Ombudsman v. Santidad
G.R. No. 207154
December 5, 2019
FACTS:
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.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the Rule of Presumption of Regularity in the performance of official
duty precludes finding of negligence and reckless imprudence.
HELD:
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.
