GR 150194; (March, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150194, March 6, 2007
ROBERT TAYABAN, et al. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS
Petitioners, the Municipal Mayor and Councilors of Tinoc, Ifugao, were charged with violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The case stemmed from their demolition of a half-constructed public market. The project, funded by the Cordillera Executive Board (CEB), was awarded to contractor Lopez Pugong. The Sangguniang Bayan passed Resolution No. 20, alleging the construction was not on the officially identified site, and subsequently, the petitioners personally led the demolition of the erected structures. The Information alleged they acted with evident bad faith, causing undue injury to the government, particularly the CEB.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s conviction. The Court meticulously examined the elements of the crime: (1) the accused are public officers; (2) the act was done in the discharge of their official functions; (3) they acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (4) such action caused undue injury to any party or gave unwarranted benefits. All elements were proven. Petitioners, as municipal officials, were unquestionably public officers acting in their official capacity when they passed the resolution and executed the demolition. The Court found the presence of evident bad faith. Their claim that the demolition was an exercise of police power under LOI No. 19 and due to lack of a building permit was untenable. The evidence showed the CEB, as project owner, had secured the necessary permit. The demolition was not a valid enforcement but a willful disregard of the lawful contract and the CEB’s authority, constituting a conscious wrongdoing for a dishonest purpose.
Furthermore, the element of undue injury was established. The government, through the CEB, suffered actual damage quantified at ₱134,632.80, representing the cost of the demolished structures. The Court ruled that the CEB, as the funding government entity, was the direct injured party, and its non-complaint or non-participation in the trial does not negate the injury proven through the contractor’s testimony and itemized expenses. The petitioners’ actions directly caused this pecuniary loss to the government. Thus, their conviction was upheld.