037. Teves v.

Sandiganbayan
447 SCRA 309/December 17, 2004/En Banc/Petition for review
Edgar Teves and Teresita Teves - petitioners
Sandiganbayan - respondent
Decision by C.J. Davide, Jr. Digest by Sai Bautista

Short Version: Edgar Teves was the Mayor of Valencia, Negros Oriental. Teresita is Edgars
wife. They are being sued for violation of Sec. 3(h) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in
relation to the issuance of a business permit/license for Edgars cockpit. The Sandiganbayan
convicted the spouses for the possession of pecuniary interest in the business enterprise but
absolved them of the charge in relation to the issuance of a business permit/license. The Supreme
Court acquitted Teresita on the ground that conspiracy was not sufficiently shown by the
prosecution.

Facts: Edgar and Teresita Teves are married. In 1983, Edgar registered for the operation of a
cockpit. This was renewed in 1989. By January of 1990, he turned over the management of the
cockpit to Teresita. However, Edgar was also the Mayor of Valencia during 1988 to 1998. Thus,
the Spouses were charged1 with violating Sec. 3(h)2 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
for Edgars alleged unlawful intervention in the issuance of a business license/permit for his
cockpit.

The Sandiganbayan convicted the spouses for possessing a pecuniary interest in the cockpit, but
absolved of the charge of causing the issuance of a business permit/license.

On a petition for review of the Sandiganbayans decision, the spouses argue that they were
convicted for a crime other than the offense charged (Compare Footnote 1 in relation to Footnote
2), violating their right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.
Also, they assert that it was not shown that Edgar was the operator and licensee from 1989 to
1992. Finally, the existence of a conspiracy was disputed by the spouses.

The Sandiganbayan maintains that Edgars interest continued up to and beyond 1992, as he
merely turned over the management of the cockpit. The charge of having a pecuniary interest is
necessarily included in the charge of intervention in the issuance of its business license/permit.

Issues:
1
The Information reads: That on or about February 4, 1992, and sometime
subsequent thereto, in Valencia, Negros Oriental, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Edgar Y. Teves, a public officer, being
then the Municipal Mayor of Valencia, Negros Oriental, committing the crime-herein
charged in relation to, while in the performance and taking advantage of his official
functions, and conspiring and confederating with his wife, herein accused Teresita
Teves, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally cause the issuance of the
appropriate business permit/license to operate the Valencia Cockpit and Recreation
Center in favor of one Daniel Teves, said accused Edgar Y. Teves having a direct
financial or pecuniary interest therein considering the fact that said cockpit arena is
actually owned and operated by him and accused Teresita Teves.
2
In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law,
the following x x x constitute[s] corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby
declared to be unlawful: Directly or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest
in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or
takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by
any law from having any interest.

1
 1) Whether Edgar Teves can be held liable for intervening in his official capacity for the
issuance of a business permit/license. NO.
2)Whether Edgar can be held liable for having a proscribed pecuniary interest in the cockpit.
YES.
3)Whether Teresita can be held liable as a conspirator. NO.

Ruling: Decision modified, Teresita acquitted.

Ratio:
1. Edgar cannot be held liable for the charge of intervening in relation to the issuance of a
business permit/license for his cockpit.
a. The Court enumerated the essential elements of a violation of Sec. 3(h) of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act:
i. The accused is a public officer;
ii. Having a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any
business, contract, or transaction;
iii. Such public officer either:
1. intervenes or takes part in his official capacity in connection with
such interest; or
2. is prohibited from having such interest by the Constitution or by
any law.
b. In this case, no intervention can be ascribed to Edgar as he cannot be said to have
intervened in his official capacity.
i. He is charged for an act that occurred at or about February 4 of 1992.
ii. The law governing the issuance of cockpit licenses is the Local
Government Code of 1991. Under this law, the Mayor is not a part of the
Sangguniang Bayan, which has the authority to issue the license. This is
contrary to the previous governing law (BP 337) where the Mayor is the
presiding officer.
2. Edgar can be held liable for having a proscribed pecuniary interest in the cockpit.
a. Based on the second sub-element of the third element of Sec. 3(h), Edgar is
liable.
b. The law that prohibits Edgar from having such pecuniary interest is the Local
Government Code. Sec. 89(a)(2).3
c. The essential ingredients of having a proscribed pecuniary interest and of
intervention in ones official capacity in relation to that interest are the same,
such that the variance doctrine applies.4
3. Teresita cannot be held liable as a conspirator. No conspiracy was proved.
3
It shall be unlawful for any local government official or employee, directly or
indirectly, to hold such interests in any cockpit or other games licensed by a local
government unit.
4
Sec. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. When there is
a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that
proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense
proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the
offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.

Sec. 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. An offense charged

necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or
ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitutes the
latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved when the
essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the
latter.

2
 a. Conspiracy must be established separately from the crime, with proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
b. Direct evidence is not necessary, an inference is sufficient based on
conduct before, during, and after the commission of the crime, all
taken together, showing a community of criminal design. (Citing
Leacroz v. Sandiganbayan).
i. Marriage to an errant spouse is not conspiracy by itself. (citing
Leacroz v. Sandiganbayan.)
ii. Intentional participation aimed at the furtherance of a
common design must be shown.
iii. A conspirator must be shown to perform an overt act that
contributes to the execution of the planned crime, except
where the accused is the mastermind.
iv. There must be active participation in the actual commission,
or moral assistance. (citing Pecho v. People).
c. In this case, the Anti-Graft Law has specific provisions as regards private
individuals.
i. Sec. 4(b) of that law provides that it is unlawful for a person to knowingly
induce or cause a public official to commit the offenses.
ii. Here, it was not shown how Teresita induced or caused Edgar to commit
the offenses.
iii. Edgar was already the owner of the cockpit as early as 1983. He
transferred the management on January 1990, before the effectivity of
the Local Government Code.
1. After this transfer, it was Teresita who applied for the renewal of
the registration, referring to herself as the Owner/Licensee and
Operator/Manager. She also listed herself as the Duly-Licensed
Person in the Philippine Gamefowl Commissions list.
2. Teresita is not a public official so she is not prohibited from
holding an interest in the cockpit.
4. As regards the penalty, the Local Government Code prevails over the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act as the LGC is the specific law and the latter is the general law. Also,
the LGC was enacted subsequent to the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Voting: Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-

Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Chico-Nazario, and Garcia, JJ., concur. Tinga, J.,
dissents.

Dissent (Tinga):
1) Disagrees that possession of a prohibited interest is necessarily included in a public
officials intervention in relation to that interest.
2)The Information is not sufficient for a conviction for another crime aside from the
intervention in procuring a business license/permit.