High Court affirms conviction of Ifugao mayor, 4 councilors

The Supreme Court (SC) upheld the maximum 15-year jail sentence meted on the mayor and four councilors of Tinoc, Ifugao for violations of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for demolishing a public market.

In a 20-page decision penned by Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, the SC affirmed the decision of the Sandiganbayan finding Tinoc Mayor Robert Tayaban and councilors Francisco Maddawat, Artemio Balangue, Francisco Mayumis, and Quirino Pana guilty and liable to reimburse the government P134,632.80 that was disbursed for the construction of the town’s public market.

Concurring with the decision were Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Minita Chico-Nazario, and Antonio Eduardo Nachura.

Court records show that Tayaban and the four councilors ordered the demolition of the half-finished public market on Aug. 15, 1999 on the impression that it was being built on the wrong site by contractor Lopez Pugong, who was awarded the project by the Cordillera Executive Board (CEB).

The SC said the Sandiganbayan did not err in finding Tayaban and the councilors guilty of bad faith in causing the demolition because the CEB and the contractor were not given due notice when the municipal resolution allowing the demolition was passed.

The contractor also testified that it was Tayaban himself who pointed to the site when he was asked where the market would be built.

The SC said Tayaban and the four councilors failed to present evidence that they had informed the CEB of their objections to the project’s location.

Thus, the SC said Pugong’s company could not be blamed for ignoring Tayaban’s memorandum because the CEB was the legitimate owner of the project and that its plans and specifications should be the ones followed.

The SC also noted that Tayaban’s group admitted that their blueprint for the public market was completed only in August 1989, although the construction started two months earlier.

It said Tayaban and the four councilors cannot "seek cover under the general welfare clause authorizing the abatement of nuisances without judicial proceedings."

In their defense, Tayaban and the councilors claimed that the public market would pose danger to the health and safety of schoolchildren if it were built on the disputed site.