G.R. No. 233443-44 - Ambagan, Jr. vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 233443-44)

Factual Background: The Balite Falls Project and the Affected Private Properties

On September 25, 1998, the Sangguniang Bayan of Amadeo, Cavite issued Resolution No. 57, Series of 1998, declaring Balite Falls as a tourist spot, barangay park, and a reserved area to preserve it as a potential potable water source. Ambagan, as SK Federation Chairman, signed the resolution. Subsequently, on October 19, 1998, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cavite passed Resolution No. 402-S-98 approving Resolution No. 57.

Simplicio S. Lumandas owned land near Balite Falls, evidenced by TCT No. T-158087 (40069), where his ancestral house stood. After Simplicio’s death, his property passed to his heirs, including Revina. Sometime in October 2007, Councilor Marlon Ambion informed Revina that the municipal government planned to temporarily rent their ancestral house for office purposes, and Revina agreed because the house was then vacant.

During the same period, Ambagan, then Mayor, called a meeting to discuss a project near Balite Falls, which was attended by Calixto, the owner of the adjacent property under TCT No. T-158086 (40068). On January 31, 2008, the Sangguniang Bayan issued Resolution No. 58 approving operating guidelines for establishing Balite Falls as an eco-tourism area, and Resolution No. 59 authorizing Ambagan to enter into agreements with interested parties for the development of Balite Falls and adjoining vicinities covering Barangays Banaybanay, Halang, and Tamakan. The resolutions were signed by the SB members and approved by Ambagan as Municipal Mayor.

In February 2008, the house on the Simplicio heirs’ lot was demolished, and Calixto’s property was levelled. Revina and Calixto then observed construction activities on their respective properties. On March 2, 2008, Ambagan convened a meeting attended by owners of nearby lots. Revina questioned why her house had been demolished without notice. In response, Ambagan’s staff allegedly replied, “tao lamang sya na nagkakamali.” Calixto delivered a letter demanding that construction activities cease. Revina’s brother also demanded immediate cessation, but his request was ignored; when relatives attempted to mark land boundaries, they were allegedly prevented by Ambagan, who together with armed men threatened to have them arrested.

On March 6, 2008, Calixto met with Ambagan, who proposed to lease the land for twenty-five years, which Calixto formally declined on March 24, 2008. On March 25, 2008, the Barangay Chairman of Banaybanay held a meeting where affected owners were informed of plans to expand and widen the road towards Balite Falls, requiring them to give up three (3) meters of their land. On May 15, 2008, the SB passed Resolution No. 72, ratifying the levying of park maintenance fees on residents of Amadeo.

Filing of Complaints and Sandiganbayan Conviction

On July 1, 2008, Revina, for and in behalf of the heirs of Simplicio, and Calixto each filed complaints before the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and misconduct. The Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon dismissed the misconduct charges on March 17, 2017, but proceeded with the Section 3(e) accusations. Two separate Informations were filed, one for Revina’s represented heirs (SB-11-CRM-0366) and one for Calixto (SB-11-CRM-0367). Both Informations alleged that Ambagan, acting in relation to his office as Municipal Mayor, through evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence, ordered construction works on the private lands covered by the respective TCTs, thereby depriving the owners of specific areas of their property valued at stated amounts, causing undue injury.

On April 5, 2017, the Sandiganbayan Special Fourth Division found Ambagan guilty beyond reasonable doubt in both cases and applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law. It imposed an indeterminate prison term of six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum, and ordered perpetual disqualification from holding public office in each case. The Sandiganbayan also stated that there were no costs. Ambagan and the private complainants filed motions for reconsideration. On August 8, 2017, the Sandiganbayan denied both motions.

The Issues Raised on Review

Ambagan sought review on the ground that he should have been charged only for a single offense in the nature of a continuous crime. He maintained that the assailed two Informations should be consolidated because his acts were allegedly a single, continuing undertaking rather than separate and distinct criminal offenses. He further argued that filing two cases for the same continuing act invoked double jeopardy, warranting the dismissal of both cases.

On the merits, Ambagan argued that he could not be held liable because (a) the Informations failed to sufficiently allege the element that the act was performed in the discharge of official functions, and (b) the prosecution failed to prove the other elements of Section 3(e), including the existence of undue injury and the presence of evident bad faith or manifest partiality and any unwarranted benefit or advantage.

Appellate Court’s Ruling on the Multiplicity of Offenses

The Court held that the petition was partly meritorious. It ruled that although two Informations were filed, the factual setting reflected only one continuous crime, such that there should have been only one Information. The Court relied on the doctrine of delito continuado (continuous crime), explaining that it consists of a series of acts arising from a single criminal resolution or intent that is not susceptible of division. It distinguished this from other concepts under criminal law, including complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.

Applying the controlling criteria, the Court concluded that the two Informations were strikingly identical except for the names of the property owners, TCT particulars, affected areas, and corresponding values. The place, time, and manner of commission were the same. The Court found that Ambagan’s alleged acts were driven by a singular purpose—the realization of the Balite Falls development project—and that the acts alleged constituted only one offense. For that reason, the Court ruled that there was no basis to treat the prosecution as involving separate violations.

However, the Court clarified that this ruling did not automatically require dismissal on double jeopardy grounds. Since only one offense had been involved, the issue of double jeopardy could not arise as Ambagan suggested. The implication of the Court’s pronouncement was instead that, if guilt were established, the penalty should be imposed only once, not separately for each Information.

Sufficiency of the Informations and Proof of the Elements of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019

Proceeding to the second issue, the Court addressed Ambagan’s challenge to the Informations. It held that the Rules of Court required that the Information allege the ultimate facts constituting the elements of the offense. It reiterated that an Information is sufficient if it states the designation of the offense, the acts or omissions complained of, the offended party, the approximate date, and the place of commission, among others, and that the cause of accusation must be stated in ordinary and concise language in a way that enables the accused and the court to understand the nature of the charge and qualify the circumstances.

For Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, the Court recited the elements: the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions; the accused must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and the accused’s action must have caused undue injury to any party or given a private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of official functions.

The Court rejected Ambagan’s argument that the phrase “acting in relation to his office” was too broad. It held that although the exact nomenclature of Section 3(e) was not reproduced verbatim, the implication remained that the acts alleged were performed in pursuance of and necessarily related to Ambagan’s functions as Mayor. The Court noted that it was undisputed that, at the time of the acts complained of, Ambagan was performing public functions. It further observed that the Informations did not merely allege a relation to office or an advantage of position. They also contained specific factual allegations showing close intimacy between the discharge of official duties and the commission of the offense.

On the presence of the other elements, the Court held that it was not enough that undue injury was caused; the act had to be performed through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. It explained that “bad faith” in this context does not simply mean poor judgment or negligence. It imputes a dishonest purpose, a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent, or a conscious wrongdoing with fraud-like characteristics.

The Court found evident bad faith based on Ambagan’s active role in ordering construction works on the property of the heirs and Calixto prior to any agreement with the parties or any expropriation proceedings. It noted that no expropriation proceeding had been initiated. Although Ambagan argued that expropriation was never intended and that the local government intended to enter joint ventures, the Court found the position erroneous. The Court held that there had been a taking of portions of the properties, which required expropriation proceedings.

The Court considered the evidence that construction works proceeded within the registered property boundaries. It referenced testimony from a geodetic engineer, confirming that the construction works were within the owners’ property lines, and that measured areas were bulldozed, scraped, and affected based on sketch plans. The Court treated this as undue injury. It invoke

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 233443-44)

The petitioner, Albert G. Ambagan, Jr., sought review on certiorari under Rule 45 to annul two Sandiganbayan dispositions in SB-11-CRM-0366 and SB-11-CRM-0367.
The assailed Sandiganbayan Decision dated April 5, 2017 found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended.
The assailed Sandiganbayan Resolution dated August 8, 2017 denied the parties’ respective motions for reconsideration.
The petitioner was convicted in two separate cases for two separate private properties, but with substantially identical allegations on time, place, manner, and statutory theory.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines appeared as respondent in the petition.
The petitioner assailed the Sandiganbayan’s findings of guilt and resulting penalty.
The Sandiganbayan’s conviction was based on two Informations for Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019.
The Supreme Court addressed both the petitioner’s claims on the multiplicity of offenses and his arguments on the sufficiency of the Informations and proof of elements.

Key Factual Background

The Sangguniang Bayan of Amadeo, Cavite issued Resolution No. 57, Series of 1998 declaring Balite Falls a tourist spot, barangay park, and reserved area.
The stated purpose of Resolution No. 57 was to preserve Balite Falls as a potential source of potable water.
The petitioner signed Resolution No. 57 in his capacity as Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Federation Chairman.
The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cavite approved Resolution No. 57 through Resolution No. 402-S-98.
One of the private properties adjacent to Balite Falls was owned by Simplicio S. Lumandas, evidenced by TCT No. T-158087 (40069).
Upon Simplicio’s death, the property passed to his heirs, including Revina C. Lumandas, the private complainant in the related Sandiganbayan case.
Another adjacent lot belonged to Calixto Lumandas, evidenced by TCT No. T-158086 (40068).
In October 2007, Revina learned that the municipal government planned to temporarily rent the ancestral house.
In early 2008, the petitioner, then Mayor of Amadeo, Cavite, called a meeting to discuss the project near Balite Falls, where Calixto attended.
On January 31, 2008, the SB issued Resolution No. 58 approving operating guidelines for Balite Falls as an eco-tourism area.
On the same date, the SB issued Resolution No. 59 authorizing the petitioner to enter into agreements with interested parties for development of Balite Falls and adjoining barangays, and the petitioner approved it as Municipal Mayor.
In February 2008, the house on the Simplicio heirs’ land was demolished, and Calixto’s property was levelled.
Revina and Calixto observed construction activities on their respective properties thereafter.
On March 2, 2008, Revina questioned why her house was demolished without notice.
The petitioner’s staff allegedly replied that Revina’s case involved nothing more than an error (“tao lamang sya na nagkakamali”).
Revina and Calixto demanded cessation of construction activities, and Revina’s relatives allegedly attempted to mark boundaries but were prevented and threatened by the petitioner and armed men.
Calixto later met the petitioner, who proposed a 25-year lease, which Calixto formally declined on March 24, 2008.
On March 25, 2008, a barangay meeting discussed plans to expand and widen the road toward Balite Falls, and owners opposed giving up three meters of land.
On May 15, 2008, the SB passed Resolution No. 72, ratifying park maintenance fees.
On July 1, 2008, two complaints were filed with the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon for violation of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 and misconduct.
The Deputy Ombudsman dismissed the misconduct complaint on March 17, 2017, but the petitioner proceeded to prosecution for Section 3(e).

Informations and Charging Theory

The petitioner was charged in two Informations with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
The Information in SB-11-CRM-0366 alleged that in Barangay Halang, Amadeo, Cavite, and on or about February 28, 2008, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, the petitioner as municipal mayor acted through evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence.
The SB-11-CRM-0366 Information alleged that the petitioner ordered construction works on the heirs of Simplicio’s private land covered by TCT No. T-158087 (40069).
The SB-11-CRM-0366 Information alleged that the heirs were deprived of enjoyment and use of approximately 3,892 square meters, valued at approximately PHP 778,400.00, causing undue injury.
The Information in SB-11-CRM-0367 alleged analogous conduct involving Calixto’s private land under TCT No. T-158086 (40068).
The SB-11-CRM-0367 Information alleged deprivation of enjoyment and use of approximately 3,989 square meters, valued at approximately PHP 797,800.00, causing undue injury.
Both Informations used substantially similar language as to time, place, manner, and the mental element, except as to the specific property owner, title, affected area, and value.

Sandiganbayan’s Conviction and Penalty

The Sandiganbayan’s Decision dated April 5, 2017 found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt in both criminal cases.
The Sandiganbayan applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law because it found no aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
In SB-11-CRM-0366, it sentenced the petitioner to six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum, and ordered perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
In SB-11-CRM-0367, it imposed the same indeterminate prison term and perpetual disqualification.
The Sandiganbayan denied costs.
The dispositive portion in the Supreme Court record reflects convictions on two counts, corresponding to the two Informations.

Issues Raised in the Petition

The petitioner claimed that he should be charged for only a single offense because the acts described in the two Informations constituted one continuing crime.
The petitioner argued that charging him under two separate Informations warranted dismissal due to double jeopardy.
The petitioner argued that he could not be held liable because the Informations failed to sufficiently allege the element that the act was performed in the discharge of official functions.
The petitioner further argued that all other elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 were not proven.

Delito Continuado vs. Separate Offenses

The Court used prior doctrine to define delito continuado or continuous crime as a single crime consisting of a series of acts from a single criminal resolution or intent not susceptible of division.
The Court reiterated that continuous crime requires plurality of acts perfor