Fuentes V People

FUENTES v.
PEOPLE
ROBERTO P. FUENTES, petitioner vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent
G.R. NO. 186421
April 1, 2017
FACTS:
Private complainant Fe Nepomuceno Valenzuela (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 (LGU). However, in 2002, herein
petitioner Roberto Fuentes, then Mayor of Isabel, refused to sign Triple A's Business
Permit, despite: (a) Valenzuela's payment of the renewal fees; (b) all the other municipal
officers of the LGU having signed the same, thereby signifying their approval thereto;
and (c) a Police Clearance certifying that Valenzuela had no derogatory records in the
municipality.
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.
Valenzuela likewise obtained certifications and clearances from Isabel Chief of Police,
Barangay Captain, the Narcotics Group of Tacloban National Police Commission
(NAPOLCOM), the Philippine National Police (PNP) Isabel Police Station, and the
Police Regional Office of the PNP similarly stating that she is of good moral character, a
law- abiding citizen, and has not been charged nor convicted of any crime as per
verification from the records of the locality. Despite the foregoing, 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.
The Sandiganbayan found Fuentes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of

Article 3 (e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, entitled the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act." Aggrieved, Fuentes moved for reconsideration, which was, however,
denied by the Sandiganbayan. Hence,thispetition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Fuentes of the crime of

violation of Section 3(e) of RA3019.
HELD:
Yes. Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Fuentes of the crime of violation of

Section 3(e) of RA3019.The petitionis without merit.
Section 3(e) of RA 3019 states:
Section3.Corrupt practices of public officers.- In addition toacts
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:
xxxx
(e)Causing any undue injury to any party, including the

Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefit,
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.
As may be gleaned above, the elements of violation of Section 3 ( e) of RA 3019

are as follows: (a) 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); (b) that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable
negligence; and (c) 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.
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 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 (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, namely: S.E. De Guzman
Ship Chandler and General Maritime Services; and Golden Sea Kers Marine Services.
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.
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. Undeniably, such suspension of Triple A's ship chandling
operations prevented Valenzuela from engaging in an otherwise lawful endeavor for the
year 2002. To make things worse, Valenzuela was also not issued a Business Permit
for the years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, as it was only in 2007 that such permit was
issued in Triple A's favor. 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."
Hence, in view of the foregoing, Fuentes committed a violation of Section 3 (e) of

RA3019,and hence, must be held criminally liable therefor.

Fuentes V People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fuentes V People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fuentes V People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FUENTES v.

Private complainant Fe Nepomuceno Valenzuela (Valenzuela) is the sole

The Sandiganbayan found Fuentes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Fuentes of the crime of

Yes. Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Fuentes of the crime of violation of

(e)Causing any undue injury to any party, including the

As may be gleaned above, the elements of violation of Section 3 ( e) of RA 3019

Hence, in view of the foregoing, Fuentes committed a violation of Section 3 (e) of

You might also like