0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
70 Ansichten30 Seiten
This document summarizes three court cases related to liability for injuries caused by defective public works:
1. City of Manila vs Teotico - The Supreme Court ruled Manila city was liable for damages to a man who fell into an uncovered manhole, finding the city had control and supervision over the road despite arguments about conflicting laws.
2. Jimenez vs City of Manila - The court again found the city liable under Article 1189 of the Civil Code for injuries at a public market the city supervised, even though a private company managed it.
3. Municipalilty of San Fernando vs Judge Firme - The Supreme Court granted a petition by the municipality, finding it enjoyed immunity from suit based on the constitutional
This document summarizes three court cases related to liability for injuries caused by defective public works:
1. City of Manila vs Teotico - The Supreme Court ruled Manila city was liable for damages to a man who fell into an uncovered manhole, finding the city had control and supervision over the road despite arguments about conflicting laws.
2. Jimenez vs City of Manila - The court again found the city liable under Article 1189 of the Civil Code for injuries at a public market the city supervised, even though a private company managed it.
3. Municipalilty of San Fernando vs Judge Firme - The Supreme Court granted a petition by the municipality, finding it enjoyed immunity from suit based on the constitutional
This document summarizes three court cases related to liability for injuries caused by defective public works:
1. City of Manila vs Teotico - The Supreme Court ruled Manila city was liable for damages to a man who fell into an uncovered manhole, finding the city had control and supervision over the road despite arguments about conflicting laws.
2. Jimenez vs City of Manila - The court again found the city liable under Article 1189 of the Civil Code for injuries at a public market the city supervised, even though a private company managed it.
3. Municipalilty of San Fernando vs Judge Firme - The Supreme Court granted a petition by the municipality, finding it enjoyed immunity from suit based on the constitutional
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$or o# BP
R3lin4: T"e ;upreme 'ourt ru!ed in t"e a(rmati$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.
United States v. Guiseppe Gambino, Francesco Gambino, Lorenzo Mannino, Matto Romano, Salvatore Lobuglio, Salvatore Rina, Guiseppe D'amico, Salvatore D'amico, Francesco Cipriano, Pietro Candela, Salvatore Candela, Francesco Inzerillo, Joseph Larosa, Paolo D'amico, Rocco Launi, Fabrizio Tesi, Vittorio Barletta, Carmelo Guarnera, Sasha (Lnu), Giovanni Zarbano, Rosario Naimo, Emanuele Adamita and Giovanni Gambino, Salvatore Lobuglio and Salvatore D'Amico, 951 F.2d 498, 2d Cir. (1991)