G.R. No. 197142 & 197153, October 09, 2019
GIL “BOYING” R. CRUZ, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. (G.R. No. 197142)

SERAFIN N. DELA CRUZ AND DENNIS C. CARPIO, PETITIONERS, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. (G.R. No. 197153)

FACTS

A complaint for ejectment (Civil Case No. 1526) was filed before the MTC of Bulacan by plaintiffs including Maria Rosario Batongbacal against defendants-spouses Marcelo L. Del Rosario and Amelia V. Del Rosario. The MTC decided in favor of the plaintiffs, and the judgment became final and enforceable. Difficulties arose in enforcing the writs of execution and demolition, necessitating multiple alias writs. On March 5, 1993, petitioners Gil “Boying” R. Cruz (Acting Municipal Administrator), Serafin N. Dela Cruz (Municipal Mayor), and Dennis C. Carpio (Secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan and Private Secretary to the Mayor), together with Isidoro S. Mauricio and Jose A. Aspuria, allegedly prevented the enforcement of the fourth alias writ of execution and third alias writ of demolition. Atty. Mario A. Batongbacal, the husband and attorney-in-fact of a plaintiff, lodged a complaint. An Information was filed charging them with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for conspiring, with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, to obstruct and stop the execution of the court’s valid writs, causing undue injury to the complainant and giving unwarranted benefits to a certain Alex Halili. The Sandiganbayan found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioners filed consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petitions and ACQUITTED petitioners Gil “Boying” R. Cruz and Dennis C. Carpio. The Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Sandiganbayan Decision and Resolution. The case against petitioner Serafin N. Dela Cruz was DISMISSED due to his death.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of petitioners Cruz and Carpio beyond reasonable doubt. The elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 are: (1) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions; (2) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (3) his action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference.
The Court found that the second element (bad faith or manifest partiality) was not established. For Cruz, the evidence showed he was merely present at the demolition site as part of his duty to maintain peace and order, upon the sheriff’s request for police assistance. He did not issue any order to stop the demolition. For Carpio, the evidence showed he was at the municipal hall, not at the demolition site, and there was no proof he performed any act to obstruct the writs. His alleged statement to a sheriff about a “stand-off order” was hearsay. The prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to prove conspiracy among the petitioners to obstruct the court processes. The writs of execution and demolition were eventually enforced, and the building was demolished in 1995. Acquittal was ordered on the ground of reasonable doubt.