G.R. Nos.

233155-63 June 23, 2020

Jose Tapales Villarosa, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines

Facts:
The Provincial Environment and Natural Resources (PENRO) of the Province of Occidental
Mindoro received reports from mining and quarry checkers that there are persons who are conducting
quarry operations within the municipality of San Jose, without the required extraction permits. Upon
checking, the quarry operators were not able to present Extraction Permits issued by the Provincial
Government. Instead, what they showed are permits signed by herein petitioner Jose Villarosa, mayor of
San Jose. After such discovery, PENRO Officer Ruben Soledad issued Cease-and-Desist Orders against
the quarry operators. Petitioner Villarosa wrote Soledad a letter accusing the latter of being guilty of
mockery of the whole legislative process and that San Jose shall not recognize the CDOs. The mayor
also asked Soledad to properly respect the inherent powers vested upon the LGU which was
unmistakably defined in the Local Government Code. Soledad responded to the petitioner claiming that
pursuant to Provincial Tax Ordinance of Occidental Mindoro, as well as the LGC of 1991, the authority to
issue permits for the extraction of sand and gravel resides exclusively to the Governor. However, the
petitioner upheld his view. Soledad filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against
petitioner for usurpation of authority among others, for allegedly issuing extraction permits despite his
knowledge that he is bereft of authority to do so. The OMB found probable cause to hold petitioner
criminally liable for issuing such permits and directed the filing of Information. The SB found petitioner
guilty in all 9 cases for violation of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019 or Corrupt practices of public officers, as all its
elements are present. Thus, Villarosa filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Court, but was
dismissed due to failure to attribute any irreversible error. He then filed a second MR, which this Court has
given due course.

Issue: WON the mere issuance of extraction permits by petitioner amounts to evident bad faith and giving
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to Enviserve?

Ruling: No. In order to hold a person liable under Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019, the offender is public officer; the
act was done in the discharge of a public officer’s official function; the act was done through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and the public officer caused any undue
injury to any party, including the Government, or gave unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference. In
this instant case, the first and second elements are established. As to the third element, the mayor argued
that the prosecution failed to prove that there was evident bad faith on his part because the issuance of
the permits went through a legitimate process as these were filed with the MENRO, a body which was
duly created by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Occ. Mindoro. Also, the revenue collected from the
issuance of the permits was remitted to the Provincial Government. In this case, the Court agrees with the
petitioner and finds that there is no sufficient evidence to prove that he is guilty of evident bad faith.
Evident bad faith contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some
motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. There is no showing that petitioner personally
gained anything by his issuance of the questioned permits. In fact, it was not disputed that all collected
pertinent taxes and fees were properly remitted. There could be no furtive design either as the issuance
underwent legitimate process. These instances cast doubt on the culpability of petitioner for the crime
charged. The Court also did not find sufficient evidence to prove that the persons in whose favor herein
petitioner issued the permits received unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference. The prosecution in
this case failed to pass the test of a moral certainty necessary to warrant petitioner’s conviction. The
constitutional presumption of innocence of the petitioner was not overcome, thus, entitling him acquittal.