Ferrer v. People

 

Ferrer v. People

G.R. No. 240209

June 10, 2019

FACTS:

                The prosecution alleged that Ferrer, then Administrator of the Intramuros Administration (IA), gave unwarranted benefits to Offshore Construction and Development Company (OCDC) when he: (a) awarded to it three (3) contracts of lease covering three (3) areas 7 in Intramuros without any public bidding; and (b) allowed OCDC to construct new structures without a building permit or clearance as required under the Intramuros Charter and the National Building Code. The prosecution's witnesses testified that in August 1998, OCDC presented plans to the Technical Committee (Committee) - whose favorable recommendation is required before a building permit can be processed - for the development of structures on top of the Intramuros Walls. However, the plans were disapproved because they would impair the Walls? integrity and violate the laws relating to the conservation of heritage sites. Notwithstanding the Committee's disapproval, and without their knowledge, OCDC commenced construction in the leased areas. Later on, the Committee inspected the areas and found that air conditioning units had been installed through the Walls, that nails bored through them, and that the concrete added to put up a mezzanine was damaging the same. Seeing the unauthorized construction activities, they asked for building permits but OCDC could not produce any.  Thereafter, the matter was reported to then Department of Tourism (DoT) Secretary Gemma Cruz-Araneta (Secretary Cruz-Araneta), to Ferrer as Administrator, and to the Urban Planning and Community Development Division. In his testimony, Victor B. Reyes (Reyes), then head of the Urban Planning and Community Development Division, confirmed that OCDC was not among those listed as recipients of building permits, and testified that his office prepared a Notice of Violation addressed to OCDC which Ferrer was supposed to sign but did not. This prompted their division to prepare a letter requiring OCDC to cease construction activities and to secure the necessary building permits. Reyes also confirmed that OCDG applied for development clearances, which were then issued to them upon Ferrer's instruction.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Ferrer for violation of Sec 3 (e) of RA 3019

HELD:

                Yes. Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 states: 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: (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. As may be gleaned above, the elements of violation of Section 3 ( e) of RA 3019 are as follows: (a) that the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative,, judicial, or official functions ( or a private individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers l; ( b) that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (c) that his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions.

                After a judicious review of the case, the Court is convinced that the SB correctly convicted Ferrer of the crime . charged. The elements constituting a violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 have been sufficiently established considering that: (a) Ferrer was indisputably a public officer at the time of the commissio~ of the offense, discharging his administrative and official functions as the IA Administrator; ( b) he acted with gross inexcusable negligence when he knowingly allowed OCDC to commence construction on the Intramuros Walls without the required permits or clearances; and ( c) by his actions, he gave unwarranted benefits to a private party, i.e., OCDC, to the detriment of the public insofar as the preservation and development plans for Intramuros are concerned.