BY PETER TABINGO
LIKE a restless ghost, a long-expired permit wrongly approved in favor of a cockfighting operator continues to haunt former Babatngon, Leyte municipal mayor Charito Chan.
In a 16-page resolution issued last November 29, the Sandiganbayan Third Division affirmed its Sept. 30, 2022 decision that convicted Chan of graft for giving her imprimatur to a cockfighting operation despite lack of authority to do so from the Sangguniang Bayan.
The court held that the accused filed her appeal four days beyond the reglementary period, hence the assailed ruling may no longer be modified.
However, regardless if the appeals period is relaxed, the Sandiganbayan said the appeal would still be denied in light of the evidence of guilt marshaled against the defendant former mayor.
Chan issued the Mayor’s Business Permit in favor of applicant Nicomedes Alde even after she had been notified by the Sangguniang Bayan that the previous authority given to her had been repealed.
The accused said she was unaware of the repeal of her authority, saying she never received a copy of the notification from the Sangguniang Bayan. Likewise, she sought consideration by invoking an honest mistake saying she was on her first term at the time and could not have been expected to know everything about the limits of the powers of a municipal mayor.
Her appeal found no sympathetic ear at the Third Division.
“The Court finds accused Chan’s defense as implausible considering the circumstances present at the time material to the case, particularly the position of the accused as the municipal mayor,” the court said.
It noted that as mayor, it was incumbent upon Chan to be informed of ordinances and policies in the grant of license for cockpit operation. It also said that even if the permit expired after a year, the criminal offense had been completed and is not affected by the termination of the permit.
“The resolution of the crime under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, is not dependent entirely on whether the mayor’s permit was valid, but more on proving the fact of causing undue injury to the government with evident bad faith, manifest partiality, and/or gross negligence,” it pointed out.
At the same time, while acknowledging that there was no undue damage or injury caused to the government, the Sandiganbayan said prosecutors have sufficiently established that graft was committed when Chan gave unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to the applicant Nicomedes Alde.
“Contrary to the position raised by accused Chan, damage or injury to the government is not required in order for the last element to exist,” the court added.
