G.R. No. 150194 - Tayaban y Caliplip vs. People

In 1988, Mayor Robert Tayaban of Tinoc, Ifugao, submitted a project proposal to Governor Benjamin Cappleman for the construction of the Tinoc Public Market.
The proposal was approved, with funding indicated to come from the Cordillera Executive Board (CEB).
Following the approval, a bidding was conducted, and private contractor Lopez Pugong won the contract for the construction of the public market.
On March 1, 1989, a formal contract was executed between Pugong (as contractor) and the CEB (as project owner), and construction commenced in June 1989.

On August 15, 1989, the Tinoc Sangguniang Bayan passed Resolution No. 20, asserting that:

The constructors had, despite instructions and memoranda from the Municipal Mayor, proceeded to erect building pedestals on a site deemed improper by the local government.
The resolution called for the demolition of the erected structures to reconstruct the market according to the preferred location determined by the council.

On the same day the resolution was adopted, Mayor Tayaban, his co-petitioners (Municipal Councilors), and several men proceeded to the construction site and demolished the structures.

Following the demolition, contractor Pugong filed an Affidavit-Complaint against the petitioners.
An Information dated June 26, 1992, charged Mayor Tayaban and his co-petitioners with a violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
The accusatory portion specified that the accused, acting as public officers, willfully and unlawfully passed and approved Resolution No. 20, thereby authorizing themselves to demolish the partially constructed public market to the injury of the Government (specifically the CEB).

Upon arraignment on December 14, 1992, the petitioners pleaded not guilty.
After trial proceedings, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a decision convicting all the accused of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
The court imposed an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment (ranging from six years and one month to eight years) and ordered joint and several payment to the Government of ₱134,632.80.
Petitioners subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the Sandiganbayan on September 28, 2001.

First Error: Allegation that the acts of the accused did not constitute a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 due to the absence of proof that the Government suffered undue injury, compounded by the non-participation of the CEB in the trial.
Second Error: The Sandiganbayan’s failure to recognize Resolution No. 20 as valid legislation and the contention that the demolition was an exercise of police power under LOI No. 19.
Third Error: Appellants argued that the Sandiganbayan improperly relied on the testimony of the prosecution’s witness, Abe Belingan, alleging his bias and lack of disinterested credibility.

Whether the actions of Mayor Tayaban and his co-petitioners, in passing and implementing Resolution No. 20, amounted to a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
Whether the evidence sufficiently established that their act was executed with “manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence” resulting in undue injury to the Government.

Whether the Resolution No. 20 passed by the Tinoc Sangguniang Bayan was a valid exercise of legislative authority, particularly in light of allegations that it was a mere afterthought to justify the demolition.
Whether the demolition of the public market structures was a proper exercise of police power derived from LOI No. 19 and the Local Government Code applicable at that time (Local Government Code of 1983).

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in giving meritorious weight to the testimony of prosecution witness Abe Belingan, considering his contractual interest in the construction.
Whether the procedural and evidentiary shortcomings (e.g., lack of receipts from Pugong’s itemized expenses) undermined the proof of undue injury and bad faith against the petitioners.