Chan v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Two Informations were filed against petitioner Charita M. Chan (Chan), then Mayor of Babatngon, Leyte, for violation of Section 3(j) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019. Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0511 alleged that Chan unlawfully approved and granted a Mayor's Permit for the operation of Babatngon Gallera to Nicomedes Alde, knowing Alde was a member of the Sangguniang Bayan and thus prohibited from holding interest in a cockpit licensed by the local government unit. Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0512 alleged that Chan unlawfully approved and granted a Mayor's Permit to the Liga ng mga Barangay for cockfights, knowing that holding cockfights on Saturdays was prohibited by law and municipal ordinance, and that the Liga members were not legally entitled to such a permit. Procedural History: The Sandiganbayan acquitted Chan in Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0511 for insufficiency of evidence but convicted her in Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0512. The Sandiganbayan found that Chan issued a Mayor's Permit to the Liga ng mga Barangay, whose members were government officials prohibited from having an interest in cockpit operations, and this permit was prima facie evidence that remained unrebutted. Chan's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Chan filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing her conviction in Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0512. She argued that the prosecution failed to prove all elements of the offense, that she was not positively identified as the perpetrator, and that she had no criminal intent as her act of issuing the permit merely adopted the Sangguniang Bayan's approval.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of violation of Section 3(j) of RA 3019 against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0512. Whether the petitioner had the criminal intent to commit the offense charged.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan's Decision in Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0512, finding Charita M. Chan guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 3(j) of RA 3019. The Court upheld the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan, which included imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of violation of Section 3(j) of RA 3019: The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's finding of guilt. The Court reiterated the elements of Section 3(j) of RA 3019: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the public officer knowingly approved or granted a license, permit, privilege, or benefit; and (3) the license, permit, privilege, or benefit was granted in favor of any person not qualified or not legally entitled thereto, or a mere representative or dummy thereof. It was undisputed that Chan was the incumbent Mayor of Babatngon, Leyte, satisfying the first element. The Mayor's Permit issued by Chan in favor of the Liga ng mga Barangay to hold cockfights every Saturday, marked as Exhibit "H," clearly showed the grant of such a permit, satisfying the second element. The third element was also established because the Liga ng mga Barangay, whose members were barangay officials, was not qualified to receive such a permit under Section 89(a)(2) of RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), which prohibits local government officials from having pecuniary interest in cockpits. The Court noted that the Mayor's Permit constituted prima facie evidence that remained unrebutted. On the issue of whether the petitioner had the criminal intent to commit the offense charged: The Supreme Court ruled that criminal intent is not necessary for offenses classified as mala prohibita, such as violations of Section 3(j) of RA 3019. The Court cited Luciano v. Estrella, explaining that the commission of the act as defined by law is what determines the violation, not the character or effect of the act. The purpose of RA 3019 is to repress not only acts that are unlawful or corrupt per se but also those that may lead to graft and corruption. Chan's argument that her act of issuing the permit merely adopted the Sangguniang Bayan's approval and that she had no intention to commit a wrong was unavailing because the law penalizes the act of knowingly granting a permit to an unqualified entity, regardless of the motive. The presumption of criminal intent was deemed established by the act of issuing the permit in violation of existing laws, and Chan failed to present any evidence to overcome this presumption.
Main Doctrine
A public officer is guilty of violating Section 3(j) of RA 3019 for knowingly approving or granting a license, permit, privilege, or benefit to a person not qualified or legally entitled thereto, even without criminal intent, as the offense is considered mala prohibita.