Title
Bustillo vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 160718
Decision Date
May 12, 2010
Congressman used CDF to buy vehicles for a municipality; transfer to water district was nullified, leading to graft charges. Supreme Court acquitted, citing lack of bad faith and presumption of regularity in official duties.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-25239)

Facts:

  • Background and Acquisition of Vehicles
    • Congressman Ceferino Paredes, Jr. utilized a portion of his Countryside Development Fund (CDF) to purchase one unit of Toyota Tamaraw FX and six units of Kawasaki motorcycles.
    • The vehicles were registered in the name of the Municipality of Bunawan and subsequently turned over to the municipality through its then-Municipal Mayor, Anuncio C. Bustillo.
  • Authorization and Execution of the Transfer
    • On May 17, 1995, the Sangguniang Bayan of Bunawan passed Resolution No. 95-27 authorizing the transfer, without cost, of the vehicles to the San Francisco Water District (SFWD).
    • Following the resolution, on June 19, 1995, Mayor Bustillo executed a Deed of Transfer in favor of SFWD, represented by its General Manager, Elmer T. Luzon.
  • Intervention by Higher Legislative Bodies
    • On July 27, 1995, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan del Sur passed Resolution No. 183 disapproving Resolution No. 95-27 for being in contravention of Section 381 of Republic Act (RA) 7160 (Local Government Code).
    • On August 17, 1995, the same legislative body passed Resolution No. 246, canceling and declaring the executed Deed of Transfer null and void due to its high irregularity and gross violation of Section 381 of RA 7160.
  • Initiation of Prosecution and Filing of Complaint
    • On May 23, 1996, a complaint was filed charging Bustillo, Vice-Mayor Agustin Billedo, Jr., and members of the Sangguniang Bayan, including Emilio Sumilhig, Jr., with the violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The complaint also implicated Teogenes Tortor, Ruth C. Orot, Ernesto Amador, Jr., as well as SFWD officials Antonio Taotao and Elmer T. Luzon.
    • Subsequently, on August 13, 1996, the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao issued a resolution recommending the filing of information with the Sandiganbayan for the named respondents, excluding Taotao due to insufficient evidence.
  • Pre-Trial Developments and Pleas
    • On June 24, 1998, an Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan, charging the accused with having conspired to transfer the vehicles unlawfully, thereby causing undue injury to the government by depriving the Municipality of Bunawan of its property.
    • On April 16, 1999, the accused (Bustillo, Billedo, Tortor, and Sumilhig) entered pleas of “Not Guilty.”
    • At the pre-trial conference held on June 7, 1999, both the prosecution and the defense admitted several material facts, including the roles of the accused in the transfer, the unanimous passage of Resolution No. 95-27, the execution of the deed, and details regarding the purchase value (Toyota Tamaraw FX at P400,000.00 and Kawasaki motorcycles totaling P305,100.00, with an aggregate purchase price of P705,100.00).
  • Trial Proceedings and Presentation of Evidence
    • The trial featured witness testimonies from both sides; the prosecution presented witnesses such as Florencia Ilorde, Lilia J. Nacorda, and Leonardo Barrios, while the defense called on Marco Luzon, Benigno G. Asis, Sumilhig, and Ceferino S. Paredes among other evidences.
    • Demurrers to evidence filed by the petitioners (and separately by Luzon) were denied by the trial court for lack of merit.
    • Additional procedural events included the execution of a Deed of Donation by SFWD on June 15, 1999, which purportedly was intended to ensure the smooth completion of CDF-funded waterworks projects, and the subsequent demise of one accused, Teogenes Tortor, which led to the dismissal of the case against him and the already deceased Ruth C. Orot.

Issues:

  • Whether the acts of transferring the vehicles from the Municipality of Bunawan to the San Francisco Water District amounted to a violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 by causing undue injury to the government.
  • Whether the petitioners, as public officers, acted in manifest partiality, with evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence in the execution of their official duties by approving and effectuating the transfer without proper consideration.
  • Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, which favors the lawfulness of the acts of public officers, is applicable and sufficient in rebutting the charge of wrongdoing under Section 3(e) of RA 3019.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.