ROBERTO P. FUENTES vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

ROBERTO P. FUENTES vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 186421        April 17, 2017

 

PERLAS – BERNABE, J.

FACTS:

Private complainant Fe Nepomuceno Valenzuela is the sole proprietor of Triple A Ship Chandling and General Maritime Services, which was operating in the Port of Isabel, Leyte since 1993 until 2001 through the Business Permits issued by the Local Government Unit of Isabel during the said period. However, in 2002, Fuentes, then Mayor of Isabel, refused to sign Triple A's Business Permit. Initially, Triple A was able to carry out its business despite the lack of the said Business Permit by securing temporary permits with the Port Management Office as well as the Bureau of Customs (BOC). However, Triple A's operations were shut down when the BOC issued a Cease and Desist Order after receiving Fuentes's unnumbered Memorandum alleging that Valenzuela was involved in smuggling and drug trading. This caused the BOC to require Valenzuela to secure a Business Permit from the LGU in order to resume Triple A's operations. After securing the Memorandum, Valenzuela wrote to Fuentes pleading that she be issued a Business Permit, but the latter's security refused to receive the same.

 

In his defense, Fuentes averred that as early as 1999, 2000, and 2001, he has been hearing rumors that Valenzuela was engaged in illegal activities such as smuggling and drug trading, but he did not act on the same. However, in 2002, he received written reports from the Prime Movers for Peace and Progress and Isabel Chief of Police Tamse allegedly confirming the said rumors, which prompted him to hold the approval of Valenzuela's Business Permit for Triple A, and to issue the unnumbered Memorandum addressed to port officials and the BOC. Fuentes maintained that if he went on with the approval of such permit and the rumors turned out to be true, many will suffer and will be victimized; on the other hand, if the rumors were false, then only one stands to suffer. The Sandiganbayan found that the prosecution had established all the elements of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019.

ISSUE:

Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Fuentes of the crime of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019.

RULING:

Yes. After a judicious review of the case, the Court is convinced that the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Fuentes of the crime charged, as will be explained hereunder.

Anent the first element, it is undisputed that Fuentes was a public officer, being the Municipal Mayor of Isabel, Leyte at the time he committed the acts complained of.

As to the second element, it is worthy to stress that the law provides three modes of commission of the crime, namely, through "manifest partiality", "evident bad faith", and/or "gross negligence." In Coloma, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, the Court defined the foregoing terms as follows: "Partiality" is synonymous with "bias" which "excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are." "Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud." "Gross negligence has been so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property."

In the instant case, Fuentes's acts were not only committed with manifest partiality, but also with bad faith. As can be gleaned from the records, Fuentes himself testified that according to the rumors he heard, all five ship chandlers operating in the Port of Isabel were allegedly involved in smuggling and drug trading. Yet, it was only Valenzuela's chandling operations through Triple A that was refused issuance of a Business Permit, as evidenced by Business Permits issued to two other chandling services operators in the said port. Moreover, if Fuentes truly believed that Valenzuela was indeed engaged in illegal smuggling and drug trading, then he would not have issued Business Permits to the latter's other businesses as well. However, and as aptly pointed out by the Sandiganbayan, Fuentes issued a Business Permit to Valenzuela's other business, Gemini Security, which provides security services to vessels in the Port of Isabel. Under these questionable circumstances, the Court is led to believe that Fuentes's refusal to issue a Business Permit to Valenzuela's Triple A was indeed committed with manifest partiality against the latter, and in favor of the other ship chandling operators in the Port of Isabel.

As regards the issue of bad faith, while it is within the municipal mayor's prerogative to suspend, revoke, or refuse to issue Business Permits pursuant to Sections 1623 and 444 (b) (3) (iv) of the Local Government Code as an incident of his power to issue the same, it must nevertheless be emphasized that: (a) the power to suspend or revoke is premised on the violation of the conditions specified therein; and (b) the power to refuse issuance is premised on non-compliance with the pre-requisites for said issuance. In the exercise of these powers, the mayor must observe due process in that it must afford the applicant or licensee notice and opportunity to be heard. Here, it is clear that Valenzuela had complied with all the prerequisites for the issuance of a Business Permit for Triple A, as her application already contained the prior approval of the other concerned officials of the LGU. Despite these, Fuentes still refused to issue a Business Permit for Valenzuela's Triple A without affording her an opportunity to controvert the rumors against her. Worse, he even issued the unnumbered Memorandum which effectively barred Triple A from conducting its ship chandling operations without a Business Permit.

Anent the third and last element, suffice it to say that Fuentes's acts of refusing to issue a Business Permit in Valenzuela's favor, coupled with his issuance of the unnumbered Memorandum which effectively barred Triple A from engaging in its ship chandling operations without such Business Permit, caused some sort of undue injury on the part of Valenzuela.