Bunye vs Sandiganbayan

Facts: 1) There was a valid and subsisting lease between the Municipality of Muntinlupa and the Kilusang Bayan sa Paglilingkod ng mga Magtitinda sa Bagong Pamilihang Bayan ng Muntinlupa, Inc. (Kilusang Magtitinda for brevity) enacted on September 2, 1985 for a term of 25 years and renewable for another 25 years, during the first few months of which a monthly rental of P35,000.00 only was charged subject to a 10% increase each year for the first 5 years only. 2) Petitioners were charged before the Sandiganbayan with a violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt practices act) for wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and forcibly taking possession, operation and management of the New Public Market in Alabang in the performance of their official functions through Kapasiyahan Bilang 45 on August 1, 1988. 3) The petitioners contend that until declared unconstitutional and expressly annulled, KB 45 should enjoy the presumption of constitutionality and therefore be entitled to obedience and respect. 4) The Sandiganbayan found the petitioners guilty as charged and denied their motion for reconsideration. 5) The petitioners filed a Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court on the following grounds: a. That the SB committed error when it premised that a court action is required to revoke and cancel a void contract (referencing the original lease contract.) b. That the SB should have rendered an acquittal since KB 45 has not been declared unconstitutional and since all acts complained of were done in pursuance thereof. c. That the petitioners did not violate RA 3019 and none of the elements of the offense have been established. 6) The SB based its conviction on the fact that the petitioners did not take legal steps to rescind the contract of lease although this had already been advised to be proper. Issues: WON the unilateral revocation of the subject lease contract was affected with evident bad faith and establishes sufficient ground for conviction under RA 3019? Held: I. KB 45 had reasonable grounds for rescinding the subject contract of lease: 1) No, the contract entered into had serious flaws as in its enforcement; the required public bidding was not followed. 2) No, the contract is void. The lease contract cannot exceed 5 years as prescribed by Section 149 (3) of BP 337. 3) The contract was grossly disadvantageous to the government not only for the term of 25 years but also for the amount of rent and that only 10% increase was allowed for the first 5 years and was silent as to the remaining years. 4) The KBMBPM failed to comply with the Health and Sanitation Clause of the subject lease agreement. II. Regarding the supposed sudden take over without due notice, there were several posters announcing the take-over. III. None of the grounds under RA 3019 (e) were proven on evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt: a. The elements of the offense charged are: i. That the accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; ii. That said public officers commit the prohibited acts during the performance of their official duties or in relation to their public positions; iii. That they cause undue injury to any party, whether the Government or a private party;

b.

iv. That such injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; v. That the public officers have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. There was no undue injury as the same KBMBPM received the contract for the management and operation of the New Muntinlupa Public Market but with a new set of duly elected officers. Thus the interests of the stallholders were never adversely affected.