366 Phil. 345
PURISIMA, J.:
"That on or about August 1988, in the Municipality of Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused all public officers being the Mayor (Ignacio R. Bunye), Vice Mayor (Jaime D. Fresnedi), Municipal Attorney (Victor C. Aguinaldo), Municipal Councilors (Carlos C. Tensuan, Alejandro L. Martinez, Epifanio A. Espeleta, Rey E. Bulay, Lucio B. Constantino, Roman E. Niefes, Nemesio Q. Mozo, Rufino J. Joaquin, Nolasco L. Diaz and Roger C. Smith, Barangay Chairman of Putatan (Rufino Ibe) and Barangay Chairman of Alabang (Nestor Santos), all in the municipality of Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, said accused while in the performance of their official functions in conspiracy with one another and taking advantage of their official positions, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously enact Kapasiyahan Bilang 45 on August 1, 1988, and on the basis thereof, forcibly took possession of the New Public Market in Alabang, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, and thereafter took over the operation and management of the aforesaid public market starting August 19, 1988, despite the fact that, there was a valid and subsisting lease contract executed on September 2, 1985 for a term of 25 years, renewable for another 25 years, between the Municipality of Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, represented by the former Municipal Mayor Santiago Carlos, Jr. and the Kilusang Bayan sa Paglilingkod ng mga Magtitinda sa Bagong Pamilihang Bayan ng Muntinlupa, Inc. (Kilusang Magtitinda, for brevity), a Cooperative, represented by its General Manager then, Amado G. Perez, and despite also the warnings from COA Chairman Domingo and MMMC Governor Cruz `that appropriate legal steps be taken by the MMC toward the rescission/annulment of the contract xxx to protect the interest of the Government,' and `x x x to evaluate thoroughly and study further the case to preclude possible damages of financial liabilities which the Court may adjudge against that municipality as an off-shoot of the case, which forcible take-over had caused undue injury to the aforesaid Cooperative members, and in effect, the herein accused themselves, unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of their official functions as aforesaid, through evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, considering that, the Cooperative members had introduced improvements, including the construction of the `KBS' Building, RR Section-Phases I and II, asphalting of the roads surrounding the market place, and for the purpose, the cooperative had invested Thirteen Million Four Hundred Seventy Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Pesos (P13,479,900.00) in connection therewith, which had been deposited in trust to the Municipal Government, and in consideration thereof, the cooperative was extended the above long term lease to manage and operate the public market and to pay a monthly rental of P35,000.00 only -- said offense having been committed by the accused in their performance of official duties."[3]On July 24,1992, petitioners interposed a Motion to Dismiss,[4] placing reliance on the September 23, 1991 Decision[5] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 16930[6] "that unless and until declared to be unconstitutional and expressly annulled" Resolution No. 45[7] "deserves the presumption of constitutionality and therefore is entitled to obedience and respect." [8]
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Ignacio Bunye y Rivera, Jaime Fresnedi y de la Rosa, Victor Aguinaldo y Duliabi, Carlos Tensuan y Gutierrez, Roman Niefes y Esporlas, Nemesio Mozo y Rillana, Rufino Joaquin y Bunye, Nolasco Diaz y Lampito, Roger Smith y de la Cruz and Rufino Ibe y Lacanilao GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the violation of Section 3, paragraph (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and each of them are hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) MONTH, as the minimum, to TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as the maximum, to indemnify, jointly and severally, the offended party, the Kilusang Bayan sa Paglilingkod Ng Mga Magtitinda ng Bagong Pamilihang Bayan ng Muntinlupa, Inc. (KBMBPM) in the amount of P13,479,900.00 as actual damages, and to pay their proportionate share of the costs of this action.With the denial of their Motion for Reconsideration,[11] petitioners found their way to this Court via the present Petition for Review on Certiorari anchored on the following submissions:
xxx
SO ORDERED."
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT'S DECISION PROCEEDS FROM THE GRAVELY ERRONEOUS PREMISE THAT A COURT ACTION IS NECESSARY IN REVOKING AND CANCELLING THE LEASE CONTRACT DATED 02 SEPTEMBER 1985 (EXHIBIT `D-5') DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT IS INDUBITABLY A VOID CONTRACT;To support its verdict of conviction under scrutiny, the Sandiganbayan ratiocinated:II.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT SHOULD HAVE RENDERED A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL SINCE KAPASIYAHAN BILANG 45 (EXHIBIT `K' and `K-1') HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHICH IS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO OBEDIENCE AND RESPECT; THUS, ALL OFFICIAL ACTS DONE PURSUANT THERETO, SUCH AS THE CHALLENGED ACTS OF THE ACCUSED-MOVANTS, ARE VALID AND LEGAL.III.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE RECORDS SHOW THAT THE ACUSED-MOVANTS DID NOT VIOLATE SECTION 3, PARAGRAPH (E) OF REPUBLIC ACTS NO. 3019, AS AMENDED (THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT), SINCE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED.
- THE ACCUSED-MOVANTS DID NOT COMMIT ANY PROHIBITED ACTS.
- NO UNDUE INJURY WAS CAUSED TO ANY PARTY.
- NO UNWARRANTED BENEFITS, ADVANTAGE OR PREFERENCE WAS GIVEN TO ANY PARTY.
- THE ACCUSED-MOVANTS DID NOT ACT WITH MANIFEST PARTIALITY, EVIDENT BAD FAITH OR GROSS INEXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE.
- THE ACCUSED-MOVANTS CLEARLY ACTED IN GOOD FAITH IN REVOKING AND CANCELLING THE LEASE CONTRACT DATED 02 SEPTEMBER 1985 (EXHIBIT `D-5') AND IN IMPLEMENTING KAPASIYAHAN BILANG 45 (EXHIBITS `K' AND `K-1').
IV.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THERE IS NO BASIS IN HOLDING THE ACCUSED-MOVANTS LIABLE FOR ACTUAL DAMAGES.
"Stripped to its barest essentials, the actuation projected by the evidence on record is very much akin to a contract of leasehold with a definite term and fixed consideration, but which the landlord unilaterally decided to revoke and cancel and thereafter physically take over the leased premises. In wanton disregard of existing laws on obligations and contracts, he bypasses the courts wherein the legal issue as to whether or not such revocation or cancellation is justified should be judicially determined.Gleanable from the aforecited ratiocination by respondent court is the crucial factual issue of whether or not the unilateral revocation of subject lease contract was effected with evident bad faith?
In the case at bar, the situation is very much worse, aggravated by the accused's wilful and deliberate disregard of pertinent legal advice and directives of the Metro Manila Commission and the Commission on Audit to take the necessary legal steps to rescind the contract of lease and which course of action was even prescribed in the grant of authority to accused Bunye in Kapasiyahan Bilang No. 45. Thus, the conspiracy to take over the management and operation of the new public market was initiated by the enactment of Resolution No. 45 on August 1, 1988, followed by the forcible take-over of the leased premises on August 19, 1988. In the implementation of the conspiracy, the accused acted clearly in evident bad faith, if not with gross inexcusable negligence, totally ignoring the rights of the officers and members of the KBMBPM arising out of a valid and subsisting lease contract which had not been bilaterally cancelled or judicially rescinded and which acts caused undue injury to said cooperative and its members."[12]
"That the term of this Contract shall be for TWENTY FIVE (25) years to commence on September 2, 1985 renewable for another twenty five (25) years unless sooner terminated and/or rescinded by the mutual agreement of the parties;Section 149, paragraph (3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337,[14] the law in force at the time of the execution of subject contract, provides:
That the GOVERNMENT and the COOPERATIVE have agreed that the latter shall pay unto the former a monthly consideration of THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND (P35,000.00)PESOS, Philippine Currency, payable in advance within the first five (5) days of every month, provided that the consideration herein agreed shall be increased by ten percent (10%) each year during the first five years only;
That the GOVERNMENT shall assist the COOPERATIVE in the maintenance of peace and order and in such other facilities as may be necessary and requested by the latter for the effective management and operation of the market;
That the COOPERATIVE shall at all times and at its exclusive expense maintain the following:
- Health and sanitation of the market in accordance with existing laws and rules and regulations and those which the GOVERNMENT shall promulgate from time to time;
- Payment of electric bills;
- Security problems and orderliness with the market premises;
- Payment of monthly dues as herein before mentioned; and
- As the sole spokesman and representative of the market vendors in the New Muntinlupa Public Market, to adapt such rules and regulations not contrary to existing laws and regulations for the successful operation and mangement of the market."
"When any ferry, market, or slaughterhouse belonging to a municipality is to be leased to a private party, it shall be awarded to the highest bidder for a period of not less than one year but not exceeding five years. The lease may be reviewed for a period not exceeding the original lease and under such terms as the sangguniang bayan may impose."Explicit in the aforecited provision of law is the requirement of public bidding before a government contract may be awarded, and the term of the contract is not to exceed five (5) years.
"Neither can the Municipality grant the exclusive privilege of fishing for a period more than five (5) years, whereas in the instant case, the period granted the Manager-Administrator was for twenty-five (25) years, renewable for another twenty-five (25) years.It may be argued that "fishery" is entirely different or distinct from "market" to warrant the application of the laws regulating the former to the latter. In the case of Municipality of San Luis vs. Ventura,[16] this Court ruled:
xxx
Since Ordinance No. 8 granted fishery privileges exclusively to the private respondent without the benefit of public bidding and for a period exceeding (5) years, the said ordinance and the contract of management executed in accordance therewith were null and void ab initio xxx."
"... [W]hen the council grants the exclusive privilege of fishery or the right to conduct a fish-breeding ground to any private property, it should do so through a public auction, letting it to the highest bidder, in the same manner as is being done in exploiting a ferry, a market, or a slaughterhouse belonging to the municipality."In its assailed Resolution, the respondent Sandiganbayan concluded that the absence of public bidding did not render the lease contract in question null and void because "the KBMBPM, being a duly-registered cooperative under P.D. No. 175, [it] is exempted from bidding requirements pursuant to Regulation No. 40 of Letter of Implementation (LOI) No. 23..."[17]
"x x xIn a letter[21] dated March 14, 1988, former COA Chairman Eufemio C. Domingo wrote:
ATTY. ALAMPAY :
Q: The other portion of Exhibit 2 that you said upon review, you concluded disadvantageous to the government was the provision thereof marked as Exhibit 2-c to the effect that the Perez Cooperative undertook to maintain the health and sanitation facilities of the public market. What specifically did you find to be irregular or compelling of redress against this provision?
WITNESS (MAYOR BUNYE):
A: One thing, the garbage are not collected on a regular basis and in our several ocular inspection, we found there were maggots under the pile of garbage and we also found out, there was sno (sic) sufficient ventilation in the market so much so that the odor inside the market sticks to the clothes of the persons inside the market and when you go out, you smell like fish and also we found out that the supply of water was inadequate. There was no running water in the wet section as a result of which, the wet section is always muddy and the remnants of the fish, the scales, the intestines of the fish are found on the floor. There was also no adequate safeguard as far as fire exists are concerned and there was only one toilet and it was ...
Q: Now, after the municipality took over the management and operation thereof specifically the Interim Market Commission, What did you do interim about these problems in the health and sanitation?
A: We took necessary corrective measures as far as water problemis (sic) concerned, the Interim Market Commission directed this over-head water tank, the IMC provided this over-head water tank and the IMC bought high speed spray so that the wet market floor could be washed on a regular basis and in order to improve the ventilation, the commission installed over-head fans and blowers so the stale could be removed regularly and toilets were constructed so that there was regular water rinsing and we provided regular persons to maintain this. We provided fire ... [extinguishers] to safeguard safety against fire. We caused the assignment of one municipal fire truck in the immediate vicinity and lastly, we have this parking area which was provided for the market goers." [20]
"...[W]e recommend that immediate appropriate legal steps be taken by the Metro Manila Commission (MMC) toward the rescission/annulment of the contract in question to protect the interest of the Government."The response of then Chairman of Metro Manila Commission Elfren S. Cruz was to the following effect: [22]
... [T]his commission hereby grants the authority to that Municipality to take the necessary legal steps for the cancellation/rescission of above cited contract and make representation, with KBMBPM for the immediate transfer/take-over of the possession, management and operation of the New Muntinlupa Market to the Municipal Government of Muntinlupa. xxx."In finding and concluding that the accused (petitioners here) acted in evident bad faith in the implementation of the aforesaid directives, the respondent court equated "legal steps" to "legal actions" so much so that the failure of petitioners to sue the Cooperative for the rescission of subject contract was adjudged by the Sandiganbayan as non-compliance with the said directives of the Metro Manila Commission (MMC) and Commission on Audit (COA).
"Corrupt Practices of Public Officers - In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:In Domingo Ingco, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan,[25] this court held that the elements of the offense charged are as follows:
x x x(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions."
That conviction must be based on evidence beyond reasonable doubt is a well-entrenched principle and doctrine in this jurisdiction. Pursuant thereto, all elements of the accusation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Failure or inability of the prosecution to substantiate any of the elements of the offense charged is fatal to the cause of the People; it renders inevitable the acquittal of the accused.
- That the accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them;
- That said public officers commit the prohibited acts during the performance of their official duties or in relation to their public positions;
- That they cause undue injury to any party, whether the Government or a private party;
- That such injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and
- That the public officers have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.