Title
Supreme Court
Chan vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 238304
Decision Date
Jul 27, 2022
Mayor Charita Chan convicted for approving prohibited cockfight permits, violating anti-graft laws; acquitted in one case due to insufficient evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 119243)

Allegations and Charges

Two criminal cases were initiated against Chan for approving Mayor's Permits that were legally impermissible. In Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0511, Chan was accused of granting a permit for the operation of the Babatngon Gallera, knowing that the owner, Nicomedes Alde, was a government official disqualified from such a permit under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Code (RA 7160). In Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0512, Chan allegedly granted a permit to the Liga ng mga Barangay to hold cockfights, despite knowing that such activities were prohibited by law on Saturdays.

Procedural History

A Warrant of Arrest was issued against Chan, followed by her arraignment on May 25, 2017, during which she pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified about Chan’s role and the illegal permits, while the defense chose not to present any evidence and filed a Memorandum instead.

Findings of the Sandiganbayan

The Sandiganbayan acquitted Chan in Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0511 due to insufficient evidence but found her guilty in Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0512. The court highlighted Chan's knowledge of the illegality of the permits granted and deemed that the issuance of the Mayor's Permit was prima facie evidence of her guilt.

Grounds for Appeal

Chan subsequently filed a petition challenging her conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the offense and that she had no criminal intent. She contended that she merely executed the Sangguniang Bayan's resolution granting the permits and lacked discretionary power over the issuance.

Prosecution's Argument

In response, the prosecution asserted that Chan had acknowledged the validity of the Mayor's Permit by adopting it as part of the defense's exhibits. They argued that her intent was presumed from her actions, and that she was positively identified as the issuer of the permits.

Ruling of the Court

The court determined that Chan's conviction was well-founded. It affirmed that the prosecution had successfully established all elements of the crime under Section 3(j) of RA 3019: Chan was a public officer who knowingly granted an illegal permit to an individual not entitled to such, thereby fulfilling the require

...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.