GR 184092; (February, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 184092 , 186084, 186272, 186488, 186570. February 22, 2017.
AQUILINA B. GRANADA, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. (Consolidated Cases)
FACTS
The petitioners, officials of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) Region XI and a private supplier, were charged with violating Section 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act ( R.A. No. 3019 ). The charge stemmed from a Commission on Audit (COA) Special Audit Report which found that school forms and construction materials purchased for the Elementary School Building Program in 1991 were overpriced, causing the government a loss of P613,755.36. The Sandiganbayan convicted them, finding that the procurement entered into with Geomiche, Inc. was manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government.
ISSUE
The primary issue was whether the petitioners were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 for entering into a contract grossly disadvantageous to the government.
RULING
The Supreme Court acquitted all petitioners. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the element of the contract being “manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government.” The Sandiganbayan’s conviction relied heavily on the COA Special Audit Report’s finding of overpricing. However, the Court emphasized that a COA audit finding, while persuasive, is not conclusive proof of criminal liability in a graft case. The audit report’s determination of overpricing was based on a comparison with alleged “prevailing market prices,” but the prosecution did not present sufficient independent evidence to establish what the correct prevailing market prices were at the time of the purchase. The testimonies of the audit witnesses were deemed insufficient as they were not presented as expert witnesses on market prices, and their conclusions were not corroborated by other evidence like sworn statements from other suppliers. Without clear and competent proof of the actual fair market value, the alleged overpricing—and thus the gross disadvantage to the government—remained unproven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court reiterated that in criminal cases, the quantum of proof required is moral certainty, and the prosecution bears the burden. Any doubt is resolved in favor of the accused.