Enriquez
v. People
G.R.
No. 240947
June
3, 2019
FACTS:
That
on 07 November 2005 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of
Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above named accused, all public officers, the first two are high ranking
officers occupying SG 28, being Director IV and Agency Head and Chief of the
Special Production Division, respectively, and Officer-in-charge, Finance and
Administrative Division; [Officer-incharge] Accounting Section; Publications
and Productions Chief, Special Productions Division; and Administrative Officer
V, respectively, all of the Bureau of Communications Services, Government Mass
Media Group, an agency under the Office of the President, conspiring and
confederating with one another, while in the performance of their duties as
Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members of the Bids and Award[s] Committee, and
committing the offense in relation to duty, did then and there, through
manifest partiality[,] evident bad faith, or through gross inexcusable
negligence, give unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to Ernest
Printing Corporation, by awarding to said corporation the contract for the
lease purchase of one (1) unit Heidelberg single color offset press in the
amount of Php882,075.47, without public bidding and Approved Budget for the
Contract and paying the said corporation the amount of Php850,000.00 upon signing
of the lease-purchase contract instead of the monthly amortization of
Php73,506.29 to the damage and prejudice of the government and the public
interest.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted petitioners of the crime of
violation of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019.
HELD:
Yes.
Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 states: Section 3. Corrupt practices ofpublic
officers. - In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already
penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of
any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: (e)
Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any
private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision
shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations
charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. The
elements of violation of Section 3 ( e) of RA 3019 are as follows: (a) that the accused must be a public
officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions ( or a
private individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers); ( b) that
he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable
negligence; and (c) that his action caused any undue injury to any party,
including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits,
advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions.
First, petitioners are
all public officers occupying key positions in the BCS, namely Finance and
Administrative Division OIC, Accounting Section OIC, Publications and
Productions Chief, Special Productions Division Chief, and Administrative
Officer V, and they were designated as Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, and
members of the BCSBAC; second, they, in conspiracy with one
another, acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross
inexcusable negligence in the procurement of the printing machine because they
knowingly proceeded with the transaction despite the absence of capital outlay
and competitive bidding, doing so by improperly utilizing the bureau's MOOE
account, in clear violation of the basic and well-known principle that no money
shall be paid out of any public treasury, except in pursuance of an
appropriation made by law; and third, petitioners gave Ernest
Printing unwarranted advantage and preference by failing to conduct a public
bidding, thereby precluding other suppliers from submitting bids which might be
more beneficial fur the government, accepting an offer of a 20-year-old,
secondhand printing machine over an offer of a brand new one for a measly
difference of P50,000.00, recommending the execution of a lease-purchase
contract which requires the government to immediately pay in full an equipment
it was supposed to be renting, and dispensing with the post qualification
requirements under the law, thus resulting in undue injury to the government.
No comments:
Post a Comment