Ambagan, Jr. vs. People of the Philippines

A series of criminal acts arising from a single criminal intent and violating the same penal provision, committed at the same time, place, and manner, constitutes a continuous crime (delito continuado) that should be charged in only one Information, and a public officer who orders construction on private property without expropriation proceedings or agreement with the owners, despite being personally informed of their objection, is liable for causing undue injury through evident bad faith under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

The petitioner, Albert G. Ambagan, Jr., served as Municipal Mayor of Amadeo, Cavite, and earlier as Sangguniang Kabataan Federation Chairman when the Sangguniang Bayan first declared Balite Falls a tourist spot and reserved area in 1998. The municipal government subsequently undertook an eco-tourism development project at Balite Falls. Two adjacent private properties — one owned by the heirs of Simplicio Lumandas (TCT No. T-158087) and the other by Calixto Lumandas (TCT No. T-158086) — were located near the falls. Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 penalizes public officers who cause undue injury to any party or give unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence in the discharge of official functions.

On September 25, 1998, the Sangguniang Bayan of Amadeo, Cavite issued Resolution No. 57, Series of 1998, declaring Balite Falls a tourist spot, barangay park, and reserved area, to preserve it as a potential source of potable water. The petitioner, Albert G. Ambagan, Jr., then Sangguniang Kabataan Federation Chairman, was among those who signed. On October 19, 1998, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cavite approved the resolution through Resolution No. 402-S-98. Located near Balite Falls was a lot owned by Simplicio S. Lumandas, covered by TCT No. T-158087 (40069), where his ancestral house stood. Upon Simplicio's death, the property passed to his heirs, including Revina C. Lumandas. The adjacent property, TCT No. T-158086 (40068), was owned by Calixto Lumandas, Revina's cousin.

Sometime in October 2007, Councilor Marlon Ambion informed Revina that the municipal government planned to temporarily rent their ancestral house for office purposes, and Revina agreed as the house was then vacant. Around the same time, the petitioner, by then Municipal Mayor of Amadeo, called a meeting to discuss the project near Balite Falls, which Calixto attended. On January 31, 2008, the Sangguniang Bayan issued Resolution No. 58 approving operating guidelines for the establishment of Balite Falls as an eco-tourism area, and Resolution No. 59 authorizing the petitioner to enter into agreements with interested parties for the development of Balite Falls and the adjoining vicinity covering Barangays Banaybanay, Halang, and Tamakan.

Sometime in February 2008, the ancestral house on the heirs' lot was demolished and Calixto's property was levelled. Thereafter, both Revina and Calixto observed construction activities being conducted on their properties. On March 2, 2008, the petitioner called a meeting with the lot owners near Balite Falls. Revina asked why their house was demolished without notice, to which the petitioner's staff replied that it was merely the mistake of a subordinate. Calixto handed the petitioner a letter demanding cessation of construction. Revina's brother likewise demanded that construction stop, but was ignored; when he and other relatives attempted to mark the boundaries of the land, the petitioner, together with armed men, threatened to have them arrested.

On March 6, 2008, Calixto met with the petitioner, who proposed a 25-year lease of the land. Calixto formally declined on March 24, 2008. On March 25, 2008, the Barangay Chairman of Banaybanay called a meeting relating plans to expand and widen the road towards Balite Falls, which would require owners to give up three meters of their land; the owners opposed. On May 15, 2008, the Sangguniang Bayan passed Resolution No. 72 ratifying the levying of park maintenance fees on residents. On July 1, 2008, Revina filed two separate complaints before the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon — one for the heirs of Simplicio and one for Calixto — charging the petitioner with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and misconduct. The misconduct charge was dismissed on March 17, 2017, but two separate Informations were filed for violation of Section 3(e), alleging that on or about February 28, 2008, the petitioner, as Municipal Mayor, through evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence, caused undue injury by ordering construction works on the private lands, depriving the owners of the use and enjoyment of portions of their properties valued at approximately Php 778,400.00 and Php 797,800.00, respectively. The Sandiganbayan found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt in both cases on April 5, 2017, crediting the testimony of the geodetic engineer confirming that the construction was within the registered owners' property lines, and finding that the petitioner acted with evident bad faith by proceeding with the project despite being personally informed of the owners' objection.

• Single Offense / Delito Continuado: Petitioner argued that the acts referred to in both Informations arose from a single act constituting a single continuing offense, citing that in determining multiplicity of offense, "it is not really the number of properties and private parties that matters but the singularity of intent and purpose in the commission of the complained act."
• Double Jeopardy: Petitioner contended that prosecution for a continuing offense under two separate Informations called for the dismissal of both cases on the ground of double jeopardy.
• Sufficiency of Information: Petitioner claimed the Informations failed to sufficiently allege the element of "performance of the act in the discharge of official functions," arguing that the phrase "acting in relation to his office" was too broad and that what should have been indicated was that the act was "in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions."
• Absence of Undue Injury: Petitioner theorized that "undue injury" is not merely simple injury but one that invites the punishment of imprisonment or deprivation of liberty for months and years, none of which was present. At any rate, petitioner suggested that improvements were actually introduced that resulted in an increase in the value of the subject properties.
• Absence of Bad Faith / Pecuniary Benefit: Petitioner argued that the Balite Falls project was conceived only of good intentions, and that the elements of evident bad faith or manifest partiality and pecuniary benefit were absent, submitting that he could not be held administratively liable therefor.

• Continuous Crime: Whether the two separate Informations charging the petitioner for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 constitute a single continuous crime (delito continuado) such that only one Information should have been filed, and whether this warrants dismissal on double jeopardy grounds.
• Sufficiency of Information: Whether the Informations sufficiently alleged the element that the act was performed by the accused in the discharge of his official functions.
• Elements of the Offense: Whether all the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, particularly undue injury and evident bad faith, were proven.

• Continuous Crime: Yes. The acts alleged in both Informations constitute only one offense — a continuous crime — as they arose from a single criminal intent (the Balite Falls development project), were committed at the same time, place, and manner, and violated the same penal provision. However, this does not warrant dismissal on double jeopardy grounds; the only implication is that the penalty should be imposed once.
• Sufficiency of Information: Yes. The Informations sufficiently alleged the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, the phrase "acting in relation to his office" being sufficient to indicate that the acts were performed in pursuance of the petitioner's functions as Mayor.
• Elements of the Offense: Yes. Undue injury was established by the taking of portions of the subject properties without expropriation proceedings, and evident bad faith was manifested by the petitioner's conscious continuation of the project despite being personally informed of the owners' objection.

• Continuous Crime: The Court applied the doctrine of delito continuado as defined in Gamboa vs. CA and elaborated in Santiago vs. Garchitorena, which requires: (1) plurality of acts performed separately during a period of time; (2) unity of penal provision violated; and (3) unity of criminal intent or purpose. The two Informations were strikingly identical except for the name of the property owner, TCT number, affected area, and value. The place, time, and manner of commission were the same, and the petitioner was impelled by a singular purpose — the realization of the Balite Falls development project. Consequently, the acts constituted only one offense that should have been consolidated in one Information. This did not warrant dismissal on double jeopardy grounds, as there was but one offense; the only implication was that the penalty should be imposed once. The Court noted that when criminal acts are performed on various dates, the presumption is that each act is motivated by separate criminal intents, but this is not a hard and fast rule — ultimately, whether a continuous crime exists depends on the circumstances of each case.
• Sufficiency of Information: The Court found that while the exact nomenclature of the law was not used, the phrase "acting in relation to his office" sufficiently conveyed that the acts were performed in pursuance of the petitioner's functions as Mayor. The Informations contained specific factual allegations indicating the close intimacy between the discharge of the offender's official duties and the commission of the offense charged. It was undisputed that the petitioner was performing public functions as municipal mayor at the time of the acts complained of. The Court applied Sections 6 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, which require that the Information state the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged.
• Elements of the Offense: The Court found that "taking" of portions of the subject properties had occurred, which demanded the institution of expropriation proceedings — which were never initiated, a fact the petitioner did not dispute. Geodetic Engineer Herminigildo L. Vidallon confirmed through his sketch plans and testimony that the construction was within the registered owners' property lines, with 3,892 sq m bulldozed and scraped and 3,898 sq m affected. This constituted undue injury; proof of the extent of damage was not essential, it being sufficient that the injury was perceived as substantial and not merely negligible, per Fuentes vs. People. Evident bad faith was manifested by the petitioner's active participation in the project and his conscious continuation despite being directly and personally informed by the property owners of their disagreement to the utilization of their properties. The petitioner's defense that the project was a Department of Tourism initiative did not absolve him, as he supervised and administered the construction and the municipal government continued to operate and profit from the facility, as established by the testimonies of Municipal Councilors Donn Clarence L. Bayot and Joel V. Iyaya. The Court also noted that the local government merely intended to enter into joint ventures with the owners, but the joint venture never materialized and the municipal government nonetheless proceeded with the project and is solely profiting therefrom.

• Delito Continuado (Continuous Crime) — A single crime consisting of a series of acts arising from a single criminal resolution or intent not susceptible of division. The requisites are: (1) plurality of acts performed separately during a period of time; (2) unity of penal provision infringed upon or violated; and (3) unity of criminal intent and purpose, meaning that two or more violations of the same penal provision are united in one and the same intent leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim. The primary considerations in adjudging whether a series of criminal acts should be considered a continuous crime are the singularity in criminal intent and penal law violation, and the period of time the act was committed. When criminal acts are performed on various dates, the presumption is that every act is performed on the motivation of separate criminal intents, but this is not a hard and fast rule — ultimately, whether a continuous crime exists depends on the circumstances of each case. The doctrine, although an outcry of the Spanish Penal Code, has been applied to crimes penalized under special laws. Applied here, the two Informations charging violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 constituted one offense because they arose from a single intent — the Balite Falls development project — and were committed at the same time, place, and manner.

• Elements of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 — The elements are: (a) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions; (b) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (c) his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions. All three elements were found present in this case.

• Bad Faith in Graft Cases — Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud. Applied here, the petitioner's evident bad faith was manifested by his active participation in the project and his conscious continuation thereof despite being directly and personally informed by the property owners of their objection.

• Undue Injury Under Section 3(e) — Proof of the extent of damage is not essential; it is sufficient that the injury suffered or the benefit received is perceived to be substantial enough and not merely negligible. Applied here, the taking of portions of the subject properties without expropriation proceedings constituted undue injury.

• Temperate Damages in Criminal Cases — Temperate damages should be awarded when it has been established that the private complainant suffered a loss but the amount thereof cannot be proven with certainty. The determination is left to the sound discretion of the Court subject to the standard of reasonableness — temperate damages should be more than nominal but less than compensatory. Applied here, Php 400,000.00 to each property owner was deemed just and reasonable, considering that while the area affected was proven, the owners failed to adduce competent proof of valuation, and the value of their properties had actually increased and they enjoyed a lifetime privilege to use the resort for free.

• "[A] single crime consisting of a series of acts arising from a single criminal resolution or intent not susceptible of division." — This is the Court's adopted definition of delito continuado from Gamboa vs. CA, serving as the controlling formulation for determining when multiple acts constitute a single continuous crime.

• "[T]he primary considerations in adjudging whether a series of criminal acts should be considered a continuous crime, are: the singularity in criminal intent and penal law violation, and the period of time the act was committed." — This passage articulates the governing test for delito continuado, explaining that when acts are performed on various dates, the presumption favors separate criminal intents, though this is not a hard and fast rule.

• "[B]ad faith" in this sense, does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud." — This defines the standard for "evident bad faith" under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, distinguishing it from mere negligence or poor judgment.

• "[P]roof of the extent of damage is not essential, it being sufficient that the injury suffered or the benefit received is perceived to be substantial enough and not merely negligible." — This states the threshold for proving undue injury under Section 3(e), a formulation frequently cited in subsequent anti-grraft jurisprudence.

• Gamboa vs. CA, 160-A Phil. 962 (1975) — Defined delito continuado and distinguished it from complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Followed as the controlling formulation for continuous crime.
• Santiago vs. Hon. Justice Garchitorena, 298-A Phil. 164 (1993) — Provided an instructive disquisition on delito continuado, enumerating cases where the doctrine was applied (theft of property belonging to different owners at the same time) and declined (offenses committed on different occasions or with separate intents). Followed.
• Roberto P. Fuentes vs. People, G.R. No. 186421, April 17, 2017 — Reiterated that proof of the extent of damage is not essential for undue injury, and that temperate damages should be awarded when loss is established but the amount cannot be proven with certainty. Followed on both points.
• Consigna vs. People, 731 Phil. 108 (2014) — Cited for the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Followed.
• Coloma, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 744 Phil. 214 (2014) — Cited for the definition of bad faith under Section 3(e), tracing to Fonacier vs. Sandiganbayan. Followed.
• Guy vs. People, 601 Phil. 105 (2009) — Cited for the principle that appeal throws the whole case open for review, and for the requirement that Informations contain specific factual allegations indicating the connection between official duties and the offense. Followed.
• Asilo, Jr. vs. People, 660 Phil. 329 (2011) — Cited as precedent for awarding temperate damages where property was erroneously demolished by municipal officials, in the absence of proof of valuation. Followed as analogous.

• Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — Penalizes public officers who cause undue injury to any party, including the Government, or give any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. Applied as the charging provision; all three elements were found present.
• Section 9(a), Republic Act No. 3019 — Provides the penalty of imprisonment for not less than six years and one month nor more than fifteen years, perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation or forfeiture of prohibited interest and unexplained wealth. Applied in sentencing the petitioner to an indeterminate penalty of six years and one month as minimum to ten years as maximum.
• Sections 6 and 9, Rule 110, Rules of Court — Govern the sufficiency of complaints or informations, requiring that the acts or omissions complained of be stated in ordinary and concise language sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is charged. Applied to test the adequacy of the Informations.
• Article 48, Revised Penal Code — Defines complex crimes (compound and complex proper). Distinguished from delito continuado, which arises from a single criminal resolution rather than a single act producing multiple felonies or an offense being a necessary means for committing another.
• Section 1, Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law) — Governs the imposition of indeterminate penalties for offenses punished by laws other than the Revised Penal Code, fixing the maximum at that prescribed by the law and the minimum within the range of the penalty next lower. Applied in fixing the indeterminate penalty.

Carpio (Chairperson), Caguioa, and J. Reyes, Jr. (designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018) concurred. Perlas-Bernabe was on wellness leave.