PHILIP GABRIEL C. ONA vs. SEGUNDINA T. MONDIA, Et al.

FACTS:

Complainant alleges that the respondents, Punong Barangay Segundina, et al illegally increased
the Barangay Bonbon’s Business Taxes, fees and charges to his damage and prejudice. He claims
to have been paying P65.00 before the respondents increased the cost to P1,515.00. He also
alleged that the respondents enacted Barangay Ordinance No. 07 without public hearing. He also
pointed out that the respondents started collecting before the said ordinance was approved by the
Sangguniang Panlungsod.

Respondents answered in her counter affidavit that before the passage of the Ordinance, claims
that a public consulation was held on September 20, 2014 at around 4:00pm at the Barangay
Bonbon Covered Court and that the allegations of the complainant have become moot and
academic due to the approval of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Butuan.

ISSUE/S:

W/N the respondents are liable under Art. 213 (2) (c) of the Revised Penal Code?

W/N the respondents are liable under Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act)?

W/N the respondents are liable under Sec. 305(c) of RA 7160 (The Local Government Code of
the Philippines)?

RULING:

There is no probable cause to hold respondents liable for violation of Art. 213 (2) (c) of the
Revised Penal Code. An essential element is not present in this case, which is “The offender is a
public officer entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts.” The
respondents are the signatories to the barangay ordinance. They are not public officers entrusted
with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts.

There is no probable cause to hold respondents liable for violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 (The
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). An essential element is not present in this case, which is
“said public officers commit the prohibited acts during the performance of their official duties or
in relation to their public position.” The respondents did not commit any prohibited act during
the performance of their official duty or in relation to their public position. They enacted an
Ordinance which the respondents could legally do under Sec.186 of RA 7160.

Since the complainant is the party asserting an illegal act committed by the respondents he has
the burden of proof. The complainant failed to rebut the presumption of validity in favor of the
barangay ordinance and to discharge the burden of proving that there was no public hearing
made.