Title
Fuentes vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 186421
Decision Date
Apr 17, 2017
A mayor refused to renew a business permit based on unverified rumors, causing undue harm to the proprietor. Convicted of graft, he faced imprisonment, disqualification, and damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 100985)

Procedural History

Triple A resumed operations only after obtaining temporary permits from the Port Management Office and BOC. Valenzuela petitioned Fuentes for permit issuance, but her submissions were refused. She secured further certifications clearing her of wrongdoing from local police and NAPOLCOM, yet Fuentes declined to act. Criminal charges under RA 3019 Art. 3(e) were filed, and Fuentes pleaded not guilty on September 15, 2006. The Sandiganbayan, in a September 30, 2008 Decision, found him guilty; its February 16, 2009 Resolution denied reconsideration.

Issue Presented

Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Mayor Fuentes of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 for manifest partiality, bad faith, or negligence in refusing to issue a business permit, thereby causing undue injury to Valenzuela.

Elements of RA 3019 Section 3(e)

The Supreme Court reiterated that conviction requires proof that:

  1. The accused is a public officer discharging administrative functions.
  2. He acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross negligence.
  3. His action caused undue injury to any party or conferred unwarranted benefits.

Manifest Partiality and Evident Bad Faith

Fuentes admitted hearing rumors implicating all five ship chandlers in illegal activities, yet he singled out Triple A alone for permit refusal. He continued to issue permits to other chandlers and even to Valenzuela’s separate security business, demonstrating bias. Despite clearances from law enforcement, he withheld Triple A’s permit without affording Valenzuela an opportunity to rebut the allegations. His 2002 memorandum and belated action, in contrast to earlier inaction on longstanding rumors, evidenced dishonest intent and conscious wrongdoing.

Undue Injury Resulting from Permit Refusal

The court found that Fuentes’s refusal and memorandum directly prevented Triple A from operating (2002–2006), resulting in spoilage of perishable goods and suspension of a legitimate business. Even absent precise quantification of losses, jurisprudence holds that substantial injury need only be shown in principle.

Penalty and Disqualification

Under Section 9(a) of RA 3019, the prescribed penalty is imprisonment from six years and one month to fifteen years, plus perpetual disqualification from public office. The Sandiganbayan’s indeterminate sentence of six years and one month to ten years and six months, with perpetual disqualification, was affirmed as proper.

Modification of Damages Award

While the Sandiganbayan awarded nominal damages of ₱200,000, the Supreme Court h

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.