Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan

210. Mejorada v.
Sandiganbayan
G.R. Nos. L-51065-72/30 June 1987/EN BANC/Petition for Certiorari
Arturo A. Mejorada – petitioner
Sandiganbayan and the People of the Philippines – respondents
Decision by J. Cortes, Digest by Pip
Short Version: Arturo was a public officer in charge of negotiating with

property owners affected by highway constructions. One month he contacted
eight such persons and offered to work out their claims. After “assisting”
them with their claims, he then took most of their money. He was convicted
for eight separate charges and argued that the aggregate penalty of 56
years and 8 days violated the three-fold rule in Article 70 of the RPC. The
Court ruled that a person may be sentenced to as many penalties as the
separate offenses that he is charged with. The three-fold rule provides that a
person cannot be made to serve more than three times the most severe of
these penalties, which is 40 years. (In short, if it’s more than 3 x 40, it
violates the three-fold rule.)
Facts: Arturo was a public officer who was first employed as a temporary
skilled laborer in the Bureau of Public Works in March 1947. By 1978 he was
a right-of-way agent in the Office of the Highway District Engineer of Pasig.
His main duty was to negotiate with property owners affected by highway
constructions or improvements for the purpose of compensating them for the
damages incurred.
In October of November 1977, Arturo contacted eight people 1 whose lots

and improvements were affected by the widening of the proposed Pasig-Sta.
Cruz-Calamba Road. Arturo informed them that he could work out their
claims for payment of the values of their lots and/or improvements. In the
process, he asked them to sign blank copies of the “Sworn Statement on the
Correct and Fair Market Value of Real Properties” and the “Agreement to
Demolish, Remove, and Reconstruct Improvements” pertinent to their
claims. The claimants complied without bothering to find out what the
documents were all about because they were only interested in the payment
of damages.
In the “Sworn Statements” and “Agreements to Demolish”, the values of

the claimants’ respective properties were made to appear higher than the
actual values they were claiming. A few months after processing the claims,
Arturo accompanied the claimants to the Office of the Highway District
Engineer to receive payments and personally assited them in signing the
vouchers and encashing the checks, certifying as to their identities and
guaranteeing payment. Right after they received the proceeds of their
checks, Arturo brought them to his car where “they were divested of the
1
De Leon, Carlos, Maybituin, etc.
amounts paid to them, leaving only the sum of P1,000.00 to each (except
Carlos, to whom P5,000.00 was left), explaining that there were many who
would share in said amounts. All the claimants were helpless to complain
because they were afraid of the accused and his armed companion.”
The claimants filed complaints with the Provincial Fiscal of Pasig, who
charged Arturo with eight informations for violating Section 3(e) 2 of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Arturo was convicted and his aggregate
penalty amounted to 56 years and 8 days.
Issue: Was the penalty imposed on Arturo excessive and contrary to the
three-fold rule provided in Article 70 of the RPC? (Of five issues, this is the
only one relevant to our topic.)
Ruling: Petition denied for lack of merit.
Ratio: The three-fold rule as set forth in Article 70 of the RPC is taken into
account not in the imposition of the penalty but in connection with the
service of the sentence imposed. Article 70 speaks of “service” of sentence,
“duration” of penalty and penalty “to be inflicted.” There is nothing in the
provision mentioning “imposition of penalty.” The three-fold rule merely
provides that the prisoner cannot be made to serve more than three
times the most severe of these penalties, the maximum of which is
forty years.
Hence, the Sandiganbayan correctly imposed eight penalties for

the eight informations filed against Arturo. “Even without the authority
provided by Article 70, courts can still impose as many penalties as there are
separate and distinct offenses committed, since for every individual crime
committed, a corresponding penalty is prescribed by law. Each single crime
is an outrage against the State for which the latter, thru the courts of justice,
has the power to impose the appropriate penal sanctions.” (People v.
Peralta)
Voting: C.J. Teehankee, Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez,

Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.
2
Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private
party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official
administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or
government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

210. Mejorada v.

Short Version: Arturo was a public officer in charge of negotiating with

In October of November 1977, Arturo contacted eight people 1 whose lots

In the “Sworn Statements” and “Agreements to Demolish”, the values of

Ruling: Petition denied for lack of merit.

Hence, the Sandiganbayan correctly imposed eight penalties for

Voting: C.J. Teehankee, Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez,

You might also like