GR 187268; (September, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 187268 ; September 4, 2013
JOVITO C. PLAMERAS, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Jovito C. Plameras, then Governor of Antique, was charged with violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) in relation to the implementation of a “Purchase of School Desks Program.” The province received a P5,666,667.00 Poverty Alleviation Fund allocation from the DECS. Petitioner, on behalf of the province, entered into a Purchaser-Seller Agreement with CKL Enterprises for school desks and armchairs. He subsequently applied for and secured an Irrevocable Domestic Letter of Credit in favor of CKL, which contained the notation that documents dated prior to the letter’s opening were acceptable. Petitioner then signed a sales invoice acknowledging receipt of all items, which allowed CKL to fully negotiate the letter of credit and receive full payment.
The Office of the Provincial Committee On Award later reported that CKL had delivered only a portion of the items. Petitioner made subsequent demands for complete delivery and sought assistance from the bank, claiming deception. A civil case was filed by the province for a refund. Concurrently, a criminal complaint was instituted against petitioner, alleging that by causing full payment prior to complete delivery and without public bidding, he gave unwarranted benefit to the supplier and caused undue injury to the government.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner Plameras is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 .
RULING
No. The Supreme Court acquitted petitioner. The prosecution failed to prove the elements of the crime, particularly evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. The Court found that petitioner acted pursuant to the specific terms of the Letter of Credit, which expressly allowed pre-dated documents. His act of signing the sales invoice was a procedural requirement to facilitate the fund transfer under that banking instrument, not a conclusive declaration that all items were physically received. His subsequent actions—demanding complete delivery from the supplier and seeking bank assistance upon discovering the shortfall—demonstrated good faith and diligence. These actions were inconsistent with a conspiratorial intent to defraud the government.
The Court emphasized that a violation of procurement rules alone does not automatically constitute a criminal offense under Section 3(e) without proof of corrupt intent or conscious disregard of duty. The element of “manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence” was not established. The financial loss stemmed from the supplier’s failure to deliver, not from petitioner’s criminal design. His reliance on the bank’s financial instrument and his post-transaction efforts to rectify the situation negated the presence of the requisite mental element for the crime.