G.R. No. 169385 , August 26, 2015
Teofilo Giangan, Santos Bontia (Deceased), and Liberato Dumail (Deceased), Petitioners, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Teofilo Giangan, along with co-accused Liberato Dumail (a barangay councilor) and Santos Bontia (head of barangay tanods), were charged with violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). As Barangay Chairman of Luyang, Carmen, Cebu, Giangan and his co-accused were alleged to have willfully destroyed a wooden fence on an agricultural land owned by Aurelia F. Bernadas on February 16, 1996, without a court order or legal authority, acting with manifest partiality and evident bad faith, thereby causing damage and prejudice to Bernadas. The prosecution established that Bernadas constructed the fence to prevent theft and unauthorized excavation, spending P11,200.00. Upon learning of its destruction, she confronted Giangan, who shouted that it was within his power as barangay captain and dared her to file a case. The defense claimed the fence blocked an existing barangay road used by residents for over 40 years, and Giangan removed the posts due to complaints, bringing them to the police station. The Regional Trial Court convicted all accused, sentencing them to imprisonment and ordering them to pay damages. The Sandiganbayan affirmed the conviction with modifications, reducing the penalty and damages. Giangan, as the sole surviving accused, appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in affirming the conviction of petitioner Teofilo Giangan for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 .

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Sandiganbayan decision, and ACQUITTED petitioner Teofilo Giangan. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The elements of the crime under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 are: (1) the accused are public officers; (2) the accused acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (3) their action caused undue injury to any party or gave any private party unwarranted benefits. While Giangan was a public officer, the Court found the second element lacking. His act of removing the fence, based on a complaint that it obstructed a purported barangay road used for decades, was done in the performance of his duty to maintain public access and did not constitute evident bad faith or manifest partiality. There was no proof of a dishonest purpose or fraudulent motive. The Court noted that the fence was constructed without a building permit and that the accused did not act with bias, as there was no evidence they ignored similar complaints against other property owners. Consequently, his guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt.