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.