G.R. No. 233155-63, June 23, 2020
JOSE TAPALES VILLAROSA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The accused-petitioner, Jose Tapales Villarosa, was the Mayor of the Municipality of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. He issued extraction permits to several quarry operators, believing he had the authority to do so. The process involved the Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Officer (MENRO) evaluating applications and endorsing qualified ones to the Mayor for approval after fee payment. The Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer (PENRO), Ruben P. Soledad, issued Cease and Desist Orders (CDOs) against the operators, asserting that under Section 138 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160), the exclusive power to issue such permits lies with the Provincial Governor. Villarosa objected, contending the provincial tax ordinance implementing Section 138 was invalid due to lack of publication and that the municipal government had its own regulatory powers. Soledad filed a complaint with the Ombudsman, which subsequently filed ten Informations with the Sandiganbayan charging Villarosa with violations of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Sandiganbayan convicted Villarosa on nine counts. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court initially affirmed the conviction via minute resolution but later reinstated the case for a full review.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all elements of a violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, particularly the elements of evident bad faith and the giving of unwarranted benefits.

RULING

The Supreme Court, through the ponencia, acquitted Villarosa. The Concurring Opinion of Justice Caguioa agreed with the acquittal. The prosecution failed to prove the element of evident bad faith. The concurring opinion highlighted several instances demonstrating Villarosa’s good faith: 1) he proactively sought clarification on the CDOs; 2) he sincerely, though mistakenly, believed in his legal authority to issue the permits and raised a legitimate question on the provincial ordinance’s validity; 3) there was no showing of personal gain, and all taxes and fees were properly collected and remitted; and 4) the permit issuance followed a regular, non-surreptitious process. A violation of a non-penal law does not automatically constitute a violation of RA 3019. The mistake, while a possible subject of administrative liability, did not amount to the evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence required for criminal liability under Section 3(e) of RA 3019.