GR 238304; (July, 2022) (Digest)
G.R. No. 238304 . July 27, 2022
Charita M. Chan, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Charita M. Chan, the Municipal Mayor of Babatngon, Leyte, was charged with two counts of violating Section 3(j) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). In Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0511, she was accused of approving a Mayor’s Permit for the Babatngon Gallera cockpit in favor of Nicomedes Alde, a Sangguniang Bayan member and Liga ng mga Barangay President, who was legally prohibited from holding such an interest under the Local Government Code. In Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0512, she was charged with approving a Mayor’s Permit in favor of the Liga ng mga Barangay itself for the holding of cockfights every Saturday, which was prohibited by Presidential Decree No. 449 (The Cockfighting Law of 1974) and a municipal ordinance.
During trial, the prosecution presented witnesses and documentary evidence, including the Mayor’s Permit (Exhibit “H”) issued to the Liga. The defense opted not to present evidence and instead submitted a memorandum, arguing insufficiency of prosecution evidence. The Sandiganbayan acquitted Chan in Criminal Case No. 0511 for insufficiency of evidence but convicted her in Criminal Case No. 0512. The court found that the unrebutted Mayor’s Permit constituted prima facie evidence that she knowingly granted a permit to an entity not legally entitled to it. Chan appealed her conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting Chan of violating Section 3(j) of R.A. No. 3019 for approving a Mayor’s Permit in favor of the Liga ng mga Barangay for Saturday cockfights.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Chan. The legal logic centered on the elements of the crime under Section 3(j) of R.A. No. 3019 , which requires that a public officer knowingly approves or grants any license, permit, privilege, or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license or permit. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence insufficient to prove Chan’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Crucially, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the second element: that the Liga ng mga Barangay was “not qualified for or not legally entitled” to the permit. The prosecution’s sole basis was that Saturday cockfights were prohibited by P.D. No. 449 and a municipal ordinance. However, the Court ruled that the Liga, as a juridical entity, was not inherently disqualified from applying for or receiving a permit. The legal prohibition pertained to the day (Saturday) on which the cockfights were to be held, not the applicant’s qualification. The proper charge, if any, should have been for issuing a permit for an illegal activity, not for granting it to an unqualified applicant under the specific terms of Section 3(j). Furthermore, the Court noted that the permit (Exhibit “H”) was not conclusively proven to have been issued by Chan herself, as it only bore a stamped signature. Since the prosecution did not overcome the presumption of innocence and prove all elements of the crime, Chan was entitled to an acquittal.