Republic of the Philippines people upon this body;

SUPREME COURT RESOLVED, finally that this body agrees, and decides to demolish the
Manila erected structures for the purpose of erecting the Public Market building as
THIRD DIVISION identified and decided by this body; and further resolved as it is hereby
G.R. No. 150194 March 6, 2007 done that this be a precedent for other future leaders.5
ROBERT TAYABAN y CALIPLIP, FRANCISCO MADDAWAT y TAYOBAN, On that same day, Tayaban and his co-petitioners, together with some men,
ARTEMIO BALANGUE* y LANGA, FRANCISCO MAYUMIS y BAHEL proceeded to the construction site and demolished the structures and
and QUIRINO PANA y CUYAHEN, Petitioners, improvements introduced thereon. As a result, Pugong filed an
vs. Affidavit-Complaint6 against herein petitioners.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HONORABLE Subsequently, in an Information dated June 26, 1992, herein petitioners
SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents. were charged with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019,
DECISION otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: accusatory portion of the Information reads:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the That on August 17, 1989 and for sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in
Decision1 of the Sandiganbayan dated June 25, 2001 in Criminal Case No. the Municipality of Tinoc, Ifugao, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
17856; and its Resolution2 of September 28, 2001, denying petitioners’ this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Robert Tayaban,
Motion for Reconsideration. Municipal Mayor of Tinoc, Francisco Maddawat, Artemio Balangue,
Petitioner Robert Tayaban (Tayaban) was the Municipal Mayor of Tinoc, Francisco Mayumis and Quirino Pana, are all public officers being
Ifugao. His co-petitioners, namely: Francisco Maddawat, Artemio Balangue, Municipal Councilors of Tinoc, Ifugao and in the performance of their official
Francisco Mayumis, and Quirino Pana, were Municipal Councilors of the functions acting in evident bad faith and conspiring with each other, did then
same municipality. and there, willfully and unlawfully pass and unanimously approve
The facts of the case are as follows: Resolution No. 20, thereby vesting upon themselves powers and authority
Sometime in 1988, then Mayor Tayaban submitted a project proposal to to demolish the half-finished Tinoc Public Market construction whereby
provincial governor Benjamin Cappleman for the construction of the Tinoc respondents themselves personally and actually demolish [sic] it, to the
Public Market. Subsequently, Tayaban was informed by the Governor that damage and prejudice of the government particularly the Cordillera
his proposal was approved and that the project shall be funded by the Executive Board, being the owner of the project.7
Cordillera Executive Board (CEB).3Subsequently, a bidding was conducted Upon arraignment on December 14, 1992, herein petitioners pleaded not
and private complainant Lopez Pugong (Pugong) won the contract for the guilty.8
construction of the said public market. On March 1, 1989, a formal contract4 After trial, the Sandiganbayan promulgated the presently assailed
was executed by and between Pugong, as the contractor, and the CEB, as Decision,9 the dispositive portion of which reads:
the project owner. Actual construction of the public market was commenced WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
in June 1989. On August 15, 1989, the Sangguniang Bayan of Tinoc convicting all the accused ROBERT TAYABAN Y CALIPLIP, FRANCISCO
adopted Resolution No. 20 which reads: MADDAWAT Y TAYOBAN, ARTEMIO BALANGUE Y LANGA, FRANCISCO
R E S O L U T I O N NO. 20 MAYUMIS Y BAHEL and QUIRINO PANA Y CUYAHEN of the crime of
Series of 1989 Violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 as amended, and in the
WHEREAS, upon thorough discussion as regards the construction of the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances and applying the
Public Market; it was found out that the constructors despite the several Indeterminate Sentence Law, herein accused are hereby sentenced to
instructions, memoranda issued by the Municipal Mayor and the suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1)
negotiations made by this body they insisted to erect the building pedestals month as minimum to eight (8) years as maximum and are hereby ordered
on the site [that] pleases them and not on the site identified by this duly jointly and severally to pay the government the amount of P134,632.80
constituted body who has direct administration of the municipal ground; without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
WHEREFORE, on motion duly seconded be it… SO ORDERED.10
RESOLVED, as it is hereby done to adopt this resolution manifesting this Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the Sandiganbayan
body’s decision to uphold and maintain the trust and confidence of the denied it in a Resolution11 dated September 28, 2001.
Hence, herein petition for review with the following assignment of errors: did not pursue any action against them.
I In their second assigned error, petitioners argue that the Sandiganbayan
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN erred in applying Sections 5613 and 59(a)14 of the Local Government Code
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTS ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED BY (LGC) of 1991, which provide, respectively, for the review by
THE ACCUSED CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF SECTION 3(E) OF R.A. theSangguniang Panlalawigan of component city and municipal ordinances
NO. 3019 AS AMENDED, AND THEREFORE ACCUSED SHOULD HAVE and resolutions approving local development plans and public investment
BEEN ACQUITTED BY THE RESPONDENT COURT. programs and for the posting in conspicuous places in the local government
II unit concerned of the said resolutions and ordinances.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT They argue that the applicable law at the time of the passage of Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 20 IS A VALID LEGISLATION AND THAT THE No. 20 is Batas Pambansa Bilang (B.P. Blg.) 337 or the Local Government
DEMOLITION OF THE FIVE POSTS WAS AN IMPLEMENTATION OF LOI Code of 1983. Claiming that Pugong failed to obtain the requisite building
NO. 19 AND AN EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER VESTED IN LOCAL permit pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1096,15 petitioners assert
GOVERNMENT UNIT. that their act of demolishing the structures erected on the construction site
III is an implementation of the provisions of the Letter of Instruction (LOI) No.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES 1916 which empowers certain public officials, like the municipal mayor, to
OF EVIDENCE, LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ERRED IN remove illegal constructions which were built, either in public places or
CONSIDERING FACTS WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE EVIDENCE ON private property, without permit. Petitioners further contend that the
RECORD.12 demolition is a valid exercise of police power and that their act is justified by
In their first assigned error, petitioners argue that one of the elements of the the general welfare clause under the LGC which empowers them to enact
offense which constitutes a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 is that and implement measures for the general well-being of their constituents.
the government or any private party suffers undue injury by reason of the In their third assigned error, petitioners argue that the Sandiganbayan erred
prohibited acts committed by the public officer being charged. Petitioners in relying on the testimony of prosecution witness Abe Belingan considering
argue that this element was not proved because the CEB, which was that he is not a disinterested witness because he is given the contract of
supposed to be the injured party as alleged in the Information, did not cementing the supposed second floor of the public market. Moreover,
complain or participate in the trial of the case. Petitioners go on to conclude petitioners contend that the testimony of Belingan regarding the reason why
that the existence of undue injury cannot be proven without the alleged Mayor Tayaban demolished the structures is mere hearsay and as such
injured party testifying. Petitioners further contend that the itemized list of should not be given any probative value. Petitioners assert that the
expenses submitted in evidence by Pugong should not have been made a complaint was filed against them for purposes of political harassment
basis of the presently assailed Decision because such list is not supported considering that Pugong’s political allies who also signed Resolution No. 20
by receipts and, therefore, self-serving. Moreover, Pugong was never were not included in the said complaint.
mentioned in the Information as one of the injured parties. Petitioners In its Comment, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contends that, as
assert that undue injury could only mean actual injury or damage which properly held by the Sandiganbayan, undue injury has been caused to the
must be established by evidence. Government and that it is immaterial whether the CEB filed a complaint
Petitioners also contend that the element of bad faith on their part was not against herein petitioners because the real party-in-interest is the
proved. On the contrary, they argue that their act of exerting efforts to Government of the Republic of the Philippines. The OSG also argues that
communicate with the contractor and his foreman, by sending three letters private complainant Pugong also suffered undue injury because he already
in order to remind them of the proper site of construction, only shows that incurred expenses for labor, tools, equipment, and materials for the
they were acting in good faith; that the eventual passage of Resolution No. construction project. As to the issue of credibility of witnesses, the OSG
20 is also an additional evidence of good faith on their part because it was asserts that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness
adopted by the Sangguniang Bayan as a collective body acting within the stand is a function most competently performed by the trial judge who had
scope of its authority. Petitioners further contend that the CEB saw the the opportunity to observe the witnesses and assess their credibility by the
propriety of the Sangguniang Bayan’s action to stop the construction of the various indicia available but not reflected on record.
market that was why it issued an order suspending the said construction; The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) also filed its Comment,
and that the CEB, realizing its mistake in not coordinating with petitioners, contending that it is not necessary for the CEB to initiate a complaint
against herein petitioners because the real party-in-interest is the parties.17
Government of the Republic of the Philippines; that there is actual injury on Herein petitioners’ contention that the Sandiganbayan erred in ruling that
the part of the Government as shown by the fact that construction was they are guilty of bad faith and that they caused undue injury to the
commenced and that petitioners did not deny that they demolished the Government is not plausible.
structures which were erected; and that the list of expenses presented by With respect to the element of bad faith, the Court, in a number of cases,
Pugong cannot be considered self-serving because the latter testified held:
thereon. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a
The OSP further claims that petitioners were guilty of bad faith when they dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong;
demolished the erected structures as evidenced by various acts committed a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes
by herein petitioners prior to and during the construction of the public of the nature of fraud. (Spiegel v. Beacon Participations, 8 NE 2nd Series,
market; and that the fact that witness Belingan has contracted the 895, 1007). It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with
cementing of the second floor of the supposed public market is not furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or ill will for ulterior
sufficient evidence of his bias against herein petitioners. purposes. (Air France v. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155, 166-167). Evident bad
As to petitioners’ contention that the criminal complaint filed against them faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do
was merely a political harassment considering that the other members of wrong or cause damage.18
the Sangguniang Bayan who signed the questioned Resolution but who are The Court agrees with the findings of the Sandiganbayan that petitioners
allies of Pugong were not included in the complaint, the OSP avers that, were guilty of bad faith in causing the demolition.
while the said members of theSangguniang Bayan signed Resolution No. Evidence of this is the fact that Resolution No. 20 was implemented on the
20, they were not included in the complaint because they did not take part same day that it was adopted without due notice of the planned demolition
in the demolition of the public market. given to the CEB and the private contractor. In fact, Raymundo Madani, one
The Court finds the petition without merit. of the Municipal Councilors who signed Resolution No. 20, testified that the
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 reads: said Resolution was passed only in the afternoon of August 15, 1989, after
Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. - In addition to acts or omissions the subject demolition was conducted in the morning of the same day.19
of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall Proof of petitioners’ bad faith is also shown by Pugong’s testimony, which
constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to was given credence by theSandiganbayan, that the site where his laborers
be unlawful: began construction of the demolished public market was pointed out by
xxxx petitioner Tayaban himself when the former asked the latter where they
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or were going to erect the said market.20
giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference Tayaban’s letter and memorandum dated July 31, 198921 and August 3,
in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through 1989,22 respectively, addressed to the laborers of Pugong directing them to
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This stop construction may not be considered as evidence of good faith on the
provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government part of petitioners considering that they know fully well that it is the CEB
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other which implements the said project and any grievance or complaint on their
concessions. part should have been addressed to the said Board. No evidence was
The following indispensable elements must be established to constitute a presented to show that petitioners made their objections known to the CEB.
violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended: At the least, petitioners should have furnished the CEB or the Governor, in
1. The accused is a public officer discharging administrative or official his capacity as a regular member of the CEB,23 a copy of the
functions or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; above-mentioned letter and memorandum. But they never did. The letter
2. The public officer committed the prohibited act during the performance of and memorandum were not even addressed to Pugong and there is no
his official duty in relation to his public position; proof to show that he was informed of the contents thereof. Moreover, even
3. The public officer acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross if Pugong’s men had received the letter and memorandum, they may not be
inexcusable negligence; and totally blamed for ignoring the letter and the memorandum because under
4. His action caused undue injury to the government or any private party, or their contract, the owner of the project is the CEB and there is nothing
gave any party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to such therein which requires them to comply with whatever directive the Mayor or
the Sangguniang Bayan of Tinoc may issue. In fact, the contract signed on competent person.35 In the present case, it is sufficient that private
March 1, 1989 specifically states that the contractor shall construct the contractor Pugong was the one who filed an affidavit-complaint for
Tinoc Public Market as per plan and specification provided by the CEB purposes of preliminary investigation by the OSP. Moreover, the failure of
technical staff.24 In consonance with the said provision in the contract, the CEB to participate in the trial of the case does not necessarily mean that
Pugong testified that the CEB sent a representative to supervise the the Government of the Republic of the Philippines did not suffer any injury
construction.25 or that such injury cannot be proven.
The following admissions made by petitioners bolster Sandiganbayan’s As to whether the Government suffered undue injury, it cannot be denied
finding of bad faith on their part: that the unceremonious demolition of the five concrete posts and the other
First, petitioner Tayaban admitted that when he submitted the project improvements built as part of the foundation of the supposed public market
proposal for the construction of the Tinoc Public Market, he did not indicate resulted in damage to the Government. Evidence presented by the
the exact location where the market should be put up saying that he shall prosecution shows that, at the time of the questioned demolition, the CEB
specify the location when the budget for the project shall have been had already disbursed in favor of Pugong the amount of P134,632.80.36 Any
approved.26 However, despite meeting the Governor twice in 1989, and further effort to rebuild the destroyed structures or to proceed with the
being informed by the latter that the project had already been approved and construction of the market would necessarily entail additional expenses on
funded, Tayaban still did not suggest to the Governor nor mention to him the part of the Government. Hence, undue injury to the Government was
the specific place where he and the Sangguniang Bayandesire to have the proven to the point of moral certainty.
public market erected.27 Worse, when the construction was commenced Petitioners’ reliance on Llorente, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan37 is misplaced as the
and petitioners discovered that the public market was being built allegedly factual milieu in the said case is not on all fours with the present case. In
in a place where it should not be, petitioner Tayaban even admits that he Llorente, the petitioner, a municipal mayor, was charged with violation of
still did not inform the Governor of such fact.28 Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 for having allegedly delayed or withheld the
Second, Tayaban admits that they never bothered to check with the CEB salaries and other emoluments due to the private complainant who is a
where the latter intended to put up the public market.29 There is no evidence municipal employee, causing her undue injury. In acquitting petitioner, this
to show that, when the construction was commenced, petitioners informed Court ruled that the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish that the
the CEB of the alleged mistake in the location of the project. In fact, private complainant suffered undue injury after it has been proven that she
petitioner Tayaban testified that it was only in the first or second week of subsequently received the salaries and allowances which, she claimed,
August, 1989 that he informed the CEB regarding the supposed error,30 were withheld from her. The Court held that, other than the amount of the
even when he came to know the exact site where Pugong intended to build withheld salaries and allowances which were eventually received, the
the market as early as April 1989.31 Moreover, when the Sangguniang prosecution failed to specify and to prove any other loss or damage
Bayan convened on August 15, 1989 and passed Resolution No. 20, they sustained by the complainant. Moreover, the Court ruled that the alleged
did not invite any representative from the CEB.32 financial stress which complainant suffered was inadequate and largely
Third, while petitioners aver that they have come up with a Site speculative and that the long period of time that her emoluments were
Development Plan wherein the exact location of the public market was withheld does not constitute the kind of undue injury contemplated by law.
specified, Tayaban admits that the blue print of the said development plan In the present case, it cannot be gainsaid that the destruction of the five
was completed only in August 1989.33 However, the construction of the concrete posts and the other improvements in the construction of the Tinoc
public market was commenced as early as June 1989. public market is clear and substantial evidence to prove that the
From the foregoing, it is evident that petitioners were moved by a manifest Government suffered undue injury. Under prevailing jurisprudence, proof of
and deliberate intent to cause damage. the extent or quantum of damage is not essential, it being sufficient that the
It is clear from the Information filed that the injured party in the instant case injury suffered or benefits received can be perceived to be substantial
is the Government, as represented by the CEB. The fact that the CEB did enough and not merely negligible.38
not initiate the filing of the instant criminal action is of no moment Pugong may not be made liable to answer for the injury suffered by the
considering that a complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation by the Government considering that it was not he who caused the subject
fiscal need not be filed by the "offended party".34The rule has been that, demolition. Neither was it alleged nor proven that he breached his contract
unless the subject of the complaint is one that cannot be prosecuted de with the CEB as to justify the destruction of the structures which were
oficio, the same may be filed, for preliminary investigation purposes, by any already built.
On the other hand, the prosecution has sufficiently established the authorizing the abatement of nuisances without judicial proceedings. This
individual participation of petitioners in carrying out the demolition.39 In fact, principle applies to nuisances per se, or those which affect the immediate
petitioners do not deny that, in their capacity as public officials, they caused safety of persons and property and may be summarily abated under the
the actual demolition of the structure built on the project site. Hence, they undefined law of necessity.43 Petitioners claim that the public market would
should be held answerable for the injury suffered by the Government. pose danger to the safety and health of schoolchildren if it were built on the
Anent the second assigned error, the Court agrees with the petitioners and place being contested.44 However, petitioners never made known their
the OSG that Sections 56 and 59(a) of the 1991 LGC (R.A. No. 7160) are supposed concerns either to the Governor or to the CEB. Instead, they took
not applicable in the present case. The Sangguniang Bayan of Tinoc the law into their own hands and precipitately demolished the subject
enacted the questioned resolution on August 15, 1989, more than two structures that were built without the benefit of any hearing or consultation
years before the effectivity of the said Code.40 The prevailing law at that with the proper authority, which in this case is the CEB.
time was the Local Government Code of 1983 (B.P. Blg. 337). The Court As to the Sandiganbayan’s act of giving credence to the testimony of
agrees with the OSG that Sections 56 and 59(a) of the 1991 LGC have no prosecution witness Abe Belingan, the settled rule is that the assessment of
similar or counterpart provisions in the 1983 LGC. In addition, the Court the credibility of a witness is primarily the function of a trial court, which had
agrees with petitioners that Sections 56 and 59(a) of the 1991 LGC find no the benefit of observing firsthand the demeanor or deportment of the
application in the present case because these provisions refer, specifically, witness.45 It is well-settled that this Court will not reverse the trial court’s
to ordinances and resolutions approving the local development plans and assessment of the credibility of witnesses in the absence of arbitrariness,
public investment programs formulated by the local development council. abuse of discretion or palpable error.46 It is within the discretion of the
However, the Court is not persuaded by petitioners’ reliance on the Sandiganbayan to weigh the evidence presented by the parties, as well as
provisions of P.D. No. 1096 and LOI No. 19 as their legal bases in to accord full faith to those it regards as credible and reject those it
conducting the questioned demolition. A careful reading of Resolution No. considers perjurious or fabricated.47 Moreover, the settled rule is that absent
20 reveals that petitioners’ only basis in deciding to carry out the demolition any evidence showing a reason or motive for prosecution witnesses to
was because the supposed public market was being erected in a place perjure their testimonies, the logical conclusion is that no improper motive
other than that identified by the Sangguniang Bayan of Tinoc. There was no exists, and that their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit. In the
mention whatsoever in the said Resolution that the private contractor failed present case, the fact that Belingan was contracted to cement the
to secure the requisite building permit. Neither was there any mention that supposed second floor of the public market is not a compelling evidence to
the demolition was being conducted pursuant to the power vested upon the prove that his testimony is biased. Hence, the Court finds no cogent reason
Mayor by the provisions of LOI No. 19. Even the letter sent by petitioner to depart from the findings of the Sandiganbayan with respect to the
Tayaban to the head laborer of Pugong dated July 31, 1989, the letter to the credibility of Belingan.
Station Commander of the INP, Tinoc of even date,41 and the memorandum The penalty for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as provided
sent to the laborers of Pugong dated August 3, 1989 uniformly state that the under Section 9 of the same law, is imprisonment for not less than six years
only reason why petitioners wanted to stop the construction was because and one month nor more than 15 years, perpetual disqualification from
the supposed public market was being erected in the wrong place. Hence, public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the Government of any
petitioners’ reliance on the provisions of P.D. No. 1096 and LOI No. 19 was prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to
merely an afterthought and as a means of justification for their acts which, the salary and other lawful income of the accused. Under the Indeterminate
in the first place, were done in bad faith. Sentence Law, if the offense is punished by special law, the Court shall
Likewise, the Court is not persuaded by petitioners’ contention that the sentence the accused to an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of
subject demolition is a valid exercise of police power. The exercise of police which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum
power by the local government is valid unless it contravenes the term shall not be less than the minimum prescribed by the same.48 In the
fundamental law of the land, or an act of the legislature, or unless it is present case, the Court finds no error in the penalty imposed by the
against public policy, or is unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminating, Sandiganbayan, except that the penalty of perpetual disqualification from
or in derogation of a common right.42 In the present case, the acts of public office should also be imposed.
petitioner have been established as a violation of law, particularly of the It bears to reiterate that the injury suffered by the Government consists in
provisions of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. the fact that it had already disbursed the amount of P134,632.80 for the
Neither can petitioners seek cover under the general welfare clause purpose of commencing the construction of the Tinoc Public Market which
was reduced to nothing by reason of petitioners’ destruction of the
structures built and the eventual stoppage of the project. On this basis, the
Court agrees with the Sandiganbayan that petitioners are liable to
reimburse the said amount lost by the Government.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision and Resolution of the
Sandiganbayan are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The additional
penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office is imposed upon
petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
(On leave)
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice Asscociate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
AT TE S TAT IO N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C ER T IF ICAT IO N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice