GR 193020; (November, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 193020 , 193040-193042, & G.R. Nos. 193349-54, November 8, 2017
NAPOLEON O. CEDEÑO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE SANDIGANBAYAN, FIFTH DIVISION, Respondents; MAKIL PUNDAODAYA, DAUD M. ADIONG, JOSE T. NAVERA and ROGELIO DELOS REYES, Petitioners, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
FACTS
A special audit team from the Commission on Audit (COA) audited the purchase of graders’ desks by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), Region XII, for the period covering January 1992 to September 1993. The audit report found a short delivery of 10,487 desks, defrauding the government of approximately Php 5.2 million. The report identified specific shortages in the Iligan City, Marawi City, and Sultan Kudarat Schools Divisions.
Based on the audit, a Joint Affidavit was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, leading to a preliminary investigation. Subsequently, six Informations for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) were filed before the Sandiganbayan against several DECS officials and private suppliers. The charges alleged that the accused public officers, in conspiracy with private individuals, caused undue injury to the government by making it appear in inspection reports that graders’ desks were fully delivered and received, thereby facilitating payments for undelivered items.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted the petitioners of Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 .
RULING
Yes, the Sandiganbayan’s conviction is affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Sandiganbayan, emphasizing that factual findings of trial courts, including the Sandiganbayan, are accorded great weight and respect, especially when supported by substantial evidence. The Court found no reason to deviate from these findings as the petitioners failed to demonstrate any grave abuse of discretion or misappreciation of facts.
The legal logic centers on the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 : (1) the accused are public officers; (2) they acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (3) their action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits. The evidence, primarily the COA audit report and testimonies, established that the petitioners, in their respective official capacities, certified the delivery and completeness of desks and recommended or approved payments despite knowledge of short deliveries. Their collective actions constituted gross inexcusable negligence, if not bad faith, in the discharge of their functions, leading to undue injury to the government through the release of public funds for undelivered goods. The defense of good faith and reliance on subordinates was rejected, as their duties demanded a higher degree of diligence in safeguarding government property and funds.