TL;DR

The Supreme Court clarified that when a public official’s actions, driven by a single criminal intent, harm multiple individuals in a similar manner, it constitutes a single continuous offense, not multiple offenses. In this case, a mayor was wrongly charged with two counts of graft for ordering construction on two adjacent private properties as part of a single project. The Court ruled this was one continuous crime and modified the Sandiganbayan’s decision to reflect a single conviction and penalty, while also awarding damages to the property owners for the undue injury caused by the unauthorized construction on their land.

Balite Falls Fiasco: When a Mayor’s Project Tramples Private Property Rights

This case revolves around Albert G. Ambagan, Jr., then Mayor of Amadeo, Cavite, who faced two counts of violating Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The charges stemmed from his involvement in the Balite Falls eco-tourism project. The core legal question was whether the mayor committed one continuous crime or multiple offenses when his project encroached on the private lands of two adjacent property owners, the heirs of Simplicio Lumandas and Calixto Lumandas. The Sandiganbayan initially found Mayor Ambagan guilty of two separate counts of graft, but the Supreme Court re-evaluated this decision, focusing on the concept of delito continuado, or continuous crime, in Philippine jurisprudence.

The facts reveal that the municipality of Amadeo aimed to develop Balite Falls into a tourist spot. Mayor Ambagan, acting in his official capacity, spearheaded this project. Without proper expropriation or agreements, construction activities were initiated on the private lands adjacent to Balite Falls, owned by the Lumandases. This resulted in the demolition of structures and land leveling on their properties. Two separate Informations were filed against Mayor Ambagan, one for each property owner, alleging undue injury caused by his actions. The Sandiganbayan convicted him on both counts.

On appeal, Mayor Ambagan argued that his actions constituted a single continuous crime, not two separate offenses, because they arose from a single intent – the development of Balite Falls. He invoked the doctrine of delito continuado, which applies when a series of acts, stemming from a single criminal intent and violating the same penal provision, are committed. The Supreme Court agreed with Mayor Ambagan on this point, citing the definition of delito continuado from Gamboa v. CA:

[A] single crime consisting of a series of acts arising from a single criminal resolution or intent not susceptible of division. For Cuello Calon, when the actor, there being unity of purpose and of right violated, commits diverse acts, each of which although of a delictual character, merely constitutes a partial execution of a single particular delict, such concurrence or delictual acts is called a “delito continuado”.

The Court emphasized that the key elements of a continuous crime are a plurality of acts over a period, violation of the same penal provision, and a unity of criminal intent. Applying these elements, the Court found that Mayor Ambagan’s actions, although affecting two different property owners, were driven by a singular criminal intent – to implement the Balite Falls development project. The two Informations were strikingly similar, differing only in the property owner’s name and property details. Therefore, the Court concluded that only one offense was committed, and a single Information should have been filed.

Despite agreeing with the continuous crime argument, the Supreme Court upheld Mayor Ambagan’s conviction for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The Court found that all elements of the offense were present: Mayor Ambagan was a public officer acting in his official capacity; he acted with evident bad faith by ordering construction on private land without consent or expropriation; and this action caused undue injury to the Lumandases by depriving them of the use and enjoyment of their property. The Court defined “bad faith” in this context as implying a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity, a breach of sworn duty through ill will, akin to fraud. The unauthorized taking of private property for a public project, without due process, clearly demonstrated this bad faith.

While the Sandiganbayan had not awarded damages, the Supreme Court, exercising its appellate jurisdiction, awarded temperate damages of Php 400,000.00 to each of the property owners. Temperate damages are appropriate when some pecuniary loss is shown, but the exact amount cannot be determined with certainty. The Court considered that while the Lumandases had not proven the precise extent of their damages, they undoubtedly suffered loss due to the unauthorized construction and deprivation of property use. The awarded amount was deemed reasonable under the circumstances, balancing the proven injury with the acknowledgment that the property’s value may have also increased due to the development.

This case serves as a crucial reminder to public officials about the importance of due process and respect for private property rights, even when pursuing public interest projects. It also clarifies the application of the continuous crime doctrine in anti-graft cases, ensuring that individuals are not penalized multiple times for actions stemming from a single criminal intent. The ruling underscores that while public projects are important, they cannot come at the expense of individual rights and legal procedures must always be followed.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Ambagan, Jr. v. People, G.R. Nos. 233443-44, November 28, 2018