1

City of Manila vs Teotico

Facts: In January 1958, at about 8pm, Genaro Teotico was about to board a jeepney in P. Burgos, ani!a
w"en "e #e!! into an unco$ered man"o!e. T"is caused injuries upon "im. T"erea#ter "e sued #or damages
under %rtic!e &189 o# t"e 'i$i! 'ode t"e 'ity o# ani!a, t"e mayor, t"e city engineer, t"e city "ea!t" o(cer,
t"e city treasurer, and t"e c"ie# o# po!ice. ')I ani!a ru!ed against Teotico. T"e '%, on appea!, ru!ed t"at
t"e 'ity o# ani!a s"ou!d pay damages to Teotico. T"e 'ity o# ani!a assai!ed t"e decision o# t"e '% on t"e
ground t"at t"e c"arter o# ani!a states t"at it s"a!! not be !iab!e #or damages caused by t"e neg!igence o#
t"e city o(cers in en#orcing t"e c"arter* t"at t"e c"arter is a specia! !aw and s"a!! pre$ai! o$er t"e 'i$i!
'ode w"ic" is a genera! !aw* and t"at t"e accident "appened in nationa! "ig"way.
ISSUE: +"et"er or not t"e 'ity o# ani!a is !iab!e in t"e case at bar.
HELD: ,es. It is true t"at in case o# con-ict, a specia! !aw pre$ai!s o$er a genera! !aw* t"at t"e c"arter o#
ani!a is a specia! !aw and t"at t"e 'i$i! 'ode is a genera! !aw. .owe$er, !oo/ing at t"e particu!ar
pro$isions o# eac" !aw concerned, t"e pro$ision o# t"e ani!a '"arter e0empting it #rom !iabi!ity caused by
t"e neg!igence o# its o(cers is a genera! !aw in t"e sense t"at it e0empts t"e city #rom neg!igence o# its
o(cers in genera!. T"ere is no particu!ar e0emption but mere!y a genera! e0emption. 1n t"e ot"er "and,
%rtic!e &189 o# t"e 'i$i! 'ode pro$ides a particu!ar prescription to t"e e2ect t"at it ma/es pro$inces, cities,
and municipa!ities !iab!e #or t"e damages caused to a certain person by reason o# t"e 34defective
condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other-public works under their control or
supervision.5
T"e a!!egation t"at t"e incident "appened in a nationa! "ig"way was on!y raised #or t"e 6rst time in t"e
'ity7s motion #or reconsideration in t"e 'ourt o# %ppea!s, "ence it cannot be gi$en due weig"t. %t any rate,
e$en t"oug" it is a nationa! "ig"way, t"e !aw contemp!ates t"at regard!ess i# w"et"er or not t"e road is
nationa!, pro$incia!, city, or municipa!, so !ong as it is under t"e 'ity7s contro! and super$ision, it s"a!! be
responsib!e #or damages by reason o# t"e de#ecti$e conditions t"ereo#. In t"e case at bar, t"e 'ity admitted
t"ey "a$e contro! and super$ision o$er t"e road w"ere Teotico #e!! w"en t"e 'ity a!!eged t"at it "as been
doing constant and regu!ar inspection o# t"e city7s roads, P. Burgos inc!uded.

8epub!ic o# t"e P"i!ippines
SUPREME COURT
ani!a
JIMENEZ v CIT! OF M"NIL"
#R No $%&'( May )(* %(+$
F"CTS9
Bernardino Jimene: #e!! in an unco$ered opening o t"e ground !ocated wit"in t"e premises
o# t"e ;ta. %na pub!ic mar/et. %t t"at time, t"e mar/et was -ooded wit" an/!e<deep rainwater w"ic"
pre$ented t"e opening #orm being seen. Jimene:, #or "is part, went to t"at mar/et to buy bagoong
despite t"e rains. .e sustained an injury due to a rusty =<inc" nai! w"ic" pierced "is !e#t !eg.
Jimene: sued t"e %siatic Integrated 'orporation >%I'? and t"e 'ity o# ani!a #or "is
mis#ortune. T"e ;ta. %na ar/et at t"at time was under t"e administration o# t"e %I' by $irtue o# a
management and 1perating 'ontract it "ad wit" t"e 'ity o# ani!a. T"e tria! court "e!d t"e %I'
responsib!e but abso!$ed t"e 'ity o# ani!a.
ISSUE: ,ON t-e City of Manila is in.ee. not lia/le0
HELD: NO
T"e 'ity o# ani!a is !iab!e. 8easons9
1? %gain, %rt. &189 comes into p!ay, since t"e injury too/ p!ace in a pub!ic bui!ding.
&
&? %!so, %rt. &189 re@uires t"at t"e AGB must retain super$ision and contro! o$er t"e pub!ic
wor/ in @uestion #or it to be "e!d !iab!e. T"e e$idence s"owed t"at t"e anagement and 1perating
'ontract e0p!icit!y stated t"at t"e 'ity o# ani!a retained super$ision and contro! o$er t"e ;ta. %na
ar/et. %!so, in a !etter to )inance ;ecretary 'esar Cirata, ayor 8aymond Bagatsing admitted t"is #act
o# super$ision and contro!. oreo$er, ;ec. DE>g? o# t"e Aoca! Ta0 'ode says t"at pub!ic mar/ets s"a!! be
under t"e immediate super$ision, administration and contro! o# t"e 'ity Treasurer.
D? Jimene: cou!d not be "e!d #or neg!igence. % customer in a store "as e$ery rig"t to
presume t"at t"e owner wi!! comp!y wit" "is duty to /eep "is premises sa#e #or customers. T"e owner o#
t"e mar/et, on t"e ot"er "and, was pro$en to "a$e been neg!igent in not pro$iding a co$er #or t"e said
opening. T"e neg!igence o# t"e 'ity o# ani!a is t"e pro0imate cause o# t"e injury su2ered.
It is not necessary #or t"e AGB to "a$e owners"ip o$er t"e pub!ic wor/ in @uestion* mere contro!
and super$ision is su(cient.
#UIL"TCO v CIT! OF D"#UP"N
)%'T;9 Gi!atco, >'ourt Interpreter? was about to board a tricyc!e at a sidewa!/ w"en at Pere: B!$d w"ens"e
accidenta!!y #e!! into a man"o!e causing "er rig"t !eg to be #ractured. Pere: B!$d is a Fationa! 8oadunder
t"e contro! and super$ision o# 'ity o# Gagupan.;uc" man"o!e is partia!!y co$ered by a -owerpot
!ea$ing a gaping "o!e about & #t !ong and 1H#eet wide.;"e was "ospita!i:ed, operated on and
con6ned. ;"e "ad been depri$ed o# income. ;"e sued #or damages.
I;;BI9 +1F 'ontro! or super$ision o$er a nationa! road by t"e 'ity o# Gagupan e0ists w"ic" ma/es
'ity!iab!e under %rt &189
.IAG9 ,es.8%TI19 %rt &189 says 9 Pro$inces, cities and municipa!ities s"a!! be !iab!e #or damages #or t"e
deat" o#, or injuries, su2ered by, any person by reason o# t"e de#ecti$e conditions o# roads, streets,
bridges, pub!icbui!dings, and ot"er pub!ic wor/s, under t"eir contro! and super$ision.T"us, it is not e$en
necessary t"at suc" de#ecti$e road or street be!ongs to t"e 'ity.In t"e case at bar, t"e contro!
and super$ision o# t"e nationa! road e0ists and is pro$ided #or in t"ec"arter o# Gagupan. It pro$ided t"at
t"e !aying out, construction and impro$ement o# streets, a$enues anda!!eys and sidewa!/s, and regu!ation
o# t"e use t"ereo#, may be !egis!ated by t"e unicipa! Board.;uc" contro! and super$ision is e0ercised
t"roug" t"e 'ity Ingineer Tangco, w"o aside #rom "iso(cia! capacity as 'ity Ingineer, was a!so I0
1(cio .ig"way Ingineer, I0 1(cio 'ity Ingineer o# Bureau o# Pub!ic +or/s, and Bui!ding 1(cia!
and recei$ed compensation #or t"ese #unctions.T"e #unction o# super$ision o$er streets, pub!ic bui!dings
and pub!ic wor/s, pertaining t"roug" t"e'ity Ingineer is coursed t"roug" a aintenance )oreman and a
aintenance Ingineer. %!t"oug" t"esetwo o(cia!s are emp!oyees o# t"e Fat7! Go$7t, t"ey are
detai!ed wit" t"e 'ity o# Gagupan and "encerecei$e instruction and super$ision #rom t"e
city t"roug" t"e 'ity Ingineer..ence t"e 'ity is !iab!e.
MUNICIP"LIT! OF S"N FERN"NDO 1S JUD#E FIRME
G.8. Fo. A<5&1J9, %pri! 8 1991, 195 ;'8% K9&
)%'T;9
1n Gecember 1K, 19K5, a co!!ision occurred in$o!$ing a passenger jeepney dri$en by Bernardo Ba!agot and
owned by t"e Istate o# acario Fie$eras, a gra$e! and sand truc/ dri$en by Jose anandeg and owned by
Tan@ui!ino Ce!as@ue: and a dump truc/ o# t"eunicipa!ity o# ;an )ernando, Aa Bnion and dri$en by %!#redo
Bis!ig. Gue to t"e impact, se$era! passengers o# t"e jeepney inc!uding Aaureano BaniLa ;r. died as a resu!t
o# t"e injuries t"ey sustained and #our >=? ot"ers su2ered $arying degrees o# p"ysica! injuries.
D
T"e pri$ate respondents instituted a comp!iant #or damages against t"e Istate o# acario Fie$eras and
Bernardo Ba!agot, owner anddri$er, respecti$e!y, o# t"e passenger jeepney in t"e 'ourt o# )irst Instance o#
Aa Bnion, Branc" I, ;an )ernando, Aa Bnion. .owe$er, t"e a#oresaid de#endants 6!ed a T"ird Party
'omp!aint against t"e petitioner and t"e dri$er o# a dump truc/ o# petitioner.
T"erea#ter, t"e case was subse@uent!y trans#erred to Branc" IC, presided o$er by respondent judge. T"e
pri$ate respondents amended t"e comp!aint w"erein t"e petitioner and its regu!ar emp!oyee, %!#redo Bis!ig
were imp!eaded #or t"e 6rst time as de#endants.
Petitioner 6!ed its answer and raised a(rmati$e de#enses suc" as !ac/ o# cause o# action, non<suabi!ity o#
t"e ;tate, prescription o# cause o# action and t"e neg!igence o# t"e owner and dri$er o# t"e passenger
jeepney as t"e pro0imate cause o# t"e co!!ision.
I;;BI9
+"et"er or not t"e unicipa!ity o# ;an )ernando, Aa Bnion can enjoy t"e immunity #rom suit.
.IAG9
T"e 'ourt granted t"e petition and t"e decision o# t"e respondent court is "ereby modi6ed, abso!$ing t"e
petitioner municipa!ity o# any !iabi!ity in #a$or o# pri$ate respondents. %rtic!e MCI, ;ection D o# t"e
'onstitution e0press!y pro$ides t"at Nt"e ;tate may not be sued wit"out its consent.N It is a genera! ru!e
t"at t"e ;tate may not be sued e0cept w"en it gi$es consent to be sued. 'onsent ta/es t"e #orm o#
e0press or imp!ied consent.
Express consent may be embodied in a genera! !aw or a specia! !aw. % specia! !aw may be passed to enab!e
a person to sue t"e go$ernment #or an a!!eged @uasi<de!ict. +"i!e implied consent occurs w"en t"e
go$ernment enters into business contracts, t"ereby descending to t"e !e$e! o# t"e ot"er contracting party,
and a!so w"en t"e ;tate 6!es a comp!aint, t"us opening itse!# to a counterc!aim.
unicipa! corporations, !i/e pro$inces and cities, are agencies o# t"e ;tate w"en t"ey are engaged in
go$ernmenta! #unctions and t"ere#ore s"ou!d enjoy t"e so$ereign immunity #rom suit. Fe$ert"e!ess, t"ey
are subject to suit e$en in t"e per#ormance o#suc" #unctions because t"eir c"arter pro$ided t"at t"ey can
sue and be sued. T"e municipa! corporations are suab!e because t"eir c"arters grant t"em t"e
competence to sue and be sued. Fe$ert"e!ess, t"ey are genera!!y not !iab!e #or torts committed by t"em in
t"e disc"arge o# go$ernmenta! #unctions and can be "e!d answerab!e on!y i# it can be s"own t"at t"ey
were acting in a proprietary capacity.
In t"e case at bar, petitioner unicipa!ity o# ;an )ernando, Aa Bnion is a municipa! corporation e0isting
under and in accordance wit" t"e !aws o# t"e 8epub!ic o# t"e P"i!ippines. T"e dri$er o# t"e dump truc/ o#
t"e municipa!ity insists t"at N"e was on "is way to t"e Fagui!ian ri$er to get a !oad o# sand and gra$e! #or
t"e repair o# ;an )ernandoOs municipa! streets.N In t"e absence o# any e$idence to t"e contrary, t"e
regu!arity o# t"e per#ormance o# o(cia! duty is presumed pursuant to ;ection D>m? o# 8u!e 1D1 o# t"e
8e$ised 8u!es o# 'ourt.
T"ere#ore, t"e 'ourt ru!ed t"at t"e dri$er o# t"e dump truc/ was per#orming duties or tas/s pertaining to
"is o(ce. T"e municipa!itycannot be "e!d !iab!e #or t"e torts committed by its regu!ar emp!oyee, w"o was
t"en engaged in t"e disc"arge o# go$ernmenta! #unctions. T"us, t"e deat" o# t"e passenger PP tragic and
dep!orab!e t"oug" it may be PP imposed on t"e municipa!ity no duty to pay monetary compensation.
2al3yot vs C"
Facts:
1n arc" 1D, 199& petitioners as resident o# Barangay 'ru: represented by petitioner Timoteo Ba!uyot
et.a! 6!ed #or speci6c per#ormance and damages against BP respondent contending t"at t"ey "a$e been in
open, peace#u!, ad$erse and continuous possession in t"e concept o# an owner o# t"at parce! o# !and in
Que:on 'ity
In 19J9, BP appro$ed t"e donation direct!y to t"e said residents #or about 9.& "ectares and t"at BP bac/ed
out to proceed wit" t"e donation and t"e e0ecution o# t"e !ega! instrument was not #orma!i:ed.
=
%#terwards, t"e negotiation o# donation was resumed t"ru t"e de#endant Que:on 'ity go$ernment under
t"e terms contrary to t"e rig"t o# t"e bona6de residents o# t"e said barrio.
Petitioners app!y #or writ o# injunction t"at was issued to restrain de#endant BP #rom ejecting p!ainti2s and
demo!is"ing t"eir impro$ements on t"e 8ice!and. %!so, petitioners see/ en#orcement o# t"e Geed o#
donation made by BP de#endant to t"e Que:on 'ity go$ernment.
Bnder t"e said Geed o# Gonation t"e donee s"a!! a#ter !apse o# D years trans#er to t"e @ua!i6ed residents
by way o# donation t"e indi$idua! !ots occupied by t"em.
.owe$er, BP President "ad #ai!ed to de!i$er t"e 'T' to enab!e Que:on 'ity go$ernment to register t"e
Geed o# Gonation.
T"e de#endant BP "ad continuous!y, un!aw#u!!y re#used to comp!y t"e ob!igation to de!i$er t"e tit!e despite
se$era! re@uests and con#erences.
8e$ocation and re$ersion o# a Geed o# Gonation wit"out Judicia! dec!aration is i!!ega! and prejudicia! to t"e
rig"ts o# t"e bona6de residents in Barangay 'ru: na Aigas Que:on 'ity.
By reason o# deception, t"e residents reiterate t"e c!aim o# owners"ip o# =& "ectares w"ic" are inc!uded in
t"e ta0 dec!aration under t"e name o# BP.
T"e p!ainti2 prayed #or t"e dec!aration o# t"e Geed o# Gonation as $a!id and subsisting.
T"e tria! court rendered its decision t"at petitioners did not "a$e a cause o# action #or speci6c per#ormance
on t"e ground t"at t"e Geed o# donation "ad a!ready been re$o/ed denying t"e injunction.
.owe$er '% ru!ed in #a$or o# BP

Iss3e: +"et"er petitioners "as t"e rig"t to see/ en#orcement o# t"e Geed o# Gonation.

R3lin4:
T"e ;upreme 'ourt ru!ed in t"e a(rmati$e, because t"ere is a stipu!ation pour autrui
Bnder t"e 'i$i! 'ode %rt 1D11
>8I%G %8T. 1D11 1F 8IQBI;ITI; 1) ;TIPBA%TI1F P1B8 %BT8BI?
T"at i# a contract s"ou!d contain, some stipu!ation in #a$our o# a D
rd
person. .e may demand its #u!6!ment
pro$ided t"at "e communicated "is acceptance to t"e ob!igor be#ore its re$ocation.
T"e contracting parties must "a$e c!ear!y and de!iberate!y con#erred a #a$or upon a D
rd
person.
%!!egations are su(cient to bring t"e petitioners action wit"in &
nd
paragrap" o# %rt. 1D11 on stipu!ation
pour autrui
1. T"at t"e Geed o# donation contains some stipu!ation t"at Que:on city go$ernment is re@uired to trans#er
donation to t"e barrio residents.
&. Its stipu!ation is part o# conditions and ob!igations imposed by BP as donor upon Que:on 'ity
go$ernment donee.
5
D. T"e intent o# t"e parties to t"e deed o# donation was to con#er a #a$our upon petitioners by trans#erring
!ots occupied by t"em.
=. 'on#erence were "e!d between t"e parties to con$ince BP to surrender 'T' to t"e city go$ernment
w"ic" donation "ad been accepted by petitioners by demanding #u!6!ment and t"at pri$ate respondents
were aware o# suc" acceptance.
5. %!! a!!egations can be #air!y in#erred t"at neit"er o# pri$ate respondents acted in representation o# t"e
ot"er, eac" pri$ate respondents "ad its own ob!igation in $iew o# con#erring a #a$or upon petitioners.
TUZON v COURT OF "PPE"LS
F"CTS
T"e ;angguniang Bayan o# 'ama!aniugan, 'agayan adopted 8eso!ution Fo. 9. ;aid reso!ution aut"ori:ed
t"e municipa! treasurer to enter into an agreement wit" a!! t"res"er operators w"o app!y #or a Permit to
T"res" Pa!ay to donate 1R o# a!! t"e pa!ay t"res"ed by t"em. T"erea#ter, Jurado o2ered to pay t"e !icense
#ee #or t"res"er operators. unicipa! Treasurer agapu re#used to accept payment and re@uired "im to 6rst
secure a ayor7s permit. ayor Tu:on said t"at Jurado s"ou!d 6rst comp!y wit" 8eso!ution Fo. 9 and
sign t"e agreement be#ore t"e permit cou!d be issued. Jurado 6!ed wit" t"e 'ourt o# )irst Instance o#
'agayan #or mandamus, and anot"er wit" t"e same court #or judgement against t"e said reso!ution. ')I
up"e!d t"e 8eso!ution, and dismissed t"e c!aim #or damages. '% a(rmed t"e $a!idity o# t"e 8eso!ution and
#ound Tu:on and apagu to "a$e acted ma!icious!y and in bad #ait" w"en t"ey denied Jurado7s app!ication.
ISSUE
+"et"er or not petitioners are !iab!e in damages #or "a$ing wit""e!d ayor7s permit and !icense because
o# respondent7s re#usa! to comp!y wit" said 8eso!ution.
HELD
NO. %rtic!e &J presupposes t"at t"e re#usa! or omission o# a pub!ic o(cia! to per#orm "is o(cia! duty is
attributab!e to ma!ice or ine0cusab!e neg!igence. T"ere was no e$idence o2ered to s"ow t"at petitioners
sing!ed out respondent #or persecution. Feit"er does it appear t"at t"e petitioners stood to gain persona!!y
#rom re#using to issue t"e mayor7s permit and !icense. oreo$er, t"e reso!ution was uni#orm!y app!ied to a!!
t"e t"res"ers in t"e municipa!ity wit"out pre#erence. % pub!ic o(cer is not persona!!y !iab!e to one injured
in conse@uence o# an act per#ormed wit"in t"e scope o# "is o(cia! aut"ority and in !ine o# "is o(cia! duty.
In t"e absence o# a judicia! decision dec!aring said 8eso!ution in$a!id, its !ega!ity wou!d "a$e to be
presumed. %s e0ecuti$e o(cia!s o# t"emunicipa!ity, t"ey "ad t"e duty to en#orce it. %n erroneous
interpretation o# an ordinance does not constitute nor amount to bad #ait".
"2ELL" 1S MUNICIP"LIT! OF N"#" #R NO L56$6+
Facts:
T"e appe!!ant t"roug" a reso!ution c!osed a road w"ic" ran t"roug" t"e pub!ic mar/et and %be!!a7s
property. Portiono# t"e road was c!osed #or t"e e0pansion o# t"e pub!ic mar/et. %s a resu!t o#
t"e c!osure and subse@uent e0pansionpermanent structures were bui!t. T"ese impro$ements c"omped o2
t"e sidewa!/ and abutted to t"e petitioner7s property, t"ey e0tended to t"e midd!e o# a street depri$ing
%be!!a o# t"e use t"ereo#. %be!!a soug"t damages #rom t"e ')I o# 'amarines ;ur, w"ic" ru!ed in "er #a$or
by ordering t"e municipa!ity to pay PDEE pesos #or damages. %ggrie$ed, t"e municipa!ity appea!ed to t"e
;'.

Iss3e:
+"et"er or not t"e municipa!ity is !iab!e #or damages considering t"at it mere!y e0ercised its po!ice power
to preser$e peace and good order o# t"e community and promote genera! we!#are.
Hel.:
,es. T"e municipa!ity was not c"arged wit" any un!aw#u! act, or wit" in$ading %be!!a7s property rig"ts, it
was not #ound gui!ty o# any suc" acts. +"at is in issue in t"is case is t"e !iabi!ity #or damages. ;ec. &&=K o#
t"e 8e$ised %dministrati$e 'ode pro$ides9
K
7No 83nici9al :oa.* st:eet* etc o: any 9a:t t-e:eof s-all /e close. ;it-o3t in.e8nifyin4
any 9e:son<
#R No L5(()& Fe/:3a:y )(* %(=&
2"RTOLOME E S"N DIE#O* p!ainti2<appe!!ee,
$s.
THE MUNICIP"LIT! OF N"UJ"N* PRO1INCE OF ORIENT"L MINDORO* de#endant<appe!!ant.
Rodegelio M. Jalandoni and Jose P. aurel for appellee.
!elgado, "lores, Macapagal and !i#on and the Provincial "iscal of $riental Mindoro for appellant.
#UTIERREZ D"1ID* J:
)o!!owing a pub!ic bidding conducted by t"e municipa!ity o# Faujan, 1rienta! indoro #or t"e !ease o# its
municipa! waters, 8eso!ution =K, series o# 19=J was passed by t"e municipa! counci! t"ereo# awarding t"e
concession o# t"e Butas 8i$er and t"e Faujan Aa/e to t"e "ig"est bidder Barto!ome ;an Giego.
'onse@uent!y, a contract was entered into between t"e said ;an Giego and t"e municipa!ity, stipu!ating
t"at #or a period o# 6$e >5? years, #rom January 1, 19=8 to Gecember D1, 195&, t"e #ormer was to be t"e
!essee o# Nt"e e0c!usi$e pri$i!ege o# erecting 6s" corra!s a!ong t"e Butas 8i$er beginning #rom its junction
wit" t"e ;an %gustin 8i$er up to t"e Faujan Aa/e itse!#,N #or annua! renta! o# P&K,DEE.EE, or a tota! o#
P1D1,5EE.EE #or 6$e years. Bpon petition by t"e !essee, "owe$er, t"e said counci! reduced t"e annua!
renta! by &ER by $irtue o# 8eso!ution 59, series o# 19=9.
1n ;eptember 5, 195E, t"e !essee re@uested #or a 6$e<year e0tension o# t"e origina! !ease period. T"e
re@uest was, #or some time, !e#t pending be#ore t"e municipa! counci!, but on Gecember 1, 1951, a#ter t"e
!essee "ad reiterated "is petition #or e0tension, #or t"e reason t"at t"e typ"oon N+andaN, w"ic" too/ p!ace
t"at mont", destroyed most o# "is 6s" corra!s, t"e counci! adopted 8eso!ution &&&, series o# 1951
e0tending t"e !ease #or anot"er 6$e >5? years beginning January 1, 195&, wit" t"e e0press condition t"at
t"e p!ainti2 wou!d wai$e t"e pri$i!ege to see/ #or reduction o# t"e amount o# rent w"ic" was to be based on
t"e origina! contract. %#ter t"e reso!ution "ad been appro$ed by t"e Pro$incia! Board o# 1rienta! indoro,
t"e !essor and t"e !essee, on Gecember &D, 1951, contracted #or t"e e0tension o# t"e period o# t"e !ease.
T"e contract was appro$ed and con6rmed on Gecember &9, 1951 by 8eso!ution &&9, series o# 1951, o# t"e
municipa! counci! o# Faujan w"ose term was t"en about to e0pire. Pursuant to t"e said contract, t"e !essee
6!ed a surety bond o# P5&,EEE.EE and t"en reconstructed "is 6s" corra!s and stoc/ed t"e Faujan Aa/e wit"
baLgus 6nger!ings.
1n January &, 195&, t"e municipa! counci! o# Faujan, t"is time composed o# a new set o# members,
adopted 8eso!ution D, series o# 195&, re$o/ing 8eso!ution &&&, series o# 1951. 1n t"e same date, t"e new
counci! a!so passed 8eso!ution 11, re$o/ing 8eso!ution &&9 o# t"e o!d counci! w"ic" con6rmed t"e
e0tension o# t"e !ease period. T"e !essee re@uested #or reconsideration and reca!! o# 8eso!ution D, on t"e
ground, among ot"ers, t"at it $io!ated t"e contract e0ecuted between "im and t"e municipa!ity on
Gecember &D, 1951, and, t"ere#ore, contrary to %rtic!e III, section 1, c!ause 1E o# t"e 'onstitution. T"e
re@uest, "owe$er, was not granted.
1n ;eptember =, 195&, t"e !essee instituted t"is proceedings in t"e court be!ow see/ing to "a$e
8eso!ution D, series o# 195&, o# t"e municipa! counci! o# Faujan, dec!ared nu!! and $oid, #or being
unconstitutiona!, and praying #or an order enjoining t"e de#endant municipa!ity #rom conducting a pub!ic
bidding #or t"e !easing o# t"e Faujan 6s"eries to any person ot"er t"an t"e p!ainti2 during t"e period #rom
January 1, 195D to Gecember D1, 195J.
%nswering t"e comp!aint, t"e de#endant asserted t"e $a!idity o# 8eso!ution D, series o# 1951, a!!eging by
t"e way o# specia! de#ense t"at t"e reso!ution aut"ori:ing t"e origina! !ease contract, reducing t"e !ease
renta!s and renewing t"e !ease are nu!! and $oid #or not "a$ing been passed in accordance wit" !aw.
Ge#endant #urt"er put up a counterc!aim #or t"e amount representing t"e i!!ega! reduction o# &ER o# t"e
origina! renta!s, p!us t"e sum o# P&,191.KE per mont" beginning Gecember 1, 195& unti! t"e case s"a!!
"a$e been terminated.
%#ter tria!, t"e !ower court rendered judgment up"o!ding t"e $a!idity o# t"e !ease contract, as we!! at is
e0tension, and dec!aring 8eso!ution D, series o# 195&, nu!! and $oid. T"e municipa!ity o# Faujan "as ta/en
t"is appea!.
T"e main @uestion to be decided is w"et"er or not 8eso!ution Fo. D, series o# 195&, re$o/ing 8eso!ution
&&&, series o# 1951, o# t"e municipa! counci! o# Faujan is $a!id.
)or c!arity, we "a$e to reiterate t"at 8eso!ution &&&, series o# 1951, is an appro$a! o# p!ainti2<appe!!eeOs
petition #or e0tension #or anot"er 6$e years, e2ecti$e January 1, 195D, o# "is 6$e<year !ease concession
granted under 8eso!ution =K, series o# 19=J. ;aid 8eso!ution &&&, "owe$er, was re$o/ed by t"e municipa!
counci! under a new set o# members in its 8eso!ution D, series o# 195&, #or t"e reason, among ot"ers, t"at
J
t"e e0tension was i!!ega!, it "a$ing been granted wit"out competiti$e pub!ic bidding. It is t"is !ast
mentioned reso!ution t"at "as been dec!ared nu!! and $oid by t"e tria! court.
T"e !aw >;ec. &D&D o# t"e 8e$ised %dministrati$e 'ode? re@uires t"at w"en t"e e0c!usi$e pri$i!ege o#
6s"ery or t"e rig"t to conduct a 6s"<breeding ground is granted to a pri$ate party, t"e same s"a!! be !et to
t"e "ig"est bidder in t"e same manner as is being done in e0p!oiting a #erry, a mar/et or a s!aug"ter"ouse
be!onging to t"e municipa!ity >;ee unicipa!ity o# ;an Auis $s. Centura, et a!., 5K P"i!., D&9?. T"e
re@uirement o# competiti$e bidding is #or t"e purpose o# in$iting competition and to guard against
#a$oritism, #raud and corruption in t"e !etting o# 6s"ery pri$i!eges >%ee D cQui!!in, unicipa! 'orporations,
&nd Id., p. 11JE* .ar!es Gas!ig"t 'o. $s. Few ,or/, DD F.,. DE9* and & Gi!!on, unicipa! 'orporation, p.
1&19?.
T"ere is no doubt t"at t"e origina! !ease contract in t"is case was awarded to t"e "ig"est bidder, but t"e
reduction o# t"e renta! and t"e e0tension o# t"e term o# t"e !ease appear to "a$e been granted wit"out
pre$ious pub!ic bidding. In t"e case o# 'a!te0 >P"i!.?, Inc., et a!. vs. Ge!gado Bros., Inc., et a!., 9K P"i!., DK8,
t"e amendment to an arrastre contract was dec!ared nu!! and $oid on t"e ground t"at it was made wit"out
pre$ious pub!ic bidding. In so dec!aring, t"is 'ourt "as adopted t"e #o!!owing opinion9
. . . it is t"e opinion o# t"e 'ourt t"at t"e said agreement .. e0ecuted and entered into wit"out
pre$ious pub!ic bidding, is nu!! and $oid, and cannot ad$erse!y a2ect t"e rig"ts o# t"ird parties . . .
and o# t"e pub!ic in genera!. T"e 'ourt agrees wit" t"e contention o# counse! #or t"e p!ainti2s t"at
t"e due e0ecution o# a contract a#ter pub!ic bidding is a !imitation upon t"e rig"t o# t"e
contradicting parties to a!ter or amend it wit"out anot"er pub!ic bidding, #or ot"erwise w"at wou!d a
pub!ic bidding be good #or i# a#ter t"e e0ecution o# a contract a#ter pub!ic bidding, t"e contracting
parties may a!ter or amend t"e contract or e$en cance! it, at t"eir wi!!S Pub!ic biddings are "e!d #or
t"e protection o# t"e pub!ic, and to gi$e t"e pub!ic t"e best possib!e ad$antages by means o# open
competition between t"e bidders. .e w"o bids or o2ers t"e best terms is awarded t"e contract
subject o# t"e bid, and it is ob$ious t"at suc" protection and best possib!e ad$antages to t"e pub!ic
wi!! disappear i# t"e parties to a contract e0ecuted a#ter pub!ic bidding may a!ter or amend it
wit"out anot"er pre$ious pub!ic bidding.
+"i!e in t"at case we ru!ed t"at a!t"oug" t"e Narrastre contractN t"erein @uestioned aut"ori:ed t"e parties
to a!ter or amend any o# t"e terms t"ereo#, suc" aut"ority must be considered as being subject to t"e
re@uirement o# pre$ious pub!ic bidding, a #orma!ity obser$ed be#ore t"e origina! contract was awarded,
wit" more reason s"ou!d t"e ru!e re@uiring suc" pub!ic bidding be stric/!y app!ied in t"e instant case w"ere
no suc" aut"ority to a!ter or amend t"e terms o# t"e contract was reser$ed.
)urt"ermore, it "as been ru!ed t"at statutes re@uiring pub!ic bidding app!y to amendments o# any contract
a!ready e0ecuted in comp!iance wit" t"e !aw w"ere suc" amendments a!ter t"e origina! contract in some
$ita! and essentia! particu!ar >%ee orse vs. Boston, 1=8 F.I. 81D&5D ass. &=J.? Inasmuc" as t"e period
in a !ease is a $ita! and essentia! particu!ar to t"e contract, we be!ie$e t"at t"e e0tension o# t"e !ease
period in t"is case, w"ic" was granted wit"out t"e essentia! re@uisite o# pub!ic bidding, is not in
accordance wit" !aw. %nd it #o!!ows t"e 8eso!ution &&&, series o# 1951, and t"e contract aut"ori:ed
t"ereby, e0tending t"e origina! 6$e<year !ease to anot"er 6$e years are nu!! and $oid as contrary to !aw
and pub!ic po!icy.
+e agree wit" t"e de#endant<appe!!ant in t"at t"e @uestion 8eso!ution D is not an impairment o# t"e
ob!igation o# contract, because t"e constitutiona! pro$ision on impairment re#ers on!y to contract !ega!!y
e0ecuted. +"i!e, apparent!y, 8eso!ution D tended to abrogate t"e contract e0tending t"e !ease, !ega!!y
spea/ing, t"ere was no contract abrogated because, as we "a$e said, t"e e0tension contract is $oid and
ine0istent.
T"e !ower court, in "o!ding t"at t"e de#endant<appe!!ant municipa!ity "as been estopped #rom assai!ing t"e
$a!idity o# t"e contract into w"ic" it entered on Gecember &D, 1951, seems to "a$e o$er!oo/ed t"e genera!
ru!e t"at T
. . . t"e doctrine o# estoppe! cannot be app!ied as against a municipa! corporation to $a!idate a
contract w"ic" it "as no power to ma/e or w"ic" it is aut"ori:ed to ma/e on!y under prescribed
conditions, wit"in prescribed !imitations, or in a prescribed mode or manner, a!t"oug" t"e
corporation "as accepted t"e bene6ts t"ereo# and t"e ot"er party "as #u!!y per#ormed "is part o#
t"e agreement, or "as e0pended !arge sums in preparation #or per#ormance. % reason #re@uent!y
assigned #or t"is ru!e is t"at to app!y t"e doctrine o# estoppe! against a municipa!ity in suc" case
wou!d be to enab!e it to do indirect!y w"at it cannot do direct!y. %!so, w"ere a contract is $io!ati$e o#
pub!ic po!icy, t"e municipa!ity e0ecuting it cannot be estopped to assert t"e in$a!idity o# a contract
w"ic" "as ceded away, contro!!ed, or embarrassed its !egis!ati$e or go$ernment powers. >D8 %m.
Jur. pp. &E&<&E=?.
8
%s pointed out abo$e, Npub!ic biddings are "e!d #or t"e best protection o# t"e pub!ic and to gi$e t"e pub!ic
t"e best possib!e ad$antages by means o# open competition between t"e bidders.N T"us, contracts
re@uiring pub!ic bidding a2ect pub!ic interest, and to c"ange t"em wit"out comp!ying wit" t"at
re@uirement wou!d indeed be against pub!ic po!icy. T"ere is, t"ere#ore, not"ing to p!ainti2<appe!!eeOs
contention t"at t"e parties in t"is case being in pari delicto s"ou!d be !e#t in t"e situation w"ere t"ey are
#ound, #or Na!t"oug" t"e parties are in pari delicto, yet t"e court may inter#ere and grant re!ie# at t"e suit o#
one o# t"em, w"ere pub!ic po!icy re@uires its inter$ention, e$en t"oug" t"e resu!t may be t"at a bene6t wi!!
be deri$ed by a p!ainti2 w"o is in e@ua! gui!t wit" de#endant. But "ere t"e gui!t o# t"e parties is not
considered as e@ua! to t"e "ig"er rig"t o# t"e pub!ic, and t"e gui!ty party to w"om t"e re!ie# is granted is
simp!y t"e instrument by w"ic" t"e pub!ic is ser$ed.N >1D '.J. p. =9J?
In $iew o# t"e #oregoing, we "o!d t"at t"e municipa! counci! o# Faujan acted arig"t in adopting 8eso!ution
D, series o# 195&, now in @uestion.
In consonance wit" t"e princip!es enunciated abo$e, 8eso!ution 59, series o# 19=J, reducing t"e renta!s by
&ER o# t"e origina! price, w"ic" was a!so passed wit"out pub!ic bidding, s"ou!d !i/ewise be "e!d $oid, since
a reduction o# t"e renta! to be paid by t"e !essee is a substantia! a!ternation in t"e contract, ma/ing it a
distinct and di2erent !ease contract w"ic" re@uires t"e prescribed #orma!ity o# pub!ic bidding.
T"ere seems to be no necessity o# passing on t"e $a!idity o# 8eso!ution =K, series o# 19=J, #or de#endant<
appe!!ant, apparent!y, did not mean to "a$e it annu!!ed, as may be seen #rom its prayer in t"e court be!ow
and a!so in t"is appea!. %t any rate, t"e $a!idity o# said reso!ution does not a!ter our 6nding to t"e e2ect
t"at 8eso!ution 59, series o# 19=9, and 8eso!ution &&&, series o# 1951, are i!!ega! and $oid* and t"at
8eso!ution D, series o# 195&, is $a!id.
+"ere#ore, t"e appea!ed judgment is re$ersed* p!ainti2<appe!!ee is "ereby ordered to pay t"e de#endant<
appe!!ant under t"e !atterOs counterc!aim t"e sum o# P1J,9J1.KE representing t"e unappro$ed and
ine2ecti$e reduction by &ER o# t"e origina! stipu!ated renta!, #or t"e period #rom Ju!y 1, 19=9 to Gecember
1, 195& p!us t"e #urt"er sum o# P&,191.KE per mont" beginning Gecember 1, 195&, to Gecember D1, 195J,
as reasonab!e compensation #or t"e i!!ega! retention o# t"e Faujan 6s"eries. +it"out specia!
pronouncement as to costs.
&eng#on, Montema'or, &autista (ngelo, abrador, )oncepcion, Re'es, J.&.., Endencia, and &arrera,
JJ.,concur.
8epub!ic o# t"e P"i!ippines
SUPREME COURT
ani!a
THIRD DI1ISION
#R No %='+(% J3ne =* )&%%
1IR#INI" M #U"DINES* Petitioner,
$s.
S"NDI#"N2"!"N an. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES* 8espondents.
G I ' I ; I 1 F
1ILL"R"M"* JR* J.:
Be#ore us is a petition #or re$iew on certiorari under 8u!e =5 o# t"e 199J 8u!es o# 'i$i! Procedure, as
amended, assai!ing t"e Gecision
1
promu!gated on %pri! DE, &EE= and 8eso!ution
&
dated %ugust &E, &EE= o#
t"e ;andiganbayan con$icting petitioner o# $io!ation o# ;ection D>e? o# 8epub!ic %ct >8.%.? Fo. DE19 or
t"e %nti<Gra#t and 'orrupt Practices %ct.
T"e #actua! antecedents9
1n %ugust &5, 199&, t"e Pro$incia! Treasurer o# Que:on directed t"e unicipa! Treasurer o# Po!i!!o, Que:on,
Faime %yuma, to conduct a pub!ic bidding #or t"e materia!s to be used in t"e repair and construction o#
Fa$otas Bridge a!ong Po!i!!o<Burdeos pro$incia! road at Barangay ;ibu!an. %s a resu!t o# t"e bidding "e!d on
;eptember 8, 199&, t"e contract was awarded to C.. Guadines 'onstruction ;upp!y owned and managed
by petitioner Cirginia . Guadines. 1n 1ctober 19, 199&, Purc"aser 1rder Fo. &E19 was issued by t"e
Pro$incia! Go$ernment o# Que:on #or construction materia!s in t"e tota! price o# P8D,&&8.EE. 1n Fo$ember
1D, 199&, t"e materia!s consisting o# !umber >acaasim "ardwood cut by c"ainsaw? were stoc/pi!ed a!ong
t"e road about 6$e meters away #rom t"e Fa$otas Bridge, and recei$ed by Bernie .. %:au!a
>%:au!a?.
D
%:au!a was t"en Barangay '"airman o# Pob!acion, Po!i!!o and ember o# t"e ;angguniang Bayan
being t"e President o# t"e %ssociation o# Barangay 'aptains o# Po!i!!o.
=
1n Fo$ember &E, 199&, a team o# Gepartment o# In$ironment and Fatura! 8esources >GIF8?
o(cia!sU#orest rangers #rom t"e 'ommunity and In$ironment 8esources >'IF8? Po!i!!o ;tation !ed by
1(cer<in<'"arge .erminio . ;a!$osa con6scated se$enty<t"ree >JD? pieces o# acaasim !umber >=,1J&
9
board #eet $a!ued atP=1,1J&.EE? w"ic" were stoc/pi!ed a!ongside t"e Po!i!!o<Burdeos road at Barangay
;ibu!an, appro0imate!y 6$e meters away #rom t"e Fa$otas Bridge. T"ey measured t"e con6scated !umber
using ar/ing .atc"et Fo. 1J=& in w"ic" t"e number 1J=& was 1UK o# an inc" t"ic/ so t"at w"en you stri/e
t"e !umber, t"e number 1J=& wi!! appear on t"e !umber. T"ey a!so mar/ed t"e !umber wit" t"e words
NGIF8 '1F)I;'%TIGN using w"ite paint. T"ese #orest products were con6scated in #a$or o# t"e
go$ernment pending submission o# certain re@uired documents. Fo person or entity was appre"ended as
ownerUpossessor o# t"e !umber. ;ince %:au!a $o!unteered to ta/e custody as a pub!ic o(cia! in t"e !oca!ity,
t"e 'IF8 decided to turn o$er t"e sei:ed !umber to "im and re@uired "im to sign t"e ;ei:ure 8eceipt.
5
1n Gecember 1=, 199&, t"e %angguniang &a'an o# Po!i!!o acting upon t"e petition o# some =KE indi$idua!s,
and a#ter debating on w"et"er to sti!! wait #or t"e GIF8 o(cia!s to ascertain t"e identity o# t"e contractor
in$o!$ed in t"e i!!ega!!y cut timber or to proceed wit" t"e construction o# t"e bridge using t"e con6scated
!umber, reso!$ed to #orma!!y re@uest t"e GIF8 8egiona! Girector to donate t"e sei:ed !umber so it can be
used #or t"e de!ayed repair and construction o# t"e Fa$otas Bridge. T"e !ogs remained stoc/pi!ed near t"e
said bridge, apparent!y abandoned by its owner.
K
Aater "owe$er, t"e %anggunian passed a reso!ution
>Vapasiya"an B!g. &=, t. 199D? re@uesting t"e Gepartment o# Pub!ic +or/s and .ig"ways >GP+.? t"roug"
Pro$incia! Ingineer %be!ardo %brigo to send t"eir personne! to wor/ on t"e repair and construction o# t"e
Fa$otas Bridge in t"e ear!iest possib!e time.
J
%:au!a was among t"ose members o# t"e %anggunian w"o
"ad opposed t"e proposa! to re@uest t"e GIF8 8egiona! Girector #or t"e donation o# t"e con6scated
!umber, insisting t"at t"e contractor >petitioner? be paid #or said materia!s.
8
In "is !etter dated January &5, 199D addressed to Ingr. Bert Fier$a o# t"e Pro$incia! Ingineer7s 1(ce
>PI1?, Po!i!!o ayor 8osendo .. Iscara re@uested #or assistance in t"e immediate construction o# t"e
Fa$otas Bridge, citing t"e appro$a! o# Vapasiya"an B!g. &=, t. 199D by t"e %angguniang &a'an. 1n January
&8, 199D, Po!i!!o unicipa! Treasurer Faime %yuma prepared t"e Inspection 8eport stating t"at t"e
materia!s speci6ed under Purc"ase 1rder Fo. &E19 were de!i$ered by t"e contractor >C.. Guadines
'onstruction ;upp!y? and NWrXecei$ed in good order and condition.N T"e Inspection 8eport was signed by
bot" %yuma and ayor Iscara.
9
By )ebruary 5, 199D, t"e repair and construction o# Fa$otas Bridge was 6nis"ed. Bpon t"e re@uest o#
%:au!a, Gisbursement Couc"er EE1<9DE&<95J was prepared, aut"ori:ing t"e Pro$incia! Treasurer to pay
C.. Guadines 'onstruction ;upp!y t"e tota! amount o# P8D,&&8.EE. 1n )ebruary 18, 199D, petitioner
recei$ed #rom t"e Pro$incia! Treasurer7s 1(ce t"e amount o# P8D,&&8.EE as payment #or t"e !umber and
ot"er materia!s s"e de!i$ered #or t"e repair and construction o# Fa$otas Bridge.
1E
In a emorandum dated )ebruary &K, 199D, 'IF8 Po!i!!o ;tation 1I' ;a!$osa reported to t"e 'IF81 o#
8ea!, Que:on t"at despite warnings #rom #orest rangers, wor/ers "eaded by Ingr. Fier$a o# t"e PI1 uti!i:ed
t"e con6scated !umber in t"e construction o# Fa$otas Bridge. ;a!$osa #urt"er in#ormed t"e 'IF81 t"at
w"i!e Ingr. Fier$a c!aimed to be acting on o(cia! instructions #rom t"e Pro$incia! Go$ernor, t"ey were not
#urnis"ed any copy o# suc" directi$e or instruction.
11
%ccording!y, Juan de!a 'ru:, 'IF81 o# 8ea!, Que:on,
prepared a memorandum<report and #orwarded t"e same to t"e GIF8 8egion IC I0ecuti$e Girector wit" a
re@uest #or a !awyer to be sent to t"eir o(ce to assist in t"e preparation and 6!ing o# appropriate c"arges
against t"e custodian w"o is t"e Barangay '"airman o# Pob!acion, Po!i!!o, Que:on. In a !etter dated arc"
1E, 199D, 'IF81 de!a 'ru: as/ed %:au!a to e0p!ain w"y "e s"ou!d not be c"arged wit" esta#a and
ma!$ersation #or disposing t"e con6scated !umber wit"out !ega! aut"ority or c!earance #rom t"e GIF8
;ecretary.
1&
1n ay 5, 199D, t"e Pro$incia! %uditor o# Que:on directed Idgardo %. endo:a, ;tate %uditor II, to conduct
an in$estigation regarding t"e payment made #or con6scated !umber used in t"e repair and construction o#
Fa$otas Bridge. %#ter inspecting t"e site and in$entory o# t"e !umber in t"e new!y constructed bridge
toget"er wit" t"e unicipa! Ingineer, endo:a con6rmed t"at t"ese materia!s were t"e same ones
con6scated by t"e 'IF8 personne!, di2ering on!y in !engt" o# t"e !ogs used. endo:a conc!uded t"at t"ere
was no justi6cation #or t"e go$ernment to pay t"e purc"ase price o# t"e !umber a!!eged!y de!i$ered by t"e
contractor. T"us, in "is 6na! report submitted to t"e Pro$incia! %uditor, endo:a recommended t"at C..
Guadines 'onstruction be ordered to re#und t"e amount paid by t"e pro$incia! go$ernment and t"at
administrati$e and crimina! actions be 6!ed against said contractor, as we!! as t"e pub!ic o(cia!s w"o
participated in de#rauding t"e go$ernment in t"e amount o# P8D,&&8.EE and #or $io!ation o# t"e %nti<Gra#t
and 'orrupt Practices %ct.
1D
1n Fo$ember 15, 199=, a Fotice o# Gisa!!owance was issued by t"e 'ommission on %udit >'1%?, Aucena
'ity #or t"e amount o# PJE,9&=.EE. )rom t"e origina! amount o# P8D,&&8.EE, t"ey deducted t"e $a!ue o# t"e
common materia!s used suc" as nai!s and N/awad.N T"e di2erence represents t"e $a!ue o# t"e con6scated
!umber actua!!y used in t"e construction o# t"e bridge.
1=
;ubse@uent!y, a comp!aint was 6!ed be#ore t"e 1(ce o# t"e 1mbudsman by %angguniang &a'an member
ay Cer:o<Istuita against petitioner, %yuma, %:au!a and Iscara #or $io!ation o# t"e %nti<Gra#t and 'orrupt
1E
Practices %ct >1B E<9D<1D88?. 1n %pri! &&, 199=, a 8eso!ution
15
was issued by t"e 1mbudsman
recommending t"e 6!ing o# appropriate in#ormation against a!! t"e respondents #or $io!ation o# ;ection D>e?
o# 8.%. Fo. DE19. T"e 1mbudsman #ound to be wit"out merit respondents7 denia! t"at t"e !umber used in
t"e construction o# Fa$otas Bridge were t"e same !umber ear!ier con6scated by t"e 'IF8 6e!d personne!,
noting t"at %:au!a too/ cogni:ance o# t"e said materia!s during t"e de!iberations in t"e %angguniang
&a'an. 8espondents were t"us "e!d !iab!e #or causing undue injury to t"e pro$incia! go$ernment w"ic" was
made to pay t"e amount o#P8D,&&8.EE #or t"e con6scated !umber.
T"e In#ormation c"arging petitioner, %:au!a, Iscara and %yuma wit" $io!ation o# ;ection D>e? o# 8.%. Fo.
DE19 >'rimina! 'ase Fo. &E8J8? reads9
T"at in or about )ebruary o# 199D, or immediate!y prior or subse@uent t"ereto, in Po!i!!o, Que:on, and
wit"in t"e jurisdiction o# t"is .onorab!e 'ourt, accused Bernie .. %:au!a, 8osendo F. Iscara, Famie C.
%yuma, being t"e Barangay 'aptain, unicipa! ayor and unicipa! Treasurer, respecti$e!y, o# Po!i!!o,
Que:on, in t"e e0ercise o# t"eir administrati$e andUor o(cia! #unctions, wit" e$ident bad #ait", conspiring
and con#ederating wit" accused Cirginia . Guadine:, doing business under t"e C.. Guadine:
'onstruction ;upp!y, did t"en and t"ere wiW!X!#u!!y and un!aw#u!!y cause undue injury andUor damage to t"e
pro$ince o# Que:on, by using in t"e construction o# t"e Fa$otas Bridge in ;ibu!an, Po!i!!o, Que:on,
con6scated !umber consisting o# JD pieces wit" a $o!ume o# =,1J& board #eet, $a!ued at P11,1J&.EE, more
or !ess, and ma/e it appear in a Gisbursement Couc"er, Ge!i$ery 8eceipt Fo. EEKD, and Inspection 8eport
dated January &8, 199D, t"at t"e !umber used in t"e construction o# t"e Fa$otas Bridge were purc"ased
#rom t"e C.. Guadine: 'onstruction ;upp!y #or P8D,&&8.EE, t"us enab!ing accused Cirginia Guadine: to
recei$e t"e said purc"ase price, to t"e damage and prejudice o# t"e Pro$ince o# Que:on, in t"e
a#orementioned amount.
'1FT8%8, T1 A%+.
1K
T"e a#orenamed respondents 6!ed motions #or reconsideration and re<in$estigation wit" t"e 1mbudsman.
In "is 1rder dated January 19, 1995, t"e 1mbudsman recommended t"at t"e prosecution o# petitioner,
%:au!a and Iscara be continued w"i!e t"e comp!aint against %yuma be dropped #or insu(ciency o#
e$idence. 'onse@uent!y, %yuma was ordered e0c!uded #rom t"e In#ormation in 'rimina! 'ase Fo. &E8J8.
1J
%#ter tria!, t"e ;andiganbayan rendered its decision con$icting petitioner, Iscara and %:au!a o# t"e crime
c"arged, as #o!!ows9
+.I8I)18I, in $iew o# a!! t"e #oregoing, t"is 'ourt 6nds accused BI8FII .. %Y%BA%, 81;IFG1 F.
I;'%8% %FG CI8GIFI% . GB%GIFI; GBIAT, beyond reasonab!e doubt o# $io!ation o# ;ection D >e? o# 8.%.
Fo. DE19, and "ereby sentences eac" o# t"em to su2er t"e indeterminate pena!ty o# imprisonment o# si0
>K? years and one >1? mont", as minimum, to ten >1E? years, as ma0imum. T"ey are a!so ordered to pay,
joint!y and se$era!!y, t"e costs o# t"is suit.
%ccused Guadines, "a$ing un!aw#u!!y recei$ed t"e amount o# PJE,9&=.EE, representing payment #or t"e
con6scated !umber, is "ereby ordered to return t"e said amount to t"e Pro$ince o# Que:on.
;1 18GI8IG.
18
In t"eir motion #or reconsideration,
19
petitioner and %:au!a maintained t"at t"e !umber de!i$ered by C..
Guadines 'onstruction ;upp!y were not t"e same !umber con6scated by t"e 'IF8. T"ey argued t"at >1?
t"e con6scated !umber does not matc" t"e speci6ed si:e, @ua!ity and @uantity o# t"e materia!s needed #or
t"e bridge repairUconstruction project* >&? petitioner purc"ased t"e !ogs #rom t"ird persons t"ere being no
sawmi!!s in t"e !oca!ity, and it is but proper t"at s"e be paid #or t"e materia!s s"e de!i$ered* and >D? since
t"e municipa!ities o# Po!i!!o and Burdeos "a$e bene6ted #rom t"e repair and construction o# t"e Fa$otas
Bridge, t"e a!!egation t"at t"e Pro$ince o# Que:on su2ered damage and prejudice is erroneous. %s to t"e
;andiganbayan7s re!iance on t"e statements s"e made during t"e %angguniang &a'an proceedings on
Gecember 1=, 199&, petitioner $e"ement!y denied ma/ing t"ose statements and contended t"at to gi$e
t"em probati$e $a!ue wou!d $io!ate t"e ru!e on res inter a!ios acta. Petitioner #urt"er asserted t"at s"e
acted in good #ait", as in #act no %angguniang &a'anmember interposed an objection to t"e payment
made in "er #a$or.
In its %ugust &E, &EE= 8eso!ution, t"e ;andiganbayan denied t"e motions #or reconsideration 6!ed by
petitioner, %:au!a and Iscara. T"e ;andiganbayan noted t"at petitioner "erse!# admitted in "er direct
testimony t"at t"e !umber s"e de!i$ered were t"e ones used in t"e repair and construction o# t"e Fa$otas
Bridge. I$en i# t"e con6scated !umber were undersi:ed, t"e pieces o# !umber cou!d "a$e been bo!ted
toget"er to con#orm to t"e re@uired !engt" o# && #eet !ong. Testimonia! e$idence a!so c!ear!y s"owed t"at
t"e con6scated !umber were used in t"e construction o# t"e bridge. %s to petitioner7s contention t"at no
damage or injury was caused to t"e pro$incia! go$ernment, t"e ;andiganbayan "e!d t"at a#ter con6scation
by t"e GIF8, t"e subject !umber became t"e property o# t"e Fationa! Go$ernment and conse@uent!y t"e
unicipa!ity o# Po!i!!o "ad no rig"t to uti!i:e t"e same wit"out aut"ority #rom t"e GIF8. %nd since t"e
!umber "ad a!ready been con6scated, petitioner "ad no rig"t to recei$e payment* "ence, t"e payment
11
made in "er #a$or by t"e Pro$ince o# Que:on did not produce any !ega! e2ect, pursuant to %rtic!e 1&=E
&E
o#
t"e 'i$i! 'ode. Petitioner7s denia! o# t"e statements s"e made be#ore t"e %anggunian was !i/ewise #ound to
be wit"out merit. T"e certi6ed copy o# t"e minutes ta/en during t"e Gecember 1=, 199& session o#
t"e %anggunian being a pub!ic document and an o(cia! record o# t"e proceedings, is considered prima
#acie e$idence o# t"e #acts stated t"erein. T"e presumption o# regu!arity and aut"enticity o# pub!ic o(cia!
records "ad not been o$ercome and rebutted by t"e petitioner, t"ere being no competent e$idence to
support "er denia!. )urt"er, t"ere was no $io!ation o# t"e res inter a!ios acta ru!e because t"e dec!arations
and admissions made by t"e accused >petitioner? are being used against "er and not against any ot"er
indi$idua! or t"ird persons. )ina!!y, petitioner7s c!aim o# good #ait" was rejected by t"e ;andiganbayan
stating t"at s"e c!ear!y intentiona!!y too/ ad$antage o# t"e go$ernment w"en, despite "er /now!edge t"at
t"e !umber de!i$ered to t"e Pro$ince o# Que:on was con6scated, s"e sti!! accepted and recei$ed t"e
purc"ase price paid by t"e pro$incia! go$ernment.
&1
.ence, t"is petition a!!eging t"at t"e ;andiganbayan gra$e!y abused its discretion in 6nding t"at s"e acted
in conspiracy wit" %:au!a and Iscara in de#rauding t"e pro$incia! go$ernment under t"eir contract #or
purc"ase o# construction materia!s.
Petitioner reiterates "er argument t"at t"e materia!s s"e de!i$ered on Fo$ember 1D, 199& were not t"e
same !umber con6scated by t"e GIF8 6e!d personne! on Fo$ember &E, 199&. T"e de!i$ered !umber "a$ing
been !e#t unguarded and unprotected a!ong t"e nationa! "ig"way, some pieces t"ereo# cou!d "a$e been
sto!en, w"ic" e0p!ains w"y t"ere was a sma!!er number >JD? o# con6scated !umber t"an t"e actua! @uantity
>99? de!i$ered. In any case, petitioner asserts t"at t"e matter was not anymore "er concern a#ter s"e
#u!6!!ed "er contractua! ob!igation o# de!i$ering t"e speci6ed @uantity and @ua!ity o# !umber. T"e #act t"at
%yuma "ad certi6ed in "is Inspection 8eport t"at t"e de!i$ered !umber were recei$ed in good order and
condition wou!d on!y mean t"at t"ere was no N'1F)I;'%TIGN mar/ing #ound t"ereon. %yuma need not
"a$e #ore/now!edge o# t"e GIF8 con6scation to con6rm suc" mar/ing in t"e course o# "er p"ysica!
inspection o# t"e !umber de!i$ered by petitioner.
1n t"e a!!egation o# conspiracy, petitioner contends t"at e$idence is wanting to support t"e prosecution
case against "er. % 6nding o# gui!t must not be based on specu!ation, suc" as t"e !umber s"e de!i$ered
were t"e ones con6scated !ater by t"e GIF8. Indeed, t"e !umber !e#t a!ong t"e "ig"way e0posed it to
possibi!ities w"ic" inc!ude substitution. I$en i# t"e materia!s used in t"e repair and construction o# Fa$otas
Bridge bore t"e GIF8 mar/ing N'1F)I;'%TIGN, it cannot automatica!!y mean t"at t"ose were t"e same
!umber de!i$ered by petitioner, considering t"at %yuma "ad inspected t"ese pieces o# !umber and did not
see t"ose mar/ings. oreo$er, w"at "appened to t"e !umber a#ter its de!i$ery was no !onger wit"in t"e
contro! o# petitioner. .er on!y responsibi!ity is to de!i$er t"e goods stated in t"e contract s"e entered wit"
t"e !oca! go$ernment. %#ter receipt o# t"e !umber in good order and condition by t"e pro$incia! go$ernment
t"roug" its o(cia!s w"ic" inc!ude %yuma as t"e unicipa! Treasurer, petitioner "ad a!ready #u!6!!ed "er
contractua! ob!igation. It was but natura! and proper t"at petitioner be compensated #or t"e !umber s"e
purc"ased #rom t"ird persons. T"e pro$incia! go$ernment su2ered no damage or injury since t"e repair
and construction o# t"e Fa$otas Bridge was comp!eted. %nd assuming #or t"e sa/e o# argument t"at "er
!umber were actua!!y con6scated by t"e GIF8, petitioner contends t"at w"at s"ou!d "a$e been 6!ed
against "er was a case #or $io!ation o# t"e )orestry 'ode and not t"e %nti<Gra#t and 'orrupt Practices %ct.
T"e petition "as no merit.
+e!!<entrenc"ed is t"e ru!e t"at #actua! 6ndings o# t"e ;andiganbayan are conc!usi$e upon t"is 'ourt
e0cept w"ere9 >1? t"e conc!usion is a 6nding grounded entire!y on specu!ation, surmise and conjectures*
>&? t"e in#erence made is mani#est!y mista/en* >D? t"ere is gra$e abuse o# discretion* >=? t"e judgment is
based on misappre"ension o# #acts and t"e 6ndings o# #act o# t"e ;andiganbayan are premised on t"e
absence o# e$idence and are contradicted by t"e e$idence on record.
&&
Petitioner #ai!ed to estab!is" any o#
t"e #oregoing e0ceptiona! circumstances.
1n t"e contrary, t"e e$idence on record c!ear!y s"owed petitioner7s participation in t"e anoma!ous
disbursement o# go$ernment #unds in #a$or o# a pri$ate contractor #or !umber w"ic" "a$e been $a!id!y
sei:ed by 'IF8 #orest rangers. T"e inspection o# de!i$eries and acceptance by t"e pro$incia! go$ernment
t"roug" %yuma and Iscara w"o certi6ed in t"e Inspection 8eport t"at !umber de!i$ered by petitioner were
#ound to be Nin good order and conditionN re!ates on!y to t"e p"ysica! aspect and comp!iance wit"
speci6cations as to @ua!ity, @uantity and si:e o# t"e materia!s. ;aid certi6cation did not state w"et"er t"e
!umber de!i$ered by petitioner "a$e been cut or gat"ered in accordance wit" e0isting #orestry !aws, ru!es
and regu!ations. Petitioner cou!d "a$e readi!y substantiated "er de#ense by producing documents, suc" as
permits and 'erti6cate o# TimberUAumber 1rigin, a!!eged!y secured by persons #rom w"om s"e boug"t t"e
!umber, or presenting as witnesses t"ose wor/ers w"o supposed!y cut t"e trees and "au!ed t"e !ogs. But
none o# t"ese were presented at t"e tria!. .ence, t"e prosecution e$idence s"owing t"e !umber de!i$ered
by petitioner to "a$e been i!!ega!!y cut and gat"ered, stands unrebutted.
1&
Petitioner was c"arged wit" $io!ation o# ;ection D>e? o# 8.%. Fo. DE19, w"ic" pro$ides9
;I'. D. 'orrupt practices o# pub!ic o(cers. << In addition to acts or omissions o# pub!ic o(cers a!ready
pena!i:ed by e0isting !aw, t"e #o!!owing s"a!! constitute corrupt practices o# any pub!ic o(cer and are
"ereby dec!ared to be un!aw#u!9
0 0 0 0
>e? Ca3sin4 any 3n.3e in>3:y to any 9a:ty* incl3.in4 t-e #ove:n8ent, or gi$ing any pri$ate party
any unwarranted bene6ts, ad$antage or pre#erence in t"e disc"arge o# "is o(cia!, administrati$e or
judicia! #unctions t"roug" mani#est partia!ity, e$ident bad #ait" or gross ine0cusab!e neg!igence. T"is
pro$ision s"a!! app!y to o(cers and emp!oyees o# o(ces or go$ernment corporations c"arged wit" t"e
grant o# !icenses or permits or ot"er concessions. >Imp"asis supp!ied.?
T"e essentia! e!ements o# t"is crime are9 >1? t"e accused are pub!ic o(cers or pri$ate persons c"arged in
conspiracy wit" t"em* >&? said pub!ic o(cers commit t"e pro"ibited acts during t"e per#ormance o# t"eir
o(cia! duties or in re!ation to t"eir pub!ic position* >D? t"ey caused undue injury to any party, w"et"er t"e
go$ernment or a pri$ate party* >=? suc" injury is caused by gi$ing unwarranted bene6ts, ad$antage or
pre#erence to suc" parties* and >5? t"e pub!ic o(cers "a$e acted wit" mani#est partia!ity, e$ident bad #ait"
or gross ine0cusab!e neg!igence.
&D
+e e0p!ained t"e #oregoing e!ements in ;antos $. Peop!e
&=
9
%s may be noted, w"at conte0tua!!y is punis"ab!e is t"e act o# causing any undue injury to any party, or
t"e gi$ing to any pri$ate party o# unwarranted bene6ts, ad$antage or pre#erence in t"e disc"arge o# t"e
pub!ic o(cer7s #unctions. In *' vs. %andiganba'an, and again in %antiago vs. +architorena, t"e 'ourt "as
made it abundant!y c!ear t"at t"e use o# t"e disjuncti$e word NorN connotes t"at eit"er act o# >a? Ncausing
any undue injury to any party, inc!uding t"e Go$ernmentN* and >b? Ngi$ing any pri$ate party any
unwarranted bene6ts, ad$antage or pre#erence,N @ua!i6es as a $io!ation o# ;ection D>e? o# 8.%. Fo. DE19, as
amended. T"is is not to say, "owe$er, t"at eac" mode constitutes a distinct o2ense but t"at an accused
may be proceeded against under eit"er or bot" modes.
0 0 0 0
T"e term Nundue injuryN in t"e conte0t o# ;ection D >e? o# t"e %nti<Gra#t and 'orrupt Practices %ct
punis"ing t"e act o# Ncausing undue injury to any party,N "as a meaning a/in to t"at ci$i! !aw concept o#
Nactua! damage.N T"e 'ourt said so in lorente vs. %andiganba'an, t"us9
In jurisprudence, Nundue injuryN is consistent!y interpreted as Nactua! damage.N *ndue "as been de6ned as
Nmore t"an necessary, not proper, WorX i!!ega!*N and in,ur' as Nany wrong or damage done to anot"er, eit"er
in "is person, rig"ts, reputation or property W* t"at is, t"eX in$asion o# any !ega!!y protected interest o#
anot"er.N %ctua! damage, in t"e conte0t o# t"ese de6nitions, is a/in to t"at in ci$i! !aw. >Imp"asis
supp!ied.?
By accepting payment #or de!i$ery o# !umber #ound to be wit"out supporting documents as re@uired by
!aw, petitioner caused undue injury or damage to t"e pro$incia! go$ernment w"ic" "ad no ob!igation to
pay #or con6scated !umber considered as go$ernment property. In #act, it is on!y t"e GIF8 ;ecretary or "is
representati$e w"o can dispose o# suc" con6scated !umber in accordance wit" #orestry !aws and
regu!ations, pursuant to ;ection K8<% o# Presidentia! Gecree >P.G.? Fo. JE5 >ot"erwise /nown as t"e
)orestry 'ode o# t"e P"i!ippines?, as amended by I0ecuti$e 1rder Fo. &JJ, w"ic" pro$ides9
;I'. K8<%. %dministrati$e %ut"ority o# t"e Gepartment .ead or .is Gu!y %ut"ori:ed 8epresentati$e to
1rder 'on6scation. < In a!! cases o# $io!ations o# t"is 'ode or ot"er #orest !awsW,X ru!es and regu!ations, t"e
Gepartment .ead or "is du!y aut"ori:ed representati$e, may order t"e con6scation o# any #orest products
i!!ega!!y cut, gat"ered, remo$ed, or possessed or abandoned, and a!! con$eyances used eit"er by !and,
waterW,X or air in t"e commission o# t"e o2ense and to dispose o# t"e same in accordance wit" pertinent
!aws, regu!ations or po!icies on t"e matter.N
Petitioner7s contention t"at s"e s"ou!d "a$e been instead prosecuted #or i!!ega! cutting, gat"ering and
possession o# timber or ot"er #orest products under ;ection K8 o# P.G. Fo. JE5 ignores t"e #act t"at s"e
ne$er came out to c!aim owners"ip o# t"e sei:ed !umber unti! "er appearance be#ore t"e %angguniang
&a'an w"erein s"e p!eaded #or consideration in t"e de!ayed bridge construction project a#ter t"e GIF8
con6scated t"e !umber s"e de!i$ered. I0cept #or "er bare denia!, petitioner #ai!ed to re#ute t"e correctness
o# t"e statements s"e made as re-ected in t"e o(cia! minutes o# t"e %anggunian session "e!d on
Gecember 1=, 199&, du!y certi6ed by t"e unicipa! ;ecretary and signed by t"e %anggunian embers
present, to wit9
%ng sumunod na binigyang pa"intu!ot upang magbigay ng /anyang pa"ayag ay si Gng. Cirginia Guadines,
ang nagtatapat na 'ontractor ng tu!ay ng Barangay ;ibu!an, o tu!ay Fabotas ayon sa pag/i!a!a ng GP+..
%yon sa /anya siya bi!ang contractor ng nabanggit na proye/to ay na!u!ung/ot sa pag/aaba!a nito da"i!an
nga sa nangyaring pag"u!i ng mga tau"an ng )orestry sa mga /a"oy na gagamitin sa tu!ay. Fa!aman din
niya na bunga nito ay nag/a/aroon ng parang pagpa#action<#action sa ;angguniang Bayan. Fais niyang
1D
ipagunita na ito ay isang pub!ic /now!edge na siya ang nana!ong bidder sa ginanap na pub!ic bidding na
nasabing proye/to at na!a!aman ng !a"at na siya ay "indi ma/a/apag<pro$ide ng /a"oy na gagamitin sa
nasabing tu!ay. Fang mga pana"ong iyon nga ay /ai!angang magtungo siya sa Aucban, Que:on para sa
pag/o/uWmXp!eto ng mga /ai!angang pape!es sa nasabing /ontrata, /aya7t siya ay na/isuyo ng taong
mangangasiwa sa pag/u"a ng /a"oy. Fgayon na nangyari ang "indi inaasa"an ay "ini"i!ing niya na tayo
ay magtu!ungan na maipatapos ang tu!ay na ito a!ang<a!ang sa /apa/anan ng mga taong magdaraan sa
nasabing tu!ay oras na ito ay matapos.
Fa!a!aman niya na siya ay mayroong pag/u/u!ang, nguni7t "ini"i!ing niya sa ;angguniang Bayan na bigyan
na siya ng /onsiderasyon sa pangyayaring ito , tota! ay pinapayagan na pa!a ngayon ang pagputo! ng
/a"oy /ung gagamitin sa mga go$ernment projects. %ng nabanggit na /autusan ay noon pa pa!ang
Fobyembre 199& ipina!abas, /aya nga !amang ay "indi agad niya na!aman. ;iya naman ay taosW<Xpuso ang
pagtu!ong sa pama"a!aang bayan ng Po!i!!o at basta at na/aba!ita siya ng proye/tong maaaring ang
ma/i/inabang ay ang ating bayan ay /anyang ginagawa /a"i7t minsan nga ay nagdudu/ot bu!sa siya para
maiparating ito sa ating bayan.
&5
+e 6nd no gra$e abuse o# discretion on t"e part o# t"e ;andiganbayan w"en it cited t"e pertinent portions
o# t"e minutes o# t"e %angguniang &a'an session o# Gecember 1=, 199&, as e$idence o# petitioner7s
statements concerning t"e !umber s"e de!i$ered w"ic" were con6scated by t"e 'IF8 #or !ac/ o# re@uisite
!ega! documents. T"ese statements re$ea!ed t"at petitioner was #u!!y aware o# t"e con6scation o# "er
!umber stoc/pi!ed a!ong t"e Po!i!!o<Burdeos pro$incia! road, a#ter s"e "ad de!i$ered t"e same. +e "a$e
pre$ious!y underscored t"e importance o# t"e minutes o# #orma! proceedings w"en t"e court is con#ronted
wit" con-icting c!aims o# parties as to t"e trut" and accuracy o# t"e matters ta/en up t"erein. In Ge !os
8eyes $. ;andiganbayan, T"ird Gi$ision,
&K
t"is 'ourt "e!d9
T"us, t"e 'ourt accords #u!! recognition to t"e minutes as t"e o(cia! repository o# w"at actua!!y transpires
in e$ery proceeding. It "as "appened t"at t"e minutes may be corrected to re-ect t"e true account o# a
proceeding, t"us gi$ing t"e 'ourt more reason to accord t"em great weig"t #or suc" subse@uent
corrections, i# any, are made precise!y to preser$e t"e accuracy o# t"e records. In !ig"t o# t"e con-icting
c!aims o# t"e parties in t"e case at bar, t"e 'ourt, wit"out resorting to t"e minutes, wi!! encounter di(cu!ty
in reso!$ing t"e dispute at "and.
&J
%part #rom petitioner7s own statements, t"e ;andiganbayan7s 6nding t"at it was petitioner7s !umber w"ic"
were !ater con6scated by 'IF8 #orest rangers and used in t"e bridge repair and construction, was
satis#actori!y estab!is"ed by t"e prosecution7s documentary and testimonia! e$idence. %s part o# t"eir
o(cia! duties and #o!!owing standard procedure, t"ey prepared t"e 'on6scation 8eport and ;ei:ure
8eceipt, and testi6ed in court detai!ing t"e incident. Two ot"er witnesses corroborated t"eir dec!aration
t"at t"e con6scated !umber were actua!!y used in t"e repair and construction o# t"e Fa$otas Bridge.
Jo"nny C. %banica, a 'onstruction aintenance emp!oyee o# t"e PI1, testi6ed t"at sometime in )ebruary
199D, "is super$isor, Ingr. )e!i0berto Fier$a, in#ormed "im t"at t"ey were going to construct t"e Fa$otas
Bridge. Bpon arri$ing at t"e site, "e noticed t"at t"e !umber t"ey were going to use was mar/ed
Ncon6scated.N .e t"en reminded Fier$a t"at t"ey mig"t get into troub!e because o# it but Ingr. Fier$a to!d
"im t"at "e a!ready "a$e an agreement wit" %:au!a. T"erea#ter, "e and "is companions started
demo!is"ing t"e o!d bridge. .e e0ecuted a ;inumpaang ;a!aysay on ;eptember &5, 199D in connection
wit" t"e con6scated !umber.
&8
;a!$osa w"o !ed t"e 'IF8 team w"o sei:ed t"e !umber, !i/ewise testi6ed t"at in )ebruary 199D, upon
being $erba!!y in#ormed by t"eir 6e!d personne!, )orest 8angers 1de!on %:u!, %rne! ). ;imon and Idwin
.ernande:, "e went to t"e construction site. .e saw #or "imse!# t"at t"e !umber used in t"e new bridge
were mar/ed wit" NGIF8 '1F)I;'%TIGN and "atc"et number 1J=&. T"erea#ter, "e prepared a
emorandum<8eport addressed to t"e 'IF8 o# 8ea!, Que:on in#orming t"e !atter o# uti!i:ation o#
con6scated !umber wit"out prior appro$a! o# t"eir o(ce and despite repeated warnings #rom t"eir #orest
rangers, w"ic" report was endorsed to t"e GIF8 8egiona! Girector.
&9
Ge!a 'ru:, t"e 'IF81 o# 8ea!, Que:on, a!so testi6ed t"at a#ter recei$ing t"e emorandum<8eport o#
;a!$osa, "e in#ormed t"e 8egiona! I0ecuti$e Girector, GIF8<8egion IC about t"e matter wit" t"e
recommendation t"at a !ega! o(cer be sent to Po!i!!o to assist t"em in 6!ing t"e proper comp!aint. .e a!so
wrote %:au!a re@uiring "im to e0p!ain but since %:au!a did not respond to "is !etter, t"e case was re#erred
to t"eir !ega! di$ision.
DE
Aast!y, '1% %uditor endo:a, w"o, a!ong wit" t"e unicipa! Ingineer o# Po!i!!o, was tas/ed to in$estigate
t"e purc"ase o# t"e materia!s used in t"e repair and construction o# t"e Fa$otas Bridge a#ter t"e
comp!etion o# t"e project, a!so con6rmed t"at t"e !umber used bore t"e w"ite paint mar/ing NGIF8N and
contained "atc"et numbers w"en t"ey inspected t"e same #rom under t"e new wooden bridge. .e
prepared t"ree reports e0p!aining "is 6ndings. .e t"en recommended to t"e Pro$incia! %uditor t"at t"e
money paid to t"e supp!ier be re#unded to t"e go$ernment and t"at administrati$e and crimina! actions be
1=
instituted against t"e supp!ier and t"e concerned pub!ic o(cia!s. 'onse@uent!y, t"e '1% disa!!owed t"e
payment o# t"e amount o# PJE,9&=.EE, deducting #rom t"e origina! amount o# P8D,&&8.EE t"e amount paid
#or common materia!s suc" as /awad and nai!s. T"e !umber used in t"e new bridge consisted o# D,1J&
board #eet w"i!e t"e $o!ume o# t"e con6scated !umber was around =,EEE board #eet.
D1
In support o# "er c!aim t"at t"e !umber s"e de!i$ered were not t"ose con6scated by t"e 'IF8 personne!,
petitioner presented as witness P1& 8eny I. arasigan o# t"e PFP Po!i!!o ;tation. arasigan testi6ed t"at
"e issued a certi6cation dated June 9, &EEE stating t"at t"e !umber con6scated near t"e Fa$otas Bridge in
199D were deposited #or sa#e/eeping and are sti!! intact at t"e bac/ o# t"eir bui!ding. T"ese rotting !umber
on t"e ground were p"otograp"ed by petitioner.
D&
.owe$er, arasigan #ai!ed to present proper documents
e$idencing t"e o(cia! trans#er o# custody o# t"e sei:ed !umber by t"e 'IF81 to t"eir "ead@uarters. In #act,
arasigan signed t"e 'on6scation 8eport and ;ei:ure 8eceipt as part o# t"e appre"ending team
DD
w"i!e it
was %:au!a w"o signed as t"e N8ecei$ing 1(cer.N
D=
oreo$er, prosecution witnesses ;a!$osa and "is #orest
rangers, as we!! as %banica and endo:a, a!! categorica!!y dec!ared t"at t"e !umber con6scated near t"e
Fa$otas Bridge on Fo$ember &E, 199& were used in t"e repair and construction o# t"e bridge.
%s to petitioner7s contention t"at t"e subse@uent con6scation o# t"e !umber s"e de!i$ered, e$en i# true,
was no !onger "er concern because s"e "ad a!ready #u!6!!ed "er contractua! underta/ing to pro$ide t"e
!umber #or t"e bridge repair and construction, t"e same is untenab!e.
Basic is t"e ru!e t"at pro$isions o# e0isting !aws and regu!ations are read into and #orm an integra! part o#
contracts, moreso in t"e case o# go$ernment contracts. Ceri!y, a!! contracts, inc!uding Go$ernment
contracts, are subject to t"e po!ice power o# t"e ;tate. Being an in"erent attribute o# so$ereignty, suc"
power is deemed incorporated into t"e !aws o# t"e !and, w"ic" are part o# a!! contracts, t"ereby @ua!i#ying
t"e ob!igations arising t"ere#rom.
D5
T"us, it is an imp!ied condition in t"e subject contract #or t"e
procurement o# materia!s needed in t"e repair and construction o# t"e Fa$otas Bridge t"at petitioner as
pri$ate contractor wou!d comp!y wit" pertinent #orestry !aws and regu!ations on t"e cutting and gat"ering
o# t"e !umber s"e undertoo/ to supp!y t"e pro$incia! go$ernment.
Petitioner7s actua! /now!edge o# t"e absence o# supporting !ega! documents #or t"e !umber s"e contracted
to de!i$er to t"e pro$incia! go$ernment << w"ic" resu!ted in its con6scation by t"e 'IF8 personne! << be!ies
"er c!aim o# good #ait" in recei$ing t"e payment #or t"e said !umber.-.wphi-
+"en t"e de#endants by t"eir acts aimed at t"e same object, one per#orming one part, and t"e ot"er
per#orming anot"er part so as to comp!ete it, wit" a $iew to t"e attainment o# t"e same object, and t"eir
acts t"oug" apparent!y independent, were in #act concerted and cooperati$e, indicating c!oseness o#
persona! association, concerted action and concurrence o# sentiments, t"e court wi!! be justi6ed in
conc!uding t"at said de#endants were engaged in a conspiracy.
DK
In t"is case, t"e 6nding o# conspiracy was
we!!<supported by e$idence.
Indeed, petitioner7s participation and cooperation was indispensab!e in de#rauding t"e go$ernment o# t"e
amount paid #or t"e said con6scated !umber. +it"out doubt, "er acts in ma/ing de!i$ery to %:au!a instead
o# t"e pro$incia! go$ernment or PI1, e$ading appre"ension #or t"e i!!ega!!y cut !ogs and yet pursuing
c!earance #or t"e re!ease o# t"e said products by appea!ing to t"e !oca! sanggunian, and !ater accepting
payment wit" t"e assistance o# %:au!a and Iscara << a!! c!ear!y s"owed "er comp!icity in t"e anoma!ous
disbursement o# pro$incia! go$ernment #unds a!!ocated #or t"e bridge repairUconstruction project.
'onse@uent!y, t"e ;andiganbayan did not err in 6nding "er gui!ty o# $io!ation o# ;ection D>e? o# 8.%. Fo.
DE19 and ordering "er to return t"e amount corresponding to t"e payment #or t"e con6scated !umber used
in t"e construction o# t"e Fa$otas Bridge, t"e same materia!s de!i$ered by t"e petitioner under "er
contract wit" t"e pro$incia! go$ernment.
T"e pena!ty #or $io!ation o# ;ection D>e? o# 8.%. Fo DE19 is Nimprisonment #or not !ess t"an si0 years and
one mont" nor more t"an 6#teen years, and perpetua! dis@ua!i6cation #rom pub!ic o(ce.N
DJ
Bnder t"e
Indeterminate ;entence Aaw, i# t"e o2ense is punis"ed by specia! !aw, as in t"e present case, an
indeterminate pena!ty s"a!! be imposed on t"e accused, t"e ma0imum term o# w"ic" s"a!! not e0ceed t"e
ma0imum 60ed by t"e !aw, and t"e minimum not !ess t"an t"e minimum prescribed t"erein.
D8
In $iew o#
t"e attendant circumstances, we "o!d t"at t"e pena!ty imposed by t"e ;andiganbayan is in accord wit" !aw
and jurisprudence.
+.I8I)18I, t"e petition #or re$iew on certiorari is GIFIIG. T"e Gecision dated %pri! DE, &EE= and
8eso!ution dated %ugust &E, &EE= o# t"e ;andiganbayan in 'rimina! 'ase Fo. &E8J8 are %))I8IG.
+it" costs against petitioner.
;1 18GI8IG.
M"RTIN S 1ILL"R"M"* JR
%ssociate Justice
+I '1F'B89
15
CONCHIT" C"RPIO MOR"LES
%ssociate Justice
'"airperson
"RTURO D 2RION
%ssociate Justice
LUC"S P 2ERS"MIN
%ssociate Justice
RO2ERTO " "2"D
Z
%ssociate Justice
% T T I ; T % T I 1 F
I attest t"at t"e conc!usions in t"e abo$e Gecision "ad been reac"ed in consu!tation be#ore t"e case was
assigned to t"e writer o# t"e opinion o# t"e 'ourt7s Gi$ision.
CONCHIT" C"RPIO MOR"LES
%ssociate Justice
'"airperson, T"ird Gi$ision
' I 8 T I ) I ' % T I 1 F
Pursuant to ;ection 1D, %rtic!e CIII o# t"e 198J 'onstitution and t"e Gi$ision '"airperson7s %ttestation, I
certi#y t"at t"e conc!usions in t"e abo$e Gecision "ad been reac"ed in consu!tation be#ore t"e case was
assigned to t"e writer o# t"e opinion o# t"e 'ourt7s Gi$ision.
REN"TO C CORON"
'"ie# Justice
8epub!ic o# t"e P"i!ippines
SUPREME COURT
ani!a
IF B%F'
8e::itt vs 4ove:n8ent of t-e 9-ili99ine islan. case .i4est
F"CTS: T"e #acts o# t"e case too/ p!ace in t"e 191E7s. I. erritt was a constructor w"o was e0ce!!ent at
"is wor/. 1ne day, w"i!e "e was riding "is motorcyc!e a!ong 'a!!e Padre )aura, "e was bumped by a
go$ernment ambu!ance. T"e dri$er o# t"e ambu!ance was pro$en to "a$e been neg!igent. Because o# t"e
incident, erritt was "ospita!i:ed and "e was se$ere!y injured beyond re"abi!itation so muc" so t"at "e
cou!d ne$er per#orm "is job t"e way "e used to and t"at "e cannot e$en earn at !east "a!# o# w"at "e used
to earn.
In order #or erritt to reco$er damages, "e soug"t to sue t"e go$ernment w"ic" !ater aut"ori:ed erritt to
sue t"e go$ernment by $irtue o# %ct &=5J enacted by t"e !egis!ature >%n %ct aut"ori:ing I. erritt to bring
suit against t"e Go$ernment o# t"e P"i!ippine Is!ands and aut"ori:ing t"e %ttorney<Genera! o# said Is!ands
to appear in said suit?. T"e !ower court t"en determined t"e amount o# damages and ordered t"e
go$ernment to pay t"e same.
ISSUE: +"et"er or not t"e go$ernment is !iab!e #or t"e neg!igent act o# t"e dri$er o# t"e ambu!ance.
HELD: Fo. By consenting to be sued a state simp!y wai$es its immunity #rom suit. It does not t"ereby
concede its !iabi!ity to p!ainti2, or create any cause o# action in "is #a$or, or e0tend its !iabi!ity to any cause
not pre$ious!y recogni:ed. It mere!y gi$es a remedy to en#orce a pree0isting !iabi!ity and submits itse!# to
t"e jurisdiction o# t"e court, subject to its rig"t to interpose any !aw#u! de#ense. It #o!!ows t"ere#rom t"at
t"e state, by $irtue o# suc" pro$isions o# !aw, is not responsib!e #or t"e damages su2ered by pri$ate
indi$idua!s in conse@uence o# acts per#ormed by its emp!oyees in t"e disc"arge o# t"e #unctions pertaining
to t"eir o(ce, because neit"er #au!t nor e$en neg!igence can be presumed on t"e part o# t"e state in t"e
organi:ation o# branc"es o# pub!ic ser$ice and in t"e appointment o# its agents. T"e ;tate can on!y be
!iab!e i# it acts t"roug" a specia! agent >and a specia! agent, in t"e sense in w"ic" t"ese words are
emp!oyed, is one w"o recei$es a de6nite and 60ed order or commission, #oreign to t"e e0ercise o# t"e
duties o# "is o(ce i# "e is a specia! o(cia!? so t"at in representation o# t"e state and being bound to act as
an agent t"ereo#, "e e0ecutes t"e trust con6ded to "im.
In t"e case at bar, t"e ambu!ance dri$er was not a specia! agent nor was a go$ernment o(cer acting as a
specia! agent "ence, t"ere can be no !iabi!ity #rom t"e go$ernment. 3T"e Go$ernment does not underta/e
to guarantee to any person t"e 6de!ity o# t"e o(cers or agents w"om it emp!oys, since t"at wou!d in$o!$e
it in a!! its operations in end!ess embarrassments, di(cu!ties and !osses, w"ic" wou!d be sub$ersi$e o# t"e
pub!ic interest.5
1K
>%!so as attac"ment?
To:io v Fontanilla ?#R No L5)(((6* )6 Oct %($+@
1n 1ctober &1, 1958, t"e unicipa! 'ounci! o# a!asi@ui, Pangasinan, passed a reso!ution w"ic" created
t"e a!asi@ui Town )iesta I0ecuti$e 'ommittee. T"is committee "and!ed e$eryt"ing #or t"eir annua! town
6esta, w"ic" wou!d be "e!d on January &1, &&, and &D t"e #o!!owing year. T"e unicipa! 'ounci!
appropriated P1EE #or t"e construction o# two stages, one to be used especia!!y #or a :ar:ue!a entit!ed
3idas I0tra$agan:a.5 T"e committee, under c"airman Jose acaraeg, super$ised t"e construction o# a
stage.
%t t"e nig"t o# t"e 6rst s"ow, e$en be#ore t"e :ar:ue!a itse!# started, many peop!e were a!ready c!imbing
up t"e stage to !isten or catc" a g!impse o# t"e per#ormers. idway t"roug" t"e :ar:ue!a, t"e stage
co!!apsed, and Cicente )ontani!!a, w"o was at t"e rear o# t"e stage, was pinned underneat". .e was ta/en
to t"e "ospita! and died t"e #o!!owing a#ternoon.
T"e "eirs o# )ontani!!a t"en 6!ed a comp!aint #or damages wit" t"e ani!a ')I, naming t"e unicipa!ity o#
a!asi@ui and a!! t"e indi$idua! members o# t"e unicipa! 'ounci! as de#endants.
')I ru!ed t"at t"e Town )iesta I0ecuti$e 'ommittee did e0ercise due di!igence and care o# a good #at"er o#
a #ami!y in constructing t"e stage #or suc" purpose, and its co!!apse was due to #orces beyond t"e
'ommittee7s contro!. T"e "eirs o# )ontani!!a appea!ed, and t"e 'ourt o# %ppea!s re$ersed t"e ru!ing, and
ordered a!! t"e de#endants<appe!!ees to pay joint!y and se$era!!y t"e "eirs o# )ontani!!a.
T"e issue is w"et"er a town 6esta is an e0ercise o# a municipa!ity7s go$ernmenta!Upub!ic #unction >#rom
w"ic" it incurs no !iabi!ity?, or is it o# a pri$ateUproprietary c"aracter >#rom w"ic" it incurs !iabi!ity?.
HELD: % town 6esta is considered a pri$ateUproprietary #unction. But t"e ;upreme 'ourt concedes t"at
t"ere is no "ard and #ast ru!e in determining t"e nature o# a municipa!ity7s underta/ing. +"et"er it is a
go$ernmenta!Upub!ic or pri$ateUproprietary #unction wi!! depend "ea$i!y on t"e conte0t. cQui!!in7s ru!e is9
3% municipa! corporation proper "as...a pub!ic c"aracter as regards t"e state at !arge inso#ar as it is its
agent in go$ernment, and pri$ate >so<ca!!ed? inso#ar as it is to promote !oca! necessities and con$eniences
#or its own community.5 T"us, a town 6esta c!ear!y #a!!s under pri$ateUproprietary #unction.
T"e unicipa!ity o# a!asi@ui argues t"at t"ey e0ercised due di!igence in t"e construction o# t"e stage. But
t"e 'ourt o# %ppea!s correct!y ru!ed t"at t"e co!!apse was due to great number o# on!oo/ers w"o
mounted t"e stage* t"is t"e municipa!ity cou!d "a$e pre$ented by as/ing t"e peop!e to step away #rom
t"e stage, but t"ey did not.
T"e indi$idua! members o# t"e unicipa! 'ounci!, "owe$er, cannot be "e!d !iab!e under %rt. &J o#
t"e 'i$i! 'ode, because %rt. &J co$ers cases o# non#easance or non<per#ormance by a pub!ic o(cer o# "is
or "er o(cia! duty, not to cases o# neg!igence or mis#easance in carrying out an o(cia! duty. T"e records
do not s"ow t"at t"e members o# t"e unicipa! 'ounci! direct!y participated in t"e de#ecti$e construction
o# t"e stage, or t"at t"ey persona!!y permitted spectators to go up t"e p!at#orm. T"e municipa! counci!ors
are abso!$ed #rom !iabi!ity, but t"e unicipa!ity o# a!asi@ui is sti!! !iab!e.
#R No %A'%+) Dece8/e: %$* )&&'
ED#"R ! TE1ES an. TERESIT" Z TE1ES* petitioners,
$s.
THE S"NDI#"N2"!"N* respondent.
G I ' I ; I 1 F
1J
D"1IDE* JR* C.J
T"e pi$ota! issue in t"is petition is w"et"er a pub!ic o(cia! c"arged wit" $io!ation o# ;ection D>"? o#
8epub!ic %ct Fo. DE19, as amended, ot"erwise /nown as t"e (nti-+raft and )orrupt Practices (ct, #or
un!aw#u! inter$ention, in "is o(cia! capacity, in t"e issuance o# a !icense in #a$or o# a business enterprise in
w"ic" "e "as a pecuniary interest may be con$icted, toget"er wit" "is spouse, o# $io!ation o# t"at same
pro$ision premised on "is mere possession o# suc" interest.
Idgar ,. Te$es, #ormer ayor o# Ca!encia, Fegros 1rienta!, and "is wi#e Teresita Y. Te$es see/s to annu! and
set aside t"e 1K Ju!y &EE& Gecision
1
o# t"e ;andiganbayan in 'rimina! 'ase Fo. &DDJ con$icting t"em o#
$io!ation o# ;ection D>"? o# t"e %nti<Gra#t Aaw #or possessing direct pecuniary interest in t"e Ca!encia
'oc/pit and 8ecreation 'enter in Ca!encia.
T"e indictment reads9
&
T"e undersigned ;pecia! Prosecution 1(cer II, 1(ce o# t"e ;pecia! Prosecutor, "ereby accuses
IGG%8 ,. TICI; and TI8I;IT% TICI; o# $io!ation o# ;ection D>"? o# 8epub!ic %ct Fo. DE19,
ot"erwise /nown as t"e %nti<Gra#t and 'orrupt Practices %ct, committed as #o!!ows9
T"at on or about )ebruary =, 199&, and sometime subse@uent t"ereto, in Ca!encia, Fegros
1rienta!, P"i!ippines, and wit"in t"e jurisdiction o# t"is .onorab!e 'ourt, accused E.4a: !
Teves, a pub!ic o(cer, being t"en t"e unicipa! ayor o# Ca!encia, Fegros 1rienta!,
committing t"e crime<"erein c"arged in re!ation to, w"i!e in t"e per#ormance and ta/ing
ad$antage o# "is o(cia! #unctions, and conspiring and con#ederating wit" "is wi#e, "erein
accused Te:esita Teves, did t"en and t"ere wi!!#u!!y, un!aw#u!!y and crimina!!y cause t"e
issuance o# t"e appropriate business permitU!icense to operate t"e Ca!encia 'oc/pit and
8ecreation 'enter in #a$or o# one Daniel Teves, said accused E.4a: ! Teves "a$ing a
direct 6nancia! or pecuniary interest t"erein considering t"e #act t"at said coc/pit arena is
actua!!y owned and operated by "im and accused Te:esita Teves.
'1FT8%8, T1 A%+.
Bpon t"eir arraignment on 1& ay 199J, t"e petitioners p!eaded Nnot gui!ty.N Pre<tria! and tria! were
t"erea#ter set.
T"e petitioners and t"e prosecution agreed on t"e aut"enticity o# t"e prosecution7s documentary e$idence.
T"us, t"e prosecution dispensed wit" t"e testimonies o# witnesses and #orma!!y o2ered its documentary
e$idence mar/ed as I0"ibits N%N to NC.N
D
1n &D )ebruary 1998, t"e petitioners 6!ed t"eir 'ommentU1bjections to t"e e$idence o2ered by t"e
prosecution and mo$ed #or !ea$e o# court to 6!e a demurrer to e$idence.
=
1n &9 Ju!y 1998, t"e
;andiganbayan admitted I0"ibits N%N to N;N o# t"e prosecution7s e$idence but rejected I0"ibits NT,N NB,N
and NC.N
5
It a!so denied petitioners7 demurrer to e$idence,
K
as we!! as t"eir motion #or reconsideration.
J
T"is
notwit"standing, t"e petitioners 6!ed a ani#estation t"at t"ey were, nonet"e!ess, dispensing wit" t"e
presentation o# witnesses because t"e e$idence on record are inade@uate to support t"eir con$iction.
1n 1K Ju!y &EE&, t"e ;andiganbayan promu!gated a decision
8
>1? con$icting petitioners Idgar and Teresita
Te$es o# $io!ation o# ;ection D>"? o# t"e %nti<Gra#t Aaw* >&? imposing upon t"em an indeterminate pena!ty
o# imprisonment o# nine years and twenty<one days as minimum to twe!$e years as ma0imum* and >D?
ordering t"e con6scation o# a!! t"eir rig"ts, interests, and participation in t"e assets and properties o# t"e
Ca!encia 'oc/pit and 8ecreation 'enter in #a$or o# t"e Go$ernment, as we!! as perpetua! dis@ua!i6cation
#rom pub!ic o(ce.
9
T"e con$iction was anc"ored on t"e 6nding t"at t"e petitioners possessed pecuniary
interest in t"e said business enterprise on t"e grounds t"at >a? not"ing on record appears t"at ayor Te$es
di$ested "imse!# o# "is pecuniary interest in said coc/pit* >b? as o# %pri! 199&, Teresita Te$es was o# record
t"e NownerU!icenseeN o# t"e coc/pit* and >c? since ayor Te$es and Teresita remained married to eac" ot"er
#rom 198D unti! 199&, t"eir property re!ations as "usband and wi#e, in t"e absence o# e$idence to t"e
contrary, was t"at o# t"e conjuga! partners"ip o# gains. .ence, t"e coc/pit is a conjuga! property o$er
18
w"ic" t"e petitioners "a$e pecuniary interest. T"is pecuniary interest is pro"ibited under ;ection 89>&? o#
8.%. Fo. J1KE, ot"erwise /nown as t"e ocal +overnment )ode >AG'? o# 1991, and t"us #a!!s under t"e
pro"ibited acts pena!i:ed in ;ection D>"? o# t"e %nti<Gra#t Aaw.
T"e ;andiganbayan, "owe$er, abso!$ed t"e petitioners o# t"e c"arge o# causing t"e issuance o# a business
permit or !icense to operate t"e Ca!encia 'oc/pit and 8ecreation 'enter on or about = )ebruary 199& #or
not being we!!<#ounded.
1n &K %ugust &EE&, t"e petitioners 6!ed t"e instant petition #or re$iew on certiorari
1E
see/ing to annu! and
set aside t"e 1K Ju!y &EE& Gecision o# t"e ;andiganbayan.
%t 6rst, we denied t"e petition #or #ai!ure o# t"e petitioners to su(cient!y s"ow t"at t"e ;andiganbayan
committed any re$ersib!e error in t"e c"a!!enged decision as to warrant t"e e0ercise by t"is 'ourt o# its
discretionary appe!!ate jurisdiction.
11
But upon petitioners7 motion #or reconsideration,
1&
we reinstated t"e
petition.
1D
T"e petitioners assert t"at t"e ;andiganbayan committed serious and pa!pab!e errors in con$icting t"em.
In t"e 6rst p!ace, t"e c"arge was #or a!!eged un!aw#u! inter$ention o# ayor Te$es in "is o(cia! capacity in
t"e issuance o# a coc/pit !icense in $io!ation o# ;ection D>"? o# t"e %nti<Gra#t Aaw. But t"ey were con$icted
o# "a$ing a direct 6nancia! or pecuniary interest in t"e Ca!encia 'oc/pit and 8ecreation 'enter pro"ibited
under ;ection 89>&? o# t"e AG' o# 1991, w"ic" is essentia!!y di2erent #rom t"e o2ense wit" w"ic" t"ey
were c"arged. T"us, t"e petitioners insist t"at t"eir constitutiona! rig"t to be in#ormed o# t"e nature and
cause o# t"e accusation against t"em was transgressed because t"ey were ne$er apprised at any stage o#
t"e proceedings in t"e ;andiganbayan t"at t"ey were being c"arged wit", and arraigned and tried #or,
$io!ation o# t"e AG' o# 1991. T"e variance doctrine in$o/ed by t"e respondent is but a ru!e o# procedura!
!aw t"at s"ou!d not pre$ai! o$er t"eir constitutiona!!y<guaranteed rig"t to be in#ormed o# t"e nature and
cause o# accusation against t"em.
;econd, according to t"e petitioners, t"eir a!!eged pro"ibited pecuniary interest in t"e Ca!encia 'oc/pit in
199& was not pro$ed. T"e ;andiganbayan presumed t"at since ayor Te$es was t"e coc/pit operator and
!icensee in 1989, said interest continued to e0ist unti! 199&. It a!so presumed t"at t"e coc/pit was t"e
conjuga! property o# ayor Te$es and "is wi#e, and t"at t"eir pecuniary interest t"ereo# was direct. But
under t"e regime o# conjuga! partners"ip o# gains, any interest t"ereon is at most inc"oate and indirect.
%!so assigned as g!aring error is t"e con$iction o# Teresita Te$es, w"o is not a pub!ic o(cer. In t"e
in#ormation, on!y ayor Te$es was accused o# N"a$ing a direct 6nancia! or pecuniary interest in t"e
operation o# t"e Ca!encia 'oc/pit and 8ecreation 'enter in Fegros 1rienta!.N .is wi#e was mere!y c"arged
as a co<conspirator o# "er "usband7s a!!eged act o# Nw"i!e in t"e per#ormance and ta/ing ad$antage o# "is
o(cia! #unctions, 4 wi!!#u!!y, un!aw#u!!y and crimina!!y causWingX t"e issuance o# t"e appropriate business
permitU!icense to operateN t"e said coc/pit arena. Teresita Te$es cou!d not be con$icted because
conspiracy was not estab!is"ed. Besides, t"e ;andiganbayan "ad a!ready abso!$ed t"e petitioners o# t"is
o2ense.
1n t"e ot"er "and, t"e ;andiganbayan, t"roug" t"e 1(ce o# t"e ;pecia! Prosecutor >1;P?, insists t"at t"e
uncontro$erted documentary e$idence pro$ed t"at petitioner Idgar Te$es "ad direct pecuniary interest
o$er t"e coc/pit in @uestion as ear!y as &K ;eptember 198D. T"at interest continued e$en t"oug" "e
trans#erred t"e management t"ereo# to "is wi#e Teresita Te$es in 199&, since t"eir property re!ations were
go$erned by t"e conjuga! partners"ip o# gains. T"e e0istence o# t"at pro"ibited interest is by itse!# a
crimina! o2ense under ;ection 89>&? o# t"e AG' o# 1991. It is necessari!y inc!uded in t"e o2ense c"arged
against t"e petitioners, i.e., #or $io!ation o# ;ection D>"? o# t"e %nti<Gra#t Aaw, w"ic" proscribes t"e
possession o# a direct or indirect 6nancia! or pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or transaction in
connection wit" w"ic" t"e person possessing t"e 6nancia! interest inter$enes in "is o(cia! capacity, or in
w"ic" "e is pro"ibited by t"e 'onstitution or any !aw #rom "a$ing any interest. T"e use o# t"e conjuncti$e
word NorN demonstrates t"e a!ternati$e mode or nature o# t"e manner o# e0ecution o# t"e 6na! e!ement o#
t"e $io!ation o# t"e pro$ision. %!t"oug" t"e in#ormation may "a$e a!!eged on!y one o# t"e moda!ities o#
committing t"e o2ense, t"e ot"er mode is deemed inc!uded in t"e accusation to a!!ow proo# t"ereo#. T"ere
was, t"ere#ore, no $io!ation o# t"e constitutiona! rig"t o# t"e accused to be in#ormed o# t"e nature or cause
19
o# t"e accusation against t"em in $iew o# t"e variance doctrine, w"ic" 6nds statutory support in ;ections =
and 5 o# 8u!e 1&E o# t"e 8u!es o# 'ourt.
T"e petition is not tota!!y de$oid o# merit.
;ection D>"? o# t"e %nti<Gra#t Aaw pro$ides9
;ection D. )orrupt practices of public o/cers. P In addition to acts or omissions o# pub!ic o(cers
a!ready pena!i:ed by e0isting !aw, t"e #o!!owing s"a!! constitute corrupt practices o# any pub!ic
o(cer and are "ereby dec!ared to be un!aw#u!9
4
>"? Girect!y or indirect!y "a$ing 6nancia! or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
transaction in connection wit" w"ic" "e inter$enes or ta/es part in "is o(cia! capacity, or in
w"ic" "e is pro"ibited by t"e 'onstitution or by any !aw #rom "a$ing any interest.
T"e essentia! e!ements set out in t"e a#ore<@uoted !egis!ati$e de6nition o# t"e crime o# $io!ation o# ;ection
D>"? o# t"e %nti<Gra#t Aaw are as #o!!ows9
1. T"e accused is a pub!ic o(cer*
&. .e "as a direct or indirect 6nancia! or pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or transaction*
D. .e eit"er
a. inter$enes or ta/es part in "is o(cia! capacity in connection wit" suc" interest* or
b. is pro"ibited #rom "a$ing suc" interest by t"e 'onstitution or by any !aw.
T"ere are, t"ere#ore, two modes by w"ic" a pub!ic o(cer w"o "as a direct or indirect 6nancia! or pecuniary
interest in any business, contract, or transaction may $io!ate ;ection D>"? o# t"e %nti<Gra#t Aaw. T"e 6rst
mode is i# in connection wit" "is pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction, t"e pub!ic
o(cer inter$enes or ta/es part in "is o(cia! capacity. T"e second mode is w"en "e is pro"ibited #rom
"a$ing suc" interest by t"e 'onstitution or any !aw.
+e @uote "erein t"e ;andiganbayan7s dec!aration regarding petitioners7 cu!pabi!ity anent t"e 6rst mode9
[T]hat portion o# t"e In#ormation which seeks to indict the spouses Teves for "is causing
the issuance of a business permit/license to operate t"e Ca!encia coc/pit on or about )ebruary
=, 199& is not wellfounded.
!a"or #dgar Teves could not have issued a permit to operate the cockpit in the "ear
$%%& because as of Januar" $' $%%& t"e !icense cou!d be issued on!y by t"e ;angguniang
Bayan. .e may "a$e issued t"e permit or !icense in 1991 or e$en be#ore t"at w"en "e !ega!!y cou!d,
but t"at is not t"e c"arge. T"e c"arge is #or acts committed in 199&.
1=
0Emphasis supplied1.
T"e ;andiganbayan #ound t"at t"e c"arge against ayor Te$es #or causing t"e issuance o# t"e business
permit or !icense to operate t"e Ca!encia 'oc/pit and 8ecreation 'enter is Nnot we!!<#ounded.N T"is it
based, and rig"t!y so, on t"e additiona! 6nding t"at on!y t"e ;angguniang Bayan cou!d "a$e issued a
permit to operate t"e Ca!encia 'oc/pit in t"e year 199&. Indeed, under ;ection ==J>D?
15
o# t"e AG' o#
1991, w"ic" too/ e2ect on 1 January 199&, it is t"e ;angguniang Bayan t"at "as t"e aut"ority to issue a
!icense #or t"e estab!is"ment, operation, and maintenance o# coc/pits. Bn!i/e in t"e o!d AG', Batas
Pambansa B!g. DDJ, w"erein t"e municipa! mayor was t"e presiding o(cer o# t"e ;angguniang Bayan,
1K

under t"e AG' o# 1991, t"e mayor is not so anymore and is not e$en a member o# t"e ;angguniang Bayan.
&E
.ence, ayor Te$es cou!d not "a$e inter$ened or ta/en part in "is o(cia! capacity in t"e issuance o# a
coc/pit !icense during t"e materia! time, as a!!eged in t"e in#ormation, because "e was not a member o#
t"e ;angguniang Bayan.
1J
( fortiori, t"ere is no !ega! basis to con$ict Teresita Te$es as a co<conspirator in t"e absence o# a 6nding
t"at ayor Te$es "imse!# is gui!ty o# t"e o2ense c"arged. In s"ort, t"e ;andiganbayan correct!y abso!$ed
t"e petitioners o# t"e c"arge based on t"e 6rst mode. %nd t"ere is no need to be!abor t"is point.
T"e ;andiganbayan, "owe$er, con$icted t"e petitioners o# $io!ation o# ;ection D>"? o# t"e %nti<Gra#t Aaw
based on t"e second mode. It reasoned t"at t"e e$idence o$erw"e!ming!y e$inces t"at ayor Te$es "ad a
pecuniary interest in t"e Ca!encia 'oc/pit, w"ic" is pro"ibited under ;ection 89>&? o# t"e AG' o# 1991.
T"e in#ormation accuses petitioner Idgar Te$es, t"en unicipa! ayor o# Ca!encia, Fegros 1rienta!, o#
causing, Nw"i!e in t"e per#ormance and ta/ing ad$antage o# "is o(cia! #unctions, and conspiring and
con#ederating wit" "is wi#e 4 t"e issuance o# t"e appropriate business permitU!icense to operate t"e
Ca!encia 'oc/pit and 8ecreation 'enter in #a$or o# one Ganie! Te$es.N T"e !ast part o# t"e dispositi$e
portion o# t"e in#ormation states t"at Nsaid accused E.4a: ! Teves "a$ing a direct 6nancia! or pecuniary
interest t"erein considering t"e #act t"at said coc/pit arena is actua!!y owned and operated by "im and
accused Te:esita TevesN
% care#u! reading o# t"e in#ormation re$ea!s t"at t"e a#ore<@uoted !ast part t"ereo# is mere!y an a!!egation
o# t"e second e!ement o# t"e crime, w"ic" is, t"at "e "as a direct or indirect N6nancia! or pecuniary interest
in any business, contract or transaction.N Fot by any stretc" o# imagination can it be discerned or
construed t"at t"e a#ore<@uoted !ast part o# t"e in#ormation c"arges t"e petitioners wit" t"e second mode
by w"ic" ;ection D>"? o# t"e %nti<Gra#t Aaw may be $io!ated. .ence, we agree wit" t"e petitioners t"at t"e
c"arge was #or un!aw#u! inter$ention in t"e issuance o# t"e !icense to operate t"e Ca!encia 'oc/pit. T"ere
was no c"arge #or possession o# pecuniary interest pro"ibited by !aw.
.owe$er, t"e e$idence #or t"e prosecution "as estab!is"ed t"at petitioner Idgar Te$es, t"en mayor o#
Ca!encia, Fegros 1rienta!,
18
owned t"e coc/pit in @uestion. In "is sworn app!ication #or registration o#
coc/pit 6!ed on &K ;eptember 198D
19
wit" t"e P"i!ippine Game#ow! 'ommission, 'ubao, Que:on 'ity, as
we!! as in "is renewa! app!ication dated K January 1989
&E
"e stated t"at "e is t"e owner and manager o#
t"e said coc/pit. %bsent any e$idence t"at "e di$ested "imse!# o# "is owners"ip o$er t"e coc/pit, "is
owners"ip t"ereo# is rig"t!y to be presumed because a t"ing once pro$ed to e0ist continues as !ong as is
usua! wit" t"ings o# t"at nature.
&1
.is a(da$it
&&
dated &J ;eptember 199E dec!aring t"at e2ecti$e January
199E "e Nturned o$er t"e management o# t"e coc/pit to rs. Teresita Y. Te$es #or t"e reason t"at W"eX
cou!d no !onger de$ote a #u!! time as manager o# t"e said entity due to ot"er wor/ pressureN is not
su(cient proo# t"at "e di$ested "imse!# o# "is owners"ip o$er t"e coc/pit. 1n!y t"e management o# t"e
coc/pit was trans#erred to Teresita Te$es e2ecti$e January 199E. Being t"e owner o# t"e coc/pit, "is
interest o$er it was direct.
I$en i# t"e owners"ip o# petitioner Idgar Te$es o$er t"e coc/pit were trans#erred to "is wi#e, sti!! "e wou!d
"a$e a direct interest t"ereon because, as correct!y "e!d by respondent ;andiganbayan, t"ey remained
married to eac" ot"er #rom 198D up to 199&, and as suc" t"eir property re!ation can be presumed to be
t"at o# conjuga! partners"ip o# gains in t"e absence o# e$idence to t"e contrary. %rtic!e 1KE o# t"e 'i$i!
'ode pro$ides t"at a!! property o# t"e marriage is presumed to be!ong to t"e conjuga! partners"ip un!ess it
be pro$ed t"at it pertains e0c!usi$e!y to t"e "usband or to t"e wi#e. %nd ;ection 1=D o# t"e 'i$i! 'ode
dec!ares a!! t"e property o# t"e conjuga! partners"ip o# gains to be owned in common by t"e "usband and
wi#e. .ence, "is interest in t"e Ca!encia 'oc/pit is direct and is, t"ere#ore, pro"ibited under ;ection 89>&? o#
t"e AG' o# 1991, w"ic" reads9
;ection 89. Prohibited &usiness and Pecuniar' 2nterest. P >a? It s-all /e 3nla;f3l fo: any local
4ove:n8ent oBcial or emp!oyee, direct!y or indirect!y, to3
4
&1
>&? Hol. s3c- inte:ests in any cocC9it or ot"er games !icensed by a !oca! go$ernment
unit4. 0Emphasis supplied1.
T"e o2ense pro$ed, t"ere#ore, is t"e second mode o# $io!ation o# ;ection D>"? o# t"e %nti<Gra#t Aaw, w"ic"
is possession o# a pro"ibited interest. But can t"e petitioners be con$icted t"ereo#, considering t"at it was
not c"arged in t"e in#ormationS
T"e answer is in t"e a(rmati$e in $iew o# t"e variance doctrine embodied in ;ection =, in re!ation to
;ection 5, 8u!e 1&E, 8u!es o# 'rimina! Procedure, w"ic" bot" read9
;ec. =. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. P +"en t"ere is a $ariance
between t"e o2ense c"arged in t"e comp!aint or in#ormation and t"at pro$ed, and t"e o2ense as
c"arged is inc!uded in or necessari!y inc!udes t"e o2ense pro$ed, t"e accused s"a!! be con$icted o#
t"e o2ense pro$ed w"ic" is inc!uded in t"e o2ense c"arged, or o# t"e o2ense c"arged w"ic" is
inc!uded in t"e o2ense pro$ed.
;ec. 5. 4hen an o5ense includes or is included in another. P %n o2ense c"arged necessari!y
inc!udes t"e o2ense pro$ed w"en some o# t"e essentia! e!ements or ingredients o# t"e #ormer, as
a!!eged in t"e comp!aint or in#ormation, constitutes t"e !atter. %nd an o2ense c"arged is necessari!y
inc!uded in t"e o2ense pro$ed w"en t"e essentia! ingredients o# t"e #ormer constitute or #orm part
o# t"ose constituting t"e !atter.
T"e e!ements o# t"e o2ense c"arged in t"is case, w"ic" is un!aw#u! inter$ention in t"e issuance o# a
coc/pit !icense in $io!ation o# ;ection D>"? o# t"e %nti<Gra#t Aaw, are
1. T"e accused is a pub!ic o(cer*
&. .e "as a direct or indirect 6nancia! or pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or transaction,
w"et"er or not pro"ibited by !aw* and
D. .e inter$enes or ta/es part in "is o(cia! capacity in connection wit" suc" interest.
1n t"e ot"er "and, t"e essentia! ingredients o# t"e o2ense pro$ed, w"ic" is possession o# pro"ibited
interest in $io!ation o# ;ection D>"? o# t"e %nti<Gra#t Aaw, are as #o!!ows9
1. T"e accused is a pub!ic o(cer*
&. .e "as a direct or indirect 6nancia! or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction*
and
D. .e is pro"ibited #rom "a$ing suc" interest by t"e 'onstitution or any !aw.
It is c!ear t"at t"e essentia! ingredients o# t"e o2ense pro$ed constitute or #orm part o# t"ose constituting
t"e o2ense c"arged. Put di2erent!y, t"e 6rst and second e!ements o# t"e o2ense c"arged, as a!!eged in t"e
in#ormation, constitute t"e o2ense pro$ed. .ence, t"e o2ense pro$ed is necessari!y inc!uded in t"e o2ense
c"arged, or t"e o2ense c"arged necessari!y inc!udes t"e o2ense pro$ed. T"e variance doctrine t"us 6nds
app!ication to t"is case, t"ereby warranting t"e con$iction o# petitioner Idgar Te$es #or t"e o2ense pro$ed.
T"e ne0t @uestion we "a$e to grapp!e wit" is under w"at !aw s"ou!d petitioner Idgar Te$es be punis"ed. It
must be obser$ed t"at ;ection D>"? o# t"e %nti<Gra#t Aaw is a genera! pro$ision, it being app!icab!e to a!!
pro"ibited interests* w"i!e ;ection 89>&? o# t"e AG' o# 1991 is a specia! pro$ision, as it speci6ca!!y treats o#
interest in a coc/pit. Fotab!y, t"e two statutes pro$ide #or di2erent pena!ties. T"e %nti<Gra#t Aaw,
particu!ar!y ;ection 9, pro$ides as #o!!ows9
;I'. 9. Penalties for violations. P >a? %ny pub!ic o(cia! or pri$ate person committing any o# t"e
un!aw#u! acts or omissions enumerated in ;ections D, =, 5, and K o# t"is %ct s"a!! be punis"ed by
&&
imprisonment o# not !ess t"an si0 years and one mont" nor more t"an 6#teen years, perpetua!
dis@ua!i6cation #rom pub!ic o(ce, and con6scation or #or#eiture in #a$or o# t"e Go$ernment o# any
pro"ibited interest4.
1n t"e ot"er "and, ;ection 51= o# t"e AG' o# 1991 prescribes a !ig"ter pena!ty* t"us9
;I'TI1F 51=. Engaging in Prohibited &usiness 6ransactions or Possessing 2llegal Pecuniar' 2nterest.
P %ny !oca! o(cia! and any person or persons dea!ing wit" "im w"o $io!ate t"e pro"ibitions pro$ided
in ;ection 89 o# Boo/ I "ereo# s"a!! be punis"ed wit" imprisonment #or si0 mont"s and one day to
si0 years, or a 6ne o# not !ess t"an T"ree t"ousand pesos >PD,EEE.EE? nor more t"an Ten T"ousand
Pesos >P1E,EEE.EE?, or bot" suc" imprisonment and 6ne at t"e discretion o# t"e court.
It is a ru!e o# statutory construction t"at w"ere one statute dea!s wit" a subject in genera! terms, and
anot"er dea!s wit" a part o# t"e same subject in a more detai!ed way, t"e two s"ou!d be "armoni:ed i#
possib!e* but i# t"ere is any con-ict, t"e !atter s"a!! pre$ai! regard!ess o# w"et"er it was passed prior to t"e
genera! statute.
&D
1r w"ere two statutes are o# contrary tenor or o# di2erent dates but are o# e@ua!
t"eoretica! app!ication to a particu!ar case, t"e one designed t"ere#or specia!!y s"ou!d pre$ai! o$er t"e
ot"er.
&=
'on#ormab!y wit" t"ese ru!es, t"e AG' o# 1991, w"ic" speci6ca!!y pro"ibits !oca! o(cia!s #rom possessing
pecuniary interest in a coc/pit !icensed by t"e !oca! go$ernment unit and w"ic", in itse!#, prescribes t"e
punis"ment #or $io!ation t"ereo#, is paramount to t"e %nti<Gra#t Aaw, w"ic" pena!i:es possession o#
pro"ibited interest in a genera! manner. oreo$er, t"e !atter too/ e2ect on 1J %ugust 19KE, w"i!e t"e
#ormer became e2ecti$e on 1 January 1991. Being t"e ear!ier statute, t"e %nti<Gra#t Aaw "as to yie!d to t"e
AG' o# 1991, w"ic" is t"e !ater e0pression o# !egis!ati$e wi!!.
&5
In t"e imposition on petitioner Idgar Te$es o# t"e pena!ty pro$ided in t"e AG' o# 1991, we ta/e judicia!
notice o# t"e #act t"at under t"e o!d AG', mere possession o# pecuniary interest in a coc/pit was not
among t"e pro"ibitions enumerated in ;ection =1
&K
t"ereo#. ;uc" possession became un!aw#u! or
pro"ibited on!y upon t"e ad$ent o# t"e AG' o# 1991, w"ic" too/ e2ect on 1 January 199&. Petitioner Idgar
Te$es stands c"arged wit" an o2ense in connection wit" "is pro"ibited interest committed on or about =
)ebruary 199&, s"ort!y a#ter t"e maiden appearance o# t"e pro"ibition. Presumab!y, "e was not yet $ery
muc" aware o# t"e pro"ibition. %!t"oug" ignorance t"ereo# wou!d not e0cuse "im #rom crimina! !iabi!ity,
suc" wou!d justi#y t"e imposition o# t"e !ig"ter pena!ty o# a 6ne o# P1E,EEE under ;ection 51= o# t"e AG' o#
1991.
Petitioner Teresita Te$es must, "owe$er, be ac@uitted. T"e c"arge against "er is conspiracy in causing Nt"e
issuance o# t"e appropriate business permitU!icense to operate t"e Ca!encia 'oc/pit and 8ecreation
'enter.N )or t"is c"arge, s"e was ac@uitted. But as discussed ear!ier, t"at c"arge a!so inc!udes conspiracy
in t"e possession o# pro"ibited interest.
'onspiracy must be estab!is"ed separate!y #rom t"e crime itse!# and must meet t"e same degree o# proo#,
i.e., proo# beyond reasonab!e doubt. +"i!e conspiracy need not be estab!is"ed by direct e$idence, #or it
may be in#erred #rom t"e conduct o# t"e accused be#ore, during, and a#ter t"e commission o# t"e crime, a!!
ta/en toget"er, t"e e$idence must reasonab!y be strong enoug" to s"ow community o# crimina! design.
&J
'ertain!y, t"ere is no conspiracy in just being married to an erring spouse.
&8
)or a spouse or any person to
be a party to a conspiracy as to be !iab!e #or t"e acts o# t"e ot"ers, it is essentia! t"at t"ere be intentiona!
participation in t"e transaction wit" a $iew to t"e #urt"erance o# t"e common design. I0cept w"en "e is
t"e mastermind in a conspiracy, it is necessary t"at a conspirator s"ou!d "a$e per#ormed some o$ert act
as a direct or indirect contribution in t"e e0ecution o# t"e crime p!anned to be committed. T"e o$ert act
must consist o# acti$e participation in t"e actua! commission o# t"e crime itse!# or o# mora! assistance to
"is co<conspirators.
&9
;ection =>b? o# t"e %nti<Gra#t Aaw, t"e pro$ision w"ic" app!ies to pri$ate indi$idua!s, states9
;I'. =. Pro"ibitions on pri$ate indi$idua!s. P 4
&D
>b? It s"a!! be un!aw#u! #or any person /nowing!y to induce or cause any pub!ic o(cia! to
commit any o# t"e o2enses de6ned in ;ection D "ereo#.
+e 6nd no su(cient e$idence t"at petitioner Teresita Te$es conspired wit", or /nowing!y induced or
caused, "er "usband to commit t"e second mode o# $io!ation o# ;ection D>"? o# t"e %nti<Gra#t Aaw.
%s ear!y as 198D, Idgar Te$es was a!ready t"e owner o# t"e Ca!encia 'oc/pit. ;ince t"en unti! D1
Gecember 1991, possession by a !oca! o(cia! o# pecuniary interest in a coc/pit was not yet pro"ibited. It
was be#ore t"e e2ecti$ity o# t"e AG' o# 1991, or on January 199E, t"at "e trans#erred t"e management o#
t"e coc/pit to "is wi#e Teresita. In accordance t"erewit" it was Teresita w"o t"erea#ter app!ied #or t"e
renewa! o# t"e coc/pit registration. T"us, in "er sworn app!ications #or renewa! o# t"e registration o# t"e
coc/pit in @uestion dated &8 January 199E
DE
and 18 )ebruary 1991,
D1
s"e stated t"at s"e is t"e
1wnerUAicensee and 1peratorUanager o# t"e said coc/pit. In "er renewa! app!ication dated K January
199&,
D&
s"e re#erred to "erse!# as t"e 1wnerUAicensee o# t"e coc/pit. Ai/ewise in t"e separate Aists o# Gu!y
Aicensed Personne! #or 'a!endar ,ears 1991
DD
and 199&,
D=
w"ic" s"e submitted on && )ebruary 1991 and
1J )ebruary 199&, respecti$e!y, in comp!iance wit" t"e re@uirement o# t"e P"i!ippine Game#ow!
'ommission #or t"e renewa! o# t"e coc/pit registration, s"e signed "er name as 1peratorUAicensee.
T"e acts o# petitioner Teresita Te$es can "ard!y pass as acts in #urt"erance o# a conspiracy to commit t"e
$io!ation o# t"e %nti<Gra#t Aaw t"at wou!d render "er e@ua!!y !iab!e as "er "usband. I# e$er s"e did t"ose
acts, it was because s"e "erse!# was an owner o# t"e coc/pit. Fot being a pub!ic o(cia!, s"e was not
pro"ibited #rom "o!ding an interest in coc/pit. Prudence, "owe$er, dictates t"at s"e too s"ou!d "a$e
di$ested "erse!# o# "er owners"ip o$er t"e coc/pit upon t"e e2ecti$ity o# t"e AG' o# 1991* ot"erwise, as
stated ear!ier, considering "er property re!ation wit" "er "usband, "er owners"ip wou!d resu!t in $esting
direct pro"ibited interest upon "er "usband.
In crimina! cases, con$iction must rest on a mora! certainty o# gui!t.
D5
T"e burden o# proo# is upon t"e
prosecution to estab!is" eac" and e$ery e!ement o# t"e crime and t"at t"e accused is eit"er responsib!e #or
its commission or "as conspired wit" t"e ma!e#actor. ;ince no conspiracy was pro$ed, t"e ac@uitta! o#
petitioner Teresita Te$es is, t"ere#ore, in order.
,HEREFORE, premises considered, t"e 1K Ju!y &EE& Gecision o# t"e ;andiganbayan, )irst Gi$ision, in
'rimina! 'ase Fo. &DDJ is "ereby 1GI)IIG in t"at >1? IGG%8 ,. TICI; is con$icted o# $io!ation o# ;ection
D>"? o# 8epub!ic %ct Fo. DE19, or t"e (nti-+raft and )orrupt Practices (ct, #or possession o# pecuniary or
6nancia! interest in a coc/pit, w"ic" is pro"ibited under ;ection 89>&? o# t"e Aoca! Go$ernment 'ode o#
1991, and is sentenced to pay a 6ne o# P1E,EEE* and >&? TI8I;IT% Y. TICI; is "ereby %'QBITTIG o# suc"
o2ense.
'osts de o7cio.
SO ORDERED
#R No %=&&6% Dece8/e: %+* )&&+
SOCI"L JUSTICE SOCIET! ?SJS@* petitioner,
$s.
HON JOSE D LIN"* in -is ca9acity as Sec:eta:y of t-e De9a:t8ent of Inte:io: an. Local
#ove:n8ent ?DIL#@* Li9a City Mayo: HON 1ILM" S"NTOS5RECTO* Pa89an4a P:ovincial
#ove:no: HON LITO L"PID* an. Pa:aDaE3e City Mayo: HON JOE! M"RFUEZ* respondents.
D E C I S I O N
N"CHUR"* J.:
%ssai!ed in t"is 8u!e =5 petition are t"e June DE, &EED
1
and t"e ;eptember 1&, &EED
&
1rders o# t"e 8egiona!
Tria! 'ourt >8T'? o# ani!a, Branc" 1= in 'i$i! 'ase Fo. E&<1E=585.
&=
)i!ed wit" t"e tria! court on ;eptember 1&, &EE&, by petitioner ;ocia! Justice ;ociety, a registered po!itica!
party, wit" t"e tria! court was a petition #or dec!aratory re!ie# against t"e t"en ;ecretary o# t"e Gepartment
o# Interior and Aoca! Go$ernment >GIAG?, respondent Jose G. Aina,.
D
praying #or Presented #or reso!ution in
its petition is t"e proper construction o# ;ection 9E o# 8epub!ic %ct >8.%.? Fo. J1KE, w"ic" pro$ides t"at9
;I'. 9E. Practice of Profession.P
>a? %!! go$ernors, city and municipa! mayors are pro"ibited #rom practicing t"eir pro#ession or
engaging in any occupation ot"er t"an t"e e0ercise o# t"eir #unctions as !oca! c"ie# e0ecuti$es.
>b? %anggunian members may practice t"eir pro#essions, engage in any occupation, or teac" in
sc"oo!s e0cept during session "ours9 Provided, T"at sanggunian members w"o are members o# t"e
Bar s"a!! not9
>1? %ppear as counse! be#ore any court in any ci$i! case w"erein a !oca! go$ernment unit or
any o(ce, agency, or instrumenta!ity o# t"e go$ernment is t"e ad$erse party*
>&? %ppear as counse! in any crimina! case w"erein an o(cer or emp!oyee o# t"e nationa! or
!oca! go$ernment is accused o# an o2ense committed in re!ation to "is o(ce*
>D? 'o!!ect any #ee #or t"eir appearance in administrati$e proceedings in$o!$ing t"e !oca!
go$ernment unit o# w"ic" "e is an o(cia!* and
>=? Bse property and personne! o# t"e Go$ernment e0cept w"en t"e sanggunian member
concerned is de#ending t"e interest o# t"e Go$ernment.
>c? Goctors o# medicine may practice t"eir pro#ession e$en during o(cia! "ours o# wor/ on!y on
occasions o# emergency9 Provided, T"at t"e o(cia!s concerned do not deri$e monetary
compensation t"ere#rom. WBnderscoring supp!ied.X
Based on t"e said pro$ision, speci6ca!!y paragrap" >a? t"ereo#, petitioner posited t"at actors w"o were
e!ected as go$ernors, city and municipa! mayors were disa!!owed by !aw to appear in mo$ies and te!e$ision
programs as one o# t"e c"aracters t"erein, #or t"is wou!d gi$e t"em undue ad$antage o$er t"eir po!itica!
opponents, and wou!d considerab!y reduce t"e time t"at t"ey must de$ote to t"eir constituents.
=
To strengt"en its point, petitioner !ater amended its petition to imp!ead as additiona! respondents t"en Aipa
'ity ayor Ci!ma ;antos, t"en Pampanga Pro$incia! Go$ernor Aito Aapid, and t"en ParaLa@ue 'ity ayor
Joey ar@ue:.
5
;umming up t"e arguments o# t"e ot"er respondents in t"eir respecti$e p!eadings, t"e GIAG, t"roug" t"e
1(ce o# t"e ;o!icitor Genera! >1;G?, mo$ed #or t"e dismissa! o# t"e petition on t"e grounds t"at9 >1?
petitioner "as no !ega! standing to 6!e t"e petition, because it is not a Nperson w"ose rig"ts are a2ectedN
by t"e statute* >&? it is not t"e rea! party<in<interest* >D? t"ere is no judicia! contro$ersy* >=? t"ere is no
need #or construction o# t"e subject pro$ision* >5? t"ere is a!ready a breac" o# t"e statute as a!!eged in t"e
petition itse!#* and >K? dec!aratory re!ie# is not t"e proper remedy.
K

In t"e assai!ed June DE, &EED 1rder,
J
t"e tria! court, sustaining t"e arguments o# t"e GIAG, dismissed t"e
petition #or dec!aratory re!ie#. It #urt"er denied, in t"e ;eptember 1&, &EED 1rder,
8
petitioner7s motion #or
reconsideration.
Gissatis6ed, petitioner 6!ed t"e instant petition #or re$iew on certiorari be#ore t"is 'ourt on t"e #o!!owing
grounds9
I.
&5
T.I 8IGI1F%A T8I%A '1B8T ;I8I1B;A, I88IG IF GI;I;;IFG PITITI1FI87; PITITI1F )18
GI'A%8%T18, 8IAII) 1F PB8IA, TI'.FI'%A G81BFG;.
II.
T.I 8IGI1F%A T8I%A '1B8T ;I8I1B;A, I88IG IF F1T 8I;1ACIFG T.I I;;BI 8%I;IG IF T.I
PITITI1F )18 GI'A%8%T18, 8IAII).
9
Petitioner contends t"at it, a registered po!itica! party composed o# citi:ens, estab!is"ed to re!ent!ess!y
pursue socia! justice in t"e P"i!ippines, and a!!owed to 6e!d candidates in t"e e!ections, "as t"e !ega!
interest and t"e rig"t to be in#ormed and en!ig"tened, on w"et"er or not t"eir pub!ic o(cia!s, w"o are paid
out o# pub!ic #unds, can, during t"eir tenure, !aw#u!!y appear as "eroes or $i!!ains in mo$ies, or comedians
in te!e$ision s"ows, and -aunt t"eir disdain #or !ega! and et"ica! standards. T"e determination #urt"er o# a
party7s !ega! standing in actions #or dec!aratory re!ie# in$o!$ing !aws s"ou!d not be as rigid as w"en suc"
action in$o!$es a deed, wi!! or contract.
1E
It a!so argues t"at a party7s !ega! standing is a procedura! tec"nica!ity w"ic" may be set aside w"ere t"e
issues raised are o# paramount pub!ic interest. In t"e instant case, t"e importance o# t"e issue can ne$er
be minimi:ed or discounted. T"e appearance o# incumbent city or municipa! mayors and pro$incia!
go$ernors, w"o are actors, in mo$ies and te!e$ision programs en"ances t"eir income but reduces
considerab!y t"e time t"at t"ey s"ou!d de$ote to t"eir constituents. T"is is in $io!ation o# ;ection 9E o# 8.%.
Fo. J1KE and ;ection J o# 8.%. Fo. KJ1D or t"e 'ode o# 'onduct and It"ica! ;tandards #or Pub!ic 1(cia!s
and Imp!oyees. T"eir appearance #urt"er gi$es t"em undue ad$antage in #uture e!ections o$er t"eir
opponents w"o are not actors.
11
Petitioner !i/ewise contends t"at t"e petition #or dec!aratory re!ie# s"ou!d "a$e been con$erted by t"e tria!
court into an action #or pro"ibition, considering t"at, in t"eir p!eadings, Go$ernor Aapid and ayor ar@ue:
o2ered justi6cations #or t"eir actionsP6nancia! constraints and #reedom o# e0pression.
1&
Petitioner t"ere#ore
prays t"at s"ou!d t"e 'ourt dec!ares t"e respondents !oca! c"ie# e0ecuti$es as unab!e to !aw#u!!y engage in
t"eir pro#essions as actors, it must a!so pro"ibit t"em #rom pursuing t"e same during t"eir incumbency.
1D
T"e 'ourt agrees wit" petitioner7s contentions on locus standi considering t"e !ibera! attitude it "as ta/en
in recent decisions.
.owe$er, #o!!owing ru!es o# procedure, we 6nd as proper t"e tria! court7s dismissa! o# t"e petition #or
dec!aratory re!ie# in 'i$i! 'ase Fo. E&<1E=585., t"e petition #or dec!aratory re!ie#. 8eadi!y discernab!e is t"at
t"e same is an inappropriate remedy to en#orce comp!iance wit" ;ection 9E o# 8.%. J1KE, and to pre$ent
!oca! c"ie# e0ecuti$es ;antos<8ecto, Aapid and ar@ue: #rom ta/ing ro!es in mo$ies and te!e$ision s"ows.
T"e 'ourt, t"us, 6nds grants as apt t"e 1;G7s mo$e to dismiss t"e case.
Indeed, an action #or dec!aratory re!ie# s"ou!d be 6!ed by a person interested under a deed, a wi!!, a
contract or ot"er written instrument, and w"ose rig"ts are a2ected by a statute, an e0ecuti$e order, a
regu!ation or an ordinance. T"e purpose o# t"e remedy is to interpret or to determine t"e $a!idity o# t"e
written instrument and to see/ a judicia! dec!aration o# t"e parties7 rig"ts or duties t"ereunder.
1=
)or t"e
action to prosper, it must be s"own t"at >1? t"ere is a justiciab!e contro$ersy* >&? t"e contro$ersy is
between persons w"ose interests are ad$erse* >D? t"e party see/ing t"e re!ie# "as a !ega! interest in t"e
contro$ersy* and >=? t"e issue is ripe #or judicia! determination.
15
;u(ce it to state t"at, in t"e petition 6!ed
wit" t"e tria! court, petitioner #ai!ed to a!!ege t"e u!timate #acts w"ic" satis#y t"ese re@uisites. Fot on!y
t"at, as admitted by t"e petitioner, t"e pro$ision t"e interpretation o# w"ic" is being soug"t "as a!ready
been breac"ed by t"e respondents. Gec!aratory re!ie# cannot t"us be a$ai!ed o#.
1K
,HEREFORE, premises considered, t"e petition is DENIED. Fo pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
( Javellana vs DIL#
&K
Facts:
T-is 9etition fo: :evie; on ce:tio:a:i involves t-e :i4-t of a 93/lic oBcial to en4a4e
int-e 9:actice of -is 9:ofession ;-ile e89loye. in t-e #ove:n8ent "tto:ney E:;in 2
Javellana;as an electe. City Co3ncilo: of 2a4o City* Ne4:os Occi.ental City En4inee: E:nesto
CDivina4:acia Gle. ".8inist:ative Case No C5%&5(& a4ainst Javellana fo:: ?%@ violation of
De9a:t8ent of Local #ove:n8ent ?DL#@ Me8o:an.38 Ci:c3la: No +&56+ .ate. J3ne %&*
%(+&in :elation to DL# Me8o:an.38 Ci:c3la: No $'5A+ an. of Section $* 9a:a4:a9- /* No )
of Re93/lic "ct No =$%6* ot-e:;ise Cno;n as t-e HCo.e of Con.3ct an. Et-ical Stan.a:.s fo:
P3/lic OBcials an. E89loyees*H an. ?)@ fo: o99:ession* 8iscon.3ct an. a/3se of
a3t-o:ityDivina4:aciaIs co89laint alle4e. t-at Javellana* an inc38/ent 8e8/e: of t-e City
Co3ncil o: San443nianPan4l3n4so. of 2a4o City* an. a la;ye: /y 9:ofession* -as
contin3o3sly en4a4e. int-e 9:actice of la; ;it-o3t sec3:in4 a3t-o:ity fo: t-at 93:9ose f:o8
t-e Re4ional Di:ecto:*De9a:t8ent of Local #ove:n8ent* as :eE3i:e. /y DL# Me8o:an.38
Ci:c3la: No +&56+ in:elation to DL# Me8o:an.38 Ci:c3la: No $'5A+ of t-e sa8e
.e9a:t8entOn t-e ot-e: -an.* Javellana Gle. a Motion to Dis8iss t-e a.8inist:ative case
a4ainst-i8 on t-e 4:o3n. 8ainly t-at DL# Me8o:an.38 Ci:c3la:s Nos +&56+ an. (&5+%
a:e3nconstit3tional /eca3se t-e S39:e8e Co3:t -as t-e sole an. eJcl3sive a3t-o:ity to
:e43late t-e 9:actice of la;
Iss3e:
w"et"er or not GAG emorandum 'ircu!ars Fos. 8E<D8 and 9E<81 are unconstitutiona! because
t"e ;upreme 'ourt "as t"e so!e and e0c!usi$e aut"ority to regu!ate t"e practice o# !aw
Hel.:
Fo. Petitioner7s contention t"at ;ection 9E o# t"e Aoca! Go$ernment 'ode o# 1991 and GAG
emorandum 'ircu!ar Fo. 9E<81 $io!ate %rtic!e CIII, ;ection 5 o# t"e 'onstitution is comp!ete!y o2 tangent.
Feit"er t"e statute nor t"e circu!ar trenc"es upon t"e ;upreme 'ourt7s power and aut"ority to prescribe
ru!es on t"e practice o# !aw. T"e Aoca! Go$ernment 'ode and GAG emorandum 'ircu!ar Fo. 9E<81 simp!y
prescribe ru!es o# conduct #or pub!ic o(cia!s to a$oid con-icts o# interest between t"e disc"arge o# t"eir
pub!ic duties and t"e pri$ate practice o# t"eir pro#ession, in t"ose instances w"ere t"e !aw a!!ows
I1
FRI1"LDO 1S COMELEC ?%((=@
G.8. Fo. 1&E&95, June &8 199K, &5J ;'8% J&J
)%'T;9
Juan G. )ri$a!do ran #or Go$ernor o# ;orsogon again and won. 8au! 8. Aee @uestioned "is citi:ens"ip. .e
t"en petitioned #or repatriation under Presidentia! Gecree Fo. J&5 and was ab!e to ta/e "is oat" o#
a!!egiance as a P"i!ippine citi:en.
.owe$er, on t"e day t"at "e got "is citi:ens"ip, t"e 'ourt "ad a!ready ru!ed based on "is pre$ious
attempts to run as go$ernor and ac@uire citi:ens"ip, and "ad proc!aimed Aee, w"o got t"e second "ig"est
number o# $otes, as t"e new!y e!ect Go$ernor o# ;orsogon.
&J
I;;BI9
+"et"er or not )ri$a!do7s repatriation was $a!id.
.IAG9
T"e 'ourt ru!ed "is repatriation was $a!id and !ega! and because o# t"e curati$e nature o# Presidentia!
Gecree Fo. J&5, "is repatriation retroacted to t"e date o# t"e 6!ing o# "is app!ication to run #or go$ernor.
T"e steps to reac@uire P"i!ippine 'iti:ens"ip by repatriation under Presidentia! Gecree Fo. J&5 are9 >1?
6!ing t"e app!ication* >&? action by t"e committee* and >D? ta/ing o# t"e oat" o# a!!egiance i# t"e app!ication
is appro$ed. It is on!y upon ta/ing t"e oat" o# a!!egiance t"at t"e app!icant is deemed ipso jure to "a$e
reac@uired P"i!ippine citi:ens"ip. I# t"e decree "ad intended t"e oat" ta/ing to retroact to t"e date o# t"e
6!ing o# t"e app!ication, t"en it s"ou!d not "a$e e0p!icit!y pro$ided ot"erwise. .e is t"ere#ore @ua!i6ed to
be proc!aimed go$ernor o# ;orsogon.
"lta:e>os vs COMELEC
Facts:
Petitioner %!tarejos was a candidate #or mayor in t"e unicipa!ity o# ;an Jacinto, asbate in t"e ay 1E, &EE=
nationa! and !oca! e!ections.
January 15, &EE= < Pri$ate respondents Jose %!miLe %!tic"e and Cernon Cerso:a, registered $oters o# ;an Jacinto,
asbate, 6!ed wit" t"e '1IAI', a petition to dis@ua!i#y and to deny due course or cance! t"e certi6cate o#
candidacy o# petitioner on t"e ground t"at "e is not a )i!ipino citi:en and t"at "e made a #a!se representation in
"is certi6cate o# candidacy t"at NW"eX was not a permanent resident o# or immigrant to a #oreign country.N Pri$ate
respondents a!!eged t"at based on a !etter #rom t"e Bureau o# Immigration dated June &5, &EE1, petitioner was a
"o!der o# a permanent B.;. resident $isa, an %!ien 'erti6cate o# 8egistration issued on Fo$ember D, 199J, and an
Immigration 'erti6cate o# 8esidence issued on Fo$ember D, 199J by t"e Bureau o# Immigration.
&
January &K, &EE= < Petitioner 6!ed an %nswer stating, among ot"ers, t"at "e did not commit #a!se representation in
"is app!ication #or candidacy as mayor because as ear!y as Gecember 1J, 199J, "e was a!ready issued a
'erti6cate o# 8epatriation by t"e ;pecia! 'ommittee on Fatura!i:ation, a#ter "e 6!ed a petition #or repatriation
pursuant to 8epub!ic %ct Fo. 81J1. T"us, petitioner c!aimed t"at "is )i!ipino citi:ens"ip was a!ready restored, and
"e was @ua!i6ed to run as mayor in t"e ay 1E, &EE= e!ections. Petitioner soug"t t"e dismissa! o# t"e petition.
%tty. Yacarias '. Yarago:a, Jr., regiona! e!ection director #or 8egion C and "earing o(cer o# t"is case,
recommended t"at petitioner %!tarejos be dis@ua!i6ed #rom being a candidate #or t"e position o# mayor on t"e
#o!!owing grounds9
T"e Aoca! Go$ernment 'ode o# 1991 re@uires t"at an e!ecti$e !oca! o(cia! must be a citi:en o# t"e
P"i!ippines, and "e must not "a$e a dua! citi:ens"ip* must not be a permanent resident in a #oreign
country or must not "a$e ac@uired t"e rig"t to reside abroad
It "as been estab!is"ed by c!ear and con$incing e$idence t"at respondent is a citi:en o# t"e Bnited ;tates
o# %merica. ;uc" #act is pro$en by "is %!ien 'erti6cate o# 8egistration and Immigration 'erti6cate o#
8esidence >I'8? issued on D Fo$ember 199J by t"e %!ien 8egistration Gi$ision, Bureau o# Immigration and
Geportation. T"is was #urt"er con6rmed in a !etter dated &5 June &EE1 o# t"en 'ommissioner %FG8I% G.
G1IFG1 o# t"e Bureau o# Immigration and Geportation.
%!t"oug" respondent "ad petitioned #or "is repatriation as a )i!ipino citi:en under 8epub!ic %ct Fo. 81J1 on
1J Gecember 199J, t"is did not restore to respondent "is )i!ipino citi:ens"ip, because ;ection & o# t"e
a#orecited 8epub!ic %ct Fo. 81J1 speci6ca!!y pro$ides t"at 3repatriation s"a!! be e2ected by ta/ing t"e
necessary oat" o# a!!egiance to t"e 8epub!ic o# t"e P"i!ippines and registration in t"e proper ci$i! registry
and in t"e Bureau o# Immigration.5
8espondent "as not submitted any document to pro$e t"at "e "as ta/en "is oat" o# a!!egiance to t"e
8epub!ic o# t"e P"i!ippines and t"at "e "as registered "is #act o# repatriation in t"e proper ci$i! registry and
in t"e Bureau o# Immigration.
'1IAI' )irst Gi$ision adopted t"e recommendations o# %tty. Yaragosa and dis@ua!i6ed petitioner.
Petitioner 6!ed a motion o# reconsideration, attac"ing documents t"at ga$e proo# to "is repatriation. T"is was
subse@uent!y denied by '1IAI' en banc, on t"e grounds t"at it s"ou!d "a$e been submitted during t"e
"earing.
&8
1n ay &EE=, e!ection day itse!#, petitioner 6!ed #or certiorari, wit" prayer #or t"e issuance o# a temporary
restraining order andUor a writ o# pro"ibitory and mandatory injunction, to set aside t"e 8eso!ution promu!gated
by t"e '1IAI'.
Iss3es:
+1F registration o# petitioner7s repatriation wit" t"e proper ci$i! registry and wit" t"e Bureau o# Immigration a
prere@uisite in e2ecting repatriation
+1F t"e '1IAI' en banc committed gra$e abuse o# discretion amounting to e0cess or !ac/ o# jurisdiction in
a(rming t"e 8eso!ution o# t"e '1IAI', )irst Gi$ision.
SC R3lin4:
(n the )rst issue
!es Section ) of R" +%$% is c!ear t"at repatriation is e2ected Nby ta/ing t"e oat" o# a!!egiance to t"e 8epub!ic
o# t"e P"i!ippines and registration in t"e proper ci$i! registry and in t"e Bureau o# Immigration.N
"s to ;-en citiKens-i9 ;o3l. a99ly* t"e 'ourtOs ru!ing in )ri$a!do $. 'ommission on I!ections t"at repatriation
retroacts to t"e date o# 6!ing o# oneOs app!ication #or repatriation subsists.
Petitioner was, t"ere#ore, @ua!i6ed to run #or a mayora!ty position in t"e go$ernment in t"e ay 1E, &EE=
e!ections. %pparent!y, t"e '1IAI' was cogni:ant o# t"is #act since it did not imp!ement t"e assai!ed 8eso!utions
dis@ua!i#ying petitioner to run as mayor o# ;an Jacinto, asbate.
(n the second issue
T"e 'ourt cannot #au!t t"e '1IAI' en banc #or a(rming t"e decision o# t"e '1IAI', )irst Gi$ision, considering
t"at petitioner #ai!ed to pro$e be#ore t"e '1IAI' t"at "e "ad comp!ied wit" t"e re@uirements o# repatriation.
Petitioner submitted t"e necessary documents pro$ing comp!iance wit" t"e re@uirements o# repatriation on!y
during "is motion #or reconsideration, w"en t"e '1IAI' en banc cou!d no !onger consider said e$idence.
Petition is Denie.
"99en.iJ:
;ections D9 and =E o# 8epub!ic %ct Fo. J1KE ot"erwise /nown as t"e Aoca! Go$ernment 'ode o# 19919
;I'. D9. Qua!i6cations. P >a? %n e!ecti$e !oca! o(cia! must be a citi:en o# t"e P"i!ippines* a registered $oter
in t"e barangay, municipa!ity, city or pro$ince or, in t"e case o# member o# t"e sangguniang pan!a!awigan,
sangguniang pan!ungsod, or sangguniang bayan, t"e district w"ere "e intends to be e!ected* a resident
t"erein #or at !east one >1? year immediate!y preceding t"e day o# t"e e!ection* and ab!e to read and write
)i!ipino or any ot"er !oca! !anguage or dia!ect.
000.
>c? 'andidates #or t"e position o# mayor or $ice<mayor o# independent component cities, component cities
or municipa!ities must be at !east twenty<one >&1? years o# age on e!ection day.
W;I'. =E. Gis@ua!i6cations. P T"e #o!!owing persons are dis@ua!i6ed #rom running #or any e!ecti$e position9X
000.
>d? T"ose wit" dua! citi:ens"ip.
000.
>#? Permanent residents in a #oreign country or t"ose w"o "a$e ac@uired t"e rig"t to reside abroad and
continue to a$ai! o# t"e same rig"t a#ter t"e e2ecti$ity o# t"is 'ode* 000
&9
CI'T18IF1 ;%A'IG1 II $s. '1I;;I1F 1F IAI'TI1F; and I8IAIT% '%'%1 ;%A'IG1
%ugust 1K, 1999
Facts:
T"is is a petition #or 'ertiorari 6!ed by petitioner Cictorino ;a!cedo II see/ing to re$erse t"e ear!ier
8eso!ution issued by its ;econd Gi$ision on %ugust 1&, 1998.
Fepta!i P. ;a!cedo married %gnes 'e!i:, w"ic" marriage was e$idenced by a certi6ed true copy o# t"e
marriage contract issued by t"e unicipa! 'i$i! 8egistrar o# %juy, I!oi!o. +it"out "is 6rst marriage "a$ing
been disso!$ed, Fepta!i P. ;a!cedo married pri$ate respondent Irme!ita 'acao in a ci$i! ceremony. Two days
!ater, Irme!ita 'acao contracted anot"er marriage wit" a certain Jesus %guirre, as s"own by a marriage
certi6cate 6!ed wit" t"e 1(ce o# t"e 'i$i! 8egistrar.
Petitioner Cictorino ;a!cedo II and pri$ate respondent Irme!ita 'acao ;a!cedo bot" ran #or t"e position o#
mayor o# t"e municipa!ity o# ;ara, I!oi!o in t"e ay 11, 1998 e!ections, bot" o# t"em "a$ing 6!ed t"eir
respecti$e certi6cates o# candidacy .owe$er, petitioner 6!ed wit" t"e 'ome!ec a petition see/ing t"e
cance!!ation o# pri$ate respondentOs certi6cate o# candidacy on t"e ground t"at s"e "ad made a #a!se
representation t"erein by stating t"at "er surname was N;a!cedo.N Petitioner contended t"at pri$ate
respondent "ad no rig"t to use said surname because s"e was not !ega!!y married to Fepta!i ;a!cedo.
Pri$ate respondent was proc!aimed as t"e du!y e!ected mayor o# ;ara, I!oi!o.
In "er answer, pri$ate respondent c!aimed t"at s"e "ad no in#ormation or /now!edge at t"e time s"e
married Fepta!i ;a!cedo t"at "e was in #act a!ready married* t"at, upon !earning o# "is e0isting marriage,
s"e encouraged "er "usband to ta/e steps to annu! "is marriage wit" %gnes 'e!i: because t"e !atter "ad
abandoned t"eir marita! "ome. Fepta!i ;a!cedo 6!ed a petition #or dec!aration o# presumpti$e deat" w"ic"
was granted by t"e court t"at Fepta!i ;a!cedo and Jesus %guirre are one and t"e same person* and t"at
since 198K up to t"e present s"e "as been using t"e surname N;a!cedoN in a!! "er persona!, commercia!
and pub!ic transactions.
'ome!ecOs ;econd Gi$ision ru!ed t"at since t"ere is an e0isting $a!id marriage between Fepta!i ;a!cedo and
%gnes 'e!i:, t"e subse@uent marriage o# t"e #ormer wit" pri$ate respondent is nu!! and $oid. 'onse@uent!y,
t"e use by pri$ate respondent o# t"e surname N;a!cedoN constitutes materia! misrepresentation and is a
ground #or t"e cance!!ation o# "er certi6cate o# candidacy.
.owe$er, in its en banc 8eso!ution, t"e 'ome!ec o$erturned its pre$ious reso!ution, ru!ing t"at pri$ate
respondentOs certi6cate o# candidacy did not contain any materia! misrepresentation. % otion #or
8econsideration 6!ed by t"e petitioner was a(rmed by t"e di$ision w"ic" gi$es rise to t"e petition to
re$iew suc" promu!gation.
Iss3e:
1.+"et"er or not t"e use by respondent o# t"e surname N;a!cedoN in "er certi6cate o# candidacy
constitutes materia! misrepresentation under ;ection J8 in re!ation to ;ection J= o# t"e 1mnibus I!ection
'ode.
Hel.:
Pri$ate respondent did not commit any materia! misrepresentation by t"e use o# t"e surname N;a!cedoN in
"er certi6cate o# candidacy.
% #a!se representation under section J8 must consist o# a Nde!iberate attempt to mis!ead, misin#orm, or
"ide a #act w"ic" wou!d ot"erwise render a candidate ine!igib!e.N It must be made wit" an intention to
decei$e t"e e!ectorate as to oneOs @ua!i6cations #or pub!ic o(ce. T"e use o# a surname, w"en not intended
to mis!ead or decei$e t"e pub!ic as to oneOs identity, is not wit"in t"e scope o# t"e pro$ision. T"ere is
abso!ute!y no s"owing t"at t"e in"abitants o# ;ara, I!oi!o were decei$ed by t"e use o# suc" surname by
pri$ate respondent. Petitioner does not a!!ege t"at t"e e!ectorate did not /now w"o t"ey were $oting #or
w"en t"ey cast t"eir ba!!ots in #a$or o# NIrme!ita 'acao ;a!cedoN or t"at t"ey were #oo!ed into $oting #or
someone e!se by t"e use o# suc" name.
DE
T"e 'ourt %))I8; t"e en banc 8eso!ution o# t"e 'ommission on I!ections denying t"e petition to cance!
pri$ate respondentOs certi6cate o# candidacy.