Temporary

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SANDIGANBAYAN
Quezon City
FOURTH DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASES NOS. SB-

Plaintiff, 1S-CRM-0121 & 0122
For: Violation of Section
- versus - 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019
JEFFERSON P. SORIANO AND Present:

RONALD L. BRILLANTES,
Accused. QUIROZ, J., Chairperson
CRUZ, J.
ECONG, J:
Promulgated on:
Jv1y 17 I '2.017 ~
)(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )(
RESOLUTION
CRUZ, J.
This resolves the following:
(1) Demurrer to Evidence 1 dated 26 April 2017 of accused

Ronald L. Brillantes (hereinafter, "Brillantes");
Demurrer to Evidence? dated 26 April 2017 of accused

(2)
Jefferson P. Soriano (Soriano);
(3) the prosecution's Consolidated Comment/Opposition (Re: a.

Accused Jefferson P Soriano's Demurrer to Evidence dated April 26, .. 1//
2017,' and b. Accused Ronald L. Bril/antes' Demurrer to Evidence (' i
dated April 26, 2017)' dated 12 May 2017; and , ~{
, Sitting as Special Member per Attrtunistretive Order No 022-2017 dated 1February 2017. '\
1 Records, VoL 2, pp 396-419. ~,
2 Id., pp. 420-442.
3 Id. pp. 448-470.
RESOLUTION
pp vs. Soriano, et al.
Crim. Cases Nos. SB-15-CRM-0121 & 0122
Page 2 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
(4) Soriano's Reply to the Consolidated Comment/Opposition
(to Demurrer to Evidencey' dated 13 June 2017.
Soriano and Brillantes stand charged with two (2) counts of

violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, known as
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in Criminal Cases Nos. SB-
15-CRM-0121 and SB-15-CRM-0122, originally raffled to the Fifth
Division of the Court." The accusatory portions of the Informations
read as follows:
Criminal Case No. SB-15-CRM-0121:
That on or about 11 July 2013, in Tuguegarao City, and within

the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, JEFFERSON
P. SORIANO and RONALD L. BRILLANTES, both public officials,
being then the City Mayor and City Administrator, respectively, of
Tuguegarao City, taking advantage of their official position and
committing the crime in relation to their office, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and with evident bad faith issue a 'Special Permit
to Operate' to Mrs. Vicky V. Medina, authorizing said private person
to exclusively operate a 'baratilyo' sale on the occasion of the City's
fiesta, despite full knowledge of the fact that, at that time, the
Sangguniang Panlungsod has yet to issue a City Resolution
approving the conduct of such 'baratilyo' sale and imposing the
terms and conditions for the grant of permits in connection
therewith, thereby pre-empting and circumventing the will of the
local legislative body and ultimately giving an unwarranted benefit,
advantage or privilege to said private person.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
Criminal Case No. S8-15-CRM-0122:
That on or about 24 July 2013, in Tuguegarao City, and within

the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, JEFFERSON
P. SORIANO and RONALD L. BRILLANTES, both public officials,
being then the City Mayor and City Administrator, respectively, of
Tuguegarao City, taking advantage of their official position and
committing the crime in relation to their office, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and with evident bad faith cause the closure of
portions of Gomez, Del Rosario and Gonzaga Streets in
Tuguegarao City for the purpose of constructing stalls for a
'baratilyo' sale on the occasion of the City's fiesta, despite full
knowledge of the fact that, at that time, the Sangguniang
Panlungsod has yet to issue a City Resolution approving the
conduct of such 'baratityo' sale and authorizing the temporary
closure of roads in connection therewith, thereby pre-empting and
4 Id., pp. 460-470.

5 Re-raffled to Fourth Division on 15 January 2016.
6 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1-2.
RESOLUTION
Page 3 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
circumventing the will of the local legislative body and ultimately
causing undue injury to the people of Tuguegarao City and the
general public who were denied access to and enjoyment of the
said public thoroughfares.
CONTRARY TO LAW.?
The Court, finding probable cause, ordered the issuance of

warrants of arrest against Soriano and Brillantes." The Court also
issued a hold-departure order" against them.
Soriano filed a Motion to Reduce Bail10 in both cases, which the

Court granted. 11 The Court also granted 12 Brillantes' Motion for
Reduction of Bail13 in both cases.
Soriano filed his Motion for the Judicial Re-Determination of

Probable Cause 14 while Brillantes filed his Motion to Quash
tntormeiion": The Court denied both motions in its Resoiution'? dated
21 October 2015.
Both Soriano and Brillantes, when arraigned, pleaded "not

guilty" to the charqes."
The parties entered into stipulations of facts on the foltowinq":
I. STIPULATED FACTS
1. That at the time material and relevant to these cases, the

following accused were public officers holding government
positions:
a. Jefferson P. Soriano - Mayor, Tuguegarao City,
Cagayan
b. Ronald L. Brillantes - City Administrator, Tuguegarao
City, Cagayan
2. Accused Jefferson P. Soriano was elected City Mayor of

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan for the first time only in 2013;
7 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 3-4.

8 Minute Resolution dated 8 June 2015. Records, Vol. 1, p. 144.
9 ki., p. 145.
10 ki., pp. 149-150 (for Criminal Case No SB-15-CRM-0121) and pp. 151-152 (for Criminal Case.. /
No. SB-15-CRM-0122) ".~/
11 Minute Resolution dated 16 June 2015. ta., p. 154. .','
~~Minute Resolution dated 26 June 2015. Id, p. 167. i, ,"
Id., pp. 165-166. 11 \,
14 Id., pp. 184-202. V \
15 Id., pp. 234-241. \J
16 ld., pp. 314-320.
17 Order dated 21 January 2016. Id, p. 405.

18 Joint Stipulations Records, VoL 2, pp 219-224.
RESOLUTION
Page 4 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
3. Accused Ronald L. Brillantes was appointed by the City

Mayor as City Administrator of Tuguegarao City only on July
1,2013;
4. The 'Presyo Agawid' flea market activity traditionally takes

place during the period August 1 to September 15.
5. The 'Presyo Agawid' flea market activity is officially

sponsored, recognized and/or approved by the City of
Tuguegarao.
6. The City Mayor sent a letter dated 18 July 2013 to the

Members of the Tuguegarao City Council.
7. That on July 31, 2013, the Sangguniang Panlungsod,

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, passed and enacted City
Resolution No. 056-2013 (A Resolution Approving the
Conduct of the 'Presyo Agawid' and Authorizing the City
Mayor to Negotiate with Qualified Operators).
8. That on July 31, 2013, the Sangguniang Panlungsod,

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, passed and enacted City
Resolution No. 057-2013 (A Resolution Authorizing the
Temporary Closure of Portions of Gomez, Del Rosario and
Gonzaga Streets for the 'Presyo Agawid' Flea Market from
August 1,2013 to September 15,2013).
9. That on July 11, 2013, accused Brillantes, issued, for and by

authority of the City Mayor, a Special Permit to Operate
through Memorandum No. 034-2013 to Ms. Vicky V. Medina.
10. The Special Permit to Operate authorized Ms. Vicky V.

Medina to exclusively conduct and operate, among others, a
Baratilyo from July 25, 2013 to September 10, 2013 in
connection with the City Fiesta.
11. The Baratilyo that was mentioned in the Special Permit to

Operate and which Ms. Vicky V. Medina was supposed to
operate is the 'Presyo Agawid' flea market activity.
12. There were only thirty (30) days between the date that
accused Ronald L. Brillantes was appointed as City
Administrator of Tuguegarao City and the date that the
'Presyo Agawid' flea market activity would traditionally start.
13. That the above-mentioned Special Permit to Operate was

issued prior to the enactment and passage of City
Resolution No. 056-2013 (A Resolution Approving the
Conduct of the 'Presyo Agawid' and Authorizing the City
Mayor to Negotiate with Qualified Operators) by the
Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tuguegarao.
RESOLUTION
Page 5 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
11. STIPULATED FACTS BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND

ACCUSED RONALD BRILLANTES ONLY
1. Accused Ronald L. Brillantes is not in the photographs taken

during the ocular inspection conducted on July 24 and 25,
2013.
The factual and/or legal issues proposed to be resolved, as

stated in the Pre-trial Order,19 are the following:
SB-1S-CRM-0121
Whether or not on or about July 11, 2013 the accused were legally
authorized to issue or to cause the issuance in favor of Vicky V.
Medina a special permit to exclusively operate a baratilyo sale on
the occasion of Tuguegarao City's fiesta without a prior resolution
by Sanggu[nijang Bayan20 approving the conduct of such barati/yo
sale.
Whether or not the accused acted with eviden[t] bad faith in issuing
or causing to be issued in favor of Vicky V. Medina a special permit
to operate a baratilyo sale on the occasion of Tuguegarao City's
fiesta.
Whether or not the accused gave unwarranted benefit, advantage,

or privilege to Vicky V. Medina by issuing or causing to be issued in
her favor a special permit to operate a barati/yo sale on the
occasion of Tuguegarao City's fiesta.
Whether or not the accused acted in conspiracy with one another in

committing the acts constituting the offense charged.
SB-15-CRM-0122
Whether or not on or about July 24, 2013 the accused caused the
temporary closure of portions of Gomez, Del Rosario and Gonzaga
Streets in Tuguegarao City for the purpose of constructing stalls for
a baratilyo sale to be held on the occasion of the city's fiesta.
Whether or not the accused were legally authorized to cause the

temporary closure of portion of Gomez, Del Rosario and Gonzaga
a baratilyo sale to be held on the occasion of the city's fiesta
without a prior resolution by Sangguniang [Panlungsod] approving
both the temporary closure of such roads and the conduct of such
barati/yo sale.
19 Id., pp. 230-244.

20 Should be Panlungsod.
RESOLUTION
Crim. Cases Nos. S8-15-CRM-0121 & 0122
Page 6 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
Whether or not the accused acted with evident bad faith by causing
the temporary closure of portions of Gomez, Del Rosario and
Gonzaga Streets in Tuguegarao City for the purpose of constructing
stalls for a baratilyo sale to be held on the occasion of the city's
fiesta.
Whether or not the accused cause[d] undue injury to the people of

Tuguegarao City and the general public by causing the temporary
closure of portions of Gomez, Del Rosario and Gonzaga Streets in
Tuguegarao City for the purpose of constructing stalls for a
barati/yo sale to be held on the occasion of the city's fiesta.
Whether or not the accused acted in conspiracy with one another in

committing the acts constituting the offense charged.
EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION
The prosecution presented its only witness, Maila Rosario T.

21
Que (Que), whose testimony is summarized as follows:
Que has been a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of

Tuguegarao, Province of Cagayan since 1 July 2013. She identified
her Compieint-Attidevit'? dated 13 August 2013 and confirmed the
truth and veracity of its contents. She also identified Soriano's letter+'
dated 18 July 2013 and the eight (8) photoqraphs " depicting the
closure of portions of Gomez, Del Rosario and Gonzaga Streets (the
Streets, for brevity).
On cross-exarrunation-", Que admitted that both Soriano and

Brillantes started their term of office on 1 July 2013 and that when she
filed the complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, both accused
were in office only for about sixty (60) days. She explained that as a
city councilor, it was her duty to file the complaint against Soriano and
Brillantes, even though she was the only one who filed the complaint
out of the fourteen (14) members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod.
The issue of the barati/yo was referred to her committee together with
Soriano's letter-request. She relied on the provisions of R.A. No. 7160
or the Local Government Code that state that the city mayor can
close a road only with the authority of the sangguniang panlungsod.
She added that among the illegal acts was that there were no
payments made for the barati/yo which was among the conditions for
the authority given to the city mayor by the Sangguniang Panlungsod.
21 TSN, 19 October 2016, pp. 5-11.
22 Exhibit ''F''.
23 Exhibit "G".
24 Exhibit T' to "T-7".
25 TSN, 16 November 2016, pp. 7-117.
RESOLUTION
Page 7 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
She said that the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tuguegarao
issued City Resolution No. 057-2013, authorizing the temporary
closure of portions of the Streets for the Presyo Agawid from 1 August
to 15 September 2013. However, the actual closure of the Streets
was made in the evening of 24 July 2013.
When asked by the Court what action she took when the
portions of the Streets were closed, or if she reported the incident to
the police, Que answered that on 25 July 2013, they held a committee
hearing for the closure of portions of the Streets, but she was
informed that the closure already took place without the consent of
the sanggunian. One of the councilors ordered one of his staff to go to
Soriano and Brillantes to tell them to stop the construction of the stalls
because they were being operated already and that the whole streets
were already occupied. There was no action from both officials, Que
replied.
Que said that she made a minority report on such incident and
told the committee about the closure and the stalls already operating.
She admitted that she did not report the incident to the police. She
had no recourse but to file the complaint.
On continuation of cross-examination, she stated that when she

witnessed the construction of the stalls on the Streets in the evening
of 24 July 2013, she asked the vendors who gave them the authority
to put up their stalls. The vendors gave her a copy of the
memorandum granting a special permit to operate marked as Exhibit
"D." When she was asked where in that document was it stated that
the road would be closed, she referred to the portion which stated:
"(see attached map)" and the map on the next page showed all the
areas that were to be closed and all those that were to be occupied
by the stalls. She admitted that there were no exact words indicating
that the Streets would be closed. She said that no vehicles could pass
through the Streets on 24 July 2013. The day after, the vendors at the
stalls were already selling, even prior to the authority given by the
Sangguniang Panlungsod.
When asked by the Court, Que replied that traditionally, there

were road closures during festivities or celebrations in the city,
whether or not the sanggunian gave their consent or approval for the
festivities. She admitted that during the years that roads were closed
for the fiesta celebrations, she did not know if all such road closures
were given consent by the sanggunian. The closure would depend on
the mayor and the other government officials, without necessarily
securing consent from the sanggunian, she added.
RESOLUTION
Page 8 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
On further cross-examination, Que admitted that the baratilyo

was an activity undertaken on the occasion of the fiesta. She added
that there was no payment on record made which was a prerequisite
for the granting of the authority by the sanggunian to the city mayor to
close the roads from 1 August to 15 September 2013 and to negotiate
with operators of the barati/yo that was conducted from 1 August to 15
September 2013. She explained that when it comes to road closures
and negotiating for the operation of a baratilyo which involves income-
generating activities for the city, the city mayor needs prior authority
from the sanggunian. She explained that while City Resolution No.
056-2013 required, among others, the upfront payment of P1. 7 Million
to the city government, the operator of the baratilyo failed to comply.
Que was not aware that because of that requirement of upfront
payment, Ms. Vicky V. Medina (Ms. Medina) backed out as operator,
forcing the city to operate the Presyo Agawid by itself, since nobody
was interested to step in to replace Ms. Medina.
Que concluded that the sanggunian has the discretion to

disregard the Memorandum granting Special Permit to Ms. Medina.
By way of additional cross-examination, she admitted that there

were years prior to 2013 that Presyo Agawid were held. The Presyo
Agawid, commonly referred to as the baratilyo, takes place on the
occasion of the Pavvurulun Festival, which is the same as the
patronal feast of Tuguegarao City held every 16th of August every
year. The baratilyo takes place weeks prior to and weeks after the
patronal feast day.
She admitted that the sanggunian gave Soriano the authority

from 1 August to 15 September 2013 to negotiate with qualified
operators to conduct baratilyo. She also admitted that the Special
Permit does not involve the procurement by the local government of
Tuguegarao of goods, infrastructure projects and consulting services.
She also stated that Brillantes, during one of the sessions of the
sanggunian, mentioned that it was his position that the request for
authority from the sanggunian is a mere courtesy but is not required.
The prosecution formally offered in evidence 26 the following

documentary exhibits which were admitted in evidence by the Court,
without prejudice to the proper evaluation of the weight thereof in
relation to the purposes for which they were offered":
26 Prosecution's Formal Offer of Exhibits dated 1 December. Note: No year indicated.

27 Minute Resolution dated 26 January 2017. Records, Vo!. 2, p. 333.
RESOLUTION
Page 9 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
Exhibit Description
BA" Service Record of Accused Mayor Jefferson P. Soriano
uB" Service Record of Accused City Administrator Ronald L.
Brillantes
Appointment dated July 1, 2013 (KSS Porma Big. 3[3])
"C" of Accused Ronald L. Brillantes as the City
Administrator, Tuqueqarao City, Caoavan
"0" Memorandum No. 034-2013, Series of 2013 dated July
11, 2013 with Subject Special Permit to Operate
HE" Certificate of Proclamation of Accused Jefferson P.
Soriano as City Mayor, Tuguegarao City, Caqavan
"F" Complaint-Affidavit dated August 30, 2013 executed by
Maila Rosario T. Que
Accused Mayor Jefferson P. Soriano's Letter dated July
IIG" 18, 2013 addressed to the Sangguniang Panlungsod,
Tuquecarao City, Cagayan
Order of Business/Agenda for the July 24, 2013 Regular
HI" Session of Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tuguegarao
City, Cagayan
Minutes of the Meeting Conducted by the Committee on
Trade, Commerce, Industry and Cooperatives,
'IJ" Committee on Ways and Means, and Committee on
Public Order, Safety and Disaster Preparedness held on
July 25, 2013
ilK" Committee Report No. 020-2013 dated July 25, 2013
"L" City Resolution No. 056-2013 dated Julv 31, 2013
"M" City Resolution No. 057-2013 dated July 31, 2013
"T" to Photographs depicting the closure of the subject streets
"T-7" and the holding of a 'baratilyo'
Soriano and Brillantes filed their respective Motions for Leave of

Court to File Demurrer to Evioence'" which the Court both granted in
its Resolutiorr" dated 7 April 2017.
THE FACTS
From the testimonial and documentary evidence of the

prosecution and the admissions of both parties, the following facts are
established:
. .Soriano sta~ed his term of office as City Mayor of .Tuguegarao !P1

CIty In the Province of Cagayan on 1 July 2013. Bnllantes was I"~ (Lt.I.
appointed by Soriano as the City Administrator of the City I fiL
Government of Tuguegarao on 1 July 2013.30 tl~\,
, ~
\I
\
1:.;1
28 Id, pp. 338-341 (for Soriano) and pp. 342-349 (for Brillantes).
29 Id., pp. 388-389.
30 Exhibit "C".
RESOLUTION
Page 10 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
On 11 July 2013, Brillantes, for and by the authority of City

Mayor Soriano, issued Memorandum No. 034-201331 with subject
Special Permit to Operate (Special Permit, for brevity), containing the
following:
This is to inform the public that MRS. VICKY V. MEDINA of

Tuguegarao City is hereby granted [sic] to exclusively
conduct/operate/engage in the Operation [sic] & Carnival in
connection with this year's celebration of City Fiesta only in the
location (see attached map) and for the duration stated hereunder:
CARNIVAL ----------- 01 JULY TO 30 AUGU[S]T 2013

BARATILYO---------- 25 JULY TO SEPTEMBER 2013
This permit is issued and valid unless revoked for cause/s as

provided by law, ordinance or regulation.
ATTY. JEFFERSON P. SORIANO

City Mayor
For and by the authority of the City Mayor:
(Sgd.)
ATTY. RONALD L. BRILLANTES
City Administrator
On 18 July 2013, Soriano wrote a letter to the Sangguniang

Panlungsod, which contains the following:
In view of the upcoming celebration of the City Fiesta this August

and as a tradition, may I respectfully request for an authority for the
conduct of the 'Presyo Agawid.'
Furthermore, may I request this august body for the passage of a

resolution for the temporary closure of the portion of Gomez, Del
Rosario and Gonzaga Streets from August 1 to September 15,
2013 for the said purpose.
Thank you for your usual support.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)
ATTY. JEFFERSON P. SORIANO
City Mayor
31 Exhibit "0".
RESOLUTION
Page 11 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
On 31 July 2013, the Sangguniang Panlungsod approved City
Resolution No. 056-2013 32 entitled A Resolution Approving the
Conduct of the "Presyo Agawid" and Authorizing the City Mayor to
Negotiate With Qualified Operators, with the following resolving
clause:
NOW THEREFORE [sic] RESOLVED, as it is hereby

RESOLVED, to approve the conduct of the 'Presyo Agawid' from
August 1, 2013 to September 15, 2013 and hereby granting
authority to the City Mayor, Hon. Jefferson P. Soriano, to negotiate
with interested and qualified operators on such terms and
conditions most favorable to the City Government.
On the same date, the Sangguniang Panlungsod also approved

City Resolution No. 057-201333 entitled A Resolution Authorizing the
Temporary Closure of Portions of Gomez, Del Rosario and Gonzaga
Streets for the "Presyo Agawid" Flea Market From August 1, 2013 to
September 15, 2013. The said resolution contains the following
resolving clause:
NOW THEREFORE [sic] RESOLVED, as it is hereby

RESOLVED, to authorize the City Mayor, Hon. Jefferson P. Soriano,
to temporarily close portions of Gomez, Del Rosario and Gonzaga
Streets for the use of the 'PRESYO AGAWID' flea market activity
during the period of August 1, 2013 to September 15, 2013.
In the evening of 24 July 2013, baratilyo stalls were already

constructed on the portions of the Streets.
On 30 August 2013, prosecution witness Que filed a complaint-

affidavit 34 against Soriano and Brillantes. The Ombudsman, in a
Resolution 35 dated 21 July 2014, found probable cause to indict
Soriano and Brillantes for two (2) counts of violation of Section 3 (e) /
of R.A. No. 3019. Two (2) informations were filed on 28 May 2015. 0;1
h r/~
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE f i~
lil\
Brillantes' Demurrer \i ~
-,'::,1
Brillantes argues that, in Criminal Case No. SB-15-CRM-0121,

the prosecution failed to present any law that requires prior authority
from the sangguniang panlungsod for the city mayor to issue permits,
special or otherwise. He points out that even the lone prosecution
32 Exhibit "L".
33 Exhibit "M".
34 Exhibit "F"
35 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 5-21
RESOLUTION
Page 12 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
witness Que admitted that Section 22 of R.A. No. 7160 refers to
contracts and not to permits. The Special Permit is not a contract,
hence not covered by such provision. Brillantes reasons that
Soriano's letter-request to the Sangguniang Panlungsod for authority
to conduct the Presyo Agawid was made pursuant to tradition and not
because it was required by law.
Brillantes adds that there is no need of public bidding for the

operation of the barati/yo since it is not covered by R.A. No. 9184, or
the Government Procurement Reform Act, which involves the
acquisition of goods, consulting services and contracting for
infrastructure projects.
Brillantes emphasizes that the prosecution failed to present any

proof that he had acted with evident bad faith when he issued the
Special Permit. He explains that he had only thirty (30) days from the
date that he was appointed the city administrator to ensure that the
Presyo Agawid flea market activity would commence on the day that it
traditionally starts. He was not driven by a conscious and intentional
design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or some moral
obliquity.
As regards Criminal Case No. SB-15-CRM-0122, Brillantes

stresses that the prosecution failed to present any proof that Brillantes
was the one who ordered the closure of portions of the Streets on or
about 24 July 2013. The only basis of the prosecution in accusing
Brillantes of having caused the closure of portions of the subject
streets was the memorandum that he signed dated 11 July 2013. But
even then, Que failed to point where in the Special Permit that
Brillantes issued is an order to close portions of the Streets. Besides,
the parties admitted that the Presyo Agawid flea market activity is
officially sponsored, recognized and/or approved by the City of AiV'
Tuguegarao. j i'~I~
" ""'!
BriIlantes explai ns that Section 21 (c) of RA

iT'
No. 7160 allowsL:1\
the temporary closure of any local road for actual emergencies, lul
during fiesta celebrations and/or cultural or civic activities that areJ
officially sponsored, recognized or approved by the local government
unit concerned, without the prior authorization of the sanggunian.
Article 45 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A.
No. 7160 is more specific when it allows national or local roads to be
temporarily closed during fiesta celebrations for a period not
exceeding nine (9) days. As Que confirmed, the closure of portions of
the subject streets on or about 24 July 2013 without the authority of
the Sangguniang Panlungsod only lasted for eight (8) days or until 31
RESOLUTION
Page 13 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
July 2013, since the Sangguniang Panlungsod already authorized the
closure of portions of the Streets starting 1 August 2013 until 15
September 2013.
Soriano's Demurrer
In Criminal Case No. SB-15-CRM-0121, Soriano argues that the

prosecution failed to prove: (1) the alleged unwarranted benefit given
to Ms. Medina; (2) that the power to issue permits and licenses is
vested with the Sangguniang Panlungsod and not with the city mayor;
(3) evident bad faith on his part when he issued, through Brillantes,
the Special Permit; (4) that he preempted and circumvented the will of
the Sangguniang Panlungsod when he issued the Special Permit; and
(5) undue injury allegedly suffered by the people of Tuguegarao City
and the general public as a result of the closure of portions of the
Streets. He posits that paragraphs 3 (iv) and (v), Section 455 of R.A.
No. 7160 and Section 8 of R.A. No. 8755, known as the Charter of
Tuguegarao City, confer upon him the authority to issue permits and
licenses. He, as the city mayor, enjoys the presumption of regularity in
the performance of his official duties.
Soriano denies that he issued an order for the temporary

closure of portions of the Streets. He points out that even Que, the
only prosecution witness, admitted that the Special Permit did not
specify the closure of the Streets. He realized that his authority to
close the Streets, which he did not use, was relatively shorter than the
duration of the fiesta celebration which was to last until 15 September
2013, so he, by way of a letter-request, immediately passed to the
Sangguniang Panlungsod the responsibility to order the closure of the
Streets, which it did through City Resolution No. 057-2013. He claims
that he acted in good faith when he, a brand new city mayor, made
such request and as a show of respect and cooperation with the
sangguntan.
Prosecution's Consolidated Comment
Re: SB-15-CRM-0121
The prosecution counters that, while R.A. No. 7160 vests upon
the local chief executive the power to issue licenses and permits, it
must be made pursuant to law or ordinance. This is the clear tenor of
Section 455 (b) (3) (iv) thereof. While the city mayor carries out the
act of actually and physically issuing licenses and permits, this does
not, ipso facto, make him/her the sole wielder of the
permitting/licensing power of the local government, such power being
RESOLUTION
Page 14 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
reposed on the sangguniang panlungsod. Corollary thereto, Section
458 (a) (3) of R.A. No. 7160 provides that it is the sangguniang
panlungsod, through ordinances that promote the general welfare,
that can authorize the issuance of permits and licenses and prescribe
the terms and conditions therefor.
The prosecution observes that Soriano, realizing the invalidity of

his act in issuing the Special Permit, tried to remedy the same by
requesting the Sangguniang Panlungsod for the passage of a
resolution for an authority to conduct the Presyo Agawid. Such
request is nothing less than acknowledgment on his part that the
granting of authority to operate a baratilyo indeed requires prior
authorization from the sanggunian. Elsewise stated, Soriano's letter-
request clearly expresses his recognition of the authority of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod to give the "go signal" for the conduct of the
baratilyo.
The prosecution emphasizes that the language of City

Resolution No. 056-2013, which was passed and enacted subsequent
to the issuance of the Special Permit, clearly demonstrates the
importance of the Sangguniang Panlungsod's fiat for the barati/yo.
Said resolution manifests the intention of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod to subject prospective baratilyo operators to financial,
safety and operational conditions that Soriano and Brillantes were
bound to implement. The prosecution posits that the subsequent
passage of City Resolution No. 056-2013 on 31 July 2013 authorizing
the conduct of Presyo Agawid flea market and granting Soriano the
authority to negotiate with qualified operators does not negate the fact
that Soriano and Brillantes, prior to such authorization, arrogated unto
themselves the authority to grant Ms. Medina the exclusive authority ./
to operate a baratilyo, thus effectively preempting the will of th~,//
Sangguniang Panlungsod. I&JI''I
Re: SB-11-CRM-0122 t..lpn

, 'I,.
11
The prosecution argues that the authority to order the closure df
roads or streets is not vested in the city mayor alone. The law does
not grant full and unbridled powers to the city mayor to order such
temporary closure of roads. As in the case of granting licenses or
permits, the power to temporarily close local roads must still spring
from, or at the very least acquiesced to, by the sangguniang
panlungsod. The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A.
No. 7160 identifies who and how a road can be temporarily closed.
Article 43 of the IRR, which is similar to Section 21 of R.A. No. 7160,
specifically requires an ordinance for the temporary closure of road.
RESOLUTION
Page 15 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
The prosecution posits that the clear intent of the closure of

portions of the Streets was the conduct of the baratilyo which, based
on the Special Permit, was from 25 July to 10 September 2013.
Hence, the provision on nine (9)-day temporary road closure in Article
45 (a) (1) of the IRR of R.A. No. 7160 pertaining to fiesta celebrations,
does not apply. Instead, Article 45 paragraph (b) and/or (c) of the said
IRR is applicable to the cases at bar. The intention of the law is to
bring within the ambit of legislative approval any activity connected
with the establishment and operations of a flea or night market, to
which the subject baratilyo belongs.
Soriano's Reply
Soriano reiterates in the main the arguments in his demurrer. As

to the legal bases of his authority as city mayor to issue permits and
licenses, he cites R.A. No. 8755, otherwise known as the Charter of
Tuguegarao City, which is similarly worded as Section 455 (b) (3) (iv)
of the LGC. Soriano also cites Section 3A.04 of Ordinance No. 07-
2011, otherwise known as the Local Revenue Code of Tuguegarao
City, which authorizes the mayor to issue permits. He also reiterates
that he did not issue any closure order for the Streets.
DISCUSSION
The demurrer is impressed with merit
Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal

Procedure provides:
Sec. 23. Demurrer to evidence. - After the prosecution rests

its case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the
prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to
evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court.
If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave

of court, the accused may adduce evidence in his defense. When
the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused
waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for
judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution.
The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence

shall specifically state its grounds and shall be filed within a non-
extendible period of five (5) days after the prosecution rests its
case. The prosecution may oppose the motion within a non-
extendible period of five (5) days from its receipt.
RESOLUTION
Page 16 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the
demurrer to evidence within a non-extendible period of ten (10)
days from notice. The prosecution may oppose the demurrer to
evidence within a similar period from its receipt.
The order denying the motion for leave of court to file

demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable
by appeal or by certiorari before judgment.
The Supreme Court, in People v. G036, discussed the concept of

demurrer to evidence as follows:
Demurrer to the evidence is 'an objection by one of the

parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his
adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or
not, to make out a case or sustain the issue. The party demurring
challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain a
verdict. The court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence
raised in a demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether there
is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or
to support a verdict of guilt. x x x Sufficient evidence for purposes
of frustrating a demurrer thereto is such evidence in character,
weight or amount as will legally justify the judicial or official action
demanded according to the circumstances. To be considered
sufficient therefore, the evidence must prove: (a) the
commission of the crime, and (b) the precise degree of
participation therein by the accused.' Thus, when the accused
files a demurrer, the court must evaluate whether the prosecution
evidence is sufficient enough to warrant the conviction of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. 37
The Court now determines if the prosecution has sufficiently

proven all the elements of violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019
as charged in both informations and, if so, whether or not Soriano and
Brillantes participated therein.
l)
Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 provides': l \Q
1/
11.17,1 ..
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to

acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing
I
~j
,1 \
I
law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public
t
officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxx
(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
36732 SCRA 216 (2014).

37 Id., at 237-238. Emphasis supplied.
RESOLUTION
Page 17 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions.
To be held criminally liable for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A.

No. 3019, the following elements must be present:
(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 officer);
(b) that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
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 functicns."
In the cases at bar, the presence of the first element is

undisputed. Both parties stipulated that Soriano and Brillantes were,
at the time material and relevant to the case, the City Mayor and City
Administrator of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, respectively, hence
public officers within the purview of R.A. No. 3019.
In relation to the second and third elements, the Court has to

confront the issue of whether or not Soriano as the City Mayor has
the power to issue the Special Permit even without prior authorization
from the Sangguniang Panlungsod.
The Court answers in the affirmative.
Section 8(b)(3)(d) of the Charter of Tuguegarao City (R.A. No.

8755) and Section 455(b)(3)(iv) of R.A. No. 7160 both provide that the, /
city mayor has the power to: !ff,tl

" 0~
ft "
[i]ssue licenses and permits and suspend or revoke the d
HI'
l!
"'/ i'
same for any violation of the conditions upon which said licenses or
permits had been issued, pursuant to law or ordinance; (Boldface
supplied)
In this regard, the prosecution miserably failed to prove that

Soriano's issuance of the Special Permit, through Brillantes, was not
made pursuant to any ordinance enacted by the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Tuguegarao City or any national law. On the contrary,
Soriano, in his Reply, cites City Ordinance No. 07-2011, otherwise
known as the Local Revenue Code of Tuguegarao City, as one of his
38 Fuentes v. People, G.R. No. 186421, April 17, 2017.

RESOLUTION
Page 18 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
legal bases for issuing the Special Permit. Soriano is correct. This is
exactly what is being referred to as the "ordinance" in the above-
quoted provisions of R.A. No. 8755 and R.A. No. 7160, not the City
Resolution No. 056-2013. Besides, a resolution is different from an
ordinance. In Municipality of Peretieque v. VM. Realty Corporetiorr",
the Supreme Court ruled:
We are not convinced by petitioner's insistence that the

terms 'resolution' and 'ordinance' are synonymous. A municipal
ordinance is different from a resolution. An ordinance is a law,
but a resolution is merely a declaration of the sentiment or
opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. An
ordinance possesses a general and permanent character, but a
resolution is temporary in nature. Additionally, the two are
enacted differently - a third reading is necessary for an ordinance,
but not for a resolution, unless decided otherwise by a majority of
all the Sanggunian members."
Regarding the Special Permit, the prosecution appears to

confuse the power of the city mayor to enter into contracts on behalf
of the city upon authority of the sangguniang pentunqsod", with the
power of the city mayor to issue permits pursuant to law or
ordinance. 42 In the first instance, there is a need for prior
authorization from the sanggunian; in the second, there is no such
need, inasmuch as the law or ordinance already provides for such
power.
To be clear, the subject Special Permit is not a contract. As held

in Acebedo Optical Co., Inc. v. CA43:
x x x a license or permit is not in the nature of a contract

but a special privilege.
x x x a license or a permit is not a contract

between the sovereignty and the licensee or
permitee, and is not a property in the constitutional
sense, as to which the constitutional proscription
against impairment of the obligation of contracts may
extend. A license is rather in the nature of a special
privilege, of a permission or authority to do what is
39292 seRA 678 (1998).

40 Id, at 689. Emphasis supplied
41 Section 455(b)(1)(vi), RA No. 7160: "x x x the city mayor shall: x x x Represent the city in all
its business transactions and sign in its behalf all bonds, contracts, and obligations, and such
other documents upon authority of the sangguniang panlungsod or pursuant to law or ordinance;"
42 Section 455(b)(3)(iv), RA No. 7160: "x x x the city mayor shall: x x x Issue licenses and
permits and suspend or revoke the same for any violation of the conditions upon which said
licenses or permits had been issued, pursuant to law or ordinance;"
43329 SeRA 314 (2000), citing Gonzalo Sy Trading vs Central Bank, 70 SeRA 570 (1976)
RESOLUTION
Page 19 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
within its terms. It is not in any way vested, permanent
or absolute."
When the City Mayor (Soriano) issued, through his City

Administrator (Brillantes), the Special Permit, he did so through the
authority given to him by City Ordinance No. 07-2011 or the Local
Revenue Code of Tuguegarao City to issue permits, among others.
Thus, there is no longer any need for the City Mayor to seek prior
authority from the Sangguniang Panlungsod on this matter. It is
superfluous to ask the Sangguniang Panlungsod for the enactment of
a resolution to authorize the City Mayor to issue the Special Permit
when the revenue ordinance enacted by the same Sangguniang
Panlungsod already empowers the City Mayor to issue permits.
Hence, the prosecution cannot rely on the apparent want of prior
authorization from the Sangguniang Panlungsod to allege that
Soriano and Brillantes "preempt[ed] and circumvent[ed] the will of the
legislative body." Simply put, the City Mayor did not need such
resolution to issue the Special Permit. Stated otherwise still, the City
Mayor was in fact carrying out the will of the legislative body, albeit as
expressed in City Ordinance No. 07-2011 and not the as-yet-
inexistent resolution imagined by the prosecution.
If the contrary were so, there would arise absurd and

cumbersome situations where every permit issued by the mayor
would need prior authorization from the sanggunian. Such practice
would unduly impede government operations and cause
unreasonable delays in the provision of services to the public, for
even a simple permit could not be issued by the city mayor because
he has to wait for the authorization from the sanggunian. This is not
what the law intends.
Having explained that no such prior authorization from the

sanggunian is necessary for the issuance of the Special Permit, the
Court sees no illegality in such issuance. Neither can such issuance
be considered as being attended by evident bad faith on the part of
?oriano. and Brillantes, contrary to what was alleged in the;'1 rI//
Information. Ill/ s 1:1
;? )~~l(
J;' xi 1'1
Jurisprudence defines "bad faith" in the following manner: >/ Ili/,
if ~
U 1
if !
'Bad faith' does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it R:
\:J
imputes 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; it partakes of the nature of fraud.:"
44 ld., at 334-335. Emphasis supplied

45 Coloma, Jr. v Sandiganbayan (Third Division), 736 SCRA 523, 537 (2014).
RESOLUTION
Page 20 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
Applying the above definition, the Court cannot ascribe any bad
faith on the part of Soriano and Brillantes in the issuance of the
Special Permit in favor of Ms. Medina. As discussed above, Soriano,
through Brillantes, issued such permit based on an existing local
revenue ordinance of the city. In fact, he does not need any resolution
from the Sangguniang Panlungsod to validly issue the special permit
to operate.
In Criminal Case No. SB-15-CRM-0122, the prosecution tries to

convince the Court that the Special Permit in itself is the order of
Soriano, as the City Mayor, to temporarily close portions of the
the baratilyo on the occasion of the city's fiesta celebrations. It points
out that the Special Permit even refers to an attached map showing
the locations where the carnival and baratilyo were to be held.
In the mind of the Court, the Special Permit cannot be

considered as an order to temporarily close portions of the Streets
due to absence of an express directive to do so. It does not amount to
a written order of temporary road closure issued by the local chief
executive provided in Section 21(c) R.A. No. 7160.
If there is a doubt about the import of the wording of the Special

Permit to include the temporary closure of portions of the Streets, the
principle of equipoise should properly apply. Jurisprudence explains
this principle as follows:
Under the equipoise rule, where the evidence on an issue of fact is

in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence
preponderates, the party having the burden of proof, which in this
case is the prosecution, loses. The equipoise rule finds application
if, as in the present case, the inculpatory facts and circumstances
are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent
with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his
guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty,
and does not suffice to produce a conviction."
As between the conflicting claims of the prosecution, on one

hand, that the Special Permit is evidence that Soriano and Brillantes
caused the closure of the Streets, and the defense, on the other
hand, that the same Special Permit is not an order of temporary road
closure for lack of any express wording to that effect, the Court,
applying the equipoise principle, rules in favor of the latter.
46 Bernardino v People, 506 SeRA 237, 252 (2006).

RESOLUTION
Page 21 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
Even assuming arguendo that the Special Permit amounted to a

written order issued by Soriano to temporarily close portions of the
Streets, the Court still finds the same to be in accordance with law.
Section 21 of R.A. No. 7160 provides the rules on temporary

closure of local roads, among others, on certain occasions and
situations, to wit:
Section 21. Closure and Opening of Roads. -
(a) A local government unit may, pursuant to an ordinance,

permanently or temporarily close or open any local road, alley, park,
or square falling within its jurisdiction:
xxx
(c) Any national or local road, alley, park, or square may be
temporarily closed during an actual emergency, or fiesta
celebrations, public rallies, agricultural or industrial fairs, or an
undertaking of public works and highways, telecommunications,
and waterworks projects, the duration of which shall be specified by
the local chief executive concerned in a written order: Provided,
however, That no national or local road, alley, park, or square shall
be temporarily closed for athletic, cultural, or civic activities not
officially sponsored, recognized, or approved by the local
government unit concerned.
(d) Any city, municipality, or barangay may, by a duly enacted

ordinance, temporarily close and regulate the use of any local
street, road, thoroughfare, or any other public place where
shopping malls, Sunday, flea or night markets, or shopping areas
may be established and where goods, merchandise, foodstuffs,
commodities, or articles of commerce may be sold and dispensed
to the general public. (Boldface supplied)
In relation thereto, the IRR of R.A. No. 7160 provides:
ARTICLE 43. Authority to Close or Open. - An LGU may,

through an ordinance, permanently or temporarily close or open
any road, alley, park, or square within its jurisdiction.
ARTICLE 45. Temporary closure. - (a) Any national or local

road, alley, park, or square may be temporarily closed during
actual emergency or fiesta celebrations, public rallies, agricultural
or industrial fairs, or undertaking of public works and highways,
telecommunications, and waterworks projects, the duration of which
shall be specified by the local chief executive concerned in a
written order, as follows:
(1) During fiesta celebrations - for a period not

exceeding nine (9) days;
RESOLUTION
Page 22 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
(2) During agricultural or industrial fairs or expositions -
for a period as may be determined to be necessary
and reasonable;
(3) When public works projects or activities are being

undertaken - for a period as may be determined
necessary for the safety, security, health, or welfare of
the public or when such closure is necessary to
facilitate completion of the projects or activities.
(b) An LGU may temporarily close and regulate the use of

any local street, road, thoroughfare, or public place where shopping
malls, Sunday markets, flea or night markets, or shopping areas
may be established and where goods, merchandise, foodstuff,
commodities, or articles of commerce may be sold and dispensed
to the general public.
(c) No national or local road, alley, park, or square shall be

temporarily closed for athletic, cultural, or civic activities not
officially sponsored, recognized, or approved by the LGU. (Boldface
supplied)
Inasmuch as the baratilyo, as well as the carnival, is on the

occasion of the city's fiesta celebrations, the city mayor can issue a
written order temporarily closing portions of the Streets, as provided
in the above-quoted Section 21(c) of R.A. No. 7160 and Article 45(a)
(1) of its IRR, the temporary closure of which shall not exceed nine
(9) days. This is evident from the Special Permit itself, which used the
phrase "in connection with this year's celebration of City Fiesta." The
tenor of Article 45(a)(1) of the IRR of R.A. No. 7160 is that no prior
authorization from the sanggunian is necessary.
Soriano's letter to the Sangguniang Panlungsod dated 18 July

2013 requesting for the passage of a resolution for the temporary
closure of portions of the Streets from 1 August to 15 September
2013 for the conduct of the baratilyo termed as Presyo Agawid as
part of the city fiesta celebrations, shows that he realized that his /
authority to order the temporary closure of the Streets was limited to /1
only nin~ (9) days; hence, he passed the responsibility to the ill
sangguman. /,
I~
r,
;f~i
11 f \~
Notably, the Sangguniang Panlungsod should have enacted an \~,? il(
ordinance ordering the temporary closure of portions of the Streets ~'1

instead of a mere resolution authorizing Soriano to temporarily close
such Streets from 1 August to 15 September 2013 in order to comply
with the provisions of Section 21(a) of R.A. No. 7160. The Court can
only presume that the Sangguniang Panlungsod acceded to
Soriano's request in his letter dated 18 July 2013 "for the passage of
RESOLUTION
Page 23 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
a resolution for the temporary closure" of the portions of the Streets
"from August 1 to September 15, 2013 for the said purpose."
Be that as it may, there was also no attendant bad faith on the

part of Soriano and Brillantes in the issuance of the Special Permit,
assuming for the sake of argument that the same amounts to an
order of temporary closure of the Streets. Thus, the second element
of violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 also does not exist in
this case.
As held in Lecaroz v. Senaiqenbeyen":
The rule is that any mistake on a doubtful or difficult question

of law may be the basis of good faith. An erroneous interpretation of
the meaning of the provisions of an ordinance by a city mayor does
not amount to bad faith that would entitle an aggrieved party to
damages against that official. Public officials may not be liable for
damages in the discharge of their official functions absent any bad
faith. Under the law on public officers, acts done in the performance
of official duty are protected by the presumption of good faith.48
But, still, having stated all the foregoing, the Court goes on to
say that the language of the Special Permit is to the point and
unambiguous; it does not support in any way the interpretation that it
ordered the closure of the Streets.
The prosecution having failed to prove the second element in

both cases, the Court finds no need to discuss the existence of the
third element to conclude that the prosecution evidence is insufficient
to convict Soriano and Brillantes. The failure of the prosecution to
prove all the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt must
perforce result in the accused's exoneration from criminal liability"
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court GRANTS

accused Jefferson P. Soriano and Ronald L. Brillantes' demurrer to
evidence. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Criminal Cases Nos.
SB-15-CRM-0121 and SB-15-CRM-0122 for insufficiency of evidence
and ACQUITS both accused. The Court further orders the RELEASE
of the bail bonds posted for their temporary liberty, subject to the
usual accounting and auditing procedures, and the LIFTING and
SETTING ASIDE of the hold-departure order against them.
47
305 SCRA 396 (1999).
481d, at411. Citations omitted
49 Valdez v People, 538 SCRA 611, 633 (2007).
RESOLUTION
Page 24 of 24
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
SO ORDERED.
RE LD .CRUZ
ssociate Justice
We Concur:
~~~
GERALDINE FAITH A. ~CONG·
Associate Justice
. Sitting as Special Member per Administrative Order No. 022-2017 dated 1 February 2017.

Temporary

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Temporary

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASES NOS. SB-

JEFFERSON P. SORIANO AND Present:

This resolves the following:

(1) Demurrer to Evidence 1 dated 26 April 2017 of accused

Demurrer to Evidence? dated 26 April 2017 of accused

(3) the prosecution's Consolidated Comment/Opposition (Re: a.

dated April 26, 2017)' dated 12 May 2017; and , ~{

Soriano and Brillantes stand charged with two (2) counts of

Criminal Case No. SB-15-CRM-0121:

That on or about 11 July 2013, in Tuguegarao City, and within

Criminal Case No. S8-15-CRM-0122:

That on or about 24 July 2013, in Tuguegarao City, and within

4 Id., pp. 460-470.

The Court, finding probable cause, ordered the issuance of

Soriano filed a Motion to Reduce Bail10 in both cases, which the

Soriano filed his Motion for the Judicial Re-Determination of

Both Soriano and Brillantes, when arraigned, pleaded "not

The parties entered into stipulations of facts on the foltowinq":

1. That at the time material and relevant to these cases, the

2. Accused Jefferson P. Soriano was elected City Mayor of

7 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 3-4.

17 Order dated 21 January 2016. Id, p. 405.

3. Accused Ronald L. Brillantes was appointed by the City

4. The 'Presyo Agawid' flea market activity traditionally takes

5. The 'Presyo Agawid' flea market activity is officially

6. The City Mayor sent a letter dated 18 July 2013 to the

7. That on July 31, 2013, the Sangguniang Panlungsod,

8. That on July 31, 2013, the Sangguniang Panlungsod,

9. That on July 11, 2013, accused Brillantes, issued, for and by

10. The Special Permit to Operate authorized Ms. Vicky V.

11. The Baratilyo that was mentioned in the Special Permit to

13. That the above-mentioned Special Permit to Operate was

11. STIPULATED FACTS BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND

1. Accused Ronald L. Brillantes is not in the photographs taken

The factual and/or legal issues proposed to be resolved, as

Whether or not the accused gave unwarranted benefit, advantage,

Whether or not the accused acted in conspiracy with one another in

Whether or not the accused were legally authorized to cause the

19 Id., pp. 230-244.

Whether or not the accused cause[d] undue injury to the people of

Whether or not the accused acted in conspiracy with one another in

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The prosecution presented its only witness, Maila Rosario T.

Que has been a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of

On cross-exarrunation-", Que admitted that both Soriano and

On continuation of cross-examination, she stated that when she

When asked by the Court, Que replied that traditionally, there

On further cross-examination, Que admitted that the baratilyo

Que concluded that the sanggunian has the discretion to

By way of additional cross-examination, she admitted that there

She admitted that the sanggunian gave Soriano the authority

The prosecution formally offered in evidence 26 the following

26 Prosecution's Formal Offer of Exhibits dated 1 December. Note: No year indicated.

Soriano and Brillantes filed their respective Motions for Leave of

From the testimonial and documentary evidence of the

. .Soriano sta~ed his term of office as City Mayor of .Tuguegarao !P1

On 11 July 2013, Brillantes, for and by the authority of City

This is to inform the public that MRS. VICKY V. MEDINA of

CARNIVAL ----------- 01 JULY TO 30 AUGU[S]T 2013

This permit is issued and valid unless revoked for cause/s as

ATTY. JEFFERSON P. SORIANO