GR 156577; (December, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156577 , 156587, 156749; December 3, 2014
ALEJANDRO C. RIVERA, ALFREDO Y. PEREZ, JR., and LUIS D. MONTERO, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners, public officers of the Department of Health (DOH) Region VIII, were charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The charge stemmed from a negotiated contract with PAL Boat Industry for the construction of seven floating clinics at a contract price of ₱700,000.00. An anonymous letter to the Ombudsman reported the boats were left rotting and undelivered. A Commission on Audit (COA) audit revealed anomalies. The Information alleged that through evident bad faith and manifest partiality, the petitioners entered into the negotiated contract without waiting for Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) approval of the plans, approved payments totaling ₱630,000.00 despite the units being non-operational and defective, and failed to properly monitor the project, causing undue injury to the government and giving unwarranted benefits to the contractor. The Sandiganbayan found them guilty. Petitioners appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the crime.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 .
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petitions and AFFIRMED the Sandiganbayan’s decision. The Court held that all elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
1. Petitioners were public officers: They were DOH Region VIII officials (Regional Director, Assistant Regional Director, Regional Civil Works Implementation Officer).
2. They acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence: The Court found gross inexcusable negligence. They violated procurement rules under P.D. No. 1594 by resorting to a negotiated contract without justification, failing to conduct a public bidding, and not publishing an invitation to bid. They commenced the project and approved payments without the required MARINA approval of the final plans and specifications. They also failed to adequately supervise the project, as shown by the defective units.
3. Their actions caused undue injury to the government or gave unwarranted benefits to PAL Boat: The government suffered undue injury by paying ₱630,000.00 for defective and non-operational floating clinics. PAL Boat received unwarranted benefits by being paid for substandard work.
The Court rejected petitioners’ defenses, including the claim of immediate implementation by presidential instruction, noting the lack of written order and that such instruction did not excuse violations of procurement laws. The claim that the boats weighed less than three tons to avoid MARINA jurisdiction was also rejected, as the contract itself required MARINA approval. The petitioners’ collective negligence in supervision was established.