Case Summary (G.R. No. 231490)
Background of the Case
On November 6, 2013, the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Ubay, Bohol, adopted Resolution No. 205, which permitted a 3-win cockfighting event scheduled for February 1 and 2, 2014, following the town’s fiesta. Subsequently, the Sangguniang Barangay of Union proposed an amendment to hold the event on January 28, 29, and 30, 2014. Special Permits were procured from relevant municipal and police authorities, allowing the event based on the expected influx of tourists during the annual town fiesta.
Complaint and Charges
On April 10, 2014, private complainant Cesar C. Arro, Sr. filed an affidavit accusing the petitioners of conducting the cockfighting event in an unlicensed cockpit. The Ombudsman’s investigation substantiated the complaint, leading to formal charges of violating PD 449 against the petitioners. Specifically, the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict the petitioners for facilitating the cockfighting event despite it being unauthorized as per the established legal parameters.
Ombudsman’s Ruling
On October 11, 2016, the Ombudsman issued a resolution finding probable cause against the petitioners, reinforcing the violation of PD 449 due to the cockfighting being held in an unlicensed venue. The Ombudsman contended that, although the event coincided with the town fiesta, it did not satisfy the statutory requirements set forth in the law, particularly invoking Section 5(d) that mandates holding cockfights in licensed locations during specified periods.
Legal Grounds for Appeal
The petitioners filed separate petitions for certiorari, asserting that the Ombudsman’s interpretation of PD 449 was erroneous, contending that the relevant provision applicable to their situation was Section 5(e), which allows for cockfighting events aimed at entertaining tourists, including balikbayans, under specified conditions. They argued that the cockfighting event was primarily intended to entertain returning residents and tourists and thus fell within the ambit of permissible activities.
Review of Jurisdiction and Probable Cause
The Supreme Court asserted that it typically refrains from intervening in the Ombudsman’s determinations of probable cause unless there is evidence of grave abuse of discretion. The Court examined the allegations against the Ombudsman’s actions, leading to an analysis that ultimately found the Ombudsman's reliance on Section 5(d) of PD 449 to be misapplied.
Court’s Conclusions
The Court found that the cockfighting event indeed fell within the provisions of Section 5(e) of PD 449. It emphasized that the intent to entertain tourists a
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 231490)
Overview
- The case involves consolidated petitions for certiorari filed by petitioners Victor Abadiez Bonghanoy, Isidore Gaviola Besas, Eustaquio Raaa Bacolod, and others against the Office of the Ombudsman.
- The petitions challenge the Ombudsman's Resolution dated October 11, 2016, and Order dated January 17, 2017, which found probable cause for the violation of Presidential Decree No. 449, as amended by PD 1602, commonly referred to as the "Cockfighting Law of 1974."
- The petitioners sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Ombudsman’s actions.
Antecedents
- On November 6, 2013, the Sangguniang Bayan of Ubay, Bohol approved a resolution allowing cockfighting events during the town fiesta.
- Subsequent resolutions modified the dates and venue for a 3-win cockfighting event scheduled for January 28-30, 2014, at the Union Cultural and Sports Center, which was an unlicensed cockpit.
- A complaint was filed by private complainant Cesar C. Arro, Sr., leading to the Ombudsman’s investigation and eventual indictment of several public officials for allowing the cockfighting event in violation of the law.
The Ruling of the Ombudsman
- The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict the petitioners based on Section 5(d) o