G.R. No. 252173. March 15, 2022.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LORENZO MAYOGBA CEREZO AND EDWIN GODINEZ CASTILLO, ACCUSED, EDWIN GODINEZ CASTILLO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

This is an appeal from the Sandiganbayan Decision which found Lorenzo Mayogba Cerezo (then Municipal Mayor of Binmaley, Pangasinan) and Edwin Godinez Castillo (owner/operator of MTAC’s Merchandising) guilty of multiple counts of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The cases involved 16 out of 21 lease contracts for heavy equipment entered into by the Municipality with MTAC’s Merchandising from 2011 to 2013 for garbage and debris hauling following typhoons and monsoon rains. The contracts were entered into without public bidding. An affidavit-complaint was filed by a resident, leading to the filing of 21 Informations. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated, among others, the identity of the accused, Cerezo’s position as Mayor, that the disbursement vouchers for payments were never disallowed by the Commission on Audit (COA), and that Castillo owned MTAC’s Merchandising. The prosecution presented witnesses and documents, including disbursement vouchers and contracts. A key prosecution witness, the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) Secretariat, testified that no public bidding was conducted for the lease contracts from 2010 to 2013 and she could not recall any BAC Resolution recommending an alternative mode of procurement. Castillo waived his right to present evidence by filing a Demurrer to Evidence without leave of court. Cerezo presented evidence, including witnesses who testified to the garbage problem and the immediate need for equipment due to typhoons.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted accused-appellant Edwin Godinez Castillo of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Sandiganbayan Decision. The Court found all elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 present. First, accused Cerezo was a public officer acting in his official capacity. Second, the acts were done with evident bad faith. The Court held that the alternative mode of procurement (negotiated procurement under emergency cases) requires a prior finding by the BAC of the existence of an emergency and a BAC Resolution recommending to the head of the procuring entity the use of such alternative mode. The prosecution established the absence of public bidding and the lack of the required BAC Resolution. Cerezo’s act of entering into the contracts without this mandatory recommendation constituted a conscious and intentional transgression of the law, amounting to evident bad faith. This bad faith is imputed to Castillo due to conspiracy. Conspiracy was proven by the unity of purpose and concerted action between Cerezo and Castillo, as shown by the repeated awarding of contracts to Castillo’s business without bidding, and Castillo’s readiness to supply equipment and receive payments. The third element, that the accused caused undue injury to the government or gave unwarranted benefits, was also met. The contracts, being void for violating procurement laws, conferred unwarranted benefits to Castillo, and the government was prejudiced by being bound to pay under void contracts. The defense of good faith and reliance on municipal officials’ certifications was unavailing for Castillo, as ignorance of the law excuses no one. The penalties imposed by the Sandiganbayan were affirmed.