EDGAR Y. TEVES and TERESITA Z. TEVES vs.

THE SANDIGANBAYAN

Facts:

Edgar Y. Teves, former Mayor of Valencia, Negros Oriental, and his wife Teresita Z. Teves were charged
for violation of Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft Law for possessing direct pecuniary interest in the Valencia
Cockpit and Recreation Center in Valencia.

It was alleged that Edgar caused the issuance of the business permit/license to operate the Valencia
Cockpit and Recreation Center in favor of one Daniel Teves. It is also alleged that Edgar Y. Teves has a
direct financial or pecuniary interest for being the actual owner, together with his wife Teresita Teves.

The Sandiganbayan ruled that Edgar has pecuniary interest in the cockpit because nothing on record
appears that Mayor Teves divested himself of his pecuniary interest in said cockpit, also Teresita Teves
was of record the owner/licensee of the cockpit, and since Mayor Teves and Teresita remained married
to each other, their property relations as husband and wife, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
was that of the conjugal partnership of gains. Hence, the cockpit is a conjugal property over which they
have pecuniary interest.

This pecuniary interest is prohibited under Section 89(2) of R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local
Government Code (LGC) of 1991, and thus falls under the prohibited acts penalized in Section 3(h) of the
Anti-Graft Law.

Issue:

Does the presumption of Edgar’s ownership subsist? (YES)

Ruling:

The evidence for the prosecution has established that petitioner Edgar Teves, then mayor of Valencia,
Negros Oriental,owned the cockpit in question.

The Sandiganbayan presumed that Edgar was the cockpit operator and licensee, and his interest
continued to exist. It also presumed that the cockpit was the conjugal property of Mayor Teves and his
wife, and that their pecuniary interest thereof was direct.

In his sworn application for registration of cockpit, as well as in his renewal application he stated that he
is the owner and manager of the said cockpit. Absent any evidence that he divested himself of his
ownership over the cockpit, his ownership thereof is rightly to be presumed because a thing once
proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of that nature.

The existence of that prohibited interest is by itself a criminal offense under Section 89(2) of the LGC of
1991. It is necessarily included in the offense charged against the petitioners, i.e., for violation of Section
3(h) of the Anti-Graft Law, which prohibits the possession of a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary
interest in any business, contract, or transaction in connection with which the person possessing the
financial interest intervenes in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or any
law from having any interest.

The fact that he turned over the management of the cockpit to his wife Teresita Z. Teves is not sufficient
proof that he divested himself of his ownership over the cockpit. This interest in the Valencia Cockpit is
direct and is, therefore, prohibited under Section 89(2) of the LGC of 1991, which reads: Section 89.
Prohibited Business and Pecuniary Interest.