGRES C.GGMEZ-ESTGESTA

Chaijperson, Seventh Division
People V. Franklin D. Maata 23 I P a g e
Criminal Case No.SB-16-CRM-0508
DECISION

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairman's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in
the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer ofthe opinion ofthe Court's Division.

»ARO M.CABQ1^®-TANG
Presiding Justice

i: