GR 183529; (February, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 183529 February 24, 2016
OFELIA C. CAUNAN, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and the SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.
FACTS
The case stemmed from a “ghost delivery” of Compost Garbage and Recycling Equipment to Barangay Marcelo Green, Parañaque City. In 2000, the City Government, through accused public officials including Ofelia Caunan as OIC of the General Services Office, processed and paid Julia Enterprises ₱861,600.00 for the equipment, with documents indicating receipt by then-Barangay Chairman Magnolia Punzalan. However, Punzalan denied ever requesting, receiving, or signing for such equipment. An investigation by the City Auditor confirmed the equipment was paid for but not delivered. Notably, a subsequent and separate transaction in 2003 resulted in the actual delivery of one set of compost equipment to the same barangay from a different supplier, Lacto South Metro Enterprises, which was received by the new chairman, Dante Pacheco.
The Sandiganbayan found Caunan guilty of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). It ruled that she, along with her co-accused, conspired to make it appear a delivery was made to Punzalan, causing undue injury to the government. Caunan filed a petition for review, arguing the Sandiganbayan erred in finding conspiracy and bad faith, claiming the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting Caunan of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 .
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centered on the elements of Section 3(e): the accused is a public officer; the act was done in the discharge of official functions; through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and it caused undue injury to any party or gave unwarranted benefits. The Court found all elements present. As OIC, Caunan was a public officer whose duties included inspecting and accepting deliveries. Her signature on the Inspection and Acceptance Report and Memorandum Receipt for the undelivered equipment was crucial in facilitating the fraudulent payment.
The Court rejected Caunan’s defense of good faith, emphasizing that signing these documents without verifying the actual physical delivery of the goods constituted gross inexcusable negligence, if not evident bad faith. Her claim that an ocular inspection would prove delivery was negated by evidence showing the equipment later found in the barangay came from the separate, legitimate 2003 transaction with Lacto South. By certifying a fictitious delivery, she caused undue injury to the government in the amount of ₱861,600.00. The Sandiganbayan’s factual findings on her participation and the existence of a conspiracy, being supported by evidence, are binding on the Court. Thus, her conviction was upheld.