The Supreme Court (SC) ordered the dismissal of the criminal case filed against several former town officials of Ubay, Bohol in relation to the three-day cockfight held in the said municipality back in 2014, according to reports.
Former Ubay Mayor Galicano E. Atup and then Vice Mayor Nelson A. Uy, the then Ubay town and barangay officials were indicted by the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) before the Sandiganbayan with violations of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 449 as amended by PD 1602, the Cockfighting Law of 1974.
Also charged by the OMB were then town councilors Efren S. Tanjay, Victor A. Bonghanoy, Isidore G. Besas, Sabiniano B. Atupan, and Eustaquio R. Bacolod; then Punong Barangay Merlinda B. Gallego, Barangay Kagawads Rod Arthur P. Canete, Alan B . Mendez, Letecia Q . Bunado, Constantina B. Villasan, Gemma B. Malinao, Antonio I. Cutamura, and Johnny Jim Q. Garces; and Barangay Treasurer Anne A. Taan.
The case stems from a complaint filed in 2014 before the OMB.
The OMB alleged that the said former town and barangay officials authorized and/or caused the holding of a three-win cockfight event on Jan. 28, 29, and 30, 2014 at the town’s Union Cultural Sports Center.
The Union Cultural Sports Center is an unlicensed cockpit. The said cockfight took place during the celebration of the town’s fiesta.
Furthermore, it was alleged that under Section 5(d) of PD 449, “if the cockfighting event is done during Sundays, legal holidays and local fiestas, it must last only for three days, and must be held in a licensed cockpit.”
According to the OMB, Section 5(e) of PD 449 “is applicable if the cockfighting is intended to entertain foreign dignitaries, tourists and/or balikbayans, or the cockfighting is intended to support a national fund raising campaign for charitable purposes authorized by the Office of the President.”
Moreover, the OMB quipped “the controlling event which led to the holding of the cockfight at the Union Cultural Sports Center was the local town fiesta” based on SB (Sangguniang Bayan) Resolution No. 06, Series of 2014…”
OMB averred that “although the purpose of entertaining balikbayans and tourists was mentioned in SB Resolution No. 205, Series of 2013, the same was merely incidental and not the primary reason.”
The OMB also said in its case filed before the Sandiganbayan: “Moved by a single criminal intent, respondents each performed their individual act of either proposing, endorsing and/or approving the arrangement to hold the cockfighting event on 28, 29 and 30 January 2014 in a place other than a licensed cockpit. Their participation, albeit done on various dates, is a by product of single plan.”
Ubay town celebrates its annual town fiesta every last Friday of January.
When the said cockfight was held, there was no licensed cockpit located in Ubay, according to reports.
The OMB, on Jan. 17, 2017, denied the motions for reconsideration filed by the former town officials.
Two groups of respondents filed separate petitions before the SC. The SC, then, consolidated the cases and issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on June 7, 2017.
However, before the SC’s could issue the TRO, the Sandiganbayan already issued an arrest warrant against the respondents.
The SC had to clarify that the TRO was meant to halt the Sandiganbayan from further conducting proceedings on the case.
The SC, in a decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting and made public on Feb. 18, 2022 said: “While Section 5(d) provides that no cockfighting during provincial, city or municipal, agricultural, commercial or industrial fair, carnival or exposition shall be allowed ‘within the month of a local fiesta,’ it is worthy to mention that Section 5(e) contains no such prohibition with regard to the holding of cockfighting for the entertainment of tourists and balikbayans.
“The holding of cockfighting for the entertainment of tourists and balikbayans within the month of a local fiesta is not prohibited because some of the balikbayans would plan their homecoming within the dates near the town fiesta to celebrate with their families and hometown friends.
“Thus, petitioners passed the resolutions with the purpose of holding the cockfighting for the entertainment of balikbayans and tourists within the month of town fiesta which is not prohibited by law. To stress, cockfighting for the entertainment of tourists and balikbayans can be held even within the month of the local fiesta.
“It is admitted that there was no licensed cockpit arena operating within the Municipality of Ubay, Bohol at the time the cockfighting was held in 2014. PD 449 does not specifically provide for a definition of playground or park. Merriam Webster defines playground as a piece of land used and usually equipped with facilities for recreation especially for children; or an area known or suited for activity of a specified sort.
“A playground is a place for recreational activities to improve the physical and mental well-being of children and people of all ages. The cockfighting was held in Union Cultural and Sports Center which may fall within the same category as a playground. A gymnasium is a place where people can gather for athletic and recreational activities as well as for the holding of special and social events.
“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.
“WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions for certiorari are GRANTED. The assailed Resolution dated Oct. 11, 2016 and the Order dated Jan. 17, 2017 issued by the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-V-C-15-0285 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
‘The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court on June 7, 2017, which was clarified on Jan. 29, 2018 to include the suspension of further proceedings in Criminal Case No. SB-l 7-CRM-0753 before the Sandiganbayan is hereby made PERMANENT.
“The respondent Ombudsman is DIRECTED to immediately file the necessary pleading for the WITHDRAWAL of the Information in said Criminal Case No. SB-l 7-CRM-0753 against petitioners. SO ORDERED.”
