G.R. Nos. 181999 & 182001-04 and G.R. Nos. 182020-24, September 2, 2009
Ofelia C. Caunan, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines and Sandiganbayan, Respondents. / Joey P. Marquez, Petitioner, vs. The Sandiganbayan-Fourth Division and People of the Philippines, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Joey P. Marquez, then Mayor of Parañaque City and Chairman of its Committee on Awards, and Ofelia C. Caunan, OIC of the General Services Office, along with other local officials and a private individual, were charged with five counts of violating Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The charges stemmed from the procurement of “walis ting-ting” (broomsticks) from ZARO Trading in 1996 and 1997 through personal canvass, without public bidding and allegedly at grossly inflated prices. The Commission on Audit (COA), in a 2003 decision, found the brooms to have an actual cost of only ₱11.00 per piece, making the city’s purchases at ₱25.00 and ₱15.00 per piece manifestly disadvantageous to the government.
The Sandiganbayan convicted the petitioners. It found that the prosecution established all elements of the crime, particularly the manifestly and grossly disadvantageous nature of the transactions to the government, as evidenced by the COA’s price determination. The court rejected the defense’s claim of good faith, noting the failure to conduct a public bidding as required by law and the significant price disparity confirmed by COA’s audit.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioners of violating Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 based on the COA’s finding of overpricing.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. The legal logic centered on the sufficiency of the COA’s audit findings as evidence to establish the “manifestly and grossly disadvantageous” element of the crime. The Court held that a COA decision, while not binding in a criminal case for graft, constitutes a competent and credible source of evidence on the issue of overpricing. The COA’s Price Monitoring Division conducted a thorough investigation, including market canvasses from various suppliers, which firmly established the standard price of the brooms. This objective evidence overwhelmingly supported the conclusion that the transactions were grossly disadvantageous.
The Court further ruled that the petitioners’ failure to observe mandatory procurement rules, specifically the requirement of public bidding, coupled with the proven overpricing, negated any claim of good faith or mere negligence. Their actions constituted evident bad faith. The defense of relying on the presumption of regularity of the Committee on Awards’ actions was unavailing, as this presumption was conclusively overturned by the positive evidence of overpricing and procedural violations. Thus, all elements of the crime—that the accused are public officers, who entered into a contract on behalf of the government, which is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the state—were proven beyond reasonable doubt.