GR 237432 33; (April, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 237432-33, April 28, 2021
Jesus Loretizo Nieves, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Jesus Loretizo Nieves was the Regional Director of the Department of Education, Regional Office No. IX (DepEd-RO IX) and the Head of the Procuring Entity. He was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Falsification of Public Document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The charges stemmed from the procurement of IT package materials worth P4,776,786.00 from Felta Multi-Media, Inc. (Felta) without public bidding. The prosecution alleged that petitioner falsified a Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) Resolution dated April 11, 2006, forging the signatures of BAC members to make it appear that direct contracting was recommended, thereby causing the release of public funds to Felta. A Commission on Audit (COA) audit revealed the transaction was not recorded in DepEd-RO IX’s books of account. The BAC members denied participating in or signing the subject resolution, testifying they were elsewhere on the alleged date of its adoption. Petitioner denied falsifying the document, claiming it was presented to him already signed by the Supply Officer.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.
2. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of Public Document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s Decision and Resolution.
1. On the violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019: The Court found all elements present. Petitioner was a public officer who acted with evident bad faith. He gave unwarranted benefit to Felta by approving the procurement despite a standing moratorium on the purchase of reference/IT materials (per DepEd Order No. 38), and by resorting to direct contracting without legal basis, as the conditions for direct contracting under R.A. 9184 were not met. His claim of relying on subordinates was unacceptable, as his duty to ensure the regularity of the transaction was non-delegable. The government suffered undue injury in the amount of P4,776,786.00.
2. On the Falsification of Public Document: The Court found all elements of falsification under Article 171(2) & (4) of the RPC present. Petitioner made untruthful statements in the BAC Resolution by asserting it was issued by the BAC recommending direct contracting. He also forged the signatures of three BAC members. As the Head of the Procuring Entity who approved the falsified document, he was responsible for its falsification. His defense of denial could not prevail over the positive testimonies of the BAC members and other witnesses.
The Court held that the Sandiganbayan’s factual findings are conclusive, and petitioner failed to show any cogent reason to overturn them. The petition was denied.