People v. Tayaban
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Mayor Robert Tayaban and Councilors Francisco Maddawat, Artemio Balangue, Francisco Mayumis, and Quirino Pana (petitioners) were charged with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The project for the construction of the Tinoc Public Market was approved and funded by the Cordillera Executive Board (CEB). Private complainant Lopez Pugong won the bidding and a formal contract was executed between Pugong and the CEB. Construction commenced in June 1989. On August 15, 1989, the Sangguniang Bayan of Tinoc adopted Resolution No. 20, stating that constructors insisted on erecting the building pedestals on a site not identified by the body and resolving to demolish the erected structures. On the same day, petitioners, with others, demolished the structures. Pugong filed an Affidavit-Complaint. Procedural History: The Sandiganbayan convicted all petitioners of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, sentencing them to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) month to eight (8) years, and to jointly and severally pay the government P134,632.80. Their motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, assailing the Sandiganbayan's decision and resolution. They argued that the elements of the offense, specifically undue injury and bad faith, were not proven. They also contended that Resolution No. 20 was a valid legislation and the demolition was a valid exercise of police power, and that the Sandiganbayan erred in considering facts without referring to the evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners committed a violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. Whether the element of undue injury to the government or any private party was sufficiently proven. Whether the petitioners acted with evident bad faith. Whether Resolution No. 20 was a valid legislation and the demolition was a valid exercise of police power. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in its appreciation of evidence and credibility of witnesses.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Sandiganbayan with modification, imposing the additional penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office. The Court found that the petitioners violated Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019: The Court reiterated the four indispensable elements for a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019: (1) the accused is a public officer discharging administrative or official functions or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; (2) the public officer committed the prohibited act during the performance of his official duty in relation to his public position; (3) the public officer acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and (4) his action caused undue injury to the government or any private party, or gave any party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. The Court found that all these elements were present in the case. The petitioners were public officers who, in the performance of their official functions, acted with evident bad faith and caused undue injury to the government. On the element of undue injury: The Court held that undue injury was sufficiently proven. The unceremonious demolition of the structures, which were part of the foundation of the public market, resulted in damage to the government. Evidence showed that the CEB had already disbursed P134,632.80 for the project. Any further effort to rebuild or proceed with construction would entail additional expenses. The Court clarified that proof of the extent or quantum of damage is not essential; it is sufficient that the injury suffered or benefits received can be perceived to be substantial and not merely negligible. The fact that the CEB did not initiate the criminal action was deemed immaterial, as the Government of the Republic of the Philippines is the real party-in-interest. On the element of evident bad faith: The Court found that the petitioners acted with evident bad faith. This was evidenced by the fact that Resolution No. 20 was implemented on the same day it was adopted, without due notice to the CEB and the contractor. Furthermore, one of the councilors testified that the resolution was passed in the afternoon, after the demolition was conducted in the morning. The testimony of Pugong, that petitioner Tayaban himself pointed out the construction site, further supported this finding. The letters and memorandum sent by Tayaban to the construction laborers, directing them to stop construction, were not considered evidence of good faith because they were not addressed to the CEB, the project owner, and there was no proof that Pugong was informed of their contents. The contract clearly stipulated that construction was to be done as per plan and specification provided by the CEB technical staff. On Resolution No. 20 and the exercise of police power: The Court agreed that Sections 56 and 59(a) of the 1991 Local Government Code were not applicable as the prevailing law at the time was the Local Government Code of 1983. However, the Court was not persuaded by the petitioners' reliance on P.D. No. 1096 and LOI No. 19 as bases for the demolition. The resolution itself did not mention failure to secure a building permit or implementation of LOI No. 19. The stated reason was the construction being in the wrong place, which the Court deemed an afterthought. The demolition was not a valid exercise of police power because it was established as a violation of law, specifically Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The Court also rejected the claim that the market would pose a danger, as petitioners never informed the CEB of such concerns and instead took the law into their own hands without due process. On the credibility of witnesses: The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's credence given to the testimony of prosecution witness Abe Belingan. The assessment of witness credibility is primarily the function of the trial court. The Court found no compelling evidence to prove bias, such as Belingan being contracted for the cementing of the second floor. Absent evidence of improper motive, the testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.
Main Doctrine
Public officers who, in the discharge of their official functions, act with evident bad faith or manifest partiality, causing undue injury to the government or any private party, are liable for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The demolition of public works projects without proper notice and consultation with the project owner, driven by a deliberate intent to cause damage, constitutes such a violation.