Case Digest (G.R. No. 233155-63)
Facts:
Jose Tapales Villarosa v. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 233155-63, June 23, 2020, the Supreme Court En Banc, Peralta, C.J., writing for the Court.
In 2010–2011 quarry operators in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro were reported by mining/quarry checkers to be extracting sand and gravel without permits issued by the Provincial Government. Ruben P. Soledad, Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer (PENRO), issued Cease-and-Desist Orders (CDOs) after discovering extraction permits bearing signatures of Jose T. Villarosa who was then Municipal Mayor of San Jose. Soledad insisted the authority to issue extraction permits rested exclusively with the Provincial Governor pursuant to Provincial Tax Ordinance No. 2005-004 and Section 138 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160).
Mayor Villarosa responded by letters disputing the CDOs, asserting (mistakenly) that under certain provisions of the Local Government Code he and the municipal MENRO had authority to process and authorize permits; he also questioned the validity/publication of the provincial ordinance. Soledad filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman (October 4, 2011) charging Villarosa with usurpation, violation of Section 138 RA 7160, grave abuse, misconduct, and other administrative offenses; the Ombudsman, however, found probable cause for violations of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) and directed filing of ten (10) informations before the Sandiganbayan (SB), later docketed SB‑14‑CRIM. CASE Nos. 0347–0356.
One information (SB-14-CRIM. No. 0347) was withdrawn by the prosecution and dismissed by the SB (Feb. 24, 2015); Villarosa was arraigned on February 23, 2015 and pleaded not guilty to the remaining nine counts. After trial, the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision dated November 17, 2016 finding Villarosa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of nine counts of violating Section 3(e), RA 3019, and imposed, for each count, an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six years and one month to ten years, plus perpetual disqualification from public office. Villarosa’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the SB in a Resolution dated March 6, 2017.
Villarosa sought review by the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The petition was initially denied by minute resolution (Sept. 13, 2017) and a motion for reconsideration was denied (Nov. 22, 2017). After further motion practice the Court En Banc, in a July 17, 2018 Resolution, reinstated the petition and directed briefing; the case was then fully taken up and resolved in the June 23, 2020 En Banc decision authored by Chief Justice Peralta. The ponen...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Villarosa’s issuance of extraction permits as Municipal Mayor amount to “evident bad faith” or the giving of “unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference” under Section 3(e), RA 3019?
- Was conviction under Section 3(e), RA 3019 precluded by the contention that Section 138 of the Local Government Code is not self‑executing absent proof of publication of Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution No. 11 and Pr...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)