G.R. No. 224720-23, February 2, 2021.
RICHARD T. MARTEL, ALLAN C. PUTONG, ABEL A. GUIÑARES, VICTORIA G. MIER, AND EDGAR C. GAN, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [G.R. Nos. 224765-68] BENJAMIN P. BAUTISTA, JR., PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The petitioners, former Governor Benjamin P. Bautista, Jr. and members of the Provincial Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) of Davao del Sur, were charged with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The charges stemmed from the procurement of five vehicles (two Toyota Hilux, one Mitsubishi L300, and two Ford Rangers) for the governor’s use. The Sandiganbayan found that the procurement documents, including Purchase Requests and Abstracts of Canvass, were stamped or marked “DIRECT PURCHASE” and specified the brand names of the vehicles (e.g., “Toyota Hilux,” “Ford Ranger”). The justification for direct purchase was indicated as “SOLE DISTRIBUTOR” or “EXCLUSIVE DISTRIBUTOR.” The PBAC, including the petitioners, approved these procurements. The Sandiganbayan convicted them, finding Bautista and Putong acted with manifest partiality, and Martel, Guiñares, Mier, and Gan acted with gross inexcusable negligence.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners should be acquitted of the charges for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

RULING

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Leonen voted to DENY the petitions and AFFIRM the Sandiganbayan’s decision. He argued that the petitioners should be held liable. The elements of Section 3(e) were present: (1) petitioners were public officers discharging official functions as PBAC members; (2) they acted with manifest partiality or gross inexcusable negligence; and (3) their actions caused undue injury to the government or gave unwarranted benefits. The procurement laws, specifically R.A. No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act), prohibit reference to brand names to ensure fair competition. By approving Purchase Requests specifying brand names and facilitating a “direct purchase” based on being a “sole/exclusive distributor,” the PBAC pre-determined the supplier and made public bidding impossible. This demonstrated manifest partiality (a clear predilection to favor specific brands/suppliers) and gross inexcusable negligence (a willful and conscious indifference to the violation of procurement rules). The dissent cited the administrative case (Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao v. Martel) involving the same facts where petitioners were found administratively liable for violating procurement laws. Furthermore, allowing the governor to use more than one vehicle violated COA Circular No. 75-6. Thus, the petitioners betrayed their mandate and violated the Constitution’s requirement of utmost responsibility and integrity in public office.