G.R. Nos. 234664-67, January 12, 2021
Raul R. Lee, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan First Division and People of the Philippines, Respondents.

FACTS

In 2004, then Governor Raul R. Lee of Sorsogon was the lead implementer of a P5,000,000.00 agricultural project funded under the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA). The project involved the procurement of 2,133 liters of liquid fertilizer (2,000 liters and 133 liters in separate batches) from Feshan Phils. Inc. at P1,500.00 per liter, totaling P3,199,500.00. The procurement was done through direct contracting without public bidding. The Commission on Audit (COA) observed irregularities: the Purchase Requests specified the brand name “Bio Nature Organic Fertilizer,” violating procurement laws; there was no Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) resolution, notice of award, or notice to proceed; and the BAC issued Abstracts of Proposal on Personal Canvass instead. A Letter of Appointment from Bio Nature Technology Pte. Ltd. to Feshan Phils. Inc. was submitted to justify direct contracting, but evidence showed other suppliers sold the same or suitable substitutes at much lower prices (e.g., P120.00 per liter). Feshan Phils. Inc. was not licensed by the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA) in 2004, and the price paid exceeded FPA’s listed average prices. Four Informations were filed against Governor Lee and others before the Sandiganbayan for violations of Section 3(e) and 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Sandiganbayan found Lee guilty, ruling that the prosecution proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Lee filed a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in convicting petitioner Raul R. Lee of violations of Section 3(e) and 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 .

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Sandiganbayan’s Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition, filed under Rule 45, raised factual issues which are not reviewable; the Court’s role is limited to reviewing errors of law. The findings of fact by the Sandiganbayan are conclusive, especially when supported by substantial evidence. The elements of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 were established: Lee was a public officer; he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; his actions caused undue injury to the government or gave unwarranted benefits to a private party. The procurement violated procurement laws, was grossly overpriced, and favored an unlicensed supplier. For violation of Section 3(g), the elements were also met: Lee entered into a contract on behalf of the government; the contract was manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government. The contract was disadvantageous due to overpricing and lack of public bidding. The Court found no misapprehension of facts by the Sandiganbayan and thus no grave abuse of discretion.