Republic of the Philippines SANDIGANBAYAN ‘Quezon City FOURTH DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILLIPINES, Plaintiff, -versus- CRIMINAL CASE NO. 27993 For: Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No, 3019 LEONARDO FLORES y BUSTOS ‘Municipal Mayor Present: Macabebe, Pampanga ONG, J.: Chairman. EDGAR FLORES y BUSTOS HERNANDEZ and Barangay Captain MARTIRES J]. Barangay Batasan, Mecabebe Pampanga Accused. Promulgated on: ia NPI oe — DECISION Hernandez, J Leonardo B. Flores (“accused Leonardo”), Municipal Mayor of Macabebe, Pampanga, and Edgar B. Flores (“accused Edgar”), Barangay Captain of Barangay Batasan, Macabebe, Pampanga, stand charged in this case with violation of Section 3 (e}, Republic Act No. 3019 (“RA 3019”) as follows: “That on or about the 5% day of March 2002, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Macabebe, Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused LEONARDO B. FLORES and EDGAR B. FLORES, both public officers, being the Municipal Mayor of Macabebe, Pampanga and Barangay Captain of Barangay Batasan, Macabebe, Pampanga, respectively contnitting the crime herein charged and taking advantage of their public positions as such, through mpdnifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligénce, did Y fodPeople vs. Flores, et al. Criminal Case No. 27993 Decision Page 2 of 14 then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally cause the bulldozing, anc: scrapping of a portion of the property situated in Macabebe, Pamzanga described as Lot 193-B, Psd-03-006483 registered in the name of Celerina Tolentino under Original Certificate of Title No. 18075 without any notice to or authority, consent, and permission from Rufina M. Cabiling and the other heirs of the deceased registered owner, to their damage and injury. CONTRARY TO LAW.” Both the accused were arraigned on 18 May 2005. With the assistance of their counsel, they entered a plea of “not guilty” to the charge against them. Prosecution’s Case: To prove its cas¢, the prosecution offered in evidence the testimonies of the following witnesses: 1) Rufina Tolentino Mercado-Cabiling?, 2) Jerick O. Legaspi, and 3) Angelita Tolentino Mercado-Bondoct. Exhibits “A” to “H” were also offered? and admitied® into evidence subject to a proper assessment of their sufficiency in proving the facts they seek to establish. Prosecution witness Angelita Tolentino Mercado-Bondoc testified that on 5 March 2002, the property registered in the name of Celerina Tolentino was scraped on the front portion which adjoins the barangay road at Bitas, Batasan, Macabebe, Pampanga where several clusters of bamboo trees located inside the property were felled. The scraping was carried out by a group of men acting under the direction of accused Barangay Captain Flores? While the scraping and clearing was taking, place, she went out and approached Barangay Captain Edgar Flores to ask why’ they were bulldozing the bamboo trees, but she did not get any reply.# Complainant Kufina Tolentino Mercado-Cabiling learned about this incident when she was informed by her sister Angelita Tolentino Mercado- Bondoc. Upon seeing that the front portion of their inherited property was scraped, she went to the office of Mayor Leonardo Flores of Macabebe, Pampanga on 11 March 2002. She then inquired why their inherited property was scraped; in reply, the mayor allegedly claimed that the area is the property of the municipality. She then mentioned to the mayor that she had documents to prove that the scrapec! area belongs to her deceased mother Celerina Tolentino; * Information, dated 24 Noverat er 2003, 2? TSN, 20 February 2006. 2 TSN, 21 February 2006. “TSN, 26 May 2006. 3 Formal Offer of Evidence, dated 11 September 2006 and filed on 14 September 2006, § Resolution, 26 October 2006. i TSN, 26 May 2006, pp. -8 Y faa 2 "TSN, 26 May 2006, p. 10.People vs. Flores, et al. Criminal Case No. 27995, Decision Page 3 of 14 x to this statement, the mayor allegedly told her to shew the documents to the court and prove her ownership of the property.” On 27 March 2002, accused Edgar with two other companions placed the “Government Property, No trespassing” sign on the area where the bamboos used to be? Subsequently, complainant Rufina filed complaint dated 6 April 2002 with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.!t Defense: To establish their defense, accused offered in evidence the testimonies of the following witnesses: 1) Edgar B. Flores"? and 2) Dante M. Lasao’. Exhibits “1” to “8” were also offered'* and admitted" into evidence, without prejudice to the Court's proper ap>reciation of their sufficiency in proving the facts they seek to establish Accused Edgar Flores testified that the Barangay Fiesta Committee, through its member Jesus Yamat, approached him on 2 February 2002 to inform him that the commitise will help the barrio in the construction of the barangay park with the use of the excess money it collected for the fiesta."® Accused Edgar, with Jesus Yamat and Dante Lasao then proceeded to the place where the committee intended to construct the park. Upon pinpointing the area, Jesus Yamat and Dante Lasao accordingly said that they will construct the park behind the bamboo trees. Accused Edgar then told them that they should look for the molon to determine the boundary line by tying a string from one mohon to the other, They were able to locate four mohons on the side fronting the barangay road.” They estimated the distance between the molions to the bamboo trees to be three mete-s.1# After determining the boundary line, he then informed the barangay council about the intention of the Barangay Fiesta Committee.” The barangay council, in turn, went to look at the site for the proposed barangay park.® After that, accused Edgar then called Jesus Yamat and informed him to tell his associates to start work already 2! On 5 March 2002, accused Edgar went to the site because it was the first day of construction” During that day, he was not the one giving instructions to the workers since the people in charge of bulldozing the area were Dante Lasao *TSN,20 February 2006, pp. 9-12 "TSN, 26 May 2006, pp. [4 and 16 TSN, 20 February, pp. 18-1 TSN, | March 2007, TSN, 18 July 2007 “Formal Offer of Evidence, dated 21 August 2007 and filed on 30 August 2007, 'S Resolution, 26 November 2(07 “TSN, | Mareh 2007, p. 10 TSN, 18 July 2007, pp24-25, "TSN, 1 March 2007, pp. 11-12. 2 TSN, | Mareh 2007, p. 14 2 TSN, | March 2007, p. 16 2. TSN, | Mareh 2007, p. 17 "TSN, | March 2007, pp. 21-2.People vs. Flores, et al Criminal Case No, 27993 Decision Page 4 of 14 ih and Jesus Yamat. Before the bamboo trees were felled, Dante Lasao informed accused Edgar that he is going to remove the bamboo trees. On that day, he saw Angelita Bondoc but she did not approach him. On 11 March 2002, private complainant Rufina Cabiling went to see him in his residence asking why he and his co-accused scraped the front portion of their property; to which query he replied that they did not touch the adjacent property. He also told private complainant that she can fence the property if she owns it because people were throwing garbage in the area. Subsequently, accused Edgar asked one of the construction helpers to place the “No Trespassing” sign on the disputed area. The Facts It is undisputed that on 5 March 2002, a portion of the land area fronting the barangay road at Bitas, Batasan, Macabebe, Pampanga was scraped and cleared in the presence of accused Edgar Flores, during which several bamboo clusters where felled with the use of a backhoe.” This was done without the consent, authority, or permission of the complainant. Towards the end of that month, a sign bearing the phrase “No trespassing” on government property was erected, in the presence of accused Edgar Flores, on the area where the bamboo trees used to be On 6 April 2002, a complaint was filed by Rufina Mercado Cabiling against the accused for save abuse and usurpation of authority for the scraping of the property in question.® Several months later, on 7 November 2002, a SKETCH/SPECIAL PLAN was prepared by Geodetic Engineer Alberto C. Mangalindan for the Barangay of Batasan through the instance of both the accused to “show the location and relative position of propose (sic) Barangay Park of Batasan” with respect the adjoining lot which was indicated as registered in the name o° Celerina Tolentino et al.2° During the trial, 2_ motion was filed by the accused asking for authority to Conduct a Location Survey And To Deputize Geodetic Engineers Of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office to Conduct Such Location Survey”, The relocation survey was for the purpose of delineating, the boundary between the constructed barangay park and the property in question. ® TSN. | March 2007, pp. 22-26 2*TSN, 18 July 2007, p. 29, 2 TSN, | March 2007, p. 26. 2 TSN, | March 2007, p. 27, TSN, 18 July 2007, p43, 2° TSN, 26 May 2006, pp. 7-8 and 10. TSN, | March 2007, pp. 21-26. 2 TSN, 26 May 2002, pp. 14 anc! 16; TSN, | March 2007, p. 27 ® Exhibit “A”. © Joint Pre-Trial Brie (For the Accused), dated 11 June 2005 and filed on 17 June 2008: Order, 10 August 2006, containing the agreement znd stipulation ofthe pacties “thatthe Survey Plan marked as Exhibits "B- ‘was prepared hy Engineer Alberto Mangalindan upon the instance of both accused through their counsel Maria Paz D. Duyue and this plan was subsequently furnished to both accused; hence, both Ye fees 4People vs. Flores, et al. Criminal Case No. 27994 Decision Page 5 of 14 x This motion was granted by th subject to the followin, conditions? Court in a Resolution dated 30 May 2005 “1, That accused-movants will have, as their representative, any of the qualified government geodetic engineer coming from the Office of the Community Environment and Natural Resources (San Fernando, Pampanga) while private complainant will have, as her representative, Vr. Jerick O. Legaspi, a licensed geodetic engineer from the Office of the City Engineer, Caloocan City. 2, That the “relocation survey” shall be conducted jointly by the aforementioned seodetic engineers who will also jointly prepare the necessary relocation survey plans, indicating among others, the boundaries of the subject lot with respect to the ten (10) meter wide Barrio Road ancl the concreted portion of the road, the exact location of the concrete cylindrical markers and the concrete benches and larap posts in relation to the boundaries and the area or extent of incursion, if any. 3, The respective representative geodetic engineers to likewise prepare a joint report to be submitted to the Court together with the relocation survey plan (copy furnished both parties) 4, That all expeses relative to the said relocation survey including the preparation of the relocation survey including the preparation of the relocation survey plan and report to be shouldered by the herein accused-snovants. 5. The bottom line issue in this case (whether or not there was an incursion) being akin to a boundary dispute, that the result of the joint relocation survey should be considered as conclusive upon the parties concerned.” On 22 July 2005, a letter was sent to this Court from Artemio P. Almazan, Jr., (“Engineer Almazan”) Engr. III/Chief, Survey Party, DENR-CENRO City of San Fernando transmitting tc this Court the attached relocation survey conducted on the property covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 180 75, the subject lot in the above-captioned case, as contained in the Sketch/Special Plan, “with the information and certification that the existing park benches of Barangay Batasan, Macabebe, Pampanga «tr? outside of the subject lot.” Subsequently, submitted to this Court is a “Separate Report of Geodetic Engineer Jerick Legaspi" ("Engineer Legaspi”) dated 12 August 2005 and filed on 16 August 2005 with attached Original Relocation Plan and the blue print copy of the same showing the actual details of the survey and the extent of encroachment. Comment to the Joint Motion ‘'o Conduct Relocation Survey, dated 18 May 2005 and #64 on 18 May 4@ :People vs, Flores, et al. Criminal Case No. 27993 Decision Page 6 of 14 ae Issue The issue bears :pon the question as to whether or not accused cause the bulldozing and scrapping of a portion of the property situated in Macabebe, Pampanga described a3 Lot 193-B, Psd-03-006483 registered in the name of Celerina Tolentino uncer Original Certificate of Title No. 18075 without any notice to or authority, consent, and permission from Rufina M. Cabling and the other heirs of the dececsed registered owner in violation of RA 3019, Section 3 @. Ruling Under the Constitution, the accused shall be presumed innocent in all criminal prosecution until the contrary is proved. Adherence to this rule requires that evidence should be sufficient to remove every vestige of reasonable doubt.# The Supreme Court reiterated this fundamental rule in the case of People of the Philippines ws. Seve Ola ®: the Bill of Rights guarantees that any person accused of a criminal offense ‘s presumed innocent until the contrary is proved (Art. Ill, Sec. 14(2). Constitution). The quantum of evidence required by law to overcome this constitutional presumption, and to justify any criminal conviction is proof beyond reasonable doubt (Rule 133, Sec. 2}. This is not to say that there should be absolute certainty in every criminal conviction. The law only requires the prosecution to adduce "that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind" (Rule 133, Sec. 2 and Rule 131, Sec. 2), Before a judgraent of conviction is then rendered, all elements of the offense charged against the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. If not, the failure or the inability of the prosecution to substantiate any of the elements of the offense charged renders inevitable the acquittal of the accused. The accused is chargesl ander Section 3(¢) and (g) of RA 3019 which provides as follows: SEC. 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 ® Sec. 14 2), Article Il, Constitution ™ People vs. Malilay, 63 SCRA 420, v jest i %GRNo. L-47147, 3 duly 1987,People vs. Flores, et al. Criminal Case No. 27993, Decision Page 7 of 14 © Causing any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official function, 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. The essential elements constituting the offense under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 as Jaid down by the Supreme Court are: 1. The accused must be a public officer discharging, administrative, judicial or official functions; 2, He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and 3. That his action caused any undue injury to any party, including, the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions There is no dispute that the accused were public officers, being then the mayor of Macabebe, Pampanga and barangay captain of Barangay Batasan, Macabebe, Pampanga, luring the material date alleged in the information. There is also no dispute that accused were discharging their official functions as the mayor and barangay captain with respect the construction of the subject barangay park, The other elements as they relate to the charge will be discussed. That the accused must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, This element provides the different ways by which the offense may be committed. The meaning; of the terms “manifest partiality”, “evident bad faith”, and “gross inexcusable negligence” in the commission of the offense under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 was explained by the Supreme Court in Fonacier, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.” According to the Court: The secon element enumerates the different modes by which means the offense penalized in Section 3(e) may be committed. “Partiality” is synonymous with “bias” which “excites ™ Cabrora, etal. vs, Sandiganina ran, otal. G.R, Nos. 162314-17, October Sandiganbayan, et a., G.R. Ne. \60991, February 28, 2005, 238 SCRA 635 (1994). se ae, 1004; Velasco vs,People vs. Flores, et al. Criminal Case No. 27993 Dei Page 8 of 14 x a disposition to sve and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are.” “Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud.” “Gross_negligence has been so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and irtentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property. ” These definitions prove all_ too well thet the three modes are distinct and different from each_othes of the existence of any of these modes in connection with the prohibited acts under Section 3 (e) should suffice to warrant conviction In the present case, the information charges the accused for having allegedly acted “through manifest_partiality, evident bad_faith, or gross inexcusable negligence” in bulldozing and scrapping, of a portion of the property situated in Macabebe, Pampanga described as Lot 193-B, Psd-03-006483 registered in the namv of Celerina Tolentino under Original Certificate of Title No. 18075 without any notice to or authority, consent, and permission from Rufina M. Cabiling and -he other heirs of the deceased registered owner. The scraping and clearing of the area in question without the consent or authority from the complainant was undisputed. The factual issue revolved around the question of boundary between the barangay road and the adjacent property registered in she name of Celerina Tolentino; this issue was sought to be addressed by a Court Cider for the parties to conduct a joint location survey. Although the parties failed to submit a joint report on the location survey conducted by them, their separate reports were nonetheless submitted to this Court and were also offered in evidence. While the report of Engineer Almazan shows that there was no encroachment on the lot adjoining the barangay road, the report of Engineer Legaspi shows that there was an encroachment. The substantial difference between both reports at the time they were sent to this Court in 2005 is obvious.#? Noticeably, the report from Engineer Almazan contained only the relocation survey/"sketch plan” while the report from Engineer Legaspi included the following: a written account on the conduct of the survey duly subscribed! and sworn to under oath, the field notes, the traverse and ot data computations, and the relocation survey. The report is detailed as it should be since there isa need to determine with certainty whether the barangay ® At pp. 687-688; underscoring urs, Resolution, 30 May 2005. © Letter from Artemio P. Almazan, Jr addressed to the Sandiganbayan Court, filed on 22 July 2005 with aached relocation survey, Roll, Vol. 1, pp. 435-437; Separate Report of Geodetic Engineer Jetick Legaspi, fled on 16 August 260, with attachments, a feosPeople vs. Flores, et al. Criminal Case No. 27993 Decision Page 9 of 14 Xe park encroached on the private property owned by Rufina M. Cabiling and the other heirs of Celerina Tolentino. (On the basis of the evidence on record, the scraping and clearing went beyond the boundary and encroached on the property, adjacent to the barangay road, registered in the name of Celerina Tolentino." In fact, three of the concrete benches encroached the adjacent property by 15.4 meters by .26 meters. These findings reflected in the relocation survey submitted by the Engineer Legaspi? were not shown to be erroneous. The submission of the accused that there was no encroachment was mainly based on the piclures* which show the moons some distance away at the back of the concrete benches. These molions on the picture, however, are not reliable especially since their alignment with the monuments located on both ends at the property corner was not demonstrated. Further, these mohions behind the concrete benches as shown in the pictures are not reflected in the relocation survey submitted by Engineer Almazan and relied upon by the defense. As it is, this relocation survey show the mohons to be exactly in line with the back edge of all the concrete bencivs with no single mohon behind any of these benches. In addition to this inconsistency is the testimony of the defense witness who claimed to have constructed the concrete benches; he referred to the distance between the concrete be rches and the molions as, “(i)n front it is only around six inches and at the other end, it is around 3 to 4 meters, sir.” Even without reference to this relocation survey, the defense witness Dante Lasao on cross examination testified that the cleared and leveled portion shown in the pictures" were already inside the concrete cylindrical boundary marks.” In further repudicting the charge, accused puts in question the ownership of the lot encroached upon. They claim that the allegation in the information as regards the registraticn of the lot in the name of Celerina Tolentino under Original Certificate of Title No. 18705 was not established. They pointed to the inadmissibility of Exhibit “E” as it is only a mere photocopy and is not even legible. While it is true that Exhibit “E” has no probative value as the contents are not legible, the fact of registration of the lot in the name of Celerina Tolentino is already admitted by the defense. In the pre-trial brief® of the accused, they included in the list of their documentary evidence a sketch plan “showing the relative position of the barangay park and the parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 18075”. Written on the sketch plan is the following notation referring to the front portion of the lot adjoining the barangay road: “3m widening and expansion of park subject for expropriation, Portion of lot 193.B. PSD03.006483 Reg. in the name of Celerina Tolentino et al. as per attached “G" and °G- and its submarkings. © Exhibits “8-a” and "8b". Exhibit “6-c"; Rollo, Vol. J, pp. 435-437, “TSN, 18 July 2007, p. 52 “ Exhibits “H”, “H-1™, and “H.2 ©’ TSN, 18 July 2007, pp. 52-55 “ Prestral Brief (forthe accused), dated 11 June 2005 and filed on 17 June 2005. Ze ingPeople vs. Flores, et al. Criminal Case No. 27995 Decision Page 10 of 14 x approved plan.” The express reference to the registration of the subject lot to Celerina Tolentino et al. is an unequivocal admission of the fact just stated. Even if this sketch plan was not subsequently offered in evidence by the defense, the pre-trial brief for the accused which forms part of the records of this case unmistakably bears out the submission that the attached exhibit “1”, referring to the sketch plan, is “authentic” and “duly executed”. In fact, this was part of the defense’s proposed stip slation of facts. This constitutes a judicial admission on the part of the accuse! which the Court can very well consider. In other words, they cannot now be heard to question the authenticity and due execution of this sketch plan. Moreover, the note on the sketch plan indicated that “3m for widening and expansion of the park” on the portion of the lot of Celerina Tolentino is the subject of expropriation. If the disputed area is the property of the municipality, why was there a need for expropriation. It is also borne cut by the evidence that the clearing and scraping was undertaken with notice to, acquiescence, and participation of accused Edgar in his capacity as Barangay Captain of Barangay Batasan, Macabebe, Pampanga. This is not negated by the fact that the proposal to construct the barangay park and the funds for it came from the Barangay Fiesta Committee. From the testimony of accused lugar himself, he admitted that he was approached by the barangay fiesta committee regarding the intention to construct a barangay park, that he accompanied the representative of the barangay fiesta committee in checking out the area irtended for the construction of the park, that he relayed this intention to the barangay council, that he gave the go signal for the construction to proceuci, that he was present in the construction site several times.” Moreover, the construction worker himself testified that the felling of the bamboo trees were first relayed to accused Edgar before it was carried out39 he also testified that the clearing, and leveling of the area was undertaken by him as ordered by accused Edgar! It is how the scraping/leveling was undertaken that shows omission of that care, so gross, that even inattentive men never fail to take on their own property. To reiterate the definition adverted to earlier, “(g)ross negligence has been so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but will‘ully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected,” One of the duties of a barangay captain under the Local Government Code is to “enforce all laws and ordinances which are applicable within the barangay.” °* Some of the laws applicable to the barangay include the provisions governing local legislation. That it is his duty to preside over the meetings of the sangguniang barangay is mandated by the Local Government Code It is also mandated under the Local Government Code tha: she sanggunian concerned should adopt or upgrade its # TSN, I March 2007. 2 TSN, 18 July 2007, p. 29. 5! TSN, 18 July 2007, pp. 54-35, 2 R.A. 7160, Book If, Title 1, tapter Il, Section 389 (b) (1) R.A. 7160, Book I, Title I, Chapter III, Section 49 (a). ial aPeople vs, Flores, et al. Criminal Case No. 27993 Decision Page 11 of 14 * existing rules of procedure that each sanggunian shall keep a journal and record of its proceedings and that all barangay ordinances shall be furnished the sangguniang panglunsod or sangguniang bayan for review as to whether the ordinance is consistent with law and city or municipal ordinances. None of these rules were shown to have been enforced by accused Edgar in his capacity as the punong barangay of Barangay Batasan, Macabebe, Pampanga in relation to the construction of the barangay park in question. In the matter of the construction of the barangay park in question, it was not shown to have unvlergone any form of official action, Not even the proposal from the barangay fiesta committee nor the alleged approval given by the barangay council for this project was documented or recorded if it truly underwent official scrutiny. It is of no moment that the initiative for the construction of the park and the funds to defray the expenses came from the barangay fiesta committee. It remains as a fact that such construction involves the use of a government property. There are no documents to show the deliberations taken, or the plans to be implemented, or measurements and limitations to be observed in the construction of the barangay park. If the project has gone through officiel procedures, the necessary checks could have turned up the fact that the lot adjacent to the barangay road is already registered in the name of a private individual. Under an unrestrained discretion such as this, certain boundaries are likely to be overstepped. Under this scenario, accused Edgar has omitted to act with conscious indifference to the consequences that my affect other people especially where he has that mandated duty to act in his official capacity as the barangay captain. The only document that was shown bearing on the construction of the barangay park was a SKETCH/SPECIAL PLAN prepared by Geodetic Engineer Alberto C. Mangalindan for the Barangay of Batasan through the instance of both the accused to “show the Incation and relative position of propose (sic) Barangay Park of Batasan” with respect the adjoining lot which was indicated as registered in the name cf Celerina Tolentino ct al.5” This was, however, prepared on 7 November 2002 several months after the questioned clearing was already carried out and only after a complaint was filed by the private complainant against the accused. The neglect by accused Edgar is brazen and palpable constituting gross inexcusable negligence. That the action of the accused caused any undue injury to any party, including the goverment, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, R.A, 7160, Book L, Title 1, Chapter 111, Section 50 (a), * R.A. 7160, Book I, Title II, Chapter III, Section 52 (¢). “R.A. 7160, Book I, Title Il, Chapter Itt, Section 57 (a). *" Joint Pre-Trial Brief (For thz Accused), dated 11 June 2005 and filed on 17 June. 2005; Order, 1) August 2006, containing the agreemest ind stipulation of the partes “thatthe Survey Plan marked as Exhibits “B- 2 and “B-2-a" was prepared by Engineer Alberto Mangalindan upon the instance of both accused throughPeople vs. Flores, et al. Criminal Case No. 27993 Decision Page 12 of 14 x advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. As to the third clement, the Supreme Court explained in Cabrera, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.5§ that there are two ways by which a public official violates Sections 3(e) of RA 3019 in the performance of his functions, namely: (1) by causing undue injury to any party, including the government; or (2) by giving any private party anv unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference. The accused may be charged under either mode or under both. In Quibal vs. Sandiganbayan,>° the Sugreme Court held that the use of the disjunctive term “or” connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The accused in this case is charged with causing damage and injury to the private complainant. “Undue injury” #s an element required by the RA 3019, Section 3 (e) refers to such injury that must be more than necessary, excessive, improper or illegal The scraping of the complainant's property without consent, permission, or authority is an encroachment and a violation on her property rights that is constitutio ally protected. Although it is an injury that cannot be quantified by a scale that ranges from negligible to more than necessary or excessive, it is an injury that is definitely improper and illegal. Accused argue that the allegation of injury committed was not established since the prosecution failed to prove that the complainant is an heir of the registered owner of the subject lot. It behooves this Court to call the attention of the accused to its motior asking for authority to Conduct a Location Survey And To Deputize Geodetic Engineers Of the Community Environment and Natural to Conduct Such Location Survey”*!, This relocation survey was for the purpose of delineating the boundary between the constructed barangay park and the adjacent property in question. By this, the accused acknowledged the standing of the private complainant. Accused cannot now be heard to question the interest of the complainant as heir of the registered owner of the adjacent lot just because the result of the relocation survey allowed by this Court turned out to be not in their favor. As to the participation of Leonardo Flores in the commission of the acts in question, the evidence on his culpability falls short of what is required by law. ACCORDINGLY, accused Edgar Flores y Bustos is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated Republic Act 3019, Section 3 (e) and is sentenced to suffer in prison the penalty of six (6) years and one (1) month to ten (10) years, with the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding public office, plus to pey the costs of the suit, 3 Supra 244 SCRA 224 (1995) © Jacinto vs, Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No, 84571, 2 October 1989, W fh f “Dated 22 April 2005 and filed on 25 April 2008.People vs. Flores, et al. 27993 Criminal Case Decision Page 13 of 14 Xe For failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of Leonardo Flores y Bustos beyond reasonable doubt, he is ACQUITTED. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines. JOSE R. HERNA! Associate Justice WE CONCUR: GREGORY 8. ONG Bu fe IRES Associate Justice Associate Justice ChairmanPeople vs. Flores, ei al. Criminal Case No. 27993 Decision Page 14 of 14 xe ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. GREGORY S$. ONG Associate Justice Chairman CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VILL Section 13, of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman’s Attestaticn, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reaches: in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. Presidlyg Justice u