Tupas v. Sandiganbayan

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 196623. October 2, 2013.]

GOVERNOR NIEL D. TUPAS, SR.,petitioner, vs.SANDIGANBAYAN, FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, REP. BY ATTY. OLIVIA ELENA A. ROXAS AND THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, respondents.

[G.R. No. 196626. October 2, 2013.]

MARIANITO R. MONTESCLAROS, ESTHER T. MONTESCLAROS, ET AL., petitioners, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, 1ST DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AND OMB FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICER MARIA OLIVIA ELENA A. ROXAS, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated October 2, 2013,which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 196623 (Governor Niel D. Tupas, Sr. v. Sandiganbayan, Field Investigation Office, rep. by Atty. Olivia Elena A. Roxas and the Office of the Ombudsman) andG.R. No. 196626 (Marianito R. Montesclaros, Esther T. Montesclaros, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, 1st Division, Office of the Ombudsman, and OMB Field Investigation Officer Maria Olivia Elena A. Roxas).— On September 8, 2004 then Iloilo Governor Niel D. Tupas, Sr. approved, upon recommendation of the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office, Melvin Requinto's application for permit to quarry industrial sand and gravel (ISAG Permit) in a specified area. Shortly after or on November 30, 2004 Requinto rented the construction and crushing equipment of M. Montesclaros Enterprises, Inc. (MMEI),a company that belonged to the family of Marianito and Esther Montesclaros, the parents-in-law of Raul Tupas, son of Governor Tupas. This was covered by a lease contract between the parties.

In less than a month or on December 21, 2004 Requinto and MMEI cancelled the lease contract between them and replaced it with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under which Requinto would no longer operate, due to lack of technical capability, the rock-crushing plant in Maasin, Iloilo. MMEI would instead operate and maintain it under Requinto's ISAG permit. cTDaEH

Subsequently, on April 20, 2005 MMEI and Taisei-Shimizu Joint Venture entered into a P63-million Subcontract Agreement to undertake the washing and crushing works for the construction of the New Iloilo Airport.

On November 2, 2005 the Environment Management Bureau (EMB) and the Mines and Geosciences Bureau, both of Region VI, issued a Cease and Desist Order that enjoined Requinto from operating the crushing and screening plant in Maasin. These Bureaus found that Requinto had been processing aggregate materials from places not covered by his ISAG permit. On November 22, 2005 the EMB issued an Order of Finality in which it held that Requinto operated the crushing and screening plant in question without permit, in violation of environmental and mining laws.

On July 30, 2009 Ombudsman (OMB) Field Investigation Officer Maria Olivia Elena Roxas filed a complaint against Tupas, Requinto, and the Montesclaroses before the Office of the OMB for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Investigation Officer Roxas also charged Tupas with violations of Republic Act 6713 (the Code of Conduct for Public Officials) and Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code.

On April 15, 2010 the OMB found probable cause and ordered the filing of Informations before the Sandiganbayan against accused Tupas, Requinto, and the Montesclaroses for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019 and another information against Tupas alone for violation of Section 3 (j) of the same Act. The three accused filed their present petitions under Rule 65 before this Court.

The lone issue in this case is whether or not the OMB acted with grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to warrant the filing of Informations against Tupas, Requinto, and the Montesclaroses for the issuance of the ISAG permit in violation of Republic Act 3019.

Sections 3 (e) and 3 (j) Republic Act 3019 provides:

Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

xxx xxx xxx

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. DHECac

xxx xxx xxx

(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled.

xxx xxx xxx

There is no question that then Iloilo Governor Tupas issued an ISAG permit to Requinto. Based on the OMB's investigations, the only document Requinto submitted in support of his permit application was a document called "Initial Environment Examination of the Proposed Industrial Sand and Gravel Project with Crushing and Screening Plant of Mr. Melvin Requinto." Although Requinto did not submit the other documents that Section 74, Administrative Order 96-40 of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources required, Governor Tupas granted him the permit.

The Initial Environment Examination that Requinto submitted shows that he would be employing the crushing and screening heavy equipment of MMEI, a company owned by the Montesclaroses although, admittedly, Requinto did not have the capability needed for operating a crushing and screening plant. Indeed, Requinto admitted his deficiencies in the MOA that he later entered into with MMEI. The implication of this is that it is the Montesclaroses who had always been the intended beneficiaries of the ISAG permit. The Montesclaroses are parents-in-law of Governor Tupas's son, Raul. This apparently illicit arrangement enabled MMEI to land a P63-million contract to undertake the washing and crushing works for the construction of the New Iloilo Airport. ACIESH

For the purpose of filing a criminal information, probable cause would consist of such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty of it, warranting his indictment for trial. Evidence sufficient to secure conviction is not required. Only reasonable belief is needed. 1

Neither the OMB nor the Court holds Tupas and the Montesclaroses guilty of the offense charged at this stage of the proceedings. With more evidence, they might turn out innocent. For the time being, however, the finding of probable cause against them warrants their having to undergo trial in order to give the State the chance to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Any question as to the absence or presence of any of the elements of the offense charged and any other defense contesting the finding of probable cause is highly factual. This must be threshed out in a full-blown trial and not in a special civil action for certiorari such as the present. 2

The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested in the OMB who, "beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of public service." In the absence of a clear abuse of discretion, courts must refrain from interfering with the OMB in the exercise of its powers, and respect its initiative and independence. 3

WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petitions in G.R. 196623 and G.R. 196626 for lack of merit and AFFIRMS the Resolutions of the Office of the Ombudsman dated April 15, 2010 and August 2, 2010 in OMB-C-C-09-0403-H. The Court likewise LIFTS the Temporary Restraining Order it issued on May 30, 2011 and ORDERS the Sandiganbayan, First Division, to continue with its proceedings in Criminal Cases SB-10-CRM-0084 and 0085. (Velasco, Jr.,J.,no part; Reyes, J.,Additional Member, per Raffle dated September 30, 2013. Mendoza, J.,on official leave; Perlas-Bernabe, J.,Acting Member, per Special Order 1557-A dated September 19, 2013.)

SO ORDERED." SCIacA

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Fenequito v. Vergara, G.R. No. 172829, July 18, 2012, 677 SCRA 113, 121.

2. Tigas v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 180681, March 18, 2013.

3. Yu v. Sandiganbayan, 410 Phil. 619, 626 (2001).