G.R. No. 205561 , September 24, 2014
DIONISIO B. COLOMA, JR., Petitioner, vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Dionisio B. Coloma, Jr., a Police Chief Superintendent, was the Director of the Philippine National Police Academy (PNPA) and was designated as Special Assistant and Action Officer to the Director of Logistics and Installation Services (LIS) of the Philippine Public Safety College (PPSC). He was tasked to assist in finding a construction site for the Philippine National Police Regional Training Site 9 Annex in Bongao, Tawi-Tawi (RTS 9). A four-hectare lot, formerly owned by Juaini Bahad and later sold to the wife of labor contractor Engineer Rolando E. Lim, was selected. Funds for the project came from the Congressional Development Fund of Tawi-Tawi Representative Nur Jaafar, amounting to approximately ₱5,727,278.59. The amount was released in 1999 as “accounts payable” to creditors New Alems Enterprise (for materials) and A.C. Lim Construction (for labor). The project was supervised by Engineer Dosmedo G. Tabrilla as project engineer.
On August 1, 2001, Coloma was relieved from his PPSC designation and transferred to the Philippine National Training Institute. He was ordered to submit a termination report. On October 10, 2001, Coloma submitted an After Mission Report stating that land development was 100% complete, the administration building was 90% accomplished, and the construction of the fifty-capacity barracks and classroom had started and was expected to be completed by December 15, 2001. He also allegedly attached a Deed of Donation signed by Juaini Bahad.
Subsequently, an investigation ordered by PPSC President Atty. Ramsey Lapuz Ocampo and conducted by SPO4 Gilbert Concepcion revealed irregularities: (1) the reported 100% land development referred only to the site of the administration building and classroom; (2) only the administrative building with one-unit classroom and a 50-capacity mess hall were erected; (3) the 50-capacity barracks was not constructed; (4) the actual cost of constructed facilities was around ₱3,150,000.00, contrary to Coloma’s report that ₱5,722,278.29 was paid; (5) payments to the contractor and supplier were deposited in a Land Bank account with Coloma as a joint depositor; and (6) the property value was overstated at ₱1,500,000.00 compared to the provincial ordinance value of ₱9,730.00 per hectare.
Coloma was indicted for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for causing undue injury to the PPSC by making it appear the project was nearly completed when it was not, and for overstating costs, resulting in alleged damage of around ₱2,500,000.00. The Sandiganbayan found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding petitioner Dionisio B. Coloma, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 .

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision. The Court held that all elements of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 were present: (1) Coloma was a public officer; (2) he acted with evident bad faith in the discharge of his official functions; and (3) his actions caused undue injury to the PPSC.
The Court found that Coloma acted with evident bad faith by: (a) making himself a joint signatory to the bank account of the contractors, thereby giving him control over project funds contrary to standard government procedures; (b) submitting an After Mission Report containing false statements about the project’s completion and costs; and (c) overstating the value of the donated land. These acts demonstrated a deliberate intent to mislead and deviate from established rules, resulting in undue injury to the government through financial loss and compromised project implementation.
The Court rejected Coloma’s defense that he had no involvement in the construction, noting his active participation in site selection, fund control, and reporting. The Sandiganbayan’s factual findings were upheld as supported by evidence, including testimonies and documentary proof. The penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan—imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office—was affirmed, with modifications to the interest on the civil liability.