JOSEPH CEDRICK O. RUIZ VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
- G.R. Number: G.R. Nos. 209073-74
- Promulgated: 2025-01-27
- Ponente: HERNANDO, J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case Petitioner Joseph Cedrick O. Ruiz (petitioner) was the City Mayor of Dapitan City from 1998 to 2001. After losing re-election in May 2001, but before his term ended on June 30, 2001, he allegedly instructed Police Inspector Pepe E. Nortal (Nortal) to make a cash advance of PHP 1,000,000.00 from the city's Confidential and Intelligence Fund (CIF). This was done despite petitioner having several unliquidated cash advances. Nortal initially hesitated but complied after petitioner assured him of liquidation assistance and personally facilitated the approval with city officials. Nortal, accompanied by petitioner's private secretary, encashed the check and remitted the full amount to petitioner, who then gave PHP 50,000.00 back to Nortal for drug operations. The PHP 1,000,000.00 remained unliquidated. Petitioner was subsequently charged with violation of Section 3(e) of **Republic Act No. 3019** (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Malversation under Article 217 of the **Revised Penal Code**. The Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty on both counts. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and a supplemental motion for reconsideration and/or new trial, arguing that the findings were based on speculation, there was no solid evidence of his receipt of the money, and that the city had demanded liquidation from Nortal. He also argued against his malversation conviction due to the alleged lack of prior demand for accounting from Dapitan City. The Sandiganbayan denied his motions. ## Issues 1. Did the Sandiganbayan err in denying petitioner’s motion for a new trial? 2. Did the Sandiganbayan err in finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3(e) of **Republic Act No. 3019** and Malversation under Article 217 of the **Revised Penal Code**? ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Court **affirmed** the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial. The Court reiterated the rule that only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition. Petitioner's arguments challenging the credibility of Nortal as a witness and the sufficiency of evidence to convict him are factual in nature and require re-evaluation of evidence, which is beyond the scope of a Rule 45 appeal. The factual findings of the **Sandiganbayan** are binding upon the Court unless certain exceptions are present, none of which were found in this case. The **Sandiganbayan** is a special anti-graft appellate court whose factual findings in graft cases are conclusive upon the Supreme Court. **Issue 2:** The Court **affirmed** the conviction of petitioner for violation of Section 3(e) of **Republic Act No. 3019** and Malversation under Article 217 of the **Revised Penal Code**. The Court found Nortal's testimony credible, noting that the **Sandiganbayan's** assessment of witness credibility is given great weight. Nortal's consistent and spontaneous narration of how petitioner ordered him to request the cash advance despite petitioner's own unliquidated funds was bolstered by other prosecution witnesses who testified to petitioner's active facilitation of the request. Petitioner's denial and alibi were deemed unconvincing, and his attempt to discredit Nortal due to alleged political motivation lacked supporting evidence. Regarding the charge for violation of Section 3(e) of **Republic Act No. 3019**, the Court found all elements present: - **Public Officer:** Petitioner was the City Mayor. - **Official Function:** The act was done while discharging his official function as mayor. - **Manifest Partiality, Evident Bad Faith, or Gross Inexcusable Negligence:** Petitioner acted in **evident bad faith**. He instigated Nortal to request the entire PHP 1,000,000.00 CIF, violating auditing rules, and actively pressured city officials to release the funds. The timing of the request, just weeks before his term ended and covering the entire year's CIF, demonstrated a "scheming desire to procure the CIF." Petitioner could not feign…
Facts
Petitioner Joseph Cedrick O. Ruiz, the former City Mayor of Dapitan, was charged with Malversation and violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The charges stemmed from a Php 1,000,000.00 cash advance from the city's Confidential and Intelligence Fund (CIF) which he allegedly instigated Police Inspector Pepe E. Nortal to request on his behalf after losing his re-election bid. According to Nortal, who turned state witness, the money was turned over to Ruiz, who kept the majority of the funds for personal use. City officials testified that they processed the release of the entire annual CIF budget with hesitation and only upon the petitioner's insistence, despite irregularities.
Issues
1. Whether the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial was in order. 2. Whether the petitioner is guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and Malversation under the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's conviction of the petitioner for both charges. The Court found the testimony of the state witness credible and corroborated by other evidence, establishing that the petitioner acted in evident bad faith by using Nortal to circumvent rules on cash advances, as the petitioner himself had previous unliquidated advances. The Court ruled that all elements of both Malversation and violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 were proven, as the petitioner, a public officer, had custody of public funds, and caused undue injury to the government by misappropriating the entire 2001 CIF for personal use just before his term ended.
Keywords
Section 3(e) Republic Act No. 3019, Article 217 Revised Penal Code, Section 339 Republic Act No. 7160, Section 89 Presidential Decree No. 1445, COA Circular No. 97-002, COA Circular No. 92-385, Section 9(a) Republic Act No. 3019, Rule 121 Rules of Court, Article 203 Revised Penal Code, Section 340 Local Government Code, Section 102 Government Auditing Code, Public office is a public trust, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Malversation of Public Funds, Cash Advance, Confidential and Intelligence Fund, Gross Inexcusable Negligence, Evident Bad Faith, Manifest Partiality, Undue Injury