Facts: Ebarle, the petitioner, was then provincial governor of Zamboanga and a candidate for re-election in 1971 local elections. The Anti-Graft League of the Philippines filed complaints with the city fiscal against the petitioner for violations of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft Law) and Articles 171, 182,183, 213, and 318 of the Revised Penal Code. The petitioner filed petitions for prohibition and certiorari in CFI but they were dismissed. He petitioned to the Supreme Court and alleged that the City Fiscal and Anti-Graft League failed to comply with the provisions of EO 264, which outlined the procedure how complainants charging the government officials and employees with the commission of irregularities should be guided.
Issue: Whether or not EO 264 is exclusively applicable to administrative charges and not to criminal complaints
Held: 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment