ROBERTO P. FUENTES, petitioner vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent G.R. NO. 186421
April 1, 2017
FACTS:
Private complainant Fe
Nepomuceno Valenzuela (Valenzuela) is the sole proprietor of Triple A Ship
Chandling and General Maritime Services (Triple A), which was operating in the
Port of Isabel, Leyte since 1993 until 2001 through the Business Permits issued
by the Local Government Unit of Isabel (LGU). However, in 2002, herein
petitioner Roberto Fuentes, then Mayor of Isabel, refused to sign Triple A's
Business Permit, despite: (a) Valenzuela's payment of the renewal fees; (b) all
the other municipal officers of the LGU having signed the same, thereby
signifying their approval thereto; and (c) a Police Clearance certifying that
Valenzuela had no derogatory records in the municipality.
Initially, Triple A was able to carry out its business despite the lack of the said Business Permit by securing temporary permits with the Port Management Office as well as the Bureau of Customs (BOC). However, Triple A's operations were shut down when the BOC issued a Cease and Desist Order after receiving Fuentes's unnumbered Memorandum alleging that Valenzuela was involved in smuggling and drug trading. This caused the BOC to require Valenzuela to secure a Business Permit from the LGU in order to resume Triple A's operations. After securing the Memorandum, Valenzuela wrote to Fuentes pleading that she be issued a Business Permit, but the latter's security refused to receive the same.
Valenzuela likewise obtained certifications and clearances from Isabel Chief of Police, Barangay Captain, the Narcotics Group of Tacloban National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), the Philippine National Police (PNP) Isabel Police Station, and the Police Regional Office of the PNP similarly stating that she is of good moral character, a law- abiding citizen, and has not been charged nor convicted of any crime as per verification from the records of the locality. Despite the foregoing, no Business Permit was issued for Triple A, causing: (a) the spoilage of its goods bought in early 2002 for M/V Ace Dragon as it was prohibited from boarding the said goods to the vessel due to lack of Business Permit; and ( b) the suspension of its operations from 2002 to 2006. In 2007, a business permit was finally issued in Triple A's favor.
Initially, Triple A was able to carry out its business despite the lack of the said Business Permit by securing temporary permits with the Port Management Office as well as the Bureau of Customs (BOC). However, Triple A's operations were shut down when the BOC issued a Cease and Desist Order after receiving Fuentes's unnumbered Memorandum alleging that Valenzuela was involved in smuggling and drug trading. This caused the BOC to require Valenzuela to secure a Business Permit from the LGU in order to resume Triple A's operations. After securing the Memorandum, Valenzuela wrote to Fuentes pleading that she be issued a Business Permit, but the latter's security refused to receive the same.
Valenzuela likewise obtained certifications and clearances from Isabel Chief of Police, Barangay Captain, the Narcotics Group of Tacloban National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), the Philippine National Police (PNP) Isabel Police Station, and the Police Regional Office of the PNP similarly stating that she is of good moral character, a law- abiding citizen, and has not been charged nor convicted of any crime as per verification from the records of the locality. Despite the foregoing, no Business Permit was issued for Triple A, causing: (a) the spoilage of its goods bought in early 2002 for M/V Ace Dragon as it was prohibited from boarding the said goods to the vessel due to lack of Business Permit; and ( b) the suspension of its operations from 2002 to 2006. In 2007, a business permit was finally issued in Triple A's favor.
The Sandiganbayan found Fuentes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Article 3 (e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, entitled the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act." Aggrieved, Fuentes moved for reconsideration, which was, however, denied by the Sandiganbayan. Hence,this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not
the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Fuentes of the crime of violation of Section 3(e) of RA3019.
Yes. Sandiganbayan correctly
convicted Fuentes of the crime of violation of Section 3(e) of RA3019.The petition
is without merit.
Section 3(e) of RA 3019 states:
Section3.Corrupt practices of public officers.- In addition toacts
or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are
hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxxx
(e)Causing any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefit,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence.This provision shall apply to officers and
employees of offices orgovernment corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
As may be gleaned above,
the elements of violation of Section 3 ( e) of RA 3019 are as follows: (a) that
the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or
official functions (or a private individual acting in conspiracy with such
public officers); (b) that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad
faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (c) that his action caused any undue
injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party
unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions.
Anent the first element, it
is undisputed that Fuentes was a public officer, being the Municipal Mayor of Isabel, Leyte at the time he committed the acts complained of.
As to the second element,
it is worthy to stress that the law provides three modes of commission of the
crime, namely, through "manifest partiality", "evident bad
faith", and/or "gross negligence." In the instant case,
Fuentes's acts were not only committed with manifest partiality, but also with
bad faith. As can be gleaned from the records, Fuentes himself testified that
according to the rumors he heard, all five (5) ship chandlers operating in the
Port of Isabel were allegedly involved in smuggling and drug trading. Yet, it
was only Valenzuela's chandling operations through Triple A that was refused
issuance of a Business Permit, as evidenced by Business Permits issued to two (2) other chandling services
operators in the said port, namely: S.E. De Guzman Ship Chandler and General
Maritime Services; and Golden Sea Kers Marine Services. Moreover, if Fuentes
truly believed that Valenzuela was indeed engaged in illegal smuggling and drug
trading, then he would not have issued Business Permits to the latter's other businesses
as well. However, and as aptly pointed out by the Sandiganbayan, Fuentes issued
a Business Permit to Valenzuela's other business, Gemini Security, which
provides security services to vessels in the Port of Isabel. Under these
questionable circumstances, the Court is led to believe that Fuentes's refusal
to issue a Business Permit to Valenzuela's Triple A was indeed committed with
manifest partiality against the latter, and in favor of the other ship
chandling operators in the Port of Isabel.
Anent the third and last
element, suffice it to say that Fuentes's acts of refusing to issue a Business
Permit in Valenzuela's favor, coupled with his issuance of the unnumbered
Memorandum which effectively barred Triple A from engaging in its ship
chandling operations without such Business Permit, caused some sort of undue
injury on the part of Valenzuela. Undeniably, such suspension of Triple A's
ship chandling operations prevented Valenzuela from engaging in an otherwise
lawful endeavor for the year 2002. To make things worse, Valenzuela was also
not issued a Business Permit for the years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, as it
was only in 2007 that such permit was issued in Triple A's favor. Under
prevailing case law, "proof of the extent of damage is not essential,
it being sufficient that the injury suffered or the benefit received is
perceived to be substantial enough and not merely negligible."
Hence, in view of the
foregoing, Fuentes committed a violation of Section 3 (e) of RA3019,and hence, must be held criminally liable therefor.
No comments:
Post a Comment