GUANZON V.

DE VILLA 181 SCRA 623

Facts:
The 41 petitioners alleged that the “saturation drive” or “aerial target zoning” that were
conducted in their place (Tondo Manila) were unconstitutional. They alleged that there is
no specific target house to be search and that there is no search warrant or warrant of arrest
served. Most of the policemen are in their civilian clothes and without nameplates or
identification cards. The residents were rudely rouse from their sleep by banging on the
walls and windows of their houses. The residents were at the point of high-powered guns
and herded like cows. Men were ordered to strip down to their briefs for the police to
examine their tattoo marks. The residents complained that they’re homes were ransacked,
tossing their belongings and destroying their valuables. Some of their money and valuables
had disappeared after the operation. The residents also reported incidents of mauling, spot-
beatings and maltreatment. Those who were detained also suffered mental and physical
torture to extract confessions and tactical information.
The respondents said that such accusations were all lies. Respondents contends that the
Constitution grants to government the power to seek and cripple subversive movements for
the maintenance of peace in the state. The aerial target zoning was intended to flush out
subversives and criminal elements coddled by the communities were the said drives were
conducted. They said that they have intelligently and carefully planned months ahead for
the actual operation and that local and foreign media joined the operation to witness and
record such event.

Issue:

Whether or Not the saturation drive committed consisted of violation of human rights.

Held:

It is not the police action per se which should be prohibited rather it is the procedure used
or the methods which “offend even hardened sensibilities”. Based on the facts stated by
the parties, it appears to have been no impediment to securing search warrants or warrants
of arrest before any houses were searched or individuals roused from sleep were arrested.
There is no showing that the objectives sought to be attained by the “aerial zoning” could
not be achieved even as the rights of the squatters and low income families are fully
protected. However, the remedy should not be brought by a taxpayer suit where not one
victim complaints and not one violator is properly charged.
In the circumstances of this taxpayers’ suit, there is no erring soldier or policeman whom
the court can order prosecuted. In the absence of clear facts, no permanent relief can be
given.
In the meantime, where there is showing that some abuses were committed, the court
temporary restraint the alleged violations which are shocking to the senses. Petition is
remanded to the RTC of Manila.
SABIO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. 233853

Facts:

That on April 18, 2007 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Mandaluyong City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Camillo L. Sabio,
a high ranking public officer, being then the Acting Chairman of the Presidential
Commission on Good Government (PCGG), conspiring, confabulating, and confederating
with Richard M. Abcede, Tereo L. Javier, Narciso S. Nario and Nicasio A. Conti, then
PCGG Commissioners, while in the performance of their official functions as such, taking
advantage therof and committing the offense in relation to office did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and criminally give unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to
UCPB Leasing and Finance Corporation, a sequestered company of PCGG, thru gross
inexcusable negligence, evident bad faith, or manifest partiality, by entering into and/or
cause the entering into a Lease Agreement dated April 18, 2007 with the said Leasing
Corporation for the lease of five service vehicles through negotiated procurement without
the required public bidding under Section 10 of RA 9184 otherwise known as the
Government Procurement Act for the total of P5,393,000.00 to the damage and prejudice
of the government and to the detriment of public interest.

Issue:

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting the petitioner.

Held:

No. The following are the elements of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019: The offender is a public
officer; 2. The act was done in the discharge of the public officer’s official, administrative
or judicial functions; 3. The act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or
gross inexcusable negligence; and 4. The public officer caused any undue injury to any
party including the Government, or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference. In the Instant case, there was bad faith on the part of Sabio in entering into the
subject lease agreements based on the following: 1. For not undertaking the required
process; and 2. Subjecting government funds to unnecessary expenditure without pre-
allocation and the necessity of the same. The lease agreements between the PCGG and the
UCPB Leasing involving the eleven vehicles in the years 2007-2009 were awarded to the
latter without conducting public bidding. This is a clear violation of RA 9184. Moreover,
it was shown that there was no allotment for the lease of the subject vehicles. Petitioner
clearly disregarded the law meant to protect public funds from irregular or unlawful
utilization. In fact, petitioner admitted that the lease agreements were not subjected to
public bidding, because it is their position that the PCGG is exempted from the
procurement law and that they were merely following the practice of their predecessors.
This is totally unacceptable, considering that the PCGG is charged with the duty, among
others, to institute corruption preventive measures. As such, they should have been the first
to follow the law. Sadly, however, they failed. Moreover, at the time of execution of the
lease agreements, Sabio was a member of the Board of Directors of the UCPB, the parent
company of the UCPB Leasing. This fact bolstered the presence of the fourth element, that
there was unwarranted benefit, advantage given to UCPB Leasing. As correctly ruled by
the Sandiganbayan, Sabio’s acts unmistakably reflect 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.