Case Digest: Rivera vs. People, G.R. No. 156577 December 3, 2014

                                Rule 120: Judgment, Judges | Criminal Procedure

Facts:

Luis D. Montero, Alfredo Y. Perez, and Alejandro C. Rivera, were found guilty of violating Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was entered into by the Department of Health (DOH), the Department of Public Works and Highways, Department of Interior and Local Government, and the Development Coordinating Council for Leyte and Samar, for the construction of riverine boats to be used as floating clinics for the delivery of health care services to the remote barangays in Samar and Leyte.

The DOH entered into a negotiated contract with PAL Boat Industry for the construction of seven clinics amounting to P 700,000. 

An anonymous complaint of a concerned citizen alleged that the boats were left unused and deteriorating, asking why the boats were not delivered to the DOH. He was of the view that the country was losing money out of this deal.

The Commission on Audit (COA) conducted an audit and found anomalies in the project.

Criminal charges were filed against the accused for entering into a negotiated contract, approving payments without proper monitoring, and causing undue injury to the government.

Sandiganbayan:
Guilty for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 by entering into a negotiated contract with PAL Boat. While it was true that the MARINA’s approval was not necessary pursuant to Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 474 since the floating clinics did not exceed three (3) tons, he was still liable as he resorted to a negotiated contract. 

The court a quo clarified that their agency could only enter into a negotiated contract if there was a failure of bidding. In this case, there was none. Instead, there was an aborted bidding.


Issue:

WoN the conviction of the petitioners for the crime of violating the Sec 3(e) of RA 3019 is proper.  (YES)

WoN the acquittal of Soriano showed the inexistence of conspiracy among them. (NO)

Contention:

Rivera contends that the anonymous complaint should have been under oath or with supporting affidavits and that the COA Audit Report was not verified. 

The petitioners contend that the acquittal of Soriano showed the inexistence of conspiracy among them. In conspiracy, the act of one is not the act of all. There being no common design among them, they deserve to be acquitted.


Held:
The OSP comments that the anonymous complaint was not under oath precisely because the complainant was anonymous and that Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 7 did not require the COA Audit Report to be verified.

The Court has consistently held that there are two ways by which a public official violates Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 in the performance of his functions, namely: 
(1) by causing undue injury to any party, including the Government; or 
(2) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. The accused may be charged under either mode or both.

The Court finds that the petitioners indeed (1) committed undue injury to the government and (2) gave unwarranted benefits to PAL Boat through manifest partiality. 

Conspiracy among the accused
exists despite the acquittal of
Soriano

In this case, the common criminal design of the petitioners was their act of pre-qualifying PAL Boat and subsequently of entering into a negotiated contract. As stated by the Sandiganbayan, Soriano was acquitted because the prosecution failed to show that he had any participation in pre-qualifying PAL Boat for the contract. He merely performed monitoring activities during the implementation of the project. The criminal design still exists despite Soriano's acquittal, because all the petitioners were involved in pre-qualifying PAL Boat. Rivera recommended the pre-qualification of PAL Boat, which was approved by Perez and then Montero eventually entered into a negotiated contract with it. Hence, the unity of criminal design and execution was very patent.

Guilt of the accused was
proven beyond reasonable
doubt

In criminal cases, to justify a conviction, the culpability of the accused must be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, as the accused enjoys a constitutionally enshrined disputable presumption of innocence. The court, in ascertaining the guilt of the accused, must, after having marshalled the facts and circumstances, reach a moral certainty as to the accused's guilt. Moral certainty is that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Otherwise, where there is reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted.

In this case, the Court is convinced that the guilt of the petitioners was proven beyond reasonable doubt and that the Sandiganbayan did not err in its findings and conclusion. The totality of the facts and circumstances demonstrates that they committed the crime of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 by causing undue injury to the government and giving unwarranted benefits to PAL Boat through manifest partiality. The moral certainty required in criminal cases has been satisfied.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Sovereign Equality of States/Principle of sovereign equality UN Charter of 1945 All states are equal before international law no matter the size of their territory, population, economy or military. All states have equal rights and duties under international law, and that no state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state. Positive Consequences: All states have a voice in international affairs .   All states have the opportunity to participate in international organizations and to negotiate and conclude treaties. This helps to ensure that the interests of all states are represented in the development of international law and policy. No state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state.  This helps to protect the sovereignty of all states and to prevent the use of force or coercion to achieve political objectives. States have the right to develop their own political, economic, and social systems without interference from othe...
Read more

Commercial Laws 1: R.A. No. 11057 — Personal Property Security Act

  Commercial Law TITLE XVI Personal Property Security Act Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises are sources of growth and innovation. They contribute to and benefit from future growth. Their increased participation in global trade "can have significant impact in reducing poverty through employment creation, productivity improvements and economies of scale." Congress passed the Personal Property Security Act in order to provide Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) more access to "credit at the least cost through the establishment of a unified and modern legal framework for securing obligations with personal property ." It was explained:  According to the 2015 Philippine Statistics Authority data, there are 896,839 micro-small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) that established in the Philippines.  These MSMEs generated a total of 4,784,870 jobs in 2015 versus 2,181,819 for the large enterprises.  This indicates that the MSMEs contributed almost 61 % o...
Read more

Land Title and Deeds: Chapter 1 — What Lands are Capable of Being Registered

Chapter I What Lands are Capable of Being Registered All lands in the Philippines are presumed to be lands of the public domain, and therefore, owned by the State. This rule finds support in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution:  Section 2 . All lands of the public domain , waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State . With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be fo...
Read more