Case Digest: Sison vs. People, G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398-40, March 9, 2010

   RA 3019 | Criminal Law 

Names	Rolando Sison - Municipal Mayor Rigoberto de Jesus - Municipal Treasurer Elsa Pajayon - State Auditor
Charge/Violation	RA 3019 3(e) - no public bidding (unwarranted benefit)
When	July 1, 1992, to June 30, 1995
Where	Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro

Facts:

(1) Petitioner Rolando E. Sison was the municipal mayor of Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro, a fourth-class municipality, from July 1, 1992, to June 30, 1995. Rigoberto de Jesus was the municipal treasurer.

(2) On July 18, 1994, state auditor Elsa E. Pajayon conducted a post-audit investigation which

revealed that during the petitioner’s incumbency, no public bidding was conducted for the purchase of a Toyota Land Cruiser, 119 bags of Fortune cement, an electric generator set, certain construction materials, two Desert Dueler tires, and a computer and its accessories. Pajayon also found out that there were irregularities in the documents supporting the acquisitions.

(3) On June 4, 1998, the petitioner and de Jesus were indicted before the Sandiganbayan in seven separate Informations for seven counts of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. On June 24, 1999, the petitioner pleaded not guilty to all the Informations. Accused de Jesus has remained at large.

(4) Pajayon was the lone witness for the prosecution. She narrated the State’s version of the facts as above stated.

(5) Petitioner admitted that indeed, no public bidding was conducted insofar as the purchases he was being accused of were concerned. When asked how the purchases were made, he answered that they were done through personal canvass. When prodded why personal canvass was the method used, he retorted that no public bidding could be conducted because all the dealers of the items were based in Manila. It was therefore useless to invite bidders since nobody would bid anyway.

(6) On November 14, 2005, the Sandiganbayan found the petitioner guilty as charged. As such, he was meted in each Information an imprisonment term ranging from six years and one month as minimum to ten years as maximum and perpetual disqualification from holding public office. The Sandiganbayan also ordered that an alias warrant of arrest be issued against the accused de Jesus.

Issue:

WoN the Sandiganbayan was correct in finding the petitioner guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.

Defense:

His guilt was allegedly not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Held:

We dismiss the appeal.

To be found guilty under Section 3 (e) the following elements must concur:

1. the offender is a public officer;
2. the act was done in the discharge of the public officer’s official, administrative or judicial functions;
3. the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and
4. the public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference.

The third element of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 may be committed in three ways, i.e., through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. Proof of any of these three in connection with the prohibited acts mentioned in Section 3(e) of RA 3019 is enough to convict.

While it is true that the prosecution was not able to prove any undue injury to the government as a result of the purchases, it should be noted that there are two ways by which Section 3(e) of RA 3019 may be violated—the first, by causing undue injury to any party, including the government, or the second, by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. Although neither mode constitutes a distinct offense, an accused may be charged under either mode or both. The use of the disjunctive “or” connotes that the two modes need not be present at the same time. In other words, the presence of one would suffice for conviction.

In order to be found guilty under the second mode, it suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another, in the exercise of his official, administrative or judicial functions. Petitioner did just that. The fact that he repeatedly failed to follow the requirements of RA 7160 on personal canvass proves that unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference was given to the winning suppliers. These suppliers were awarded the procurement contract without the benefit of a fair system in determining the best possible price for the government. The private suppliers, which were all personally chosen by respondent, were able to profit from the transactions without showing proof that their prices were the most beneficial to the

government. 

Notes:

Explaining what “partiality,” “bad faith” and “gross negligence” mean, we held:

“Partiality” is synonymous with “bias” which “excites a disposition to see and report

matters as they are wished for rather than as they are.”

“Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud.”

“Gross negligence has been so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property.”