Cases (Official Duty) Flashcards
Congressman Cuenco entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Vicente Sotto Memorial Medical Center (VSMMC) appropriating to the hospital the amount of P1,500,000.00 from his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) to cover the medical assistance of indigent patients under the Tony N’ Tommy (TNT) Health Program. It was agreed that Cuenco shall identify and recommend the patients who may availed of the program. Several years after the enforcement of the MOA, allegations of forgery and falsification of prescriptions and referrals for the availment of medicines under the TNT Program surfaced. Consequently, an audit thereof was conducted and rampant violations of bidding and audit procedure were revealed. Thereafter, Special Audit Team Supervisor, Boado disallowed the amount of P3,386,697.10 for the payment of drugs and medicines for anti-rabies with falsified prescription and documents, and holding petitioners, together with other VSMMC officials, solidarily liable therefor. By way of defense, petitioners nonetheless argue that VSMMC was merely a passive entity in the disbursement of funds under the TNT Program and, thus, invoke good faith in the performance of their respective duties, capitalizing on the failure of the assailed Decisions of the CoA to show that their lapses in the implementation of the TNT Program were attended by malice or bad faith.
ISSUE: Whether or not assertion of good faith in the performance of a public function prevails over factual findings revealing violations of rules and regulations in the performance of such function.
Jurisprudence holds that, absent any showing of bad faith and malice, there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. However, this presumption must fail in the presence of an explicit rule that was violated. Petitioners failed to make a case justifying their non-observance of existing auditing rules and regulations, and of their duties under the MOA. Evidently, petitioners’ neglect to properly monitor the disbursement of Cuenco’s PDAF facilitated the validation and eventual payment of 133 falsified prescriptions and fictitious claims for anti-rabies vaccines supplied by both the VSMMC and Dell Pharmacy, despite the patent irregularities borne out by the referral slips and prescriptions related thereto. Had there been an internal control system installed by petitioners, the irregularities would have been exposed, and the hospital would have been prevented from processing falsified claims and unlawfully disbursing funds from the said PDAF.
Accused was charged with violation of RA 9165. The prosecution presented Trayvilla, a Non-Uniformed Personnel of the PNP, who testified that on 31 July 2002 at around 6:30 in the morning, while performing her duty as a female frisker assigned at the NAIA Terminal I, she frisked the accused Cadidia upon her entry at the departure area and she noticed something unusual and thick in the area of Cadidia’s buttocks. Upon inquiry, Cadidia answered that it was only her sanitary napkin which caused the unusual thickness. Not convinced with Cadidia’s explanation, Trayvilla and her female co-employee Bagsican brought the accused to the comfort room inside the domestic airport to check. When she and Bagsican asked Cadidia to remove her underwear, they discovered that inside were two sachets of shabu. The two sachets of shabu were turned over to their supervisor SPO3 Musalli I. Appang (SPO3 Appang). Trayvilla recalled that Cadidia denied that the two sachets of shabu were hers and said that she was only asked by an unidentified person to bring the same. During trial, accused interposed the defense of frame-up. Both the trial court and the CA, on appeal, convicted the accused. The accused also assails the application of presumption of regularity in the performance of duties of the witnesses. She claimed that the self- serving testimonies of Trayvilla and Bagsican failed to overcome her presumption of innocence guaranteed by the Constitution.
ISSUE: Whether or not the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties of a public officer may be assailed by bare allegations of frame-up.
Yes. In cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive on the part of the police officers.” In this case, the prosecution witnesses were unable to show ill-motive for the police to impute the crime against Cadidia. Trayvilla was doing her regular duty as an airport frisker when she handled the accused who entered the x-ray machine of the departure area. There was no pre-determined notice to particularly search the accused especially in her private area. The unusual thickness of the buttocks of the accused upon frisking prompted Trayvilla to notify her supervisor SPO3 Appang of the incident. The subsequent search of the accused would only show that the two female friskers were just doing their usual task when they found the illegal drugs inside accused’s underwear. This is bolstered by the fact that the accused on the one hand and the two friskers on the other were unfamiliar to each other. Neither could they harbour any ill-will against each other. The allegation of frame-up and denial of the accused cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of three prosecution witnesses who corroborated on circumstances surrounding the apprehension.
