INTING, J.:
Doctrine:
It is settled that the Court does not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's finding and call on the existence of a probable cause. This rule of non-interference is, however, far from absolute. Case law has it that the Court will intervene upon proof of commission of grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman.
Facts:
The Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Ubay, Bohol passed and approved Resolution No. 205, Series of 2013, requesting the Municipal Mayor to allow the Sangguniang Bayan to hold 3-win cockfights on February I and 2, 2014 at the Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Gymnasium. The resolution was attested to by Vice Mayor and Sangguniang Bayan Presiding Officer Nelson L. Uy and approved by then Municipal Mayor Galicano E. Atup.
Then Mayor Atup issued a special permit for the holding of the cockfighting on the date and venue requested, subject to the conditions that the regulatory fees shall be complied with and that the municipal ordinances and existing laws governing cockfights shall be strictly followed.
The 3-win cockfighting event was subsequently held.
On April 10, 2014, private complainant Cesar C. Arro, Sr. filed before the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas in Cebu City a Complaint-Affidavit for violation of PD 449 against the following public officials, to wit: then Mayor Atup, then Vice Mayor Uy, Councilors Efren S. Tanjay, Victor A. Bonghanoy (collectively, petitioners barangay officials).
Petitioners were alleged to have authorized and/or caused the holding of a 3-win cockfighting event on January 28, 29, and 30, 2014 at Union Cultural Sports Center, which is an unlicensed cockpit.
Petitioners, in their respective petitions, argued that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in finding probable cause for the filing of Information for violation of PD 449 against them; and that the applicable provision of law is not Section 5(d) but Section 5(e) of PD 449, which allows the holding of cockfighting for the entertainment of balikbayans in places other than a licensed cockpit; hence, there is no probable cause for their indictment.
Issue: Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in finding the existence of probable cause for the filing of Information against petitioners for violation of PD 449
Ruling: Yes.
The Court finds that petitioners' case falls under Section 5(e) of PD 449 for the following reasons:
First, the Sangguniang Bayan of Ubay, Bohol, passed Resolution No. 205, Series of 201 3, requesting the Mayor to allow the holding of 3-win cockfights for the entertainment of balikbayans and local tourists.
Second, the Sangguniang Bayan asked for a special permit from the Provincial Director for the holding of the cockfights. Notably, the Ombudsman admitted that a special permit from the PNP is not necessary when the cockfighting event is to be done on the occasion of a local town fiesta but only when the cockfighting is primarily intended to entertain tourists and/or balikbayans. Considering that the main purpose in holding the cockfighting was to entertain tourists and balikbayans, the Sangguniang Bayan found it necessary to secure a Special Permit from the Provincial Director of the PNP. In fact, the Special Permit issued by the Provincial Director proved the reason for the holding of the cockfighting.
As the cockfighting is to be held for the purpose stated in the special permit, i.e., to entertain tourists and balikbayans, the Provincial Director made it clear that he can no longer issue another permit for that purpose in the same year which is in compliance with Section 5(e) of PD 449. As may be recalled, Section 5(e) provides that the privilege of holding such cockfighting "within the month of a local fiesta," which is otherwise prohibited under Section 5(d), shall be extended for only one time within a year.
Third, Section 5(e) allows cockfighting for the entertainment of tourists or balikbayans to be held in licensed cockpits or in playgrounds or parks.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in finding probable cause against petitioners for violation of Section 5(d) of PD 449, as amended
No comments:
Post a Comment