THE Sandiganbayan has upheld the validity of a graft case filed by the Office of the Ombudsman against former Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) executive director Samuel Aloysius Jardin, who allegedly asked and received P4.6 million in cash from a private person transacting with the agency.
However, the anti-graft court’s Sixth Division dismissed a separate criminal case alleging that the accused solicited and accepted money from a person who was applying for a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC).
A CPC is an authorization issued by the LTFRB for the operation of public transportation services.
The 17-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Sarah Jane T. Fernandez denied the defendant’s motion seeking the quashal of both charges and suspension of proceedings.
Jardin was appointed to the LTFRB on March 20, 2018 by then-President Duterte but was suspended after serving just a year on orders of then-Department of Transportation Arthur Tugade.
Tugade’s order dated April 3, 2019 tagged the defendant for misconduct in office by “facilitating and fixing the application” for a CPC. Criminal and administrative complaints were filed on the same day with the Ombudsman.
On Dec. 22, 2020, the Ombudsman ordered Jardin dismissed from his post after finding him guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in a decision dated September 20, 2022.
In his motion, the defendant argued that the allegations did not constitute a criminal offense since the cases were based on records of the DOTr’s investigation.
He pointed out that the same records included an affidavit from CPC applicant Michelle Sapangila who said there was no money, black bag, or envelope involved, hence the cases had no leg to stand on.
Jardin added that Sapangila’s affidavit also did not mention a CPC but only a “route measured capacity or RMC,” which is not the same as a permit or license.
At the same time, he questioned the filing of the graft case and a separate case for alleged violation of Section 7(d) of RA 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards based on the same set of allegations.
The court declared that it found no reason to grant the defendant’s prayer to quash both charges.
“Even assuming that there was indeed an irregularity in the conduct of the preliminary investigation, the same will not render the information void nor impair their validity,” the Sandiganbayan said.
On the contention that both cases arose from a single act, the court held that only the case that imposes a heavier penalty must be prosecuted.
It invoked the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in the 2016 case of People vs. Gelacio that made it mandatory that the case with a lighter penalty is dismissed and that the accused be prosecuted only for violation of a law that imposes a heavier punishment.
“As seen in this Court’s previous discussion, the information in the two cases allege substantially the same acts. The accused may only be prosecuted under RA No. 3019 which provides for the heavier penalty,” the Sandiganbayan said.
