SC panel may recommend criminal charges in CA bribery
By Aries C. Rufo, abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak | 08/18/2008 5:44 PM
Printer-friendly version | 
Send to friend | 
Share your views
Aside from possible administrative sanctions, the Supreme Court panel investigating the alleged bribery scandal in the Court of Appeals could also recommend further investigation and filing of criminal charges versus those involved in the controversy.
A former Supreme Court justice, who is occasionally tapped by the SC to be a member of similar panels, said criminal prosecution “might be an option” if the evidence produced warrants it.
“This (recommendation to file a criminal case) depends on the appreciation of the panel. They could go beyond the administrative sanctions,” the former justice said. The harshest administrative sanction could be suspension or dismissal from office.
The panel, chaired by former Justice Carolina Grino-Aquino, was tasked to look into the propriety of the actions of the justices in connection with the corporate row between power distributor Meralco and state-pension fund Government Service Insurance System, and allegations that a P10 million bribe was dangled to CA Justice Jose Sabio.
The panel’s mandate was originally to look into the internal rules and system in the CA, and in the present case, how cases should be properly handled and disposed of. But recommendations for disciplinary action on erring justices have become unavoidable following revelations in the hearings that some of the magistrates may have violated the Internal Rules of the CA (IRCA) and other ethical guidelines.
Camilo’s calls
The possibility that the panel’s findings could include criminal prosecution cropped up when, in one of the hearings, panel member former SC Justice Romeo Callejo Sr. castigated Justice Jose Sabio for entertaining the call of his brother, Camilo, and discussing the Meralco case. Camilo is chair of the Presidential Commission on Good Government.
In his testimony, Justice Sabio said Camilo called him up on May 30 purportedly to influence him to favor the GSIS in its corporate battle with the Lopezes over Meralco. On that day, Sabio was picked through a raffle to replace Justice Bienvenido Reyes in the 9th Division. It was the 9th division that issued the temporary restraining order barring the Securities and Exchange Commission from intervening in the corporate row.
Camilo again called Justice Sabio on July 23, when the 8th division, which had assumed jurisdiction of the Meralco case following a reorganization in the CA, handed down its decision favoring the Lopezes.
In his affidavit to the Supreme Court, Justice Sabio said Camilo was inquiring why he was not among the justices who issued the decision.
Criminal acts
The Sabio brothers may have committed two separate violations.
As a government official, Camilo’s act of calling his brother to influence his decision is punishable under Article 243 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 243 (orders or requests by executive offices to any judicial authority) states that :"Any executive officer who shall address any order or suggestion to any judicial authority with respect to any case or business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine."
For his part, as an official of the Court, Justice Sabio is mandated under Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code to report any possible violation of the law, with negligence and tolerance as the offending act. Article 208 states: “The penalty of prison correccional in its minimum period (six months and 1 day to 2 years and four months) and suspension shall be imposed upon any public officer or officer of the law who, in dereliction of the duties of his office, shall maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution for the punishment of violations of the law, or shall tolerate the commission of offenses.”
In previous interviews and in his testimony before the panel, Justice Sabio said he decided to disclose his conversations with his brother for transparency. “I didn’t have to include his name but I want to be honest. I should have deleted his name (in the affidavit) but I’m sorry, I have to tell the truth,” Justice Sabio said.
Ombudsman or DOJ
If the panel decides to include a recommendation that seeks to pursue the criminal aspect of the case, this will either be referred to the Department of Justice or the Ombudsman “for the preliminary investigation of the crime,” the former justice said.
The SC, for its part, may on its own order further investigation on possible criminal violation. The most recent case where the SC assumed a pro-active role in pursuing a possible criminal violation was the botched P1.2 billion Comelec modernization program. The SC, aside from nullifying the contract, ordered the Ombudsman to conduct preliminary investigation on possible commission of crime.
