The Supreme Court (SC), it turns out, has already came out with a previous decision firmly striking down the element of “good faith” being used as a defense strategy in a criminal case. According to a Manila Times story which I came across, this resulted in the high court’s affirmation of the 2010 conviction by the Sandiganbayan of a Leyte town mayor for technical malversation in diverting the use of four sacks of rice and two boxes of sardines (value: P3,390) intended for malnourished children. This makes for a truly compelling case study, especially with its downstream implications. “It is the commission of an act defined by the law and not the character or effect thereof that determines whether or not the provision (of the law) has been violated. Hence malice or criminal intent is completely irrelevant,” the SC’s decision was quoted in the story. “Dura lex, sed lex.” In finding the local executive guilty beyond reasonable doubt of technical malversation last November 2012, the SC pointed out the law punishing “the act of diverting public property earmarked by law for a particular public purpose to another public purpose.” “The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is not inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense because positive law forbids its commission based on considerations of public policy, order and convenience.” The “good faith” defense strategy is being used as a crutch by Malacañang apologists led by Secretary Edwin Lacierda to deflect withering public criticism about the huge sums of money sourced from the now-infamous Development Acceleration Program (DAP) that was lavished on certain “honorable” members of the Philippine Senate for “services rendered” in the matter of convicting Chief Justice Rene Corona in his impeachment trial. (Note: The two senators who are said to have benefited the most from the DAP were Frank Drilon with an allocation of P100 million in 2012 and Francis Escudero with P99 million.) Of course, this is being vehemently denied by the senators who all claim in unison that they are clean as when they were born. The previously unheard of DAP program — a brainchild of Budget Secretary Butch Abad that was allegedly meant to spur economic growth — was declared unconstitutional and illegal by the SC. The tribunal said Malacañang didn’t have any power to realign funds meant for other projects by Congress to the DAP, which it did by simply declaring these as savings. Ironically, when he was still a mere senator struggling under the shadow of his more illustrious mother, B. S. Aquino was responsible for filing a bill entitled the “Budget Impoundment Control Act” seeking to limit the discretionary powers of the Palace, ultimately preventing it from usurping the power of Congress over the public purse. Also, not a few will distinctly recall that one of the resounding promises he made, which formed part of his campaign platform to entice the public to vote for him, was the early passage of the mothballed Freedom of Information Act to promote transparency and eliminate corruption in government. With less than two years left in his presidency, P-Noy still has to keep this important promise to the Filipino people, whom he claims are his “boss.” Daang matuwid? Heck no. Daang ipokrito or daang baluktot is more like it. Filipino businessman Joaquin Rodriguez Sr. must surely be grinning like a contented Cheshire cat resulting from a favorable ruling by the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming his management control of a disputed property in Makati City, the posh Infinity Tower Condominium along Makati Avenue, after being muscled out for a time by his former partners. In a resolution, the CA Fifteenth Division unanimously upheld the decision of Branch 66, Makati City RTC recognizing Rodriguez, who heads Optimax International Corp., as the controlling owner of Infinity Tower (also known as Stamford Court), and denying the reversal being sought by rival Archinet International. The CA Fifteenth Division is composed of Associate Justices Zenaida Galapate-Laguilles (ponente), Mariflor Punzalan-Castillo and Amy Lazaro-Javier. “What is crystal clear before us, as borne by the records, is that after failing to obtain an injunctive writ following the expiration of the TRO granted by the Makati RTC, Branch 66… (South Korean Seok-whan) Hahn (chairman and president of Archinet) at his own instance filed a petition (against Optimax) before the Mandaluyong RTC for the protection of his rights against the effects of the Order (in favor of Optimax,” the CA said. For this, Archinet was found guilty by the CA of engaging in forum shopping after realizing it wouldn’t be able to secure another TRO to stop Rodriguez from taking over at Infinity. In effect, the CA said this “degraded the administration of justice, congested our court dockets and abused our judicial system.” The appellate court, it was reported, also found Makati RTC, Branch 138 of “bad faith” in transgressing the doctrine of judicial stability when it issued a TRO in favor of Korean-led Greenstone (another Hahn-owned company) when the exact same case was already being heard by Makati RTC, Branch 66 which is a co-equal court. Fittingly, the CA also directed the Makati Sheriff to implement, with police assistance if needed, the dictates of Makati RTC Branch 66 that validated and recognized, including all actions, resolutions and contracts approved and entered into by the Rodriguez-led board. The 30-storey Infinity Tower, which is owned by Beccomax Property and Development Corp., is joint venture between Optimax (60 percent) and South Korean company Byucksan (40 percent). The extant controversy stemmed from a case filed by Optimax after Greenstone inexplicably grabbed management control of Infinity Tower though fully aware of a resolution by the Beccomax board designating another Rodriguez-owned company, Quadrillon Property Management Inc., as the building manager which has total disposition over all internal affairs.
Posted on: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 02:24:06 +0000