LACAP v. SANDIGANBAYAN

CORAZON M. LACAP, Petitioner Vs. SANDIGANBAYAN [Fourth Division] and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents
G.R. No. 198162
June 21, 2017


FACTS:

Corazon was indicted for violation of Section 3(f) of RA 3019, for having allegedly neglected or refused, after due demand, and without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time, on the application of complainant Fermina Santos for a business permit in Masantol, Pampanga for the years 1999 and 2000 for the purpose of discriminating against Fermina, who previously filed a criminal complaint against the accused's husband.

Fermina Santos owns the Fersan Variety Store located in Masantol, Pampanga and engaged in the sale of school supplies, furniture and accessories since 1975. She applies for a Mayor's Permit every year and has been submitting the required documents. If everything is complete, she will present these documents to the Office of the Treasurer for assessment and evaluation and then it will be submitted to the Office of the Mayor for approval. From 1975 to 1998, the Mayor of Masantol has been issuing her a Mayor's Permit.
For the year 1999, she filed an Application for Mayor's Permit and submitted to the Mayor's Office the required documents, however, accused Mayor Corazon Lacap was angry at her and denied her application.

The misunderstanding started when Fermina filed a complaint against Abelardo Dizon, a compadre of Mayor Corazon Lacap. Epifanio Lacap, the husband of the accused, called her up and asked her to withdraw the complaint against his compadre. She told Epifanio to be fair but Epifanio shouted invectives at her.

In 1998, former Mayor Epifanio Lacap ordered the closure of her store because she filed a complaint against him on March 17, 1998. It was Epifanio Lacap who asked her to get a permit from the DTI which is one of the requirements for the approval of the application for Mayor's Permit. On April 1, 1998 she was issued a Mayor's Permit but she was told to get a DTI Certificate of Registration. She claimed that her documents were complete when she applied for Mayor's Permit in 1998. At first her store was ordered closed by Epifanio Lacap and the second time it was ordered closed by Mayor Corazon Lacap on July 3, 1998.
Fermina said that she has a permit in 1998 and yet they closed her store. There were two policemen and a bodyguard carrying firearms who went to her store and forcibly padlocked her store. She was not able to get her merchandise until 2001 so none were sold or could be sold because they were damaged.

Atty. Calderon wrote to Mayor Corazon Lacap, to ask her the reasons for the closure and padlocking of Santos' store. Accused responded but since it was already late in the year, Santos said that she is no longer interested in the closure and padlocking of her store.
Atty. Calderon with the Municipal Treasurer of Masantol wrote Santos to bring the application for them to make a letter forwarding all the documents to the Municipal Mayor. In a letter dated April 26, 1999, she wrote again the Municipal Mayor forwarding to her all the documents which were brought by Santos to her Office. At the time she wrote the letter she had in mind that everything was complete and it is the duty of the Mayor to issue a permit.

Mayor Lacap did not reply but her counsel requested for time to answer the letter dated April 26, 1999. In May, 1999, accused Lacap's counsel made a response that it was Santos who withdrew her application and thus, there is nothing, no application in the Office of the Mayor which they could act on.

Andres T. Onofre, Jr. testified that he is a businessman engaged in the selling of school supplies also in Sto. Nino, Masantol, Pampanga. From 1990 to 1999, he was not able to secure license/permit from the Municipality. What he just did was to fill up an application form to operate a store and submit the same to the Municipality of Masantol and then he was already issued an official receipt. He already considered that as an authority to operate his business and all those years, he was never questioned by the Mayor for operating a business without a permit.

Corazon claimed that she did not order the closure of the store because when she assumed her post as a Mayor, Santos' store was already closed by her husband, the former Mayor, her husband, way back June 23, 1997 because it was operating without a Mayor's permit, DTI, SSS and that she was not issuing official receipt to their customers.

The Sandiganbayan found the prosecution's evidence sufficient for conviction and holding Corazon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3(f) of RA 3019.
Corazon filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the Sandiganbayan for lack of merit and because there were no new matters raised therein.


ISSUES:

1. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed serious misapprehension of facts in having found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of official inaction under Section 3(f) of the Anti-Graft Law.

2. Whether the accused's act of referring the letter of Atty. Calderon to her lawyer for appropriate response constitutes a felony.

3. Whether the Sandiganbayan wrongly assumed that the accused acted with criminal intent
to discriminate against the private complainant absent any categorical evidence therefor.


RULING:

The Supreme Court held that there is no merit in Corazon's petition.

The issues raised by Corazon in her petition essentially show that she disputes the existence of the elements of the offense penalized under Section 3(f) of RA 3019, to wit:
1. The offender is a public officer;
2. The said officer has neglected or has refused to act without sufficient justification after due demand or request has been made on him;
3. Reasonable time has elapsed from such demand or request without the public officer having acted on the matter pending before him; and
4. Such failure to so act is for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage in favor of an interested party, or discriminating against another.
The resolution of the three issues, therefore, rests upon the existence of sufficient proof to establish the four elements enumerated above.
The first element is not disputed. As the then Municipal Mayor of Masantol, Pampanga, who assumed office on June 30, 1998, Corazon was, at the time of the commission of the offense charged, a public officer.

The second issue raised by Corazon disputes the presence of the second and third elements, while the third issue puts in doubt the fourth element.