Title
Supreme Court
Buencamino vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 216745-46
Decision Date
Nov 10, 2020
Mayor Buencamino acquitted of graft charges due to lack of evident bad faith, variance in allegations, and insufficient prosecution evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 216745-46)

Petitioner and Respondents

Petitioner: Edmundo Jose T. Buencamino
Respondents: People of the Philippines; Sandiganbayan Special Fifth Division

Key Dates

Commission of acts: July 2004
Sandiganbayan decision: February 18, 2015
Supreme Court decision: November 10, 2020

Applicable Law

1987 Constitution (public officers’ presumption of innocence)
Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3(e) (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)

Facts of the Case

Petitioner imposed a “pass-way” fee of ₱1,000 per truck on RMDC’s marble deliveries along municipal roads, allegedly without a valid ordinance. He authorized a private individual, Robert Tabernero, to collect fees and allegedly ordered the police to impound two RMDC trucks for nonpayment.

Prosecution’s Evidence

RMDC’s President and managers testified to repeated demands for the fee and the impoundment. Municipal records—preliminary DILG report, local resolutions, receipts—were offered to show absence of legal authority and bad faith. The Municipal Treasurer testified on irregular official receipts and delayed remittance.

Defense’s Evidence

Petitioner insisted he verified the fee’s legality with the Municipal Treasurer and Sangguniang Bayan Secretary, both confirming a valid 1989 municipal resolution. He denied knowledge of its revocation, denied ordering impoundment, and produced certifications showing no record of revocation transmission. He maintained that all proceeds were remitted.

Sandiganbayan’s Decision

The Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts under Section 3(e) for causing undue injury by evident bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence. It cited unauthorized fee collection, delegation to a private person, excessive amounts, and impoundment instructions.

Errors Alleged on Appeal

Petitioner challenged:
• Conviction based on hearsay photocopies and inadmissible documents
• Failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
• Conviction for gross negligence despite charges alleging only evident bad faith
• Violation of his right to be informed of the nature of the accusation

Supreme Court’s Analysis – Variance in Mode of Commission

Section 3(e) can be violated by manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence—three distinct modes. Informations alleged only “evident bad faith.” Convicting petitioner on gross negligence constituted a material variance, denying him due process and the opportunity to prepare a defense.

Supreme Court’s Analysis – Evident Bad Faith Not Pr

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.