Case Summary (G.R. No. 150194)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Relevant dates: petition for project submission in 1988; contract between Pugong and the CEB executed March 1, 1989; construction commenced June 1989; Sangguniang Bayan adopted Resolution No. 20 and the demolition occurred August 15, 1989; Information filed June 26, 1992; arraignment December 14, 1992; Sandiganbayan Decision convicting petitioners dated June 25, 2001; denial of motion for reconsideration dated September 28, 2001; Supreme Court decision affirming with modification issued in 2007. The 1987 Philippine Constitution is the applicable constitutional framework for decisions rendered in 1990 or later.
Applicable Law and Legal Elements
Primary statutory charge: violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The court reiterates the four indispensable elements under Section 3(e): (1) the accused is a public officer discharging official functions or a private person in conspiracy with such officer; (2) the prohibited act was committed in the performance of official duty; (3) the public officer acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (4) the action caused undue injury to the government or any private party or conferred unwarranted advantage. Other legal instruments considered in argument: the Local Government Code (1991) and B.P. Blg. 337 (1983 LGC), Presidential Decree No. 1096 (National Building Code), Letter of Instruction No. 19, and pertinent jurisprudence cited by the parties and the Court.
Facts as Found by the Trial Court and Supreme Court
Mayor Tayaban submitted a project proposal in 1988; the CEB approved and funded the market; Pugong won the bid and entered into a formal contract with the CEB on March 1, 1989; construction commenced June 1989. On August 15, 1989, the Sangguniang Bayan adopted Resolution No. 20 complaining that constructors were erecting pedestals on a site different from that identified by the municipal body. On the same day petitioners and others proceeded to the site and demolished the erected structures (including five concrete posts and other improvements). Evidence established that the CEB had disbursed P134,632.80 to Pugong before demolition.
Charges, Arraignment and Trial Court Disposition
An Information charged petitioners with violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, alleging evident bad faith, conspiracy, and causing damage and prejudice to the government (CEB). Petitioners pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Sandiganbayan convicted all accused under Section 3(e), sentenced them under the Indeterminate Sentence Law to imprisonment (minimum six years and one month to maximum eight years) and ordered joint and several payment to government of P134,632.80. The Sandiganbayan’s conviction and sentence (except absence of perpetual disqualification) were affirmed by the Supreme Court with modification imposing perpetual disqualification from public office.
Petitioners’ Main Arguments on Appeal
Petitioners asserted (1) failure to prove undue injury to the government because the CEB did not complain or participate at trial and Pugong’s itemized expenses lacked receipts; (2) absence of bad faith because they communicated with the contractor and adopted Resolution No. 20, and the CEB later suspended construction; (3) Resolution No. 20 was valid municipal legislation and the demolition was an exercise of police power or implementation of LOI No. 19 and authority under PD No. 1096; and (4) Sandiganbayan improperly relied on testimony of interested witness Abe Belingan and considered facts without evidentiary basis.
Government and Prosecutorial Responses
The Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the Special Prosecutor argued that undue injury to the Government was proven by the disbursement to Pugong and that the real party-in-interest is the Republic; that Pugong incurred actual expenses; that petitioners acted with bad faith as evidenced by sequence of events and admissions; and that the trial court properly assessed witness credibility, including Belingan’s testimony, given the trial court’s opportunity to observe witnesses.
Court’s Analysis on Bad Faith and Participation
The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s finding of evident bad faith. The Court relied on multiple facts: the demolition occurred the same day Resolution No. 20 was adopted without due notice to the CEB or contractor; testimony that the resolution was passed in the afternoon although demolition occurred in the morning; evidence that Tayaban himself pointed out the site to Pugong’s laborers; Tayaban’s admission that he did not specify the site in the project proposal, did not timely inform the Governor or CEB about alleged site errors, and did not furnish copies of stop letters to the CEB; the Site Development Plan was completed only in August 1989 while construction started in June 1989. These facts supported a finding of manifest and deliberate intent to cause damage.
Court’s Analysis on Undue Injury and Standing
The Court held that undue injury to the Government was sufficiently proven. It reasoned that the CEB had already disbursed P134,632.80 at the time of demolition, and demolition of the constructed posts and improvements necessarily occasioned additional expense to rebuild or continue the project. The Court reiterated that the criminal action need not be initiated by the offended public entity for preliminary investigation or prosecution; a private complainant may file for such purposes. Proof of the exact quantum beyond the disbursed amount was unnecessary so long as the injury was substantial and not merely negligible.
Applicability of Local Government Code, PD 1096 and LOI No. 19 Rejected
The Court agreed that Sections 56 and 59(a) of the 1991 LGC were inapplicable because Resolution No. 20 predated the 1991 Code and because those provisions concern review of specific development plans and public investment programs. The Court rejected petitioners’ reliance on PD No. 1096 and LOI No. 19 as justification because Resolution No. 20 and related correspondence cited only the alleged wrong site as basis for demolition and made no claim of lack of building permits or reliance on LOI No. 19 authority. The Court found the invocation of PD
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 150194)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed before the Supreme Court assails the Decision of the Sandiganbayan dated June 25, 2001 in Criminal Case No. 17856 and the Sandiganbayan Resolution dated September 28, 2001 denying petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.
- The Sandiganbayan rendered judgment convicting petitioners of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and imposed an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment (six years and one month minimum to eight years maximum) and ordered joint and several payment to the government of P134,632.80 without subsidiary imprisonment.
- Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court raising three assignments of error challenging (1) the finding of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, (2) the invalidation of Resolution No. 20 and the characterization of the demolition as not a valid exercise of police power or implementation of LOI No. 19, and (3) evidentiary rulings and reliance on certain prosecution testimony.
- The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) filed Comments defending the Sandiganbayan’s findings and arguing that the Government suffered undue injury and that the trial court properly assessed witness credibility.
Facts
- Robert Tayaban was the Municipal Mayor of Tinoc, Ifugao; co-petitioners Francisco Maddawat, Artemio Balangue, Francisco Mayumis, and Quirino Pana were Municipal Councilors of Tinoc.
- In 1988 Mayor Tayaban submitted a project proposal to Governor Benjamin Cappleman for construction of the Tinoc Public Market; Governor informed Tayaban that the proposal was approved and that funding would be provided by the Cordillera Executive Board (CEB).
- Bidding ensued and private complainant Lopez Pugong (Pugong) won the contract; a formal contract between Pugong and the CEB was executed on March 1, 1989 (Exhibit "A").
- Construction was commenced in June 1989. On August 15, 1989 the Sangguniang Bayan of Tinoc adopted Resolution No. 20 (Exhibits "H" and "15") directing demolition of erected structures to erect the public market building at the site identified by the Sangguniang Bayan.
- On the same day (August 15, 1989), Tayaban and his co-petitioners, accompanied by some men, proceeded to the construction site and demolished structures and improvements.
- Pugong filed an Affidavit-Complaint (Exhibit "B"); Information dated June 26, 1992 charged petitioners with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 for conspiring, acting in evident bad faith, passing Resolution No. 20, and personally demolishing the half-finished market to the damage and prejudice of the government, particularly the CEB.
- Petitioners pleaded not guilty on arraignment on December 14, 1992. Trial ensued with evidence including contract, letters, memoranda, testimony of Pugong and other witnesses (e.g., Abe Belingan, Raymundo Madani), and documentary exhibits.
Accusation and Information
- Accusatory allegation: On or about August 17, 1989 and for some time prior or subsequent thereto, petitioners, as public officers, acting in evident bad faith and conspiring with each other, willfully and unlawfully passed and unanimously approved Resolution No. 20 thereby vesting upon themselves powers and authority to demolish the half-finished Tinoc Public Market construction and personally and actually demolished it to the damage and prejudice of the Government, particularly the CEB (Records, p. 1).
- The Information charged violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019; petitioners were arraigned and tried.
Trial Court Ruling (Sandiganbayan)
- The Sandiganbayan found petitioners guilty of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, concluding they acted with evident bad faith which caused undue injury to the Government.
- Dispositive portion ordered an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six years and one month minimum to eight years maximum, and joint and several payment to the Government of P134,632.80, without subsidiary imprisonment.
- Motion for Reconsideration was filed and denied in a Resolution dated September 28, 2001.
Assignments of Error on Appeal
- I. The Sandiganbayan erred in holding acts constituted violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and that petitioners should have been convicted.
- II. The Sandiganbayan erred by not holding that Resolution No. 20 is valid legislation and that demolition was implementation of LOI No. 19 and exercise of police power vested in the local government unit.
- III. The Sandiganbayan erred in considering facts without reference to evidence on record and in relying on testimony (notably Abe Belingan) which petitioners argue is biased and hearsay.
Petitioners’ Principal Arguments
- The element of undue injury to Government or private party under Section 3(e) was not proved because the CEB, as alleged injured party, neither complained nor participated in the trial; undue injury cannot be proven without testimony of the injured party.
- The itemized list of expenses presented by Pugong lacked receipts and was self-serving; Pugong was not named in the Information as an injured party.
- Petitioners acted in good faith: they sent letters and a memorandum to the contractor’s laborers and adopted Resolution No. 20 through the Sangguniang Bayan; the CEB issued an order suspending construction thereby recognizing the Sangguniang Bayan’s action.
- The Sandiganbayan erred by applying Sections 56 and 59(a) of the 1991 Local Government Code (LGC) when B.P. Blg. 337 (LGC of 1983) was applicable at the time of Resolution No. 20; petitioners assert Pugong failed to secure building permit under P.D. No. 1096 and that demolition was justified under LOI No. 19 and as a valid exercise of police power and general welfare authority.
- Witness Abe Belingan’s testimony was biased because he was contracted to cement the second floor of the market; his testimony is hearsay regarding the reason for demolition. Petitioners claim political harassment given selective prosecution.
Prosecution and Government Responses (OSG and OSP)
- OSG argued that undue injury to the Government was properly found and it is immaterial whether the CEB filed the complaint because the real party in interest is the Government of the Republic of the Philippines; Pugong also suffered undue injury due to expenses incurred for labor, tools, equipment, and materials.
- OSG emphasized that witness credibility is within the trial judge’s province and that the trial court had the best opportunity to observe witnesses.
- OSP contended that the Government need not initiate the complaint; that injury to the Government was established because construction had commenced and petitioners did not deny demolishing the structures; and that Pugong’s expense list is not self-serving because he testified thereto.
- OSP maintained petitioners acted in bad faith based on their conduct and that Belingan’s contracting for cementing does not establish bias sufficient to discredit his testimony.
- OSP addressed selective prosecution argument by noting those Sangguniang Bayan members who also signed Resolution No. 20 but did not participate in the demolition were not included in the complaint.
Statutory Provision Invoked: Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019
- Section text (as quoted): Section 3(e) penalizes causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of official functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; applies to officers/employees charged with grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
- Th