Sandiganbayan SB Decisions/SB-13...REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Sandiganbayan QUEZON CITY SPF.riAT,...

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SandiganbayanQUEZON CITY

SPF.riAT, SEVFNTH niVTSTON

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

Criminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-

0596

-versus-

EDWIN GRANADA REYES,

RITA POTESTAS DOMINGO,SOLOMON ANORE DE

CASTILLA, and GILCURAMENG ANDRES.*

Accused.

Present:

Gomez-Estoesta, J., ChairpersonTrespeses, J. andJacinto, J.**

Promulgated:,

X

DECISION

GOMEZ-ESTOESTA, J.;

On December 14, 2009, accused Edwin Granada Reyes, formerMunicipal Mayor of Bansalan, Davao del Sur, issued a Mayor's Permitallowing the sale of firecrackers in the Bansalan Public Market. Unfortunately,disaster struck on December 27, 2009, when a display of fireworks for salewas accidentally ignited by a cigarette butt,^ which quickly grew to a roaringblaze that utterly consumed Building No. 2 of the Bansalan Public Market,including the nearby stalls within its premises.^

This incident jump started the filing of a complaint against accusedEdwin Granada Reyes for his issuance of the Mayor's Permit because therewas a standing prohibition by Municipal Ordinance No. 357 enacted in 2005against the sale of firecrackers (^^pabutd*^ in Bisaya) within the premises ofthe buildings of the public market.

fr* At-large** Designated Special Member of the Seventh Division as per Administrative Order No. 284-2017 datedAugust 18,2017

'Exhibit "KK"

2 Records, Vol. 1, p. 71

People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al.Criminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION

2|P age

While preliminary investigation was pending before the DeputyOmbudsman for Mindanao, Office of the Ombudsman, it was ordered that thefollowing persons be included in the charges as their respective signaturesappeared on the same Mayor's Permit issued by accused Reyes:

Name of Accused Position Held

Rita Potestas Domingo Business Permits and LicensingOfficer

Police Superintendent SolomonA. De Castilla

Chief of Police, Municipality ofBansalan

Gil Curameng Andres Fire Marshal, Bansalan FireStation

Finding probable cause to indict the accused for "Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Office of the Ombudsman filed anInformation on May 3, 2013, charging that:

On 14 December 2009, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, inthe Municipality of Bansalan, Davao del Sur, Philippines, and within thejurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, EDWINGRANADA REYES, RITAPOTESTAS DOMINGO, SOLOMON ANOREDE CASTILLA, GIL CURAMENG ANDRES, public officers being thenthe Mayor, Permits and Licensing Officer Designate, Chief of Police, andFire [Marshal], respectively, of the Municipality of Bansalan, while in thedischarge of their official fhnctions, conspiring and confederating with oneanother, with evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or at the very least, grossinexcusable negligence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, andcriminally give unwarranted benefit to a group of firecracker vendors byapproving and issuing them a mayor's permit 'to sell firecrackers onDecember 21, 2009 to January 1, 2010 at Public Market, Bansalan, Davaodel Sur" despite fully knowing the existence of a municipal ordinanceexpressly prohibiting the storing, displaying, selling and blowing-up offirecrackers at the Bansalan Public Market and the non-issuance of therequisite Fire Safety Inspection Certificate (FSIC) to the firecrackervendors, thereby giving the said firecracker vendors the unwarranted benefitand advantage of holding the business of selling firecrackers at the BansalanPublic Market.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

A Hold Departure Order^ was issued by this Court on May 6, 2013.

Upon arraignment on September 10, 2013, accused Rita PotestasDomingo ["accused Domingo"] and P/Supt. Solomon Anore De Castilla["accused De Castilla"],^ assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty.^ AccusedEdwin Granada Reyes ["accused Reyes"], assisted by counsel, wassubsequently arraigned on June 29,2015, and pleaded not guilty.^ On the otherhand, accused Gil Curameng Andres ["accused Andres"] remains at-largeto the present time.

i3 Id. at 124

Also referred to as "Solomon Anore de Castilla"^ Records, Vol. 1, p. 290Mat Vol. 2, p. 143

3 I P 3 2 cPeople V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al. i &Criminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION _ ■

Following the conclusion of the preliminary conference, pre-trial wasconducted on February 9, 2016. Subsequently, the Court issued a Pre-TrialOrder,^ which contained the following stipulations agreed upon by theparties:^

II

STIPULATIONS OF FACT

1. The accused are public officers at the time material to this case:

a. Accused Edwin Granada Reyes was the Municipal Mayor ofBansalan, Davao [d]el Sur;

b. Accused Rita Potestas Domingo was the designated Permits andLicensing Officer and was the Local Operations Officer I; and

c. Accused Solomon Anore De Castilla was the Chief of Police ofBansalan, Davao [d]el Sur.

2. Accused Reyes, Domingo and De Castilla are the same accused whopleaded not guilty to the offense charged when arraigned;

3. Accused Reyes approved and issued the application for a mayor's permitallowing the applicant-vendors to sell firecrackers at the Bansalan [Pjublic[M]arket, or Exhibit "B" for the prosecution (Common Exhibit, Exhibit "6"for the Defense);

4. Accused De Castilla and Domingo recommended the approval of theMayor's Permit, or Exhibit "B" for the prosecution; and

5. Existence of the following:

a. Resolution No. 332, s. of 2005, dated 21 November 2005 AdoptingMunicipal Ordinance No. 357, consisting of 3 pages, or Exhibit "E"for the prosecution (Common Exhibit, Exhibit "5" for the Defense);and

b. Municipal Ordinance No. 357, as embodied in Resolution No. 332,AMENDING THE CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THEMUNICIPALITY OF BANSALAN BY PROVIDINGADDITIONAL ARTICLE 16 OF CHAPTER VI PUBLIC SAFETYPROHIBITING THE STORAGE, DISPLAY, SELLING ANDBLOWING-UP ("PAGPABUTO") OF THOSE PYROTECHNICSPRODUCTS ALLOWED BY LAW WITHIN THE PREMISES OFPUBLIC BUILDINGS NO. 1 AND 2, THIS MUNICIPALITY, orExhibit "E-1" for the prosecution (Common Exhibit, Exhibit "5" forthe defense).

Trial thereafter ensued.

'/f/. at 340-349

® The same admitted facts are incorporated in the parties' Joint Stipulation of Facts (Records, Vol. 2, pp. 314-316)

' a * People v. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al. 41P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION

EVTDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

In support of its case, the prosecution presented the followingwitnesses:

1. Arnel M. Gallardo ["Gallardo"] former Councilor of theMunicipality of Bansalan from 2001 to 2010. Gallardo identified MunicipalOrdinance No. 357^ dated November 21, 2005 which read:

XXX

AMENDING THE CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THEMUNICIPALITY OF BANSALAN BY PROVIDING ADDITIONALARTICLE 16 OF CHAPTER VI PUBLIC SAFETY PROHIBITING THESTORAGE, DISPLAY, SELLING AND BLOWING-UP ("PAGPABUTO")OF THOSE PYROTECHNICS PRODUCTS ALLOWED BY LAWWITHIN THE PREMISES OF PUBLIC MARKET BUILDINGS NO. 1AND 2, THIS MUNICIPALITY

I

BE IT ORDAINED bv the Sanggimiang Bavan of the Municipality ofBansalan. Province of Davao del Sur in session assembled:

Section 1. Amendments to Chapter VI of the Code of GeneralOrdinance of the Municipality of Bansalan by providing additional Article16, to read as follows:

ARTICLE 16. Prohibition Against the Storage, Display, Selling, andBlowing-Up ("Pagpabuto") of those Pyrotechnics Products and theLikes Allowed by Law Within the Public Market Building Nos. 1and 2 Premises.

Section 1. Prohibition. This Ordinance prohibits for the storing,displaying, selling, and blowing-up ("pagpabuto") of thosepyrotechnics products allowed by law, commonly called as"firecrackers" or "pabuto" within the premises of buildings 1and 2 of Bansalan Public Market.

Section 2. Designated Area for Disolav and Selling. Thedesignated area for display and selling of these products is alongthe premises of Estrella Bridge through Lily Street.

Section 3. Storage. Storage of these products must be kept in safetyarea within the owner's residence which should not be fire-proneand away from food and reach of minor children. (Emphasissupplied)

XXX

Quoting a portion of the Municipal Ordinance, Gallardo explained that,''pagpabuto'' in Bisaya, means to light or ignite a firecracker, which w^ notallowed by the aforecited Ordinance if held within the premises of BuildingNos. 1 and 2 of Bansalan Public Market.^® Neither did the Ordinance allowthe sale of firecrackers within ten (10) meters of said Buildings. The

L9 Exhibit "E-l" for the prosecution; Exhibit "5" for the defense J ̂TSN dated August 24, 2016, pp. 12-13 '

"Mat 17-18

SIP 3 R CPeople V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al.Criminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION

designated area for the sale of firecrackers was at Estrella Bridge, which wasmore than sixty (60) meters away from the public market.'^

The witness disclosed that he had operated a stall inside Building No.1 selling hardware, electrical supply, and automotive parts, but his businesswas gutted by the fire that occurred on December 27, 2009. He believed thata firecracker started the blaze. Before the incident, Gallardo had witnessedthe actual sale and display of firecrackers at the steps of the building of thepublic market.^ "^However, he did not report the violation thereof to the properauthorities because the firecracker vendors had been given a permit by theMayor, and at that time, the Council was on recess a few weeks prior to theend of 2009.

Gallardo remembered that accused Reyes was the newly appointedMayor of Bansalan in 2007. Previous to the fire incident, Gallardo learnedfrom the Chief of Security of the public market that firecrackers had explodedinside the ̂ ^bularan" (in Bisaya, dried fish) section in Christmas of 2007.^^This prompted Gallardo to proceed to the public market where he informedthe firecracker vendors that the storage and sale of said goods is prohibitedpursuant to Municipal Ordinance No. 357. Gallardo then caused theconfiscation of the firecrackers.^^ When accused Reyes learned of thisincident, he met with Gallardo and conveyed that he was unsatisfied with thelatter's actions.

On cross-examination, Gallardo clarified that the Ordinance itself didnot mention that the sale of firecrackers must be at a 10-meter distance fromthe public market.^^ He estimated that the distance between the public marketto Estella Bridge, which is the designated area for the sale of firecrackers, isabout thirty (30) to forty (40) steps.^^

A

On re-direct examination, Gallardo expounded that what he meant bythe "10-meter distance" is the distance from the public market to the adjacentparking space which is used by buses and vehicles of the market vendors.^^He estimated that the distance from the public market to Estrella Bridge istwenty (20) meters.^^ Gallardo admitted that he misinterpreted the questionsasked regarding the locations and distances, hence the discrepancies in theanswers he gave.

2. Paul Jocson Arches ["Arches"], former General Manager ofBansalan Water District from 1978 until September 2012.

t/atl8 if

at 26-32

Id at 34-36

'5/fiat; Exhibit "B"TSN dated August 25,2016, pp. 9-10

"Id at \Q-\\

'8/f/. at 12-15

"Id at22

20/t/. at25

2'M at 31-32

22 W. at 32

6 I P 3 S 6People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al.Criminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION

On December 27, 2009, Arches was in Davao City when he received acall that a fire broke out in the Bansalan Public Market. He immediatelyrushed to Bansalan which was one (1) hour and thirty (30) minutes away.^^

Prior to the fire. Arches recalled that there were vendors sellingfirecrackers right in front of Building No. 1 at Bansalan Public Market. Infact, the firecrackers for sale were displayed in such a way that they coveredthe fire hydrant. About five (5) days before the blaze. Arches alreadycomplained to the Manager of the public market about the selling offirecrackers, but he was shown a Mayor's Permit^^ which justified the sale offirecrackers in front of the public market.^^ Not satisfied. Arches eventuallyfiled a Complaint-Affidavit^'' before the Office of the Ombudsman naming asrespondents accused Reyes (Mayor) and the other officers who recommendedapproval of the Mayor's Permit, namely: accused Andres (Fire Marshal), andaccused De Castilla (Police Chief). He then went through the procedure of thefiling of replies to the counter-affidavits of the accused, among others.

On cross-examination. Arches averred that firecrackers had been soldeven prior to the enactment oiMunicipal Ordinance No. 357, but this usuallytook place in the park, not in the public market.^® Further, he disclosed that hehad filed other cases against accused Reyes.^^

On re-direct examination. Arches clarified that, in December just priorto the fire incident, firecrackers were being sold right in front or adjacent toBuilding No. 1 of the Bansalan Public Market.^®

3. Rafael Bueno Arabis ["Arabis'^, resident of Bansalan andformer Fire Marshal of the Municipality of Matanao, Davao del Sur. As FireMarshal, his duties included investigating the cause(s), damage, and estimatedvalue of properties destroyed by fire, and issuing Fire Safety InspectionCertificates, which were required to be secured by prospective businessowners if the place of business was in a permanent structure. A fire safetyinspection, including the report prepared by the inspector, was required for theissuance of a Fire Safety Inspection Certificate.^' Even transient vendors, suchas those who merely displayed their wares on tables, would still be requiredto undergo a fire safety inspection.^^ AFire Safety Inspection Certificate wasvalid for one year,^^ and when necessary, periodic inspections may be carriedout even after the issuance of said Certificate.^''

On December 27, 2009, Arabis' station responded to a distress callinvolving a fire at the Bansalan Public Market. Upon his arrival at the scene,

TSN dated November 23,2016, pp. 11-12 y *2" W. at 14

25 Exhibit "B" /26 tsN dated November 23,2016, p. 15,22 i

22 Exhibit "A"

2' TSN dated November 23,2016, p. 3129 Mat 35

20 Mat 37-38

2' TSN dated August 25,2016, pp. 45-4622 Mat 47-48

22 Mat 49

24 Ibid

7 I P 3 & 6People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al.Criminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION

Arabis estimated that the fire had already damaged about eighty percent (80%)of the property, which had spread quickly because the structures were madeof light materials and the goods stored were dry goods.^^ The following dayafter the blaze was extinguished, Arabis heard from his neighbors that the firewas caused by the iîtion of firecrackers.^^

Thereafter, there was a gathering of the municipal fire marshals fromall over the whole Davao del Sur to discuss strategic planning. In attendanceat the meeting was accused Andres, the Fire Marshal/Chief of Bansalan FireStation. Arabis allegedly heard from accused Andres that the latter has neverissued a Fire Safety Inspection Certificate to the pyrotechnic vendors becausethe structures at the market were found to be a fire hazard.^^

On cross-examination, Arabis affirmed that he would routinely pass byBansalan Public Market on his commute to work at the Matanao Fire Station.He had seen firecrackers being sold at Bansalan Public Market, but he did notcall the attention of the authorities.^®

On re-direct examination, Arabis explained that he did not feel the needto call authorities about the sale of firecrackers at the public market becausethe area was frequently patrolled by fire prevention inspectors.^^ He observedthat firecrackers would usually be offered for sale at the Bansalan PublicMarket in December. He admitted that the firecrackers contained somehazardous materials."^^

In neighboring Matanao, there was an ordinance similar to MunicipalOrdinance No. 357 prohibiting the sale of firecrackers within the premises ofthe public market,"^' and that the sale thereof was permitted only in adesignated area which was at Matanao Plaza."*^

4. Leopoldo E. Quimson ["Quimson"] Acting Fire Marshal,Bansalan Fire Station. Part of Quimson's official duties was to issue FireSafety Inspection Certificates, which required conducting a fire safetyinspection pursuant to Section 9 of Republic Act No. 9514.^^ In 2009, six (6)certificates were issued from the months of January to June,'^^ whereas nonewas issued from July to December.'^^

On cross-examination, Quimson disclosed that he was not connectedwith the Bansalan Fire Station in 2009. The Bureau of Fire Protection ("BFP")regularly conducted fire safety inspections on buildings, especially during theholiday season."^^

«W.at55 r/'36 Ibid y3'Mat 62-63 f

Id. at 61

39Mat70

Mat 71

Id at 74

"2 Id at 73; R.A. 9514 is captioned, "Fire Code of the Philippines of 2008"'•3 TSN dated November 24,2016, pp. 4-5 f^ Id at!^3 Ibid

^•6 Id at 11

People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al.Criminal Case No. SB-I3-CRM-0596DECISION

8 IP a g e

5. Vendors who had operated their respective stalls at the BansalanPublic Market; namely,

Rey Philip G. Tambis

Silveria S. Arguelles

Teresita R. Villacastin

Amelita Dy

Ma. Elena Gabuya

Josefina Tambis

Bambie P. Garote

Grace Segura

The abovementioned witnesses executed their respective JudicialAffidavits,"^^ the existence, due execution, and authenticity of which, as wellas the Certifications attached thereto, were admitted by the defense. Thesalient points revealed by the witness-vendors were:

In the month of December 2009, firecrackers were displayed for salewithin the parking lot which was just outside Building No. 1 of the publicmarket.^^ In fact, during trial, the defense admitted that firecracker vendorswere selling their goods outside of said building, specifically within theparking area.^^ It was further the subject of the parties' stipulations that thefire at the Bansalan Public Market on December 27, 2009 razed the stalls andthe stored goods of the respective witness-vendors. No stipulation was madeas to the amount of damage home by each of said vendors as a result of theblaze.^®

Each of the vendors, however, would claim in their respective JudicialAffidavits that their "dafios" amounted to:

Name of witness Damages (in Pesos)

Rey Philip G. Tambis 600,000.00

Silveria S. Arguelles 100,000.00

Teresita R. Villacastin 500,000.00

Amelita Dy 900,000.00

Ma. Elena Gabuya 350,000.00

Josefina Tambis 300,000.00

Bambie P. Garote 500,000.00

Grace Segura 350,000.00

I/•r

The prosecution nonetheless marked its witnesses' judicial affidavits as part of its documentary exhibits(Exhibits "K", "L", "M", "N", "P", "T". "W", and "X")TSN dated April 4,2017, p. 13Mat 20, 59-60TSN dated April 4,2017 (afternoon), pp. 7-9, 13-15,20-23,26-27, 30-31

People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al.Criminal Case No. SB-I3-CRM-0596DECISION

9|P a g e

No receipts, however, were presented to attest to the claim of damagesother than a Certification attached to their judicial affidavits stating that eachof said vendors was a "fire victim."

6. Hilario Cortez ["Cortez"] former Operations and MaintenanceOfficer of Bansalan Water District. On December 27,2009, Cortez was at theBansalan Public Market checking the potable water facilities, where he sawmany firecrackers displayed for sale within the public area of Building No.1.5^

Cortez remarked that the response of the firetruck of Bansalan was slowbecause the truck was only half-loaded with water; the other half of its waterhad just been unloaded at the nearby slaughterhouse. In fact, it was a commonpractice that the firetruck would routinely unload water at theslaughterhouse.^^

On cross-examination, Cortez said that from where he stood at the timehe saw the firetruck three hundred (300) meters away, he could not actuallysee the water level of the truck.^^.He himself had witnessed the fire, in whichthe response time of BFP officials took thirty (30) minutes.^"^ The fire startedoutside the building of the public market where the firecrackers weredisplayed for sale.^^

Following the presentation of its witnesses, the prosecution formallyoffered its documentary exhibits listed below:^^

Exhibit Document Description

"A" to "A-1" Complaint-Affidavit of Paul Jocson Arches

"B" to "B-5" Mayor's Permit

"C" to"C-l" Affidavit of Rafael B. Arabis

«D»» Photos of hydrants

«E" Resolution No. 332, S. 2005

"E-1" to "E-

2"

Municipal Ordinance No. 357

to "F-1" Photos

«G" Affidavit of Hilario M. Cortez

"H" to "H-2" Reply to Counter-Affidavit of Edwin G. Reyes«I" to "1-2" Reply to Counter-Affidavit of Rita P. Domingo" J" to "J-2" Reply to Counter-Affidavit of Solomon A. De Castilla

«K" Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Elena Gabuya

"K-1" to "K-

2"

Certification dated August 22, 2013 issued by BFP-Bansalan FireStation

«L" Judicial Affidavit of Grace H. Segura

"L-1" Certification dated February 2, 2010 issued by BFP-Bansalan FireStation

at 37

at40

"/fiat 43-44

5^^/. at 47-48M at 48-51

5® The following Exhibits were not offered: "O'"Y" to "HH"

to "0-1"; "Q" to "Q-l"; "U" to "U-l"; "V" to "V-1"; and


101 P a g e

"M" Judicial Affidavit of Amelita Dy

"M-1" Certification dated January 12, 2010 issued by BFP-Bansalan FireStation

Judicial Affidavit of Rey Philip G. Tambis"N-1" Certification dated February 5, 2010 issued by BFP-Bansalan Fire

Station(tpn Judicial Affidavit of Bambie P. Garrote

"P-1" Certification dated February 9, 2011 issued by BFP-Bansalan FireStation

Judicial Affidavit of Leonardo B. Gabuya

"R-1" to "R-

2"


"S", "S-2" to"S-3"

Judicial Affidavit of Amel Gallardo

Certification dated May 6,2013 issued by BFP-Bansalan Fire Station"S-4" to "S-4-

r

Sketch Map of Bansalan Public Market

Judicial Affidavit of Josefina Tambis

«T-1" to "T-

2"


«W" Judicial Affidavit of Silveria S. Arguelles

"W-1" Certification dated January 29, 2010 issued by BFP-Bansalan FireStation

«X" Judicial Affidavit of Teresita R. Villacastin

"X-1" to "X-

2"


«ii" to "n-2" List of issued Fire Safety Inspection Certificates calendar year 2009

In its Resolution" dated June 22, 2017, the Court admitted all of theoffered exhibits of the prosecution except Exhibits "F" and "F-1".

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

In refutation of the charge, the defense presented the followingwitnesses:

1. Menang Mangotara ["Mangotara"], vendor of firecrackersfrom December 21, 2009 up to January 2010. She sold her goods on a smalltable on the roadside of Macrucis^^ Street. She initially said that she was notissued any permit relative to her business.^^

On cross-examination, Mangotara estimated that the distance fromViacrucis Street to Building No. 2 of Bansalan Public Market is similar to thelength from where she sat on the witness stand to the back of the courtroom.Mangotara revealed that she had paid for and had obtained a BarangayClearance, Police Clearance, and a Fire Safety Inspection Certificate, but the

Records, Vol. 3, pp. 352-354Referred to as "Viacruzis" or "Viacrusis'

59 tSN dated September 18,2017, pp. 8-9^ Id atll

, 111 P a g ePeople V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al.Criminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION

latter document had been consumed by the fire.^^ She even secured a Mayor sPermit.^^

2. Accused Rita Potestas Domingo ["accused Domingo"],presently the Office-In-Charge ("OIC") of the Office of the MunicipalTreasurer, Bansalan, Davao del Sur. She had been reassigned^^ to the BusinessPermits License Office of the Office of the Mayor and was designated asPermits and Licensing Officer in 2008.^^ During her stint as Permits andLicensing Officer, she prepared permits upon the applicant s submission ofrequired documents and payment of fees.^^

In 2009, accused Domingo prepared a Mayor's Permit^'^ for the sale offirecrackers at Bansalan Public Market. In general, business owners mustcomply with the following requisites to be entitled to the issuance of aMayor's Permit:^^

• Barangay Clearance;

• Police Clearance; and

• an official receipt showing full payment to the MunicipalTreasurer's Office.

In addition, applicants should show proof that they paid for thePhilippine National Police ("PNP") provisional permit to sell firecrackers, andthat they have attended the requisite seminar/briefing regarding the displayand selling of pyrotechnics.^^ The permit allowing the sale of firecrackers atthe Bansalan F^blic Market was supported by the required documents.^®

Accused Domingo identified the signatures of co-accused De Castillaand Andres appearing on the Mayor's Permit as she was familiar with them.^^Their signatures were significant because they would show that the applicantshave complied with the requirements of the PNP and BFP, respectively.^^

The location indicated by the Mayor's Permit for the sale of firecrackerswas the Bansalan Public Market. The actual area where firecrackers had beensold was beside Viacrucis Street, which was more or less ten (10) meters fromthe buildings of the public market.^^ Technically speaking, the extent of themarket premises was defined by the Code of General Ordinance of theMunicipality of Bansalan^"^ as "all of the municipal streets highway firomCurvada to UM Bansalan College and fi*om the west side starting boundary of

6' Id. at 12

" Id at 14

"Exhibit "9"

Exhibit "10"

66 TSN dated September 19,2017, pp. 9-1066/^/. atlO

6'Exhibit "12" % •6® TSN dated September 19,2017, pp. 12-13 ' ̂69/t/. atl4 ^'»Matl3

Mat 17

at 18-19

^Îd at 21,23'4 Exhibit "14"

12 I P 3 s cPeople V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al.Criminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION

Barangay Tubod, Barangay Buenavista, and Barangay Mabunga. And in theeast side of the Municipality from the boundary of Barangay Rizal, BarangayNew Clarin, and to the place of Gutierrez in Lower Curvada."^^

Accused Domingo then identified the signatures of officials who issuedcertified machine copies of Exhibits "7" to "11" and "14", and she affirmedthat she duly executed the Counter-Affidavit that she had submitted to theOffice of the Ombudsman in connection with this case.''^

On cross-examination, accused Domingo stated that her function inpassing upon Mayor's Permits was limited. In the approval process flow, shewas third-in-line to sign permits. The application would first be routed throughthe heads of the PNP and BFP.^^ Accused Domingo was not aware ofMunicipal Ordinance No. 357 because she was, at the time of its enactment in2005, connected with the Office of the Municipal Treasurer.^^ In explainingwhy she was not so well-versed with the ordinances of Bansalan, sheexplained that there was no proper turnover of documents and records whenshe had been designated as Permits and Licensing Officer in 2008.^^

In evaluating applications for the issuance of Mayor's Permits, accusedDomingo limited herself to a checklist of the documentary requirementssubmitted by applicants.^® If a required item was missing, she would notprepare the permit, whereas if the requirements were complete, then theissuance of a permit was in order. Accused Domingo was fairly certain thatshe checked the attachments for compliance with the Fire Safety InspectionCertificate.®^

In the Business Permits License Office, there were only two officials:accused Domingo and a staff member named Gregorio Pabingwit.®^

3. Accused P/Supt. Solomon Anore De Castilla ["accused DeCastilla"] currently assigned at Police Regional Office 7, Cebu. Accused DeCastilla has held various assignments since joining the PNP in June 1995. In2009, he was OIC of Bansalan Police Station and had several responsibilities,among which were to approve and/or recommend the issuance of a Mayor sPermit.

Part of the requirements to obtain his signature recommending theissuance of a Mayor's Permit were:®^

• applicant should undergo the seminar regarding relevant laws (e.g.regulations on firecrackers) held at the Provincial Police Office; and

• payment atLandbank.

TSN dated September 19,2017, pp. 20-21at 24-25

Id at 34

'8 Id at 35

''Îd at 36

^ Id at 36-31

at41

82 Mat 38

82 TSN dated November 16,2017, pp. 13-14

131P 3 ^People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al.Criminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION

After securing the signature of accused De Castilla, the next step wasto proceed to the Office of the Fire Marshal of Bansalan.®"^

On cross-examination, accused De Castilla disclosed that he issuedPolice Clearances.^^ On affixing his signature recommending the issuance ofa Mayor's Permit, he certified that the applicant had complied with all of therequirements of the PNP.®^ Even after a Mayor's Permit was issued, accusedDe Castilla assigned police units to monitor the vehicle terminals at the publicmarket. These officers were responsible for ensuring that people would notbring illegal merchandise inside the public market buildings.^^

4. Arnel Parilla Martel ["Martel"] former Traffic Enforcer from2007 to December 2015, whose area of operations encompassed the BansalanPublic Market.

Using a sketch map and pictures®^ of his area of responsibility, Marteldescribed that: there were firecrackers being sold outside the Bansalan PublicMarket in the area of \riacrucis Street;^^ the alleys and pathways at the publicmarket measured 2.5 meters wide; and the parking space was 7.8 meterswide.^®

He went on to identify pictures of the area taken in August 2015,^*which were taken by his co-employee Traffic Enforcer Damlo Curillo.^^

It was clarified that the firecrackers were displayed along ViacrucisStreet which was just across Building No. 1 of the public market,^^ and thedistance between Aese locations was more or less twelve (12) meters.^"^

5. Accused Edwin Granada Reyes ["accused Reyes"] currentlyVice Mayor of Bansalan, Davao del Sur.

In 2009, accused Reyes was Mayor and had issued a Mayor's Permit^^for the sale of firecrackers at the public market. He allowed vendors to sellfirecrackers outside the public market, specifically at the shoulder of ViacrucisStreet,^^ which was more or less ten (10) meters from the edge of the publicmarket. He corroborated the requirements which applicants must produce inorder to secure a Mayor's Permit. He also reiterated that about twenty (20)persons had applied for permits.^^

t8^ W. at 15

Ûd.^t.10 JWat 25-26

"Wat 26-27

88 Exhibits "3" and "4"

8' TSN dated November 17,2017, p. 10'OW. atll

" Id. at 17

'2 Wat 12-15

Îdatll

Id at 30

Exhibit "6" for the defense; Exhibit "B" for the prosecution'6 TSN dated January 31,2018, p. 14" Id at 16

98 W at 22-23

14 I P 8 & 6People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et ai.Criminal Case No. SB-i3-CRM-0596DECISION _ ^

From December 21, 2009 to January 1, 2010, accused Fire MarshalAndres recommended the approval of the issuance of a Mayor s Permit. Hedid this by affixing his signature above his name "Recommending Approval ,in the same Mayor's Permit, not through a separate document.

In 2007, in the same year that he was elected as Mayor, accused Reyesremembered that there was an incident wherein firecrackers were blown upinside Bansalan Public Market.^^^ In 2007, however, no one had applied for aMayor's Permit for the sale of firecrackers.^®^

The present case was initiated through the Complaint of Paul Arches,who was the brother of the former Mayor of Bansalan.^®^ Paul Arches hadfiled eleven (11) cases against accused Reyes, including the present case.Except for this case, the remaining cases have been dismissed. AccusedReyes believed that Paul Arches has a personal grudge against him.'®^ Thismost likely stemmed from the order of closure of accused Reyes to severalbusinesses of Paul Arches due to violation of the Building Code and for failureto pay taxes.^®®

On cross-examination, accused Reyes admitted that, as Mayor, heexercised supervision and control over his subordinates, and he ensured thatthey would faithfully discharge their functions.'®^

When accused De Castilla (as Police Chief), Andres (as Fire Marshal),and Domingo (BPLO) affixed their signatures recommending the issuance ofa Mayor's Permit, accused Reyes would issue said Permit based on theirrecommendations. ̂®® If their signatures were present, accused Reyes no longerchecked the attached documents, e.g. if a Fire Safety Inspection Certificatehad been issued. Accused Reyes checked, one-by-one, the applicant'scompliance with the Municipality's requirements, such as BarangayClearance, Police Clearance, and payment of permit fee, but he did not lookinto the other documents required by other offices, such as the BFP.'®^ Herelied on the recommendations because it was not his duty to examine otherrequirements attached to the application.*^®

On re-direct examination, accused Reyes emphasized that the BFP isnot under him as it was a national agency, and as such, not within hiscontrol.*** He allowed the selling of firecrackers on the shoulder of Viacrucisstreet because Bstrella Bridge was narrow at four (4) meters wide, more or

Îd.at26 7^'°«/dat28 y1®'/rf. at 32-34 /"•®2Mat35 /

Id Sit 36 '^^ Id at 37

/fiat 39

'®®/fiat 40-41

'®'Mat 42-43

'®8M. at46

'®®M at 47-48

"® Mat 48

'"Mat 55


15|P a g e

less.^^2 Compared to Estrella Bridge, Viacrucis Street was roomier at about six(6) meters wide, hence, the presence of vendors there would have little impacton traffic.^ Accused Reyes had discussed the decision to allow vendors onViacrucis Street with accused De Castilla, Andres, and the vendorsthemselves. However, he did not remember if he had discussed the samewith the Sangguniang Bayan.

In the Mayor's Permit, accused Reyes included the place "PublicMarket" only as a point of reference, but the underlying intent was to actuallysell outside the area.^^^ The offices of the PNP Chief and the BFP Chief weremore or less one hundred (100) meters away from the place that firecrackershad been sold.

Following the presentation of its witnesses, the defense formallyoffered its documentary exhibits listed below:^

Exhibit Document Description

Counter-Affidavit of Edwin Granada Reyes

"3" to "3-a" Sketch Map of the Bansaian Public Market and its surroundings"4" to "4-h" Pictures of the Bansaian Public Market and its surroundings

«5" Resolution No 332, S. 2005 - Municipal Ordinance No. 357«6" Mayor's Permit

"7" to "9" Appointment Paper of Rita Domingo; Position Description; Re-Assignment

«10" Designation of Rita Domingo

"11" Rules on Issuance of Mayor's Permit

"12" Mayor's Permit with supporting documents"13" Counter-Affidavit of Rita Domingo

"14" Code of General Ordinance Bansaian Municipality

"17" Special Order dated August 18,2009 - Re: Solomon De Castillaiqs" Sketch Map by Edwin Reyes dated January 31, 2018

In its Resolution^ dated February 22, 2018, the Court admitted all ofthe documentary exhibits offered by the defense.

RFBIJTTAL EVIDENCE

By way of rebuttal evidence, the prosecution submitted the JudicialAffidavit of Sheffhar S. Lajarani, but the parties entered into the following

at 57

"3 Mat 58

* Ibid

at 60

Mat 61-62

The following defense Exhibits were not offered: "2", "15", and "16"Records, Vol. 4, pp. 184-185

y.


161 P a g e

stipulations which dispensed with the need to present the testimony of saidwitness:'

• At the time material to this case, Sheffhar S. Lajarani was the Fire ArsonInvestigator assigned in the Office of the Municipal Fire Marshal,Bansalan Fire Station;

• He investigated the fire incident on December 27,2009 at Building No.2 of the Bansalan Public Market; and

• He identified a Final Investigation Report'^'' dated March 19,2010 withattached sketch, which document was signed by him, the salientportions of which read:

XXX

FINAL INVESTIGGATION ̂sic^ REPORT

FIR

BANSALAN FIRE STATION. Office of the

Operation Division

01. PLACE OF FIRE:

Bansalan Public Market Building NumberTwo, Bansalan, Davao del Sur

n? TIME. AND DATE OF ALARM:

271800H December 2009

OT ESTABLISHMENT BURNED AND 04. FIRE VICTIMS:

DAMAGES:

Bansalan Public Market Building NumberTwo.

Estimated Damages:Municipality of Bansalan : P 6,255,352.65Bansalan Public Market Vendors : 28M Pesos

Total :P 34,255,352.65

a. Municipality of Bansalanb. Bansalan Public Market Vendors

Association (119 Stallholders)

05. ORIGIN OF THE FIRE:

Fire Crackers display of stall number 24 alons Viacrusis Street.06. CAUSE OF FIRE:

Lighted cigarette dropped on the Fire Crackers display.07. SUBSTANTIATING STATEMENT:

a. Swom statements of retired PNP member Basher M. Gasanara and by Norania M.Gabriel.

b. Affidavit of Loss of the Municipality of Bansa|an's Office.c. Photocopy of the Insurance Police of Bansalan Public Market Building Number Two.d. Damaged properties of the Municipality of Bansalan's Office Inventory.e. Photographts (sic) of the extent of damages.f. Sketch Map of the Fire Scene (Identifying its point of origin)

(Emphasis supplied)

XXX

Thereafter, no sur-rebuttal was made by the defense.

The case was thus submitted for decision.

In the interim, the prosecution filed its Memorandum on February 9,2018. For its part, the defense submitted its Memorandum on February 12,2018.

A

"'M at 206-207

'20 Exhibit "KK"

17 I P 3 fi cPeople V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al.Criminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION _ -

THIS rOIJRT^S RULING

Republic Act No. 7160 CR.A. 7160''), otherwise known as the LocalGoverviinent Code of 1991, endowed local government units with necessarypowers aimed to advance the general welfare of its inhabitants. Section 16,supra, provides

SECTION 16. General Welfare. — Every local government unitshall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily impliedtherefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for itsefficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to thepromotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorialjurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, amongother things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health andsafety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage andsupport the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific andtechnological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economicprosperity and social justice, promote full employment among theirresidents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort andconvenience of their inhabitants. (Emphasis supplied)

Pursuant to the lofty ideal of enhancing the economic prosperity of thepeople, municipal mayors were empowered to issue, suspend, or revokelicenses and permits within their respective territorial jurisdiction, asprovided below:

SECTION 444. The Chief Executive: Powers, Duties,

Functions and Compensation. — (a) The municipal mayor, as the chiefexecutive of the municipal government, shall exercise such powers andperforms such duties and functions as provided by this Code and otherlaws.

(b) For efficient, effective and economical governance thepurpose of which is the general welfare of the municipality and itsinhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code, the municipal mayor shall:

XXX

(3) Initiate and maximize the generation of resources and revenues,and apply the same to the implementation of development plans,program objectives and priorities as provided for under Section 18of this Code, particularly those resources and revenues prograirunedfor agro-industrial development and country-wide growth andprogress, and relative thereto, shall:

XXX

(iv) Issue licenses and permits and suspend or revokethe same for any violation of the conditions upon which said

, rAn Act Providing For A Local Government Code Of 1991 [Local Government Code of 1991], y •

Republic Act No. 7160, § 16 (1992) C/LOCAL Government Code of 1991, § 444 '

18 I P a 2 ePeople V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al. 'Criminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION

licenses or permits had been issued, pursuant to law orordinance; (Emphasis supplied)

XXX

Checks and balances are inherent in a republican form of government.It is for this reason that the power of municipal mayors to issue businesslicenses and permits was tempered with the power of the sangguniang bayanto enact ordinances to regulate any business within the municipality andthe attendant conditions which attaches to the license or permit. Section447 (3) (ii), supra, reads:

XXX

SECTION 447. Powers, Duties, Functions andCompensation. — (a) The sangguniang bayein, as the legislative body of themunicipality, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriatefunds for the general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants pursuantto Section 16 of this Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate powersof the municipality as provided for under Section 22 of this Code, and shall:

XXX

(3) Subject to the provisions of Book II of this Code, grantfranchises, enact ordinances authorizing the issuance of permits orlicenses, or enact ordinances levying taxes, fees and charges uponsuch conditions and for such purposes intended to promote thegeneral welfare of the inhabitants of the municipality, and pursuantto this legislative authority shall:

(i) Fix and impose reasonable fees and charges for allservices rendered by the municipal government to privatepersons or entities;

(ii) Regulate any business, occupation, or practice ofprofession or calling which does not require governmentexamination within the municipality and the conditionsunder which the license for said business or practice ofprofession may be issued or revoked; (Emphasis supplied)

XXX

With the issuance of the Mayor's Permit for the sale of firecrackers, thepowers of the executive and the legislative branches of the Municipality ofBansalan apparently clashed. The Mayor's Permit issued by accused Reyesdefied Municipal Ordinance No. 357 enacted by the Sangguniang Bayan ofBansalan. Said documents are reproduced hereunder:

Mayor's Permit dated December 14, 2009:^^"^

Vide: Roble Arrastre, Inc. v. Villqflor, G.R. No. 128509, August 22, 2006'24 Exhibit "6" for the defense; Exhibit "B" for the prosecution


19|P a g e

Repubik: «f tbo Pbilipoicioprevince of D»vso del Silr

MONIOTAUry OFBANSAtAN-oooOooo-

OfTicoofltic Mayor

MAYOR'S PERMIT

ANNEX A

to your application and by vvtuo ol the power vested in ine underb). Sectjon 6, Article 9, Chapter IV of thc MunMpal Ordinance No. 268kitown as the Revised Mtmidpal Tax Code of feet Municipality of Bansalan« hereby giai^ TO SELL FIRECRACKERS <m December 21,2009 to

ÂîiiCiuiaty 1,2010 at PobBc Maricet^ BassahB, Dovbo dd Sor.'

. This permit can be revoked anytime if any of the Cooditions and Provisionsliy tbo Code is violated and/or the safety, healtb and seenrlDr of the pubBe is at

|';.-ittke.

Cfiven tins 14ih day of Decembei.2009 in the municipality of Dsnsalan.

i 1^/;-' ScoQmmeoding approval:

p

ofPoUce MunÎ^^hc Marshall

ifSSSncM PemiU & Licensins Officer

fewDalffiMe••• fit- '

Olir ••

i.■■ipamved:

€. REVESMuidcipsl Mayer

M..

Municipal Ordinance No. 357:.125

XXX

AMENDING THE CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THEMUNICIPALITY OF BANSALAN BY PROVIDING ADDITIONALARTICLE 16 OF CHAPTER VI PUBLIC SAFETY PROHIBITING THESTORAGE, DISPLAY, SELLING AND BLOWING-UP ("PAOPABUTO")OF THOSE PYROTECHNICS PRODUCTS ALLOWED BY LAWWITHIN THE PREMISES OF PUBLIC MARKET BUILDINGS NO. 1AND 2, THIS MUNICIPALITY

BE IT ORDAINED bv the Sangguniang Bavan of the Municipality ofBansalan. Province of Davao del Sur in session assembled:

Section 1. Amendments to Chapter VI of the Code of GeneralOrdinance of the Municipality of Bansalan by providing additional Article16, to read as follows:

'25 Exhibit "E-1" for the prosecution; Exhibit "5" for the defenseI/y

20 I P 3 £ CPeople V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al.Criminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION ^

ARTICLE 16. Prohibition Against the Storage, Display, Selling, andBlowing-Up ("Pagpabuto") of those Pyrotechnics Products and theLikes Allowed by Law Within the Public Market Building Nos. 1and 2 Premises.

Section 1. Prohibition. This Ordinance prohibits for the storing,displaying, selling, and blowing-up ("pagpabuto") of thosepyrotechnics products allowed by law, commonly called as

♦ "firecrackers" or "pabuto" within the premises of buildings 1and 2 of Bansalan Public Market.

Section 2. Designated Area for Display and Selling. Thedesignated area for display and selling of these products is alongthe premises of Estrella Bridge through Lily Street.

Section 3. Storage. Storage of these products must be kept in safetyarea within the owner's residence which should not be fire-proneand away from food and reach of minor children. (Emphasissupplied)

XXX

As can be gleaned from the abovecited Ordinance, the display andselling of firecrackers in the Municipality of Bansalan is not outrightlyprohibited, but regulated. By express provision, however, the display andselling of firecrackers is permissible only within the premises of "EstrellaBridge through Lily Street," not the public market.

The prosecution theorizes that there was a hidden conspiracy amongaccused Reyes, De Castilla, and Domingo. With a common criminal design,said accused deliberately signed the Mayor's Permit consenting to the sale,and necessarily, the display of firecrackers at the public market, despite thefact that they were fully aware that such acts were banned by MunicipalOrdinance No. 357. By rendering active participation in the issuance of theMayor's Permit, the prosecution thus thrusts that accused De Castilla andDomingo were co-conspirators in the crime charged.

Since municipal mayors are the issuing authority of business permitsand licenses by virtue of the Local Government Code of 1991, which positionwas held by accused Reyes, it is necessary to examine the degree ofparticipation by accused De Castilla and Domingo in relation to the processof issuing a Mayor's Permit in order to determine the existence, or absence,of conspiracy.

The case of Bahilidad v. People^^^ defines conspiracy, in this wise:

There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to anagreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.Conspiracy is not presumed. Like the physical acts constituting the crimeitself, the elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.While conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence, for it may beinferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the

'26 G.R. No. 185195, March 17,2010

21 I P 3 S ®People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al. . ' ®Criminal Case No. SB-13-CR,M-0596DECISION _ ^ - - — -

commission of the crime, all taken togeAer, however, the evidence must bestrong enough to show the community of criminal design. For conspiracyto exist, it is essential that there must be a conscious design to commit anoffense. Conspiracy is the product of intentionality on the part of thecohorts.

It is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overtact as a direct or indirect contribution to the execution of the crimecommitted. The overt act may consist of active participation in the actualcommission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to hisco-conspirators by being present at the commission of the crime or byexerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators.

XXX

The standard procedure involved in obtaining a Mayor's Permit fromthe Office of the Mayor of Bansalan, Davao del Sur was initially hinged uponsecuring favorable recommendations from the police chief, the fire marshal,and permits and licensing officer, in that order. Then, the approval of themayor was the final step prior to the actual issuance of the permit/license infavor of the applicant. As gathered from the records, the process flow involvedis particularly described below:

First. The application was initially routed to the Bansalan Police Stationfor signature of the Chief of Police. As the acting Chief of Police/OIC ofBansalan in 2009, accused De Castilla disclosed that prospective applicantsshould secure certain requirements in order to obtain his recommendation forthe issuance of a Mayor's Permit, which were: ̂

Completion of the seminar of relevant laws (e.g. regulations onfirecrackers) held at the Provincial Police Office; and

• Payment at Landbank of the required fees.

Second. Once the signature of the police chief was secured, theapplication made its way to the Bansalan Fire Station for the requiredsignature of the Fire Marshal. Witness Arabis, Fire Marshal of theMunicipality of Matanao, described the general requirements that must becompleted in order to obtain the signature of the fire marshal recommendingthe issuance of a Mayor's Permit:

• Pass a fire safety inspection; and

• Obtain a Fire Safety Inspection Certificate.

Third. The application was subsequently routed to the Business PermitsLicense Office for the necessary signature of the Permits and Licensing

'2' Accused Domingo disclosed that an application for a Mayor's Permit would be signed by the heads of thePJMP and BFP, after which the same would be routed to her office (TSN dated September 19,2017, p. 34). Itwas clarified by accused De Castilla that his office will review the application, following which the applicantmust go to the Office of the Fire Marshal of Bansalan (TSN dated November 16,2017, p. 15)'2® TSN dated November 16,2017, pp. 13-14 ^129 dated August 25, 2016, pp. 45-46

/ /

People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al. 221P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION

Officer. Accused Domingo, designated Permits and Licensing Officer in2009, enumerated the mandatory submissions for compliance by applicants.viz:"»

Barangay Clearance;

Police Clearance; and

An official receipt showing full payment to the MunicipalTreasurer's Office.

Fourth, Once the signatures of the police chief, fire marshal, andpermits and licensing officer have been inked on the application, the final stepwas to get the signature of the Mayor which would ultimately lead to thecorresponding issuance of the Mayor's Permit in favor of the applicant.

The abovecited process flow shows that the functions of accused DeCastilla and Domingo, as former Chief of Police and former Permits andLicensing Officer, respectively, were only recommendatory in nature. Thescope of their duty was merely to check applicants' compliance with thedocuments required by their separate offices, not to give the final approvalwhich would result in the actual issuance of the Mayor's Permit.

Other than the fact that accused Domingo and De Castilla's signaturesappear on the Mayor's Permit, there appears to be no deliberate deviation fromthe normal procedure followed by them in the discharge of their duties. Forhis part, accused De Castilla played a limited role in the issuance of theMayor's Permit covering the firecracker vendors. His office took part only inihQ first stage in the above described application process, at which point hisreview dealt only with the requisites imposed by the PNP. Once he finishedchecking for completeness of the required submissions, after which he inkedhis signature on the application signifying his recommendation for theissuance of the Mayor's Permit, his participation in the application processended. Accused De Castilla testified as follows:

XXX

Q And earlier Mr. Witness, a Mayor's Permit was shown to you whichwas the Exhibit "6" for the defense and Exhibit "B" for the prosecution. Inthat Mayor's Permit, you have identified your signature, correct Mr.Witness?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q And do you agree with me that your signature or you as the chief ofthe PNP Bansalan its purposes only (sic) for recommending of the approvalof the Mayor's Permit?

Hi130 dated September 19, 2017, p. 12-13

Accused De Castilla averred that only his office issues Police Clearances (TSN dated November 16,2017,pp. 20)TSN dated November 16,2017, pp. 25-26

23 I P 3 & 6People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al.Criminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION

A Yes, ma'am.

Q So, it is up to the approving authority who is the mayor in this caseto whether or not approved (sic) the said Mayor's Permit?

A Yes, ma'am.

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE JACINTO:

Q In other words Mr. Witness, when you signed the recommendingauthority, you only certify that the applicant for Mayor's Permit [h]ascomplied with all the requirements pertaining to the PNP requirements?

WITNESS:

A Yes, Your Honors, pertaining to my office, Your Honors.

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE TRESPESES:

Q There is another set for the Bureau of Fire?

WITNESS:

A Yes, Your Honors, but I really do not know what are theirrequirements also.

XXX

On this premise, accused De Castilla could not have known if there wasany defect in the application (e.g. incomplete submission of requirements) atthe time the application was on his desk, and even after the application papersleft his office. As far as he knew, everything was in order at the time he issuedhis recommendation on the basis of the application.

With respect to accused Domingo, her office was third-in-line in theapplication process. Accused Domingo's area of responsibility was isolated inthe sense that her function was only to check the completeness of documentsrequired by the Business Permit Licensing Office. During trial, accusedDomingo recalled that:'^^

XXX

CHAIRPERSON:

In other words, Ms. Domingo, every time you evaluate theapplications for the issuance of a Mayor's Permit, you limited yourself to alisting of requirements submitted to your office which, as you said, [are] theseminars attended, Barangay Clearance, Police Clearance, and all the otherdocumentary requirements. Are you saying that?

WITNESS:

Yes, Your Honor.

CHAIRPERSON:

If you find out that one of them is missing, what do you do?

TSN dated September 19,2017, pp. 36-37/'

241P 3 s 6People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al.Criminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION

WITNESS:

I will not prepare the permit, Your Honor.

CHAIRPERSON:

If you find out that all of those requirements were submitted, whatis your discretion on the matter?

WITNESS:

1 will just prepare the permit. Your Honor, and then the applicantswill carry the permit and bring to the regulatory officers, the PNP and the ... (interrupted)

CHAIRPERSON:

In other words, you simply make a checklist of documentaryrequirements?

WITNESS:

Yes, Your Honor.

CHAIRPERSON:

If all are complete, then you prepare the issuance of a Mayor'sPermit. Is that it?

WITNESS:

Yes, Your Honor.

XXX

A checklist of requirements would not impute any liability on the partof accused Domingo at this point.

Jurisprudence holds that "[t]o establish conspiracy, evidence of actualcooperation rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act isrequired. Nevertheless, mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act,without the cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constituteone a party to a conspiracy, but that there must be intentional participation inthe transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design andpurpose."

At first glance, it appears that no strong link ties accused De Castillaand Domingo to the charge of conspiracy because their respective act ofaffixing their signatures on the Mayor's Permit were only recommendatory innature. Further, the process in the issuance of a Mayor's Permit authorizingthe sale of firecrackers has a system woven in its approval. No intricateconspiracy can be perceived to exist at the first instance.

A close and circumspect examination of the Mayor's Permit, however,reveals an undeniable fact. Prominently written on the face of the Mayor s

— r.Rimando v. People, G.R. No. 229701, November 29,2017 ^

People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al. 25 | P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION ^

Permit, in bold letters, is that the selling of firecrackers was to be allowed "atPublic Market, Bansalan, Davao del Sur." This immediately strikes theblatant flaw beneath the fa9ade that accused De Castilla and Domingoseemingly performed their regular duty. This permit should have alerted saidaccused to withhold their recommendation for approval because it was aflagrant violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 357. Surprisingly, accused DeCastilla and Domingo appeared to be nonchalant on this clause as neither ofthem bothered to recommend a disapproval on the specified place of intendedbusiness operation. With such recommendation for approval, accusedconsented to the perpetuation of a wrongful act. As a standard procedure,accused Reyes would rely on the favorable approvals of accused De Castillaand Domingo. It cannot be denied that part of the standard procedure was foraccused Reyes to issue the Mayor's Permit with the recommendations of theChief of Police, Fire Marshal, and Permits and Licensing Officer.

Even if accused De Castilla and Domingo were to piit up the claim thatit was ministerial on their part to signify a positive recommendation upon thecomplete submission of pertinent documents, it should be emphasized thatpart of their recommendation would be to validate the place of intended saleof firecrackers, which they cannot entirely ignore. The effectivity and force ofMunicipal Ordinance No. 357 would be rendered nugatory if the same be notconsidered in the processing of the Mayor's Permit in the authorized sellingof firecrackers. While it is the Office of the Mayor which grants the requestedauthority, and it is the Offices of the Chief of Police, Municipal Fire Marshal,and Business Permits License Office which recommend approval, the entireprocess should consider local legislation which regulates the exercise thereof.Hence, the process of approval cannot be said to be simply ministerial innature. For accused De Castilla and Domingo to recommend approval despitethe ominous fact that the place indicated in the Mayor's Permit is the "PublicMarket, Bansalan, Davao del Sur," only sealed their conspiracy on the matter.

Verily, the recommendations of accused De Castilla and Domingo,which met the final approval of accused Reyes, showed that their intent, allalong, was to cause the issuance of the Mayor's Permit in favor of theapplicants allowing the sale of firecrackers at the Public Market. A communityof design and purpose in this instance was evident. Thus, conspiracy has beenestablished.

What now remains for discussion is whether the active participation bythe accused which culminated in the issuance of the Mayor's Permit violatedSection 3 (e) oiR.A. 3019. The essential elements to sustain a conviction forViolation of Section 3 (e) of R.yf. 3019 are:'^^

'^^TSNdatedJanuary 31,2018, p. 59 omooX'3^ Urn V. Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Officers, G.R. No. 201320,September 14,2016

People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al. 261 P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596D E C I S I O N - - - -- - -

(1) the offender must be a public officer discharging administrative,judicial, or official functions;

(2) he or she must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faithor gross inexcusable negligence; and

(3) his or her action caused undue injury to any party, including thegovernment, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage orpreference in the discharge of his functions.

The succeeding discussion will show that:

The accused were public

OFFICERS EXERCISING OFFICIAL

FUNCTIONS.

It has been stipulated by the parties that accused Reyes, De Castilla, andDomingo were all pubic officers, specifically. Municipal Mayor, Chief ofPolice of Bansalan, and Permits and Licensing Officers, respectively.'" Thefirst element thus obtains.

The ACCUSED acted with

MANIFEST PARTIALITY IN ISSUING

THE Mayor's Permit which

ALLOWED THE SALE OF

FIRECRACKERS AT BANSALAN

Public Market despite the

PROHIBITION ON SELLING SUCH

PRODUCTS WITHIN SAID Market

BY VIRTUE OF MUNICIPAL

Ordinance No. 357.

Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 may be violated through any of the followingmodes: manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.Sison V. People explains what is meant by each of said modes:

"Partiality" is synonymous with "bias" which "excites a dispositionto 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 imputesa dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of awrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; itpartakes of the nature of fraud." "Gross negligence has been so defined asnegligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omittingto act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully(sic) and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so

//Joint Stipulation of Facts (Records, Vol. 2, pp. 314-316)

'3' G.R. Nos. 170339,170398-403, March 9,2010, which cited Fonacierv. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 50691,Decembers, 1994

/

People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al. ' 271 a g eCriminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION

far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care whicheven inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their ownproperty."

The following circumstances evince that:

Accused Reyes was certainly aware of the standing prohibition ascontained in Municipal Ordinance No* 357, During trial, he testified in thiswise:^^^

XXX

Q. Now, Sir, you are here before this Court and you are being accusedof issuing a Mayor's Permit for a group of firecracker vendors for the periodof December 21, 2009 to January 1, 2010 despite knowing fully well theexistence of a Municipal Ordinance prohibiting the storing, displaying,selling and blowing up of firecrackers at the Bansalan Public Market. Myquestion is, what can you say about these charges. Sir?

A. Those charges are not true. Sir.

Q. And can you please tell us why you say that these charges are nottrue. Sir?

A. Because Municipal Ordinance 357 specifically prohibits the selling,displaying, storing and blowing up of the pyrotechnics and firecrackerswithin the Buildings 1 and 2 of the Public Market or within the premises ofthe Buildings 1 and 2 of the Public Market, Sir. When we issued Mayor'sPermit when we allowed them ... (interrupted)

XXX

In fact, due to an incident in 2007 involving the explosion offirecrackers in the public market, accused Reyes, along with accused DeCastilla, has given a clear warning to a group of firecracker vendors to abstainfrom selling such items thereat:^"*®

XXX

Q. What incident. Sir?

A. Incident that the firecrackers were blown up inside the building.

Q. Building of what. Sir?

A. Building of Bansalan Public Market. Because that, we held ameeting.

Q. Meeting between who?

A. Between the vendors. Police Chief Inspector Solomon De Castilla,and other concerns, and we warned them not to sell.

Q. Not to sell what. Sir?

139 dated January 31, 2018, p. 10

'"0 Id at 32-33

People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et a). 28 j P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-I3-CRM-0596DECISION

A. Not to sell the firecrackers within or inside the Public Market, Sir.We advised and told them that if they're going to sell, it must be outside thePublic Market in the year 2007, Sir.

XXX

What bolsters the conclusion that accused Reyes was aware ofMunicipcil Ordincmce No. 557 is that he had intentionally told the vendors tohold their business at Viacrucis Street, not at the designated area which wasat Estrella Bridge. This was done, according to accused Reyes inconsideration of improving the flow of traffic, but not before he had consultedaccused De Castilia, among other persons, on the matter, viz:^'^^

XXX

Q. Alright Now, Sir, my question is, why did you allow theflrecracker vendors to sell along Viacrusis Street?

A. Sir, before I'm going to answer that question, can I borrow thesketch so that I can explain more?

COURT INTERPRETER:

The witness is being confronted with Exhibit "3" or Exhibit

WITNESS:

Kindly repeat again the question. Sir.

ATTY. BALMEO:

Q. Why did you issue a Mayor's Permit in the shoulder of ViacrusisStreet, Sir?

PROSECUTOR TADEO:

Objection, Your Honors. The Mayor's Permit states that they wereallowed to sell at the Public Market of Bansalan and not on shoulder. YourHonors. The question is misleading. Your Honors.

CHAIRPERSON:

But as expounded during his testimony. Prosecutor Tadeo.

PROSECUTOR TADEO:

We submit. Your Honors.

WITNESS:

This Estrella Bridge is made of steel. The Estrella Bridge is narrow.It measures 4 meters more less. Sir.


4 meters wide?

WITNESS: ^

——— - //VAlso referred to as "Viacrusis Street" ' J142 -psN dated January 31,2018, pp. 56-58


Wide, Your Honor, 4 meters more or less. Since the Estrella Bridgeis narrow, if we will allow or have the selling of firecrackers along thisbridge, the tricycles and other vehicles I'm sure that will no longer be ableto pass through this bridge. Sir. So ... (interrupted)

PROSECUTOR TADEO:

Your Honors, no question being propoimded.

ATTY. BALMEO:

It was a continuation. Your Honors.

CHAIRPERSON:

Just proceed to your next question.

ATTY. BALMEO:

Q. As you said, Estrella Bridge is about 4 meters wide, how aboutViacrusis Street, Sir?

A. The Viacrusis Street is 6 meters more or less which is wider thanthe Estrella Bridge. It's an open area and if the selling will be done here,it will not affect the traffic. Sir.

CHAIRPERSON:

Are you telling us. Vice Mayor Reyes, that from your perception,you transferred the selling of firecrackers from what is allowed in theordinance into Viacrusis by yourself? You decided by yourself?

WITNESS:

Your Honor, before we did that, we, with the Chief InspectorCol. Solomon De Castilla together with the Fire Marshall (sic) GilAndre and the vendors and other concerned .. (interrupted)

CHAIRPERSON:

You talked about it?

WITNESS:

Yes, Your Honor. (Emphasis supplied)

XXX

Since accused De Castilla was present when the warning was given tothe firecracker vendors, and inasmuch as he was one of the personsspecifically sought after by accused Reyes for advice on relocating the placeof business of said vendors, accused De Castilla, too, knew of the existenceoi Municipal Ordinance No. 357. If not for his knowledge of the prohibitionsas per said Ordinance, he would not have given a standing order for the policeofficers guarding the public market to remain vigilant against the bringing ofillegal merchandise (e.g. firecrackers) inside its premises, viz:^"^^ '

143 dated November 16,2017, pp. 26-27iv

People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al. 301 P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION ■ .

XXX

CHAIRPERSON:

Q. Just a minute, you said that you conduct monitoring even after theMayor's Permit was issued, what kind of monitoring was this?

WITNESS:

A. We monitor[,] Your Honors[,] if there are other peddlers who willgo inside the public market who will bring some of the merchandise andsell at the, for example Your Yiorms, palaisdaan or some of them will go toMeat Section bringing their merchandise illegally, iyongpakonti-konti (sic)Your Honors.

Q. So, are you saying that with your monitoring, would you say that nofirecrackers were sold inside the Bansalan Public Market?

A. Actually, Your Honors, we have confiscated some of those littlemerchandise because some of them are brought by minors. Your Honors.

Q. How often does this monitoring occur?

A. Actually, Your Honors, everyday because I have police a (sic)personnel assigned at the terminals and these terminals are very near,proximity (sic) at the display area. Your Honors.

XXX

Similarly, accused Domingo cannot claim ignorance of MunicipalOrdinance No. 357. To stress, she was the Business Permit and LicensingOfficer of the Municipality of Bansalan. By very reason of her position, sheought to have been aware of the relevant rules pertaining to the selling anddisplay of firecrackers within her jurisdiction.

In their defense, the accused contend that what Municipal OrdinanceNo. 357 prohibits is selling firecrackers within the premises of Building Nos.1 and 2 of the public market, but the firecracker vendors had sold their waresoutside the market, specifically on the shoulder of Viacrucis Street. Further,the accused shift the blame on accused Andres, then Fire Marshal of Bansalan,whose responsibility was to issue Fire Safety Inspection Certificates. Theyhammer on the point that the Office of the Fire Marshal is not under the controland supervision of the Municipality of Bansalan, but of the Bureau of FireProtection, which is within the administrative umbrella of the Department ofInterior and Local Government.

The contentions of the accused fail to persuade. It matters not wherethe firecracker vendors actually sold their wares because the crux of thepresent charge relates to the fact that accused Reyes had issued theMayor's Permit, with accused De Castilla and Domingo having giventheir recommendations, in spite of the prohibition by MunicipalOrdinance No. 357. To reiterate. Municipal Ordinance No. 357 specificallydesignated an area for the display and selling of firecrackers; i.e., along thepremises of Estrella Bridge through Lily Street." It cannot be any other place.

People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al. 31 1 a g eCriminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION

Consequently, even Viacrucis Street does not fall within "Estrella Bridgethrough Lily Street."

This is a strong indication, therefore, that manifest partiality pervadedin the issuance of the Mayor's Permit.

For accused Reyes, it is highlighted that he admitted to blindly signinghis approval to issue Mayor's Permits. He disclosed that he no longer checkedfor completeness of the supporting documents attached to applications for aslong as the same bore the recommendations of accused Andres, De Castilla,and Domingo, viz:

XXX


What do you mean, Prosecutor, is that when De Castilla as Chief ofPolice, Andres as Fire Marsheill (sic) and Domingo eis the Licensing Officer,when they recommend for the issuance of a Mayor's Permit, does that meanthat a particular applicant has already complied with all the documentaryrequirements?

PROSECUTOR TADEO:

Yes, Your Honors.


Answer.

WITNESS:

When these two persons in the name of De Castilla as the PoliceChief and the Fire Marshall (sic) recommend approval to me and also RitaDomingo, Ma'am, when their signatures already affixed (sic) in theMayor's Permit that they are recommending, I vdll also approve becausealready recommending (sic).

PROSECUTOR TADEO:

Q. So, Mr. Witness, you do not go to the attachments of the Mayor'sPermit to see to it that really the requirements, say for example, the issuanceof the Fire Safety Inspection Certificate was attached to the application?

A. When I saw the signature being affixed by the Fire Marshall (sic) inthe Mayor's Permit, I immediately approved. Ma'am, because I saw theirsignatures.


Mr. Witness, when this Mayor's Permit is in your office or is in yourtable for approval, this is already signed I presumed by De Castilla, Andres,and Domingo, what is attached to this before you signed?

WITNESS:

144 dated January 31,2018, pp. 46-48

/ ■

People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al. 321 P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION

This one, I remember the requirements are the Barangay Clearance,Police Clearance and payment... (interrupted)


So that means there are documents attached to this Mayor's Permitalready for you to approve it, correct?

WITNESS:

Yes, Your Honor.


You said you issued to at least 20 applicants or vendors who aregoing to sell firecrackers. Did you go [one-by-one] on their application tocheck whether each applicant complied with the documentary requirementsor you just merely relied on the signatures of De Castilla, Andres, andDomingo?

WITNESS:

Your Honor, with regards to our requirements, [one-by-one],especially the Barangay Clearance, Police Clearance and the payment of thepermit fee. But with regards to other documents under their office like forexample. Office of the Bureau of Fire Protection, I don't have any carebecause we don't have... (interrupted)


Yes. But is it also attached in the Mayor's Permit for your signature?

WITNESS:

As I mentioned. Sir, the one that I check are only the requirementsof our Municipality or our office. Your Honor.

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE TRESPSES:

Correct.

PROSECUTOR TADEO:

Q. But, Mr. Witness, is it correct to say that the Bureau of Fire is underthe Municipality?

A. No, Ma'am. That is national office. Ma'am. It is not my under (sic).

Q. Again, Mr. Witness, is it correct to say that you merely relied to therecommendation of De Castilla, Andres, and Domingo and you did not gobeyond that and you did not examine the other requirements or documentsattached to the application?

A. Yes, Ma'am, because that's not my duty and functions.

XXX

This selective practice of accused Reyes in the issuance of a Mayor sPermit is only a reflection of his manifest partiality to favor the applicantsthereof. It behooved accused Reyes to look beyond the recommendations ofthe Chief of Police, Fire Marshal, and Permits and Licensing Officer because

iy/

People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al. 33 | P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION

the authority of the Mayor to issue licenses and permits is not ministerial;it is discretionary. Being the Local Chief Executive of Bansalan, he clearlyexercised control and supervision over municipal employees, such as accusedDomingo then the Permits and Licensing Officer. Section 444 (b) (1) (x) ofthe Local Government Code of 1991 provides:

SECTION 444. The Chief Executive: Powers, Duties,Functions and Compensation. — (a) The municipal mayor, as the chiefexecutive of the municipal government, shall exercise such powers andperforms such duties and functions as provided by this Code and other laws.

(b) For efficient, effective and economical governance the purposeof which is the general welfiê of the municipality and itsinhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code, the municipalmayor shall:

(1) Exercise general supervision and control over allprograms, projects, services, and activities of the mumcipalgovernment, and in this connection, shall:

XXX

(x) Ensure that al! executive officials andemployees of the municipality faithfullydischarge their duties and functions asprovided by law and this Code, and cause to beinstituted administrative or Judicial proceedingsagainst any official or employee of themunicipality who may have committed anoffense in the performance of his official duties;(Emphasis supplied)

XXX

Accused Reyes' administrative supervision also extended to PNP unitswithin his jurisdiction, such as the local police force then headed by accusedDe Castilla, pursuant to Republic Act No. 6975, which provides:

SECTION 51. Powers of Local Government Officials Over the PNPUnits or Forces. — Governors and mayors shall be deputized asrepresentatives of the Commission in their respective territorial jurisdiction.As such, the local executives shall discharge the following functions:

XXX

(b) City and Municipal Mayors — (1) Operational Supervisionand Control. The city and municipal mayors shall exerciseoperational supervision and control over PNP units in theirrespective jurisdiction except during the thirty (30) day periodimmediately preceding and the thirty (30) days following anynational, local and barangay elections. During the said period, the

Lacap V. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 198162, June 21,2017Local Government Code of 1991, § 444 (b) (1) (x)An Act Establishing the Philippine National Police Under a Reorganized Department of the Interior and

Local Government, and For Other Purposes [DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTOF 1990], §51 (1990)

People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al. 34 ] P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION

local police forces shall be under the supervision and control of theCommission on Elections.

The term 'operational supervision and control' shall mean thepower to direct, superintend, and oversee the day-to-dayfunctions of police investigation of crime, crime preventionactivities, and trafGc control in accordance with the rules andregulations promulgated by the Commission.

It shall also include the power to direct the employment anddeployment of units or elements of the PNP, through the stationcommander, to ensure public safety and effective maintenanceof peace and order within the locality. For this purpose, the terms'employment' and 'deployment' shall mean as follows: (Emphasissupplied)

XXX

Accused Reyes should have known that, at the very least, it wasincumbent upon him to check the presence of all the supporting documentsthat were attached to the application for the Mayor's Permit, and not merelythose documents required by the Municipality. More than that, it was basicthat accused Reyes should have been more circumspect in reviewing thevalidity of the terms and conditions written on the face of the Mayor's Permit.As the issuing authority, accused Reyes was responsible to know relevantordinances and other rules which govern the grant of business permits.Moreover, since the power to issue permits and licenses was discretionary onhis part, accused Reyes was given a choice in deciding whether to issue aMayor's Permit, such that he was under no obligation, and may not even becompelled, to approve the issuance thereof in spite of the recommendationsof all the necessary officials.

For accused De Castilla, before he would entertain an application forthe issuance of a Mayor's Permit, he stated that all applicants were requiredto undergo a mandatory seminar of relevant rules and/or laws:^"^^

XXX

Q Now, in relation to this permit that is being shown to you, this is aPermit to Sell Firecrackers, am I correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q All right. Having said that there are requirements, can you pleasetell this Court what are those requirements that you mentioned?

A The applicant should undergo seminar, sir.

Q Seminar for what?

Lf

148 jjated November 16,2017, pp. 13-14; That applicants were indeed required to take a brief course onthe rules governing firecrackers was corroborated by accused Domingo (TSN dated September 19,2017, p.14)


A To be conducted by the police provincial office with regards (sic) tothe law, with regards (sic) to firecrackers law, sir.

Q And where is this seminar being held?

A It is conducted at the Police Provincial Office at Davao del Sur, Thenafter the seminar, we are required to pay some fees at the Landbank, Sir.

XXX

Even if it was the Police Provincial Office which implemented theactual seminar, it fell on accused De Castilla's shoulders to have, at the veryleast, basic knowledge of the pertinent laws on firecrackers, especially on theexisting municipal ordinances in Bansalan. As the Chief of Police, some ofthose persons who completed the seminar would likely put up their businessin Bansalan, over which accused De Castilla had jurisdiction. As such, heshould have been familiar with firecracker regulations in order that he wouldbe able to make informed decisions on how to make recommendations onapplications for business permits and licenses. If it were otherwise, how wouldhe have faithfully discharged his duty to enforce compliance with the ruleswhen he was at a loss as to what they were? As it happened, since the Mayor'sPermit issued to the firecracker vendors defied the designated area for theselling and display of firecrackers; hence, there was clearly no legal basis inaccused De Castilla's recommendation to issue the Mayor's Permit, much lesswhen he and accused Reyes had held talks on moving the firecracker vendorsto Viacrucis Street, a place not specifically designated by MunicipalOrdinance No. 357.

For accused Domingo, considering her former position as Permits andLicensing Officer, she could not shy away from her duty to know pertinentrules and regulations, inclusive of Municipal Ordinance No. 357, thatgoverned the grant of business permits and licenses. Her claim that there hadbeen no proper turnover of documents at the time she assumed office couldnot be given .due consideration. She herself admitted that she prepared theMayor's Permit and therefore, she could not feign ignorance that the placeauthorized for the selling of firecrackers was at the Public Market. It was notactually necessary that a copy of Municipal Ordinance No. 357 was on file inher office. She answered to the Office of the Mayor in her capacity as Permitsand Licensing Officer. Therefore, she was bound to know of the existence ofMunicipal Ordinance No. 357, as the Office of the Mayor was, especially ifthe Mayor's Permit authorized the selling of firecrackers which was regulatedby local legislation.

In their routine review of applications for business permits and licenses,it should not have escaped the notice of accused Reyes, De Castilla andDomingo that the intended place of sale of firecrackers was "at Public Market,Bansalan, Davao del S(ur," which was not the designated area of EstrellaBridge. The only plausible explanation as to how such matter could have

// ■/


361 P a g e

evaded the scrutiny of the accused was that it was their intent all along toallow the applicants to sell and display firecrackers at the Bansalan PublicMarket.

The conclusion that the accused consciously disregarded MunicipalOrdinance No. 357 was strengthened by the fact that it would be contrary togood sense and reason to allow the sale of firecrackers dangerously close tothe public market. Records show that Viacrucis Street was one of the streetsfronting the public market buildings. Witnesses had established thatfirecrackers were displayed and sold along the shoulder of Viacrucis Street ata mere distance of 10 or 12 meters from the public market building. TheSketch Map below illustrates the general location of Bansalan Public Marketin relation to the actual area at which the firecracker vendors sold theirproducts:

33

f>cnuC MAtfitCTiJo-toeK Tiixi

^ I dtz f-iSTS

KiA rtoOA/. H/fifV'OAy( Ogl.OS rzitr^rctSi STTTCCT;~i r-

To an ordinarily prudent person, it would be unthinkable to leave a shortdistance of more or less 10 meters (essentially, shouting distance) separatingthe area where firecrackers were sold in relation to where the public marketstood. The reason for this is obvious: public markets are filled with people andgoods of all kinds, and firecrackers, or pyrotechnic devices in general, areinherently dangerous products as they are vessels of combustible, explosive,or flammable compositions. Hence, there was wisdom in the designation bythe Sangguniang Bayan of Estrella Bridge as the only permissible area withinwhich to sell firecrackers, but which was violated by the accused when theyallowed the sale of firecrackers at the public market as specified in theMayor's Permit. Even the justification proffered by accused Reyes that lesstraffic congestion would ensue if the selling of firecrackers was moved toViacrucis Street did not outweigh destroying the buffer zone in the interest ofthe safety and well-being of the market goers.'^' Not merely that, the desire

"«9 XSN dated November 17,2017, p. 30; TSN dated January 31,2018, p. 14'5° Exhibit "KK-3"; See also Exhibit" 18"TSN dated January 31,2018, pp. 57-58

i

People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al. 371P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION _ _

of the accused to sell such products at the public market, which most likelywas motivated by the fact that the Mayor's Permit was issued just shy of two(2) weeks before Christmas and the New Year, still did not justify theircircumvention of Municipal Ordinance No. 357 through the issuance of theMayor's Permit.

The proverbial straw which broke the camel's back occurred in 2009when fire incinerated the public market. As indicated in the Final InvestigationReport'^^ dated March 19, 2010, the fire originated from the firecrackersdisplay, stall number 24, along Viacrucis Street, the cause of which was foundto be a lit cigarette dropped on said display.

Verily, while the proximate cause of the above incident was a litcigarette that was dropped and torched the display of firecrackers, the remotecause, or the reason why firecrackers were displayed there, was thecarelessness of the accused in issuing the Mayor's Permit, and then turning ablind eye to the sale of the firecrackers a mere 10 meters in front of the publicmarket. What made matters worse was that even after said incidentdefinitively exposed the flaw of the decision to allow the sale of firecrackersat the public market, nothing in the records showed that accused Reyesbothered to revoke the Mayor's Permit on the basis of the revocation clausecontained therein.

In all, the manifest partiality of the accused is crystal clear, whichestablishes the second element.

The issuance of the Mayor's

Permit undeniably gave

UNWARRANTED BENEFIT AND

ADVANTAGE TO THE

FIRECRACKER VENDORS.

The third element admits of two modes: undue injury to any party,

including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits,advantage or preference in the discharge of his or her functions. An accusedmay be charged imder either mode or both; the presence of one would sufficefor conviction.

Undue injury, in the context of R.A. 3019, has a meaning akin to thatcivil law concept of actual damage.'" The case of Llorente, Jr. v.Sandiganbayan pertinently explains

/•Exhibit "JJ" ^ 9^Vide: Alvarez v. People, G.R. No. 192591, June 29, 2011

'5^ G.R. No. 122166, March 11, 1998


The solicitor general, in his manifestation, points out that "undueinjury" requires proof of actual injury or damage, citing our ruling inAlejandro vs. People and Jacinto vs. Sandiganbayan. Inasmuch ascomplainant was actually paid all her claims, there was thus no "undueinjury" established.

This point is well-taken. Unlike in actions for torts, undue injuryin Sec. 3[e] cannot be presumed even after a wrong or a violation of aright has been established. Its existence must be proven as one of theelements of the crime. In fact, the causing of undue injury or the giving ofany unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference through manifestpartiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence constitutes thevery act punished under this section. Thus, it is required that the undueinjury be specified, quantified and proven to the point of moral certainty.

In jurisprudence, "undue injury" is consistently interpreted as"actual damage." Undue has been defined as "more than necessary, notproper, [or] illegal;" and injury as "any wrong or damage done to another,either in his person, rights, reputation or property [; that is, the] invasion ofany legally protected interest of another." Actual damage, in the context ofthese definitions, is akin to that in civil law.

In turn, actual or compensatory damages is defined by Article2199 of the Civil Code as follows:

"Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, oneis entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary losssuffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referredto as actual or compensatory damages."

Fundamental in the law on damages is that one injured by a breachof a contract, or by a wrongful or negligent act or omission shall have a fairand just compensation commensurate to the loss sustained as a consequenceof the defendant's act. Actual pecuniary compensation is awarded as ageneral rule, except where the circumstances warrant the allowance of otherkinds of damages. Actual damages are primarily intended to simply makegood or replace the loss caused by the wrong.

Furthermore, damages must not only be capable of proof, butmust be actually proven with a reasonable degree of certainty. Theycannot be based on flimsy and non-substantial evidence or uponspeculation, conjecture or guesswork. They cannot include speculativedamages which are too remote to be included in an accurate estimateof the loss or injury. (Emphasis supplied)

Although the >vitness-vendors alleged in their respective JudicialAffidavits that they suffered property damage amounting in the hundreds ofthousands as a result of the 2009 fire incident at the Bansalan Public Market,their allegations remained unspecified. No receipts, or other acceptabledocuments, were presented by them which would show the actual amount ofproperty lost with a reasonable degree of certainty. The BFP Certificatesattached to said judicial affidavits merely proved that the witness-vendorswere "fire victims" of the 2009 fire incident. In the absence of proper proof,it cannot be concluded that undue injury has been established. ^ ̂

People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al. 391P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECIÔN

On the other hand, unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference in thecontext of RA. 3019, means giving a gain of any kind without justification oradequate reasons.

It is a general principle in business that the success of a companydepends, among other factors, on their ability to satisfy their customers withproducts and services that embody some, or all, of the following qualities:good, cheap, or fast Tho term ''good" typically represents the quality orcraftsmansl^p, whereas "cheap" connotes the affordability of its price. On theother hand, "fasf commonly refers the speed at which a finishedproduct/service can be produced, or in the alternative, its accessibility and/oravailability to the public; an example of the characteristic "fasf would be toplace a retail business at a prime location exposed to high volumes of foot orvehicular traffic (e.g. shopping malls and public markets).

By allowing the firecracker vendors the privilege of selling their goodsat the public market, their business took on the quality oifast. The advantagehome by the location of the public market as opposed to Estrella Bridge, iseasily discemable: public markets are prime locations to engage in businessas throngs of people flock thereto on a daily basis, the numbers of which canbe attributed to the wide variety, not to mention affordability, of goods for saleand services available. However, as there was no plausible justification for theaccused to permit the sale and display of firecrackers at the public market,inasmuch as such acts were prohibited by Municipal Ordinance No. 357, thefirecracker vendors were conferred unwarranted benefit and advantage by theaccused.

Hence, the existence of unwarranted benefit was sufficient to satisfy thethird element.

All told, it is clear that the prosecution has established, beyondreasonable doubt, the presence of all the elements of \ôlation of Section 3(e) of RA. 3019, which justifies the conviction of the accused. Case lawprovides that, in a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.^^^ Having alreadydiscussed that accused De Castilla and Domingo were co-conspirators, theybecome liable as co-principals and are equally guilty of the crime. This holdstrue even if the nature of the functions of accused De Castilla and Domingowere merely recommendatory in the process of the issuance of a Mayor sPermit.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, ACCUSED EDWINGRANADA REYES, RITA POTESTAS DOMINGO, and SOLOMONANORE DE CASTILLA^^® are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of

/Bacasamas v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 189343, 189369, & 189553, July 10,2013'56 See Robert Swisher, "Fast, Good or Cheap. Pick Three?", available at yhttp://www.biisiness.corri/articles/fast-good-cheap-pick-three/ (last accessed August 29,2018) / ̂'5' People V. Sola, G.R. No. 203121, November 29,2017 v'5® Also referred to as "Solomon Anore de Castilla"

People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al. 401P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0596DECISION _____ -

Violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as theAnti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Each of the accused are sentenced tosuffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE(1) MONTH as minimum to TEN (10) YEARS as maximum. Additionally,the accused are sentenced to suffer perpetual disqualification to hold publicoffice.

Let the case be ARCHIVED as to accused Gil Curameng Andres,pending his apprehension.

SO ORDERED.

MA. THERESA DOIArES C. GOMEZ-ESTOESTAAssociate Justice

Chairperson

WE CONCUR:

;SPESES

(Associdfe Justice

BAYAMflH.JACINTO

Ass( 7cigte Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached inconsultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of theCourt's Division.

MA. THERESA DO^RES C. GOMEZ-ESTOESTAChairperson, Seventh Division

People V. Edwin Granada Reyes, et al. 411 P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-I3-CRM-0596DECISION

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and theDivision Chairman's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions inthe above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assignedto the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

Presiding Justice

Date post:	12-Feb-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Sandiganbayan SB Decisions/SB-13...REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Sandiganbayan QUEZON CITY SPF.riAT,...

Documents