Ombudsman v. Santidad


Ombudsman v. Santidad

G.R. No. 207154

December 5, 2019


                Congressman Abaya was informed of the availability of P8M for his multi-cab vehicle project and was advised to directly coordinate with the Director of the DOTC’s Procurement who at the time was Santidad. Cong. Abaya requested Santidad to facilitate the procurement of 1 unit of Mitsubishi L-200 and 1 unit of Nissan Pathfinder, while the remaining all other amount shall be devoted for the purchase of several units of Mitsubishi Delica vans. P7,720,000 Obligation slip was prepared. On even date, Requisition and Issue Voucher was approved wherein Santidad certified that the requisitioned 18 units of Mitsubishi Delica vans, and the pick-up 4-wheeler and 6-wheeler trucks were necessary and would be used for the purpose fro which they were intended.


                Whether or not the Rule of Presumption of Regularity in the performance of official duty precludes finding of negligence and reckless imprudence.


                In the main, it is Santidad’s stance that the prosecution failed to prove 21 counts of reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public documents. Anent the administrative charge, Santidad submits that the CA is correct in exonerating him from the charge of Serious Dishonesty considering that the same was not established by substantial evidence. He denies knowledge of the fraud perpetrated upon the government through the anomalous procurement of the subject vehicles and he maintains that he did not derive any benefit from the transaction. He posits that his act, consisting of certifying the transfer of possession of the subject vans to the end-users/beneficiaries by affixing his signature on the IRPs, enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions and that no evidence was adduced to show that he signed the IRPs with reckless imprudence prejudicial to the interest of the government.



No comments:

Post a Comment