Enriquez v. People

 

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