Case Digest (G.R. No. 233443-44)
Facts:
Albert G. Ambagan, Jr. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 233443-44, November 28, 2018, the Supreme Court Second Division, J. Reyes, Jr., J., writing for the Court. The petition under Rule 45 sought to annul the Sandiganbayan Special Fourth Division Decision dated April 5, 2017 and Resolution dated August 8, 2017 that found petitioner guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).The challenged events began with local legislation: on September 25, 1998 the Sangguniang Bayan of Amadeo, Cavite adopted Resolution No. 57 declaring Balite Falls a tourist spot/park/reserved area (approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan on October 19, 1998). Petitioner, then Sangguniang Kabataan Federation Chairman, signed that 1998 resolution. In later years petitioner became Municipal Mayor. The properties near Balite Falls included land titled to Simplicio S. Lumandas (TCT No. T-158087) and adjacent land to Calixto Lumandas (TCT No. T-158086); upon Simplicio's death his heirs (including Revina C. Lumandas) succeeded to the property.
From late 2007 into 2008 the municipal government pursued development of Balite Falls. On January 31, 2008 the Sangguniang Bayan passed Resolutions Nos. 58 and 59 approving operating guidelines for an eco‑tourism area and authorizing petitioner to enter into agreements for development. In February–March 2008 the house on the Lumandas lot was demolished and construction/earth‑works were undertaken on both the Simplicio heirs' and Calixto's properties. Owners protested at a March 2 meeting and later were prevented from marking boundaries; petitioner allegedly, with armed men, threatened relatives with arrest. Petitioner proposed a 25‑year lease to Calixto in March 2008 but the latter declined. No expropriation proceedings were instituted.
On July 1, 2008 Revina (for the heirs of Simplicio) and Calixto separately filed complaints with the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and misconduct. The Deputy Ombudsman dismissed the misconduct charge on March 17, 2017 but Informations were filed charging petitioner with two counts of violating Section 3(e), each alleging that petitioner ordered construction works on the respective titled lots in or about February 2008, causing undue injury to the owners (each Information identical except as to owner, TCT, affected area and valuation).
The Sandiganbayan Special Fourth Division rendered the assailed Decision on April 5, 2017 finding petitioner guilty in both criminal cases and, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, sentenced him in each case to imprisonment of six years...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the acts charged in the two Informations constitute a single continuing offense (delito continuado) such that only one Information should have been filed and only one penalty imposed.
- Whether the Informations were sufficient for alleging that the acts were performed "in the discharge of [the accused's] official functions" as required under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
- Whether the elements of Section 3(e) — manifest partiality/evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence and resulting undue injury or unwarran...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)