G.R. No. 186421. April 17, 2017.
ROBERTO P. FUENTES, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Roberto P. Fuentes, then Municipal Mayor of Isabel, Leyte, was charged with violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. The prosecution alleged that private complainant Fe Valenzuela, proprietor of Triple A Ship Chandling, had operated since 1993 by annually renewing her business permit. In 2002, despite Valenzuela’s compliance with all requirements and the approval of other municipal officers, Fuentes refused to sign the renewal. Fuentes issued a memorandum to port authorities alleging Valenzuela was involved in smuggling and drug trading, prompting a Cease and Desist Order that halted Triple A’s operations.
Valenzuela subsequently obtained multiple clearances from the PNP and local officials affirming her good moral character and lack of criminal record. Despite these exculpatory documents, Fuentes persisted in withholding the permit, causing the spoilage of Triple A’s goods and suspending its operations from 2002 to 2006. Fuentes defended his actions by claiming he acted on written reports about Valenzuela’s alleged illegal activities, arguing he was preventing potential public harm.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Fuentes of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s conviction. The elements of the crime are: (1) the accused is a public officer; (2) the act was done in the discharge of official functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (3) the act caused undue injury to any party. All elements were established. Fuentes, as Mayor, was a public officer who acted in his official capacity. His refusal to issue the permit constituted evident bad faith. He selectively targeted Valenzuela’s business based on unverified rumors, ignoring the official clearances she procured that disproved the allegations. His duty was to act on the basis of competent evidence, not mere speculation.
His claim of exercising discretion for public welfare was unfounded, as the clearances from law enforcement agencies negated any factual basis for his suspicions. His inaction directly caused undue injury to Valenzuela, resulting in financial loss from spoiled goods and the prolonged suspension of her legitimate business. The Court found no reason to overturn the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan, which are accorded finality. Thus, Fuentes’s conviction and the imposed penalties, including imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office, were upheld.