Case Digest: Reyes vs. People, G.R. Nos. 177105-06, August 4, 2010

  RA 3019 | Criminal Law 

Names	Jose Reyes - Provincial Adjudicator (DARAB) Belen Lopez Vda. de Guia Carlos de Guia Ricardo San Juan Simeon Yangco
Charge/Violation	RA 3019 3(e) - lack of competitive bidding
When	March 16, 1993 (DARAB Decision)
Where	Malolos, Bulacan (DARAB)

Facts:

(1) Belen Lopez Vda. de Guia was the registered absolute owner of two parcels of agricultural land located in Santa Barbara, Baliwag, Bulacan. On March 19, 1975, Belen’s son, Carlos de Guia, forged a deed of sale, in which he made it appear that his mother had sold the land to him. On March 20, 1975, Carlos sold the land to Ricardo San Juan. Subsequently, Ricardo mortgaged the land to Simeon Yangco.

(2) On December 20, 1975, upon learning of the transfers of her land, Belen filed an adverse claim in the Register of Deeds of Bulacan. She also filed in the then Court of First Instance of Baliwag, Bulacan a civil action for cancellation of sale, reconveyance, and damages against Carlos, Ricardo and Simeon.

(3) Thereafter, the tenants of the land, invoked their right to redeem pursuant to Section 12 of Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code). Acting thereon, Ricardo executed a deed of reconveyance in favor of the tenants.

(4) On February 20, 1986, IAC promulgated its decision declaring as null and void the deed of sale between Belen and Carlos, and declaring Ricardo as a purchaser in bad faith thus ordering him to reconvey the land.

(5) However, Belen learned that Ricardo had sold the land to the tenants through a deed of reconveyance. Belen filed in the RTC a motion to declare Ricardo and the tenants in contempt of court. On October 12, 1987, RTC held Ricardo and the tenants in contempt of court and directed them to reconvey the land to Belen and to deliver to her the share in the harvest.

(6)  On November 8, 1988, Belen filed in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) a complaint for ejectment and collection of rents against the tenants of the land.

(7) Ricardo and the tenants appealed the RTC order to the Court of Appeals. On July 6, 1989, the CA rendered its decision that the RTC correctly ordered Ricardo and the tenants to reconvey the land to Belen, but held that the RTC erred in finding Ricardo and the tenants in

contempt of court.

(8) On March 16, 1993, the petitioner Jose Reyes, as Provincial Adjudicator, rendered a

decision dismissing Belen’s complaint for ejectment and collection of rents and affirming the respective TCTs of the tenants.

(9) On May 13, 1998, the Office of the Ombudsman filed two informations in the Sandiganbayan charging the petitioner Jose Reyes:

• one with a violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, for rendering his decision favorable to the tenants, thereby ignoring and disregarding the final and executory decision of the Court of Appeals; and
• the other with usurpation of judicial functions under Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code for disregarding the final and executory decision of the Court of Appeals, by rendering a decision favoring the tenants-respondents.

Issues:

(I) WoN the petitioner was guilty of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 in rendering his

decision in DARAB case; and

(II) WoN the petitioner was guilty of usurpation of judicial functions under Article 241 of

the Revised Penal Code.

Defense:

(I) The petitioner maintains that there was no evident bad faith, manifest partiality, and gross inexcusable negligence on his part when he decided DARAB Case; that his decision therein had been solely based on what he had perceived to be in keeping with the letter and spirit of the pertinent laws; and that his decision had been rendered upon a thorough appreciation of the facts and the law;

(II) The petitioner insists that his rendition of the decision did not amount to the felony of usurpation of judicial functions.

Held:

The petitioner was correctly held guilty of and liable for violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 in rendering his decision in DARAB Case; but his conviction for usurpation of judicial functions under Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code is reversed and set aside.

(I) Elements of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, established herein:

The essential elements of the offense under Section 3 (e) are the following:

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 gross inexcusable negligence; and
3. His action caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions.

The petitioner was a public officer when he rendered his decision in DARAB Case. The petitioner had displayed manifest partiality and evident bad faith in rendering his decision, which was total and willful disregard of the final decision of Court of Appeals. His granting the tenants’ motion for execution made his partiality towards the tenants and bias against Belen that much more apparent.

Proof of the extent or quantum of damage was not essential, it being sufficient that the injury suffered or the benefit received could be perceived to be substantial enough and was not

merely negligible. Belen has been unduly deprived of her exclusive ownership and undisturbed possession of the land, and the fruits thereof. The injury and prejudice surely equated to undue injury for Belen. The petitioner’s ruling in DARAB Case gave unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference to the tenants by allowing them to remain in possession of the land and to enjoy the fruits.

Sandiganbayan correctly convicted the petitioner for violating Section 3 (e) of RA 3019.

(I) Usurpation of judicial functions

In usurpation of judicial function, the accused, who is not a judge, attempts to perform an act the authority for which the law has vested only in a judge.

However, the petitioner’s task as Provincial Adjudicator when he rendered judgment in DARAB Case was to adjudicate the claims of the opposing parties. As such, he performed a quasi-judicial function, closely akin to the function of a judge of a court of law. He could not be held liable under Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code, therefore, considering that the acts constitutive of usurpation of judicial function were lacking herein.

Notes:

REPUBLIC ACT No. 3019

ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

SEC. 3. 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:

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party 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.

Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code states:

“x x x The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correcional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any officer of the executive branch of the government who shall assume judicial powers or shall obstruct the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction.”