Enforcing the Supreme Court’s (SC) decision, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the criminal charges filed against former Mayor Galicano E. Atup of Ubay, Bohol and several other persons for alleged violations of the Cockfighting Law in 2014.
"Acting on the Motion to Withdraw Information (criminal charge sheet) dated April 4, 2022 filed by the plaintiff, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), and finding the same to be well-taken, the motion is hereby granted," the Sandiganbayan said in a resolution.
"Wherefore, the Information in this case for violation of Presidential Decree No. 449, as amended by P.D. No. 1602, is considered withdrawn. This case is hereby dismissed," it ruled.
Also dismissed were the charges filed against former Vice Mayor Nelson A. Uy, Councilors Efren S. Tanjay, Victor A. Bonghanoy, Isidore G. Besas, Sabiniano B. Atupan, and Eustaquio R. Bacolod; then Barangay Chairperson 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 resolution was signed by Associate Justices Oscar C. Herrera Jr., Michael Frederick L. Musngi and Arthur O. Malabaguio of the Sandiganbayan’s second division.
Atup and his group challenged before the SC in 2017 the filing of the criminal charges against them by the OMB.
In opposing the SC petition, the OMB alleged that Atup and his group 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, which is an unlicensed cockpit and during the celebration of the town’s fiesta.
The OMB also alleged that under Section 5(d) of PD 449, the rule is “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.”
In a decision made public last Feb. 18 and written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC ordered the dismissal of the charges.
The SC 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 (Atup and his group) 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.”