Malum prohibitum - G.R. No. 169196

G.R. No. 169196

(click link)

"x x x.

Second, the ratiocination of the CA that respondent should not have been held liable for grave misconduct because of the supposed failure of Martinez to show undue influence is mistaken. The relevant provision under which respondent was charged is Section 7(d) of R.A. No. 6713 which reads:

SEC. 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions.- In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. - Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office.

x x x x

The Ombudsman shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of this subsection, including pertinent reporting and disclosure requirements.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to restrict or prohibit any educational, scientific or cultural exchange programs subject to national security requirements. (Emphasis supplied.)

Said prohibition in Section 7(d) is malum prohibitum. It is the commission of that act as defined by the law, and not the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or not the provision has been violated. Therefore, it is immaterial whether respondent has fully paid her loans since the law prohibits the mere act of soliciting a loan under the circumstances provided in Section 7(d) of R.A. No. 6713. Neither is undue influence on respondent’s part required to be proven as held by the CA. Whether respondent used her position or authority as a CDA official is of no consequence in the determination of her administrative liability. And considering that respondent admitted having taken two loans from CABMPCI, which is a cooperative whose operations are directly regulated by respondent’s office, respondent was correctly meted the penalty of suspension by the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon for violation of Section 7(d). The CA committed reversible error when it granted respondent’s petition for review which should have been dismissed for lack of merit.

x x x."