Case Digest: Fuentes vs. People, G.R. No. 186421, April 17, 2017
RA 3019 | Criminal Law
Facts:
(1) An Information was filed charging Roberto Fuentes, municipal mayor of Isabel, Leyte of violation of Article 3(e) of RA 3019 for refusing to renew private complainant Fe Valenzuela's Business Permit to engage in Ship Chandling Services. On September 15, 2006, Fuentes pleaded “not guilty” to the aforesaid charge.
(2) The prosecution alleged that private complainant Fe Valenzuela is the sole proprietor of Triple A Ship Chandling and General Maritime Services (Triple A), 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. However, Triple A’s operations were shut down when the Bureau of Customs issued a Cease and Desist Order after receiving Fuentes’ 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.
Despite securing certifications and clearances from PNP and NAPOLCOM, no Business Permit was issued for Triple A, causing: (a) the spoilage of its goods bought in early 2002 for M/V Ace Dragon as it was prohibited from boarding the said goods to the vessel due to lack of Business Permit; and (b) the suspension of its operations from 2002 to 2006. In 2007, a business permit was finally issued in Triple A’s favor.
(3) Sandiganbayan found Fuentes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to ten (10) years and six (6) months, as maximum, with perpetual disqualification from public office, and ordered to pay Valenzuela the amount of P200,000.00 as nominal damages.
Issue:
WoN Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Fuentes of the crime of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
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 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.
Held:
DENIED.
Petitioner Roberto P. Fuentes is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, entitled the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,” and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to ten (10) years and six (6) months, as maximum, with perpetual disqualification from public office, and is ordered to pay private complainant Fe Nepomuceno Valenzuela the amount of P300,000.00 as temperate damages, with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid.
The elements of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 are as follows:
- that the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions (or a private individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers);
- that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and
- that his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions.
The Court is convinced that the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Fuentes of the crime charged. 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.
Fuentes’ acts were not only committed with manifest partiality, but also with bad faith.
Fuentes himself testified that according to the rumors he heard, all five (5) 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 (2) other chandling services operators in the said port. 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.
It is clear that Valenzuela had complied with all the prerequisites for the issuance of a Business Permit for Triple A. Valenzuela even submitted numerous certifications issued by various law enforcement agencies clearing her of any kind of participation from the alleged illegal smuggling and drug trading activities in the Port of Isabel. 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. Fuentes’ belated action only in 2002 — which was done despite the clearances issued by various law enforcement agencies exonerating Valenzuela from such activities— speaks of evident bad faith which cannot be countenanced.
Fuentes’ 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. Under prevailing case law, “proof of the extent of damage is not essential, it being sufficient that the injury suffered or the benefit received is perceived to be substantial enough and not merely negligible.
Notes:
There is “manifest partiality” when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another.
On the other hand, “evident bad faith” connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes.
XXX
Under Article 2221 of the Civil Code, nominal damages are “recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind or where there has been a breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages whatsoever have been or can be shown.”
Under Article 2224, temperate or moderate damages may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be provided with certainty.
In this case, however, it is clear that Valenzuela suffered some sort of pecuniary loss due to the suspension of Triple A’s ship chandling operations, albeit the amount thereof was not proven with certainty. Temperate and not nominal damages should have been awarded, considering that it has been established that the respondent herein suffered a loss, even if the amount thereof cannot be proven with certainty.
Comments
Post a Comment