G.R. No. 261857, May 29, 2024
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CYNTHIA GO MORENO, PEPITO A. MAGUILIMOTAN, NONELA N. VILLEGAS, MARILYN P. FLORDELIZA, AND GERTRUDES D. ABABON, ACCUSED. AUGUSTUS CAESAR L. MORENO AND EVANGELINE D. MANIGOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Augustus Caesar L. Moreno (Augustus) and Evangeline D. Manigos (Manigos), along with other co-accused, were charged before the Sandiganbayan. Manigos, a member of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the Municipality of Aloguinsan, Cebu, was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) in two cases (SB-17-CRM-2397 and SB-17-CRM-2398). The charges alleged that from February to December 2010, the municipal government, through its officials, repeatedly procured food supplies from AVG Bakeshop—a sole proprietorship owned by Cynthia Go Moreno (Cynthia), who was the Municipal Mayor until June 2010—without public bidding and through splitting of contracts, giving unwarranted benefits to the bakeshop. Augustus, who succeeded Cynthia as Mayor in July 2010, was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 in SB-17-CRM-2398 and with violation of Section 3(h) of the same Act in SB-17-CRM-2400 for allegedly intervening in the transactions between the municipality and AVG Bakeshop, which was owned by his spouse. The Commission on Audit (COA) discovered these transactions during its annual audit for 2010, finding purchases totaling PHP 282,725.00 from AVG Bakeshop, which constituted prohibited business transactions under the Local Government Code and the Code of Conduct for Public Officials. The Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause and filed the corresponding criminal cases. Accused-appellants pleaded not guilty. The Sandiganbayan found them guilty in its Decision dated February 22, 2022. They appealed, arguing, among others, that their right to a speedy disposition of cases was violated due to the delay in the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s Decision. The Court held that all elements of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 were proven beyond reasonable doubt against both accused-appellants. As public officers (Mayor and BAC Member, respectively), they acted with manifest partiality and evident bad faith in awarding procurement contracts to AVG Bakeshop, a business owned by the Mayor’s spouse, without the required public bidding and through splitting of contracts, thereby giving unwarranted benefits to the bakeshop and causing damage to the government. For Augustus, the Court also found him guilty of violation of Section 3(h) for having a direct or indirect financial interest in the transactions. The Court rejected the defense of good faith, noting that the prohibited nature of the transactions was evident from the COA findings and that accused-appellants failed to exercise due diligence. Furthermore, the Court ruled that accused-appellants’ right to a speedy disposition of cases was not violated. Applying the balancing test, the Court found the delay of approximately three years and seven months from the filing of the last pleading to the resolution by the Ombudsman was not inordinate or unreasonable, considering the complexity of the cases involving multiple accused and voluminous documents, the absence of a prejudicial delay, and the failure of accused-appellants to assert their right promptly. The charges against them were thus upheld.