G.R. No. 192866 , July 9, 2014
Pedro G. Resurreccion, Joseph Cometa and Criseforo Litera To, Jr., Petitioners, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners were officials of the Municipality of Pilar, Surigao del Norte: Pedro G. Resurreccion (Municipal Mayor), Joseph Cometa (Municipal Budget Officer), and Criseforo Literato, Jr. (Municipal Engineer). They, along with co-accused Pilarito Orejas (Municipal Accountant) and Wilfredo B. Consigo (Municipal Treasurer), were charged before the Sandiganbayan with multiple counts of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). Resurreccion was also charged with malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
The charges stemmed from a Commission on Audit (COA) special and post audit covering 1992 to 1994. The COA Report, presented through State Auditors Romeo Corral Uy and Freda Paller Napana, found several irregularities: (1) purchases of construction materials and a typewriter totaling over one million pesos were awarded to private suppliers (Kent Marketing, Samuel Trigo, Domingo Tesiorna) without public bidding, violating R.A. No. 7160 (Local Government Code); (2) disbursements were made in cash instead of by check and lacked complete supporting documentation, violating COA rules and P.D. No. 1445; (3) some materials were purchased from unlicensed suppliers and in quantities exceeding the program of work; (4) two payrolls for honoraria (₱47,000 and ₱32,000) were disbursed without legal authority or approval; and (5) Resurreccion was reimbursed ₱3,000 from municipal funds for a donation he made to the Knights of Columbus, a religious organization, violating constitutional and statutory prohibitions.
After arraignment and a stipulation of facts on the authenticity of exhibits, the prosecution presented its evidence. The accused filed a Demurrer to Evidence, which was denied. The defense then failed to present any evidence despite opportunity, though they filed a memorandum arguing that public bidding was not mandatory if advantageous to the government, that the honoraria were allowed, and that the Knights of Columbus was not a religious institution.

ISSUE

The primary issues were whether the petitioners were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and whether Resurreccion was guilty of malversation of public funds.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision with modifications regarding the penalties.
On the violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 :
* Criminal Case Nos. 25235 & 25237 (Procurement without bidding): The Court affirmed the conviction of Resurreccion and Orejas. The elements of the offense were present: they were public officers; they acted with manifest partiality and evident bad faith by awarding contracts without public bidding and in violation of disbursement rules; and this gave unwarranted benefits to the private suppliers and caused undue injury to the government. Cometa was correctly acquitted in these cases due to insufficient evidence of his participation.
* Criminal Case Nos. 25238 & 25239 (Unauthorized honoraria): The Court affirmed the conviction of Literato Jr. (Case No. 25238) and Cometa (Case No. 25239). The grant of honoraria without legal authority constituted evident bad faith and gave unwarranted benefits, causing undue injury to the government. Resurreccion and the other accused were correctly acquitted in these specific counts due to lack of evidence proving their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
On the charge of Malversation (Criminal Case No. 25236):
The Court affirmed Resurreccion’s conviction. All elements were proven: he was a public officer; the ₱3,000 public funds were entrusted to him by reason of his office; he appropriated the funds by reimbursing himself for a personal donation; and his act constituted misappropriation. The reimbursement for a donation to a religious organization violated the Constitution and the Local Government Code, and his claim that the Knights of Columbus was not religious was unsubstantiated.
The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan’s findings were supported by the evidence, particularly the COA Report and testimonies. The petitioners’ failure to present contrary evidence and their reliance on unsubstantiated claims in their memorandum further weakened their defense. The Court modified the penalties imposed, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.