GR 135294; (November, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 135294 . November 20, 2000.
ANDRES S. SAJUL, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division), and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Andres Sajul, then Regional Director of the Land Transportation Commission (LTC), was charged with violating Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for entering into a manifestly and grossly disadvantageous transaction. The information alleged that in May 1985, he purchased 23 fire extinguishers from Bato-Bato Enterprises at P2,500 per unit, totaling P57,500, despite the alleged prevailing market price being only P1,500 per unit, causing a government loss of P23,000. The prosecution presented evidence that LTC personnel objected to the purchase, suggesting public bidding, and that a test on one unit revealed it contained no required extinguishing agent (BCF). The personnel were subsequently relieved by Sajul.
The defense presented supplier Cayetano Gacilo, who testified the transaction was for new extinguishers with a trade-in discount for old units, and that the price included a 5-year service warranty. He also contested the validity of the product test, as it was conducted without his presence as required by COA rules. The Sandiganbayan convicted Sajul, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner Andres Sajul entered into a contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government under Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the Sandiganbayans decision and ACQUITTED petitioner Andres Sajul. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged disadvantage beyond reasonable doubt. For a conviction under Section 3(g), the prosecution must conclusively establish that the government suffered actual disadvantage, quantified by showing the difference between the actual, real, and prevailing market price and the contract price.
Here, the prosecutions sole basis for the alleged overprice was a price quotation from another supplier, Zodiac Trading, for P1,500 per unit. The Court ruled this was insufficient. A single price quotation does not constitute the “actual, real and prevailing market price,” which requires evidence of a canvass from several suppliers to establish a reliable market standard. Furthermore, the defense presented credible evidence that the contract price included a valuable 5-year service warranty, a factor not considered in the simple price comparison. The defective nature of one tested unit also did not automatically prove the entire transaction was grossly disadvantageous, especially given the procedural questions about the tests validity. Consequently, the element of manifest and gross disadvantage was not proven to a moral certainty, warranting acquittal.